-
The narrative when we were young (and some actually still believe) is that Kennedy got the Rusk Bear to back off and take their missiles out of Cuba. JFK spanked the bully. End of story. But of course there was more to the story. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cubans and Rooskies wan’ted a guarantee USA would not invade Cuba, which was the purpose for their being Russian missiles in Cuba in the first place. Kennedy gave them a guarantee (no matter that Castro was pissed-as-hell Kruschev and Kennedy made a deal behind his back) and which America has since honoured they have been at a state of defacto war with Cuba for decades, but they’ve not done another invasion. Significantly, the terms of the (secret) deal was USA had to withdraw their own missiles from the Rooskie border in Turkey. Quid pro quo, make Jack look like a superhero.
I believe this is the deal Trump wants to broker. You give up your nukes, we promise not to invade.
From Kim’s perspective, he should be very skeptical. He’s seen what’s happened to Saddam, he’s seen what went down with Muammar after he’d made peace with Uncle Sam and given up his weapons. Nukes may be his only bargaining chip.
On the other hand, Kim might believe deep in his heart & brain two things: one, North Korea can not succeed and will be doomed on it’s current course; and two, Donald Trump may be the only politician — and certainly American president — that he will ever be able to make a deal with, a deal that could drag his country’s sorry ass out of Hell, the moment is now. He might be smart enough to realize he could be setting himself up to be a Great Hero of the Korean People, and the opportunity is right in front of him. This is a 70 year war — brother against brother. It’s not racial or even ethnic; it’s purely ideological. Their soul is one people/one naytion. The people on both sides want reunification. If he’s just a little bit smart, he has to realize NK has fuckall future, and that means he’s got to be the builder that fixes it.
-
@salacious-crumb said in North Korea:
The narrative when we were young (and some actually still believe) is that Kennedy got the Rusk Bear to back off and take their missiles out of Cuba. JFK spanked the bully. End of story. But of course there was more to the story. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cubans and Rooskies wan’ted a guarantee USA would not invade Cuba, which was the purpose for their being Russian missiles in Cuba in the first place. Kennedy gave them a guarantee (no matter that Castro was pissed-as-hell Kruschev and Kennedy made a deal behind his back) and which America has since honoured they have been at a state of defacto war with Cuba for decades, but they’ve not done another invasion. Significantly, the terms of the (secret) deal was USA had to withdraw their own missiles from the Rooskie border in Turkey. Quid pro quo, make Jack look like a superhero.
I believe this is the deal Trump wants to broker. You give up your nukes, we promise not to invade.
From Kim’s perspective, he should be very skeptical. He’s seen what’s happened to Saddam, he’s seen what went down with Muammar after he’d made peace with Uncle Sam and given up his weapons. Nukes may be his only bargaining chip.
On the other hand, Kim might believe deep in his heart & brain two things: one, North Korea can not succeed and will be doomed on it’s current course; and two, Donald Trump may be the only politician — and certainly American president — that he will ever be able to make a deal with, a deal that could drag his country’s sorry ass out of Hell, the moment is now. He might be smart enough to realize he could be setting himself up to be a Great Hero of the Korean People, and the opportunity is right in front of him. This is a 70 year war — brother against brother. It’s not racial or even ethnic; it’s purely ideological. Their soul is one people/one naytion. The people on both sides want reunification. If he’s just a little bit smart, he has to realize NK has fuckall future, and that means he’s got to be the builder that fixes it.
I think there are two important things. He's been educated in the west and must have seen how much better it is. Plus he can look to China as a model for how to proceed. Capitalism has saved (and probably entrenched) that regime. With foreign doners failing over themselves to throw cash at him, the positive changes could be massive. Another advantage is that (unlike West Germany) I don't think there's much desire for reunification in South Korea. He would of course be screwed in that scenario.
It's a weird situation, you want NK to be a proper part of the world community and for their people to have better lives. But you also want that Fat Shit to die a horrible death. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to be going anywhere so we'll just have to take what we can get.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in North Korea:
I think there are two important things. He's been educated in the west and must have seen how much better it is. Plus he can look to China as a model for how to proceed. Capitalism has saved (and probably entrenched) that regime. With foreign doners failing over themselves to throw cash at him, the positive changes could be massive. Another advantage is that (unlike West Germany) I don't think there's much desire for reunification in South Korea. He would of course be screwed in that scenari
China observed and understood the need for "control capitalism" for decades, particularly as it had the massive workforce required to make the most of the relationships it could build. A history of reverse engineering any accomplishment of the west also helped in that regard.
North Korea would have very little to contribute to South Korea (or the world) in terms of labour force, technology, or natural wealth.
-
@nta said in North Korea:
@rancid-schnitzel said in North Korea:
I think there are two important things. He's been educated in the west and must have seen how much better it is. Plus he can look to China as a model for how to proceed. Capitalism has saved (and probably entrenched) that regime. With foreign doners failing over themselves to throw cash at him, the positive changes could be massive. Another advantage is that (unlike West Germany) I don't think there's much desire for reunification in South Korea. He would of course be screwed in that scenari
China observed and understood the need for "control capitalism" for decades, particularly as it had the massive workforce required to make the most of the relationships it could build. A history of reverse engineering any accomplishment of the west also helped in that regard.
North Korea would have very little to contribute to South Korea (or the world) in terms of labour force, technology, or natural wealth.
Nothing in terms of labour force? Really? Why would you say that?
With a much much larger population and area, China would have been infinitely harder to keep control of than NK potentially ever will.
-
@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.
-
@rancid-schnitzel I said "very little" - probably should have added "in comparison (to China)" on that.
China spent years developing manufacturing, and building an industry around it. North Korea not so much.
-
@nta said in North Korea:
@rancid-schnitzel I said "very little" - probably should have added "in comparison (to China)" on that.
China spent years developing manufacturing, and building an industry around it. North Korea not so much.
Did they? Like the Great Leap Forward?
If anything the Asian countries have shown you can build up an industrial base from nothing with just a supply of cheap labour and plenty of capital. I don't think the problem is what NK can offer but how Kim handles it.
-
@nta said in North Korea:
Gotta say I like how Trump stays true to his roots Always thinking about the deal!
In a press conference following his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, President Donald Trump applauded North Korea’s “great beaches” and said they would be a great location for condos and hotels.
As a former developer, Trump appeared to hint at that real estate could be the key to North Korea’s economic development as a country.
“As an example, they have great beaches,” Trump said to reporters. “You see that whenever they’re exploding their cannons into the ocean. I said, ‘Boy, look at that view. Wouldn’t that make a great condo?'”
Trump added that North Korea could be a great location for hotels, too.
“You could have the best hotels in the world right there,” Trump said. “Think of it from a real estate perspective. You have South Korea, you have China, and they own the land in the middle. How bad is that, right? It’s great.”
-
@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.
-
@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
-
North Korea