-
@dogmeat said in North Korea:
@baron-silas-greenback I actually said it was too early to say if it was a good deal or not because bugger all has eventuated.
This is very similar in many ways to previous deals with NK - obviously NK brought more to the table this time, but that's the point. Every previous deal has ultimately ended in failure. Hopefully Trump will be able to deliver this time. He's certainly made more concessions than any previous President was prepared to do.
I also think he's been given way too much credit for the summit. A Summit could have occurred at numerous times over the preceding decades if any othe5r President was prepared to meet with the NK leader of the time. The various Kims have always been keen on a Summit because it legitimises them. @No Quarter. Would a meeting between Adern and Trump be a Summit? Historically Summits are between world powers - that's the legitimacy the Kim's have sought for 70 years. They're sitting at the top table now.
Baron - Trump derangement affects both pro and anti forces. As for your repeat "at WAR" comments FFS if someone else indulged in that sort of hyperbole - hiding behind a technicality you'd rip them a new one.
Similarly you actually want me to name better days for peace in all of human history - c'mon. Surely that's a McEnroe moment?
I do agree that Trump has been given no credit for developments to date. My position is its way too early to be praising this "deal" yet given the history of all parties and egos involved.
Hyperbole? No. It is a fact, they are at war, and a war that is not meaningless or without significant consequence to both sides. Stop ignoring facts because it doesn't suit your narrative of desperation to avoid giving trump real credit for anything ...ever...
No other sitting president has met with NK leader.... and that led where exactly? Nowhere good. In fact it couldn't have been much worse. Your logic seems to be that because previous presidents didn't do it.. it is a bad idea. Despite the fact that the NK situation has just gone further and further downhill till the point they now have inter continental nukes. Tell me more about the lessons you have learnt from the successes of previous presidents dealing with NK....
You don't like it being called a summit? Call it what you like, if you want to engage in that level of pettiness. I will call it a summit because it involves leaders of warring countries that have nukes.. good enough for a summit for me. The dictionary defines summit as a meeting of heads of govt. But feel free to quibble, if it is important to you and makes you feel better about your denial of Trumps success.
And actually yes.. I would be interested in what days have been better for peace. You seemed to deride Trumps claim, I think there are some obvious ones (as I noted) , but the list is short, can you name some you think are more significant?
Considering the power of nukes, and the state of war that exists, the threats that have been made and the trajectory we have been on. Please point our your examples of better days for world peace. -
@no-quarter said in North Korea:
@dogmeat said in North Korea:
@baron-silas-greenback I actually said it was too early to say if it was a good deal or not because bugger all has eventuated.
This is very similar in many ways to previous deals with NK - obviously NK brought more to the table this time, but that's the point. Every previous deal has ultimately ended in failure. Hopefully Trump will be able to deliver this time. He's certainly made more concessions than any previous President was prepared to do.
I also think he's been given way too much credit for the summit. A Summit could have occurred at numerous times over the preceding decades if any othe5r President was prepared to meet with the NK leader of the time. The various Kims have always been keen on a Summit because it legitimises them. @No Quarter. Would a meeting between Adern and Trump be a Summit? Historically Summits are between world powers - that's the legitimacy the Kim's have sought for 70 years. They're sitting at the top table now.
Baron - Trump derangement affects both pro and anti forces. As for your repeat "at WAR" comments FFS if someone else indulged in that sort of hyperbole - hiding behind a technicality you'd rip them a new one.
Similarly you actually want me to name better days for peace in all of human history - c'mon. Surely that's a McEnroe moment?
I do agree that Trump has been given no credit for developments to date. My position is its way too early to be praising this "deal" yet given the history of all parties and egos involved.
OK, I understand what you mean by it now. But I don't agree that this summit is what has given him legitimacy. I'd say you can lay that at the feet of past Presidents and other world leaders.
NK's legitimacy as a world power comes from the fact that they have been allowed to not only develop nuclear weapons, but also develop the ability to drop them on neighboring countries - including as far away as the USA. If you have that ability, you become a world power whether people like it or not, hence the desire of western countries to limit other countries ability to develop this technology.
I think the Trump hating logic is that if you acknowledge the threat of NK, you have to acknowledge the response as being important. And seen as Trump is most of the current response, the response must be trivialized.
-
@no-quarter said in North Korea:
@dogmeat said in North Korea:
@baron-silas-greenback I actually said it was too early to say if it was a good deal or not because bugger all has eventuated.
This is very similar in many ways to previous deals with NK - obviously NK brought more to the table this time, but that's the point. Every previous deal has ultimately ended in failure. Hopefully Trump will be able to deliver this time. He's certainly made more concessions than any previous President was prepared to do.
I also think he's been given way too much credit for the summit. A Summit could have occurred at numerous times over the preceding decades if any othe5r President was prepared to meet with the NK leader of the time. The various Kims have always been keen on a Summit because it legitimises them. @No Quarter. Would a meeting between Adern and Trump be a Summit? Historically Summits are between world powers - that's the legitimacy the Kim's have sought for 70 years. They're sitting at the top table now.
Baron - Trump derangement affects both pro and anti forces. As for your repeat "at WAR" comments FFS if someone else indulged in that sort of hyperbole - hiding behind a technicality you'd rip them a new one.
Similarly you actually want me to name better days for peace in all of human history - c'mon. Surely that's a McEnroe moment?
I do agree that Trump has been given no credit for developments to date. My position is its way too early to be praising this "deal" yet given the history of all parties and egos involved.
OK, I understand what you mean by it now. But I don't agree that this summit is what has given him legitimacy. I'd say you can lay that at the feet of past Presidents and other world leaders.
NK's legitimacy as a world power comes from the fact that they have been allowed to not only develop nuclear weapons, but also develop the ability to drop them on neighboring countries - including as far away as the USA. If you have that ability, you become a world power whether people like it or not, hence the desire of western countries to limit other countries ability to develop this technology.
I find this legitimacy thing a bizarre argument. It may be valid when talking about a terrorist group or cell that can conceivably be wiped out, but this is a third generation absolute dictatorship, controlling a massive army and nuclear weapons under the protection of a superpower (China). You can bitch and moan all day about how evil they are but the reality is these pricks are in charge and aren't going anywhere. I'm sure the fact that every other president did the "right" thing by not legitimising them is of great comfort to the millions who have starved in the past decades. Surely if it's wrong to legitimise Kim then that also applies to every other meeting between mortal enemies since time immemorial. Wouldn't surprise me if the same people bitching about Trump legitimising Kim are the same people who scream blue murder at Israel for not speaking to Hamas or the US not engaging with the Taliban.
I agree that it's far too early to pass judgment. Maybe this will all go to hell, but I find this development absolutely fascinating. The Nobel Committee must be freaking the fark out right now.
-
I think Trump is applying a fair bit of common sense to a problem that shouldn't really have been that difficult to solve.
Sure, North Korea is a very strange and fucked up country, but even Kim must be able to look at China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan (and Singapore) and think that somehow things aren't going as well as they should in the DPRK.
If he can avoid getting himself executed, while undertaking the same transformation that China's undergone, then there is surely an enormous and obvious win-win for everyone. I think this is what Trump is selling.
Only somewhat ironic thing is that it is Trump who is having a "Mr Kim - Tear down this wall" moment!
-
Anyone see that video Trump had made? Not sure if that's the most ridiculous or most brilliant tactic in the history of diplomacy.
-
I would recommend to anybody seriously interested in this story to see the leftist Democracy Now special report where they interview real Korea experts not Trumpistas or Washington press corps “resistance”-idiots. The full thing is an hour long, but they’ve broken it down into four installments, each of them better than anything you’ll see on TV. Watch ‘em all.
Part 1: Trump Vows to End “Provocative” War Games on Korean Peninsula After Historic Summit with Kim Jong-un
Part 2: A New Day for the Korean Peninsula: Christine Ahn Hails Denuclearization Pledge & New Peace Process
Part 3: Prof. Bruce Cumings: U.S. Bombing in Korea More Destructive Than Damage to Germany, Japan in WWII
Part 4: Rep. Ro Khanna: If U.S.-North Korea Summit Happened Under Obama, Democrats Would Be Cheering
-
-
The talks between Trump and Kim Jong Un appeared to have broken down with no agreement being reached.
I have always thought China is controlling North Korea. That they are giving instructions to Kim Jong Un as to how far he will be allowed to go with the U.S. My opinion is China is trying to use North Korea as leverage in the US trade talks.
I expect Trump will now punish China in some economic way for this.
-
This might be the most fair and balanced opinion piece the Trump-hating Washington Post has published about 45.
No, the North Korea summit was not a loss for Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/28/no-north-korea-summit-was-not-loss-trump/
North Korea