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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Poor Abe, he spend so much time trying to convince Trump of Japanese concerns and then Trump just threw Abe under the bus. Well at least all those kidnapped Japanese are the real winners here...

Well, the people who already got kidnapped not so much. But as long as Trump and Kim keep up this good relations thing, there certainly won't be any more kidnappings.
Even if Trump did not get any hard, written-down concessions from North Korea (although with North Korea, a written concession doesn't have to mean anything), the détente between two nuclear powers who just months ago were threatening to destroy one another definitely brings a lot of benefit. A cordial relation with North Korea is so much better than being on the brink of war. If the cessation of joint US-South Korea exercises in Korea is the price for that, then I say that is a price well paid. It is not like the US or South Korea will stop cooperating or anything, and it massively reduces tensions. It is a good concession to make I think. It also shows to the world and North Korea that the US is willing to make compromises and work towards peace. Diplomatically, that is highly valuable as it shifts the onus to North Korea to make compromises as well. This could very well open up the way to a lasting peace, and if not, North Korea is to blame (barring the US doing anything stupid of course) and loses its last shreds of diplomatic credibility. That would mean no more deals in the future, and I am not sure North Korea could handle that.

Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.

I think the meeting would have been OK if nothing had been given away by either side.

It could have been just a meet and greet with a view to building a relationship for future business.

This ignores the fact that Kim getting a meet and greet with the POTUS is a pretty big concession in itself, of course, but anyway...

So Pompeo has given NK the arbitrary deadline of 2 years for significant denuclearization without even having discussed what that entails or having an agreement with NK on it. Going well so far.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, AT&T, a content distributor, gets to buy Time Warner, a content creator. It's expected that Comcast, a content distributor, will announce a better-than-Disney offer to buy Fox, a content creator.
And Net Neutrality officially died this week.
Hmmm...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
And Seoul would be turned into a recreation of that hive city that the DKoK bombarded for more than 10 years.

Where do you think US air-power would target first? Offensive capability would be removed first.

You are naive as hell if you think that will stop it

No - I just know what the US military is capable of. ESP our Navy. SK likely has the most advance anti missle systems on earth. A first strike against NK would result in approx 90% of their offensive capabilities being destroyed within a 30 minute period. Few in SK would die. NK would be rendered impotent in a few days. All they could do is hide in buildings and holes and hold out for guerrilla warfare.

If US could prevent destruction of Soul they would have invaded NK LONG TIME AGO! With US being one of the most aggressive invaders in the world why you think they haven't invaded NK decades ago? Because it would cause razing of Seoul which is capital of their ally and big huge civilian disaster...

Only way to stop US from doing yet another invasion is ability to hurt them or their allies enough they don't want to do. NK obviously has had that as otherwise US would have invaded them decades ago.

By what metrics do you judge the USA to be one of the most aggressive in the world?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mike Pompeo, our Secretary of State.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted a reporter on Wednesday after the journalist asked why the denuclearization of North Korea was not included in an agreement signed between the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, and President Trump.

“The president said it will be verified," the reporter said to Pompeo in South Korea, to which Pompeo responded, "Of course it will."

"Can you tell us a little bit more about what is, what is — what discussed about how," the reporter continued.
“Just so you know, you could ask me this, I find that question insulting and ridiculous and, frankly, ludicrous," Pompeo said. "I just have to be honest with you, it’s a game and one ought not to play games with serious matters like this."

Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.


But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Poor Abe, he spend so much time trying to convince Trump of Japanese concerns and then Trump just threw Abe under the bus. Well at least all those kidnapped Japanese are the real winners here...

Well, the people who already got kidnapped not so much. But as long as Trump and Kim keep up this good relations thing, there certainly won't be any more kidnappings.
Even if Trump did not get any hard, written-down concessions from North Korea (although with North Korea, a written concession doesn't have to mean anything), the détente between two nuclear powers who just months ago were threatening to destroy one another definitely brings a lot of benefit. A cordial relation with North Korea is so much better than being on the brink of war. If the cessation of joint US-South Korea exercises in Korea is the price for that, then I say that is a price well paid. It is not like the US or South Korea will stop cooperating or anything, and it massively reduces tensions. It is a good concession to make I think. It also shows to the world and North Korea that the US is willing to make compromises and work towards peace. Diplomatically, that is highly valuable as it shifts the onus to North Korea to make compromises as well. This could very well open up the way to a lasting peace, and if not, North Korea is to blame (barring the US doing anything stupid of course) and loses its last shreds of diplomatic credibility. That would mean no more deals in the future, and I am not sure North Korea could handle that.

Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.

Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea.
Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mike Pompeo, our Secretary of State.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blasted a reporter on Wednesday after the journalist asked why the denuclearization of North Korea was not included in an agreement signed between the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, and President Trump.

“The president said it will be verified," the reporter said to Pompeo in South Korea, to which Pompeo responded, "Of course it will."

"Can you tell us a little bit more about what is, what is — what discussed about how," the reporter continued.
“Just so you know, you could ask me this, I find that question insulting and ridiculous and, frankly, ludicrous," Pompeo said. "I just have to be honest with you, it’s a game and one ought not to play games with serious matters like this."

Asking for details on North Korean denuclearization verification beyond "The President Said So" is a ridiculous and insulting question.


But the Iran deal was just unworkable and unverifiable...

As someone who once lied about my qualities on my resume and landed a job that was far beyond my ability to perform, I have some sympathy for the current administration. I know the stress of being asked to explain my incompetent actions to people who actually know what the feth they are talking about.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.

Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea.
Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.

It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.

No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.

Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.

The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.

Lets see where this goes first.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Diplomatically its terrible, as it shows allies you don't care about their concerns and are in it for the quick fix. This however does in no way shift the onus to NK. Trump gave this up free of charge with nothing in return and the way he framed it doesn't even attempt to shift the onus. His framing makes it sound like the US is stopping something that was bad, not compromising on something they want. NK has no shred of diplomatic credibility anyway, this is just the latest attempt of several, how many do you get before its gone? NK has zero credibility until they actually offer up a real concession, the onus as such has always been on NK as the one who broke deals and killed SKs not that long ago. NK bombing it now is never going to mean no more deals in the future, because you always have to keep the door open. What you don't do is give NK exactly what it wants like this. Now if NK is going to back out you don't even have an agreement to prove that NK is to blame. This meeting should never have happened before NK put the pen on paper on something tangible.

Diplomats generally have memories longer than a single day. South Korea may have some concerns over putting a stop to the exercises (although there is plenty of voices in South Korea that called for this as well), but they will have no doubt about the US caring for them and their concerns. The US spends massive amounts on protecting South Korea and has done so for over half a century. This 'deal' changes nothing about that and they will not forget that in South Korea. Only a total fool would question American commitment to South Korea.
Also, North Korea has plenty of diplomatic credibility left. It is funny that you say it isn't so because it is really self-evident. China, the US and South Korea are all heavily invested into diplomacy with North Korea. They would not be if North Korea had no diplomatic credibility. The onus has never really been on North Korea before. Certainly, there have been deals with North Korea before, but in those deals the US or South Korea have never given any meaningful concessions to North Korea, not without making very heavy demands in return. This made North Korea reluctant to make any meaningful concessions of its own, which made the US angry which then made the DPRK angry which then led to the deal breaking down. Diplomatic negotiations work the same way as all negotiations. One side has to begin with making concessions, or both sides will stay reluctant and nothing will ever happen. Sometimes you have to give up a little to gain a lot. That is a central tenet of diplomacy. Furthermore, halting military exercises isn't really a big concession. It has no lasting impact whatsoever, since exercises can just be resumed in case the deal breaks down. Clearly, previous approaches to North Korea have all failed dramatically, since North Korea managed to obtain nuclear ICBMs and only a few months ago the whole region seemed more on the brink of war than ever before. Trump is now trying something new. Whether it will work out any differently from past failures only time will tell. But it is good that something new is being tried. If it doesn't, then no permanent harm is done. If it does, then that is a massive step forwards for the entire world.

It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.

No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.

Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.

The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.

Lets see where this goes first.

I don't know where you get the idea that North Korea was the only one to break the previous agreements. The breakdown of those deals was as much the fault of the US as it was of North Korea, the 1994 failure arguably was even more the fault of the US. The US has not given North Korea anything at all in the past. Certainly, the US has been willing to make noticeable concessions, but those were always accompanied by very heavy demands. And it is not really a concession if you demand a lot more in return. Unsurprisingly, this strategy has failed utterly with North Korea. They may have entered into the deals, but with such demands placed on them they obviously never seriously considered actually doing anything. They just tried to get as much out of it before the US noticed 'hey they are not actually doing anything'. Now the US has thrown them a bone, an actual concession that is not tied down with massive demands. It is something new, it might work. If so, great! If not so, no harm done. This is what North Korea wants, yes. But it is also what we want. Or should want. Everybody wants peace, nobody wants North Korea to be isolated. I have said it before and I will say it again, but taking North Korea seriously, and integrating them into economical relationships is the biggest chance we have to solve the Korean problem. If that solution includes giving North Korea what it wants, then good for them. What matters is that we get what we want, and making a small concession or two might break open negotiations that have been stuck for the past half-century.
I don't have a very positive view of Trump, but if the arsonist is putting out fires instead of setting them, that is a great thing. At least, he isn't doing anything negative and harmful for a change, and that is nice. Trump has already demolished more than enough.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It isn't about cancelling the exercise, that's missing the point. The point is that the US made a concession that would also involve its SK ally without informing said ally first. When your friend starts bartering things you do together away without informing you first that is quite the slap in the face. Also the amount the US spends in Korea is an absolute steal (also because SK covers half the US costs) considering the return on investment. This 'deal' changes perceptions and only a fool would not consider this a snub to US allies by having China know about allied strategy first of all people. Just because the US is still committed to SK does not mean this was a smart thing to do.

No, NK has zero diplomatic credibility left, I have no clue why you think they do after they broke TWO previous agreements. You saying that this is the time they are going to lose all credibility is just meaningless. They have done it twice before and they are still talking to NK, why would they stop talking if NK does it again? You can't just totally ignore a country because they have zero credibility, because you never know when they are in the hole deep enough that they finally have to put in some. The onus sure as hell has been on NK as the party who broke two previous agreements and killed dozens of SKs in 2010, the idea that the US had to hand over anything is ridiculous.

Look up the 2005 and 1994 agreements, they did give meaningful concessions to NK, opening of economic ties, import of resources, development aid. While the 1994 agreement was a clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms, the NKs we're already secretly continuing development anyway. The thing requested was not developing nuclear weapons, that's it! Seriously, read up on it, we have been here before twice and twice before the NK walked out after the countries involved had come to an agreement. A lot more was given up in the past and here we are, with nuclear NK.

The region was only on the brink of war because Trump himself pushed the sabre rattling so hard. Its like being glad the arsonist put out the fire. Trump isn't trying anything new, exercises were put on hold in 94 as well. Nothing here is new except for the downright apologetic behaviour of what is an absolutely inhumane regime. The idea that this is somehow a huge or new development is totally false, Clinton got invited by Kim Jong Il, this is what the Kim family wants, just look at how NK media is reporting this.

Lets see where this goes first.

I don't know where you get the idea that North Korea was the only one to break the previous agreements. The breakdown of those deals was as much the fault of the US as it was of North Korea, the 1994 failure arguably was even more the fault of the US. The US has not given North Korea anything at all in the past. Certainly, the US has been willing to make noticeable concessions, but those were always accompanied by very heavy demands. And it is not really a concession if you demand a lot more in return. Unsurprisingly, this strategy has failed utterly with North Korea. They may have entered into the deals, but with such demands placed on them they obviously never seriously considered actually doing anything. They just tried to get as much out of it before the US noticed 'hey they are not actually doing anything'. Now the US has thrown them a bone, an actual concession that is not tied down with massive demands. It is something new, it might work. If so, great! If not so, no harm done. This is what North Korea wants, yes. But it is also what we want. Or should want. Everybody wants peace, nobody wants North Korea to be isolated. I have said it before and I will say it again, but taking North Korea seriously, and integrating them into economical relationships is the biggest chance we have to solve the Korean problem. If that solution includes giving North Korea what it wants, then good for them. What matters is that we get what we want, and making a small concession or two might break open negotiations that have been stuck for the past half-century.
I don't have a very positive view of Trump, but if the arsonist is putting out fires instead of setting them, that is a great thing. At least, he isn't doing anything negative and harmful for a change, and that is nice. Trump has already demolished more than enough.

I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.

You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?

Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.

Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.

You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?

Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.

Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.

Because Iran is a completely different country than North Korea? Iran is a pseudo-democratic country that doesn't really need nuclear weapons anyway as they already have plenty of soft and hard power to play around in the Middle East with. North Korea on the other hand is a nightmarish totalitarian regime that needs those nuclear weapons for its very survival now that its conventional military is getting so outdated. Totally different things. The US demanding North Korea give up their nuclear program entirely was kinda like if North Korea had demanded a full US withdrawal from South Korea. It is not a reasonable demand at all, not without guarantees that replace NK's need for nuclear weapons. Without such guarantees North Korea will never fully give up everything. And wisely so, considering the US has anything but a trustworthy reputation. Qaddafi agreed to a deal similar to the one offered to North Korea. A few years later, American bombers appeared in the skies over Libya and Qaddafi ended up dead.

Asking North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons is only going to be possible after a lot of trust has been built up between it and the US. And how do you build up trust?
It is like the US and North Korea are two enemy soldiers involved in a standoff. They are both pointing a gun at each other and threatening to shoot. If the US asks North Korea to lower or put down his gun without putting down his own gun simultaneously, what do you think is going to happen? Nothing of course, North Korea is not that stupid. No, first you need a degree of trust between these two, so that they dare lower their gun without fearing they will be instantly shot. Trump is now talking friendly to North Korea and lowering the US' gun just a tiny little bit. That is how you slowly start to build up that trust.
There is no such thing as too high a price for peace, because the price for not having peace is ultimately always going to be higher. Even if it does not end in a destructive war (which still is highly likely), the continuing problem is costing South Korea a lot, it is costing the US a lot and most of all it is costing the North Korean people a lot.

And I'd wish all arsonists put out the fires they made themselves. The world would be a better place. If an arsonist apparently reconsiders his crimes and decides to put the fire out again, that is nothing but commendable. Certainly, he should never have set the fire in the first place, but that is unchangeable now, and preventing damage by putting it out again is the next best thing.

Pruitt had a backup plan when the Chick-fil-A franchise didn't work out


Now even Ingraham is calling for Pruitt to go
Though only because he's hurting Trump

Edit: fixd

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, AT&T, a content distributor, gets to buy Time Warner, a content creator. It's expected that Comcast, a content distributor, will announce a better-than-Disney offer to buy Fox, a content creator.
And Net Neutrality officially died this week.
Hmmm...

Has nothing to do with the principles of net neutrality.

Also Comcast was already a content creator (owns the NBC suite).

I really don't like the vertical integrations here and think distributors should be forbidden to own contents.

In fairness though, much of the big content creators already owns distribution infrastructures for their content (they just don't have direct clients like the distributors).

 Vaktathi wrote:
Pruitt had a backup plan when the Chick-fil-A franchise didn't work out


Now even Ingraham is calling for Pruitt to go
Though only because he's hurting Trump

Edit: dunno why formatting above isnt working, it previews fine

Capital U on the first [url=]?

Edit: nope.

Extra spaces between [url=] and the title?

Edit2: yep.

 LordofHats wrote:
I mentioned this earlier in thread. Iran generally plays by the same rules everyone else plays by, which is pretty remarkable considering how trying to do so continually screws them.

While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.

This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.

The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619464740/north-koreas-media-touts-trump-concessions-you-won-t-find-in-the-joint-statement

What a surprise.

feeder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Pruitt had a backup plan when the Chick-fil-A franchise didn't work out


Now even Ingraham is calling for Pruitt to go
Though only because he's hurting Trump

Edit: dunno why formatting above isnt working, it previews fine

Capital U on the first [url=]?

Edit: nope.

Extra spaces between [url=] and the title?

Edit2: yep.

Gracias!

Vulcan wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I mentioned this earlier in thread. Iran generally plays by the same rules everyone else plays by, which is pretty remarkable considering how trying to do so continually screws them.

While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.

This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.

The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

That probably went out the window after the US shot down an Iranian airliner, killing almost 300 people and over 60 children, and George Bush the Elder, as Vice President of the United States of America, literally went on live TV and dropped this bomb a couple months before he was elected President...

George H.W. Bush wrote:
I'll never apologize for the United States of America...Ever! I don't care what the facts are.

d-usa wrote:https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619464740/north-koreas-media-touts-trump-concessions-you-won-t-find-in-the-joint-statement

What a surprise.

To be fair, as much as I could believe Trump doing something like that, the NK media could say anything and would be expected to propagate the story that Kim emerged triumphant and successful over the great American oppressor. If they started saying Kim thrashed Trump in a WWE Smackdown Extravaganza, I would not be shocked.

 Vaktathi wrote:
. If they started saying Kim thrashed Trump in a WWE Smackdown Extravaganza, I would not be shocked.

Now THERE's something to see on pay-per-view!

 Vaktathi wrote:

feeder wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Pruitt had a backup plan when the Chick-fil-A franchise didn't work out


Now even Ingraham is calling for Pruitt to go
Though only because he's hurting Trump

Edit: dunno why formatting above isnt working, it previews fine

Capital U on the first [url=]?

Edit: nope.

Extra spaces between [url=] and the title?

Edit2: yep.

Gracias!

Vulcan wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I mentioned this earlier in thread. Iran generally plays by the same rules everyone else plays by, which is pretty remarkable considering how trying to do so continually screws them.

While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.

This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.

The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

That probably went out the window after the US shot down an Iranian airliner, killing almost 300 people and over 60 children, and George Bush the Elder, as Vice President of the United States of America, literally went on live TV and dropped this bomb a couple months before he was elected President...

George H.W. Bush wrote:
I'll never apologize for the United States of America...Ever! I don't care what the facts are.

d-usa wrote:https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619464740/north-koreas-media-touts-trump-concessions-you-won-t-find-in-the-joint-statement

What a surprise.

To be fair, as much as I could believe Trump doing something like that, the NK media could say anything and would be expected to propagate the story that Kim emerged triumphant and successful over the great American oppressor. If they started saying Kim thrashed Trump in a WWE Smackdown Extravaganza, I would not be shocked.

Kim has NO chance, even Vinny Mac and Umaga were no match for Trump at Wrestlemania!

Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers

“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”

When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.

“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”

“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-tough-guy-kim-jong-un-234723293.html

 Ustrello wrote:
Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers

“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”

When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.

“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”

“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-tough-guy-kim-jong-un-234723293.html

This guy is too crazy to be real.
His sweet-talking to Kim better produce some results, or being crazy is all he will be remembered for. It definitely is something the US hasn't tried before though. Maybe it works. Kim would not be the first despot to have a weak spot for flattery.
Also, no Trump, Russia will not get out of Ukraine. Absolutely never.

Well, you gotta be tough to take over your fathers business and it takes questionable ethics and morals to build a real estate business in NYC run a country like NK.

 Vulcan wrote:


While I generally agree with you, I feel I need to point out one HUGE detail that makes people reluctant to deal with the current Iranian government.

This government came into power by violently overthrowing the pro-U.S. Shah, with the tacit approval of the U.S. (Which is why we didn't have forces in-country to support him, or prevent what came next.) Well and good, they're far from the only government to found itself in violent overthrow of what came before. They're in (relatively) good company there, both Israel and America did the same.

To be sure. Revolutions always set everyone on edge, but the overwhelming majority of standing state today was founded by revolution or a war of unification at some point in time and most Revolutions aren't like the American one. Most are exceptionally bloody, with purges and civil war. The Saudi's didn't come to power because everyone thought they were swell either. They did it by conquest.

The problem comes with what they did as they took over. The new government took a big old dump all over your basic diplomatic procedure by storming the U.S. Embassy, holding the staff hostage for over a year, and indulging in various forms of torture of said diplomatic personnel. This is a quintessentially uncivilized act.

Oh yeah. That whole thing basically soured the entire thing, but I also think it needs important clarifications.

The Iranian government didn't storm a US Embassy. A bunch of stupid college kids did. They weren't government agents, not that Americans have ever bothered keeping up to date on Iranian affairs ever since. The only real debate is whether or not Ruhollah Khomeini knew about the scheme before it happened (which I think is unknowable, but possible). The real issue is that Khomeini validated the act after the fact. He was anti-West and wanted to build simultaneous support for that position in Iran and use it to undercut the Communists who are always a powerful group whenever there's a revolution these days. Even as his successor has tried to be more reserved, Iran is definitely still paying the cost for being a very short sighted at that point.

The bright point is that Iran seems to have long since realized how horribly that backfired on them. It left Iran diplomatically isolated on the eve of the Iran-Iraq War, and economically crippled after that. They've spent the better part of the last 30 years trying to get past the hole they dug.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

A think a big get together where the US and Iran exchange apologies would actually go a long way. It's not a rotten idea. The Iran Hostage Crisis, Flight 655, the Beirut Bombings. Combine it with highlighting a few points of solidarity (Iranian marchers expressing sympathy and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, US-Iranian cooperation in overthrowing the Taliban, and the US veto of the 2008 Bombing plan proposed by Israel). The entire conflict between the US and Iran is one of the dumbest in the world today. Too bad the current present shot a broadside into fixing it. I think we've been set back decades on repairing that fence.

It turns out Trump can listen his advisors. Trump's plan to reduce tensions on the Korean pensinsula actually came from one of his closest advisors, who told Trump that ending joint military exercises could help moderate Kim and improve the situation. That advisor - Vladimir Putin. At the time Jim Mattis talked Trump out of that plan, probably because Mattis is a deep state operative. But in the end Mr Putin's sagely advice won out.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-trump-a-how-to-guide-1516303402

 Xenomancers wrote:
US troops aren't going anywhere in any kind of foreseeable future.

I agree, but note the only reason you and I can both form that opinion is that we assume Trump's words mean nothing. In May Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for troop reductions in South Korea. He later denied this, because of course he did.

So yeah, while you and I both think US troops are staying in SK, it should be noted the only way we can form that opinion is because we assume the president of the United States routinely talks gibberish that means nothing.

 LordofHats wrote:

A think a big get together where the US and Iran exchange apologies would actually go a long way. It's not a rotten idea. The Iran Hostage Crisis, Flight 655, the Beirut Bombings. Combine it with highlighting a few points of solidarity (Iranian marchers expressing sympathy and condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, US-Iranian cooperation in overthrowing the Taliban, and the US veto of the 2008 Bombing plan proposed by Israel). The entire conflict between the US and Iran is one of the dumbest in the world today. Too bad the current present shot a broadside into fixing it. I think we've been set back decades on repairing that fence.

I was quite hoping that the anti-nuke deal would be a step toward that end. There really is no good reason for Iran and America to be enemies aside from that year of outright stupidity on Iran's part, and the fallout from that year out outright stupidity.

In more 'both sides' news, the guy who won the Republican primary for the Virginia senate is Corey Stewart. Stewart's platform is built around anti-immigration and cultural resentment (confederate statues etc), basically it's the Trump model. In fact Stewart claims he was Trump before Trump. But Stewart is so much more Trump than Trump. After Charlottesville Trump gave weak criticisms of the white supremacists involved, which he then kind of then backed off of. But Stewart went so much further, not only refused to criticise the events at Charlottesville but attacking any Republican who did condemn the rally. Which makes sense, when you note that one of the major organisers of the Charlotteville rally was Jason Kessler, who is a straight up white nationalist and close friend and political ally of Stewart.

Stewart is also tightly connected to Paul Nehlen, an anti-semite who's running in the Republican house primary in Paul Ryan's old seat. Stewart has endorsed Nehlen, the two have shared staffing resources, and Stewart has called Nehlen a hero for running against Paul Ryan. Meanwhile Nehlen has produced 'enemy's lists' of some the people who have criticised is views, claiming that most were Jewish (they weren't, Nehlen was just guessing). Nehlen is racist enough to get banned from twitter (he tweeted an image of Meghan Markle photoshopped with an image of a primitive fossil), and he's actually racist enough the Republicans won't accept him, Ryan thrashed him in past primary campaigns, and Ryan's replacement will too. But he isn't too racist for Corey Stewart, who has now, finally, distanced himself from Nehlen, but then continued to have his on-line team attack the people who highlighted the links between Stewart and Nehlen. And that on-line team just happens to be the same people who ran Roy Moore's operation, because of course it is.

Trump is not an anomaly that just happened one time. People like Trump, including some much worse than Trump, keep getting nominated. Most of them go down in flames to their Democratic opponents, but that's not good enough. I don't agree with Ben Shapiro on much, but he is bang on with this comment; "is not only politically stupid, it ends with the nomination of utterly unpalatable candidates who toxify the party as a whole.”

Oh, and Trump has already gone on twitter endorsing Corey Stewart. Because of course.


EDIT - just to note I got most but not all of the above from a Vox piece. I can grab the link if anyone is interested.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump didn't write that book. It was ghost-written for him. The real author got a 50% perpetual deal, which is unheard of, without having to negotiate about it.

The author of the book, Tony Schwartz, speaks frequently about his regret in writing The Art of the Deal and playing a role in creating the myth of Donald Trump. He now writes regular pieces for newspapers giving his insight in to how utterly broken Trump is. Here's a choice quote Schwartz from one of those pieces;
"He was always cartoonish, but compared with the man for whom I wrote The Art of the Deal 30 years ago, he is significantly angrier today: more reactive, deceitful, distracted, vindictive, impulsive and, above all, self-absorbed – assuming the last is possible."

Kim gave away nothing and got an unprecedented equals level meeting with the POTUS, proposed reductions in the sanctions by China, the promise of ending joint military defence exercises by his two most dangerous enemies, and US presidentlal endorsement of his human rights abuses.

When looking at how badly Trump negotiated the whole deal, it's important to note he had screwed it up even before he got to Singapore. By granting a meeting with Kim he'd already given to NK parity and legitimacy by agreeing to meet face to face. Kim could turn up to Singapore and get no deal, and he would still have gained an enormous amount because he'd gotten a US president to meet for talks. In contrast Trump had got nothing in exchange, but was making big statements hyping up the deal, putting pressure on himself to walk away with something.

All of which meant when Trump and Kim did met, all the pressure was on Trump to make a deal, while Kim was free to walk away.

Which is exactly why the final deal had lots of giveaways to NK, while all NK did was repeat the vague statement they had made before the summit. Because through the absolute incompetence, Trump had managed to gift all negotiating power to one of the world's weakest countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

You thinik Trudeau mentioning the US/Canadian closely allied work in past wars was sleazeball, but you don't say anything about the absolutely bonkers responses that came from Trump officials. Larry Kudlow said it was a betrayal, Peter Navarro said Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back, and said there was "a very special place in hell for people who betrayed Donald Trump".

Anyhow, here's Trudeau's comments that got Trump so angry;

""I highlighted directly to the president that Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry, particularly did not take lightly the fact that it’s based on a national security reason that for Canadians, who either themselves or whose parents or community members have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in far off lands and conflicts from the First World War onwards, that it’s kind of insulting. And highlighted that it was not helping in our renegotiation of NAFTA and that it would be with regret, but it would be with absolute certainty and firmness that we move forward with retaliatory measures on July 1, applying equivalent tariffs to the ones that the Americans have unjustly applied to us. I have made it very clear to the president that it is not something we relish doing, but it is something that we absolutely will do, because Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around."

Honestly, anyone who says that comment is sleazeball, but thinks nothing of the comments from Navarro and Kudlow is utterly ridiculous. Don't be one of those ridiculous people, SickSix. Be a sensible person. Admit your comment was badly mistaken, and try again with something sensible.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea from I said NK was the only one to break them. I clearly said 94 was a "clusterfeth of the US failing to meet its terms". But again, that the US failed in 1994 doesn't matter. Even if te US would have lived up to its side of the bargain NK secretly continued the development of nuclear weapons as was discovered later.

You can just look up what the US and other countries offered up to NK, it wasn't nothing. And how is the demand to stop the production and getting rid of the means to develop nuclear weapons "very heavy demands"? You're acting like they demanded the whole government was to be dismantled or something. Again, what was offered to NK was completely fair, normalized political and economic relations and development aid in exchange for its nuclear program. If this was such a terrible deal why did Iran take it?

Again, this makes zero sense, what did the US have to give concessions for? Trump handed NK a freebie for no reason, which again is nothing new as exercises were already stopped in 1994 as a sign of goodwill when progress was actually being made. That is when you should make these types of concessions, as a reward for good behaviour. This certainly isn't what I want, I don't want the President of the US bending over backwards in complementing a brutal dictator, none of this was necessary. Sure, talk with NK, but don't go giving in to the man and praising him. Everybody wants peace, but the price is not always worth paying.

Also you seriously misunderstood my arsonist comparison. The arsonist himself set the fire he later put out, that isn't praiseworthy, its just stupid. The region was on the brink of war because Trump was pushing it to that point. And so far yes, he has already done something negative, by pretending human rights isn't a big deal. He is normalizing horrific acts as something patriotic,lets see how quickly that is going to get picked up on by other dictators.

Because Iran is a completely different country than North Korea? Iran is a pseudo-democratic country that doesn't really need nuclear weapons anyway as they already have plenty of soft and hard power to play around in the Middle East with. North Korea on the other hand is a nightmarish totalitarian regime that needs those nuclear weapons for its very survival now that its conventional military is getting so outdated. Totally different things. The US demanding North Korea give up their nuclear program entirely was kinda like if North Korea had demanded a full US withdrawal from South Korea. It is not a reasonable demand at all, not without guarantees that replace NK's need for nuclear weapons. Without such guarantees North Korea will never fully give up everything. And wisely so, considering the US has anything but a trustworthy reputation. Qaddafi agreed to a deal similar to the one offered to North Korea. A few years later, American bombers appeared in the skies over Libya and Qaddafi ended up dead.

Asking North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons is only going to be possible after a lot of trust has been built up between it and the US. And how do you build up trust?
It is like the US and North Korea are two enemy soldiers involved in a standoff. They are both pointing a gun at each other and threatening to shoot. If the US asks North Korea to lower or put down his gun without putting down his own gun simultaneously, what do you think is going to happen? Nothing of course, North Korea is not that stupid. No, first you need a degree of trust between these two, so that they dare lower their gun without fearing they will be instantly shot. Trump is now talking friendly to North Korea and lowering the US' gun just a tiny little bit. That is how you slowly start to build up that trust.
There is no such thing as too high a price for peace, because the price for not having peace is ultimately always going to be higher. Even if it does not end in a destructive war (which still is highly likely), the continuing problem is costing South Korea a lot, it is costing the US a lot and most of all it is costing the North Korean people a lot.

And I'd wish all arsonists put out the fires they made themselves. The world would be a better place. If an arsonist apparently reconsiders his crimes and decides to put the fire out again, that is nothing but commendable. Certainly, he should never have set the fire in the first place, but that is unchangeable now, and preventing damage by putting it out again is the next best thing.

The whole point was that they weren't very heavy demands. Both Iran and NK could feel sufficiently threatened by the US to justify nuclear weapons. If anything Iran was facing the bigger risk in the 2000's. North Korea on the other hand is a virtual protectorate of China with a gun to the head of SK. Saying that NK giving up its nuclear weapons because it needs them for survival is already admitting they are negotiating out of bad faith. Nothing has changed on that front. What is worse is that Pompeo has openly stated that there is no sanctions relief until full verified denuclearization, which are incredibly one sided terms compared to 94 and 05. Liibya was an entirely different case from NK. Libya had absolutely zero conventional leverage or allies to prevent such an outcome. If the US wanted NK gone and could do so at an acceptable price it would have been. Libya was a third rate player in a corner of the world they couldn't even bother to depose of until he ignited a civil war. The only reason it gets brought up is because we have the idiot Bolton running around.

Now you're stating the impossible, if nuclear weapons are vital for its survival why would they ever give them up against a man who less then a year ago threatened with "fire and fury"? And his high ranking staff are pro war and bring up Libya? The comparison is terrible. The US is a giant that could step on NK, but NK has put a bomb under a school full of children that goes off the moment it gets stepped on. If the US asks NK to dismantle its nuclear arsenal it still has said bomb under the school. The idea that nuclear weapons, that have functioned as such for less than a year, have held off invasion for the last 27 years is quite silly, its the same fantasy as the Foal Eagle exercises one year suddenly crossing the border, it doesn't line up with reality.

There is such a thing as too high a price when the war isn't actually ongoing. Lets say for example that NK wants Seoul in return for peace, nobody would pay that. Demands can certainly go too far, they don't make it worth it. You need to negotiate from a position where NK isn't extorting you because they now have nukes. And regardless of peace its not going to cost either the US less or the NK people less, because at the end of the day the US budget keeps going up and NK is a self imposed brutal dictatorship that needs these methods to survive.

A better place would be to not let those arsonists have lighters. Again, its silly to praise the arsonist for putting out the fire when that fire threatened a lot of other people. He didn't prevent anything, he caused it in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

But that was forty years ago. I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones, IF the current government were to apologize for it. If they did, I'd certainly be willing to apologize for the overthrow of the pre-Shah elected government in return. That was a truly thing for America to have done, regardless of our concern about potential communist nations being founded in the mideast. Indeed, HAD they apologized for the hostages, I'd bet either Clinton or Obama would have apologized for overthrowing the pre-Shah government.

But darn it, Iran needs to acknowledge THEY screwed up too, in a very diplomacy-breaking manner.

On the other hand the US has done some gakky things it never apologized for either. Supporting Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner, indeed the whole CIA debacle.

Take it on a global level, the US has done a lot of very undiplomatic things it never apologized for. Its a bit odd to expect everyone to start apologizing before you can make progress. Its entirely unrelated to the type of progress you want to make as well, its a step you take after the initial agreement goes well. To drag it to NK, NK has killed multiple US soldiers in violation of the ceasefire, but NK has never really been requested to apologize for it. Now if an agreement comes out of this, then you can start looking at apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619464740/north-koreas-media-touts-trump-concessions-you-won-t-find-in-the-joint-statement

What a surprise.

Yup, sounds about right, like I said, its about more than the exercise, its the whole percetion behind it.

Shi Yinhong, an international relations expert at People's University in Beijing, said Trump's pledge to halt military maneuvers is, from China's perspective, almost "too good to be true."

Shi predicts that such a move could face stiff domestic opposition. If U.S. troops in South Korea were to really halt military exercises, he says, it could cause allies to lose confidence in Washington and undermine the entire U.S. military presence in Asia.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Well as if it couldn't get any worse on his track record for endorsing and liking despots and murderers

“He’s a tough guy. Hey, when you take over a country, tough country, tough people, and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you could do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that,” Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier. “So he’s a very smart guy, he’s a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.”

When Baier pointed out some of the unsavory things Jong Un is accused of doing in North Korea, Trump demurred.

“Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said. “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.”

“I’m not for Russia, I’m for the United States,” Trump said. “But as an example, if Vladimir Putin were sitting next to me at a table instead of one of the others, and we were having dinner the other night in Canada, I could say ‘Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of Syria? Would you do me a favor? Would you get out of the Ukraine, get out of Ukraine, you shouldn’t be there? Just come on. Now, I think I’d probably have a good relationship with him or I’d be able to talk to him better than if you call somebody on a telephone and talk. If I’m sitting like I was with the others, for instance the new prime minister of Italy. He is a great guy, we had a great relationship. He agrees with me on Putin by the way.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-heaps-praise-tough-guy-kim-jong-un-234723293.html

This guy is too crazy to be real.
His sweet-talking to Kim better produce some results, or being crazy is all he will be remembered for. It definitely is something the US hasn't tried before though. Maybe it works. Kim would not be the first despot to have a weak spot for flattery.
Also, no Trump, Russia will not get out of Ukraine. Absolutely never.

I mean just come on, just do it. Bet you thought you would never hear Donald employ his pillow talk on Putin


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Personally I felt Trudeau really went sleezeball with somehow invoking WWII in a dispute over tarriffs. Really dude?

You thinik Trudeau mentioning the US/Canadian closely allied work in past wars was sleazeball, but you don't say anything about the absolutely bonkers responses that came from Trump officials. Larry Kudlow said it was a betrayal, Peter Navarro said Trudeau stabbed Trump in the back, and said there was "a very special place in hell for people who betrayed Donald Trump".

Anyhow, here's Trudeau's comments that got Trump so angry;

""I highlighted directly to the president that Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs on our steel and aluminum industry, particularly did not take lightly the fact that it’s based on a national security reason that for Canadians, who either themselves or whose parents or community members have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in far off lands and conflicts from the First World War onwards, that it’s kind of insulting. And highlighted that it was not helping in our renegotiation of NAFTA and that it would be with regret, but it would be with absolute certainty and firmness that we move forward with retaliatory measures on July 1, applying equivalent tariffs to the ones that the Americans have unjustly applied to us. I have made it very clear to the president that it is not something we relish doing, but it is something that we absolutely will do, because Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around."

Honestly, anyone who says that comment is sleazeball, but thinks nothing of the comments from Navarro and Kudlow is utterly ridiculous. Don't be one of those ridiculous people, SickSix. Be a sensible person. Admit your comment was badly mistaken, and try again with something sensible.

And then note that Trump made the actual sleazeball comment when he tried to justify his tariffs by saying Canadians burned down the White House in the War of 1812.

This is the first time Ive seen every spectrum of Canadian politics (except that really special corner that thinks we should have Trump in Canada aka people who supported O'Leary) be so completely pissed off with the USA, that people are actually organizing boycotts of american goods and rallying people together.

Honestly, Trumps little backlash and harsh words at Trudeau have been the best PR for the Liberals theyve gotten in the last few years.