Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jouso wrote:


Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.

Still fails to showcase how victory is a blank check since there were negotiations and Germany did veto a lot of proposed concessions. Peace accords are balancing acts like that. The end of WW1 was one of the most lopsided ever and still there were negotiations because no one else wanted to continue the war anymore than the Germans did. And this is of course far afield of anything I’ve actually argued in regards to the unjustifiability of Russian and Chinese territorial aggression. War is war. Russia and China won’t start one because winning is too uncertain or too costly. Arguing that they can do what they want because they’re strong is not only false it’s a complete sidestep around anything I’ve actually argued.

To the extent that any specific concessions were made, it was Trump who made them (e.g. no more US/SK military exercises) and he got nothing in return except a statement of intent.

It's all very well that he can rip it up when he gets home, but it does invalidate the idea of this being the history-making peace summit of the 21st century.

It wasn't, of course. It was just a chance for Trump to be all presidenty and statesmanny and get a lot of easy publicity and plaudits.

Obama said that he was open to meeting with the leader of NK without any prerequisites, and the GOP was quick to condemn that idea as stupid and as a potential victory for any bad regimes because a visit with the POTUS should be an honor and a reward for previous good actions.

Of course that’s just another area where we did a complete turnaround since then.

It's all about the brand. Great benevolent peacemaker Trump was able to do the impossible and talk the hermit kingdom down! Buy coins today! Comemorative coins are on sale now!

I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

 LordofHats wrote:

jouso wrote:


Ask the Germans in the 20s on how Versailles felt to them.

Still fails to showcase how victory is a blank check since there were negotiations and Germany did veto a lot of proposed concessions. Peace accords are balancing acts like that. The end of WW1 was one of the most lopsided ever and still there were negotiations because no one else wanted to continue the war anymore than the Germans did. And this is of course far afield of anything I’ve actually argued in regards to the unjustifiability of Russian and Chinese territorial aggression. War is war. Russia and China won’t start one because winning is too uncertain or too costly. Arguing that they can do what they want because they’re strong is not only false it’s a complete sidestep around anything I’ve actually argued.

My point revolved exclusively at you pointing the Mexican-American war as the last time the USA destroyed a neighboring government in a war and annexed territory from said government

I didn't imply anything else besides that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

It is definitely a concession. Did Trump even consult with the South Korean government or his own before agreeing to that?

Hell, there are reports that Trump didn't even consult his own military

Seriously, that isn't a joke. They seem as surprised as the rest of us.

But yes definitely a concession. If the standard is "we can just restart it" then nothing is a concession anymore.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!

 Da Boss wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!

Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.

Did you hallucinate that I said something about whether you cared about exercises in Korea?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!

Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.

I take it you've never been in the military and don't understand what the exercises are for, or how important they are to keeping said troops sharp.

Exercises are training so everything becomes muscle memory. How well do you think a sports team would do if they never practiced their sport?

Obviously I’m saying I wouldn’t care if Obama did this or not. It’s an empty gesture regardless of who does it.

You can't see it, but I am making my sceptical face. Try to imagine it on my avatar if you like.

And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don’t know if you can really say agreeing to not do exercises is a concession. After all we can just start them up again if Kim continues being naughty.

What will really determine if we get change is any future agreements with more concrete conditions.

I'm sure you would be saying this if Obama had made that decision. I completely believe it. You wouldn't hold a double standard whatsoever. Not you!

Don’t really care much about weather we do exercises in Korea or not. What matters is if we have troops there or not.

I take it you've never been in the military and don't understand what the exercises are for, or how important they are to keeping said troops sharp.

Exercises are training so everything becomes muscle memory. How well do you think a sports team would do if they never practiced their sport?

Of course they are important for keeping troops sharp, but that isn’t relevant to this discussion. And given how often our troops in Korea do drills and exercises I think canceling a few won’t hurt their ability to fight NK. NKs ground troops are poorly equipped, malnourished, and out classed anyway.

On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death

a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion

b) Striking first and invading North Korea.

There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book

And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death

a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion

b) Striking first and invading North Korea.

There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book

And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...

That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death

a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion

b) Striking first and invading North Korea.

There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book

And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...

That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.

If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.

It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.

Because Trump doesn't know how to do anything without declaring bankruptcy, living off his family wealth or not paying contractors

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it

And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it

And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But hey, let's not forget that the guy who just got a 1 page assurance ripped up a 12 page, in-depth verifiable deal with an antagonistic power done by Obama...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it

And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

Not as much as the GOP is doing now

jouso wrote:


My point revolved exclusively at you pointing the Mexican-American war as the last time the USA destroyed a neighboring government in a war and annexed territory from said government

I didn't imply anything else besides that.

I actually meant to allude to the Texas revolution since it has a fair number of similarity to the situation in Chrimea but looking back I put the wrong year down didn’t I?

Whoops.

And okay. I thought you were joining in on that border line of talk. My mistake.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

I honestly think we all know what the answer is to this either or question. Like it has been said the GOP would be bleating like sheep if this was Obama doing it

And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

Obama would have done it right. Obama wasn't a president who signs agreements then rips them by Twitter up on the way to the airport.

Please try to understand that a lot of people who are against Trump are against him not because he's a Republican but because he is a genuinely bad president who is doing real damage to US prestige and soft power.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I’m sure Dems would be heaping praises just because Obama did it.

I would say the same thing I am going to say now: While I am dubious it will happen, I am hopeful that this can lead to peace on the Korean continent, denuclearization of NK, and a better standard of living and freedom for the North Korean people. This would be a great accomplishment for this or any other POTUS. Nothing we have done so far have improved the situation, and worst case scenario, we can resume the exercises anyway.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
And its not just about the physical act of US exercises. Its the fact that if the US stops, NK no longer has to throw big and showy exercises in response. And that counts because for NK responding to said US exercises is a huge expense and represents a large amount of wear and tear for their already aging equipment. So yes, it is a concession, because while the US seemingly isn't losing all that much, NK is benefitting a great deal.

Sure this is true.

But I doubt this agreement will last too long regardless. Either we’ll get NK to give up their nukes or we’ll go back to the status quo and drills are back on. We will see soon one way or the other.

So why give this improvised concession that will only make Kim look good? This is the whole issue behind Trump negotiating with Kim. There doesn't seem to be any logic behind it and China is seemingly already trying to use it to manouver around sanctions. It only makes the US position worse in a small way.

Because Trump doesn't know how to do anything without declaring bankruptcy, living off his family wealth or not paying contractors

Well that's why he likes Kim, both run a family business based on exploiting their workers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the war games and exercises thing, the USA and South Korea have probably wargamed to death

a) defending and countering a North Korean invasion

b) Striking first and invading North Korea.

There's probably 100+ volumes on it by now, so it's not a big deal in my book

And if all else fails, lure the North down the Korean Peninsula, and then hit them at Inchon...

That's not why they do it. Its to train new US troops and the yearly load of SK conscripts in part. If it was just about war plans you wouldn't have to leave the Pentagon. Plus add putting pressure on NK's military to keep pace.

If that's the case, they could take South Korean troops over to Japan or the USA or something and train them there. They said no exercises in South Korea. They never said anything about exercises somewhere else.

It's not like the US military is short on cash these days.

I mean it sounds good in theory, but why with SK or NK go along with that? SK has a strained relationship with Japan, they train to defend their country and finally as long as it involves SK troops its going to be a problem for NK.