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.

It will do Canada's balance of trade good. Canada imports more from the USA than it exports to the USA.

 SickSix wrote:
I truly don't understand the people decrying Trump for this. Would you rather go to war?

What you're missing is that there's a whole lot of options outside of making concessions to NK in exchange for nothing, and going to war. It's how things operated for decades prior to this. NK was contained but not threatened or provoked.

I honestly don't know how you forgot 'keep doing what we were doing' was an option. How is that not the first option people are aware of?

People keep saying that any meeting with Rocketman is a win for him and gives him credibility. WHO is suddenly jumping on the Rocketman credibility train? The media?

There's a whole world that isn't America. Inside NK Kim's legitimacy is dependent largely on the appearance of strength. Kim is now going home having faced a US president as an equal, and gotten that US president to give him things without anything given in return. Inside NK Kim's rule looks far more effective and legitimate.

There are also other countries involved in the containment of NK who are far less committed to isolation than the US, primarily China, but also Russia, Pakistan and a bunch of others. With China, for instance, their overall preference is to ignore NK as much as possible, but there are specific individuals who can make a lot of money with trade. So there's always tension within China about how much effort is put in to enforcing their sanctions. With consistent, worldwide condemnation of NK China's position is made clear and breaches of the sanctions are embarrassing to China. With Trump talking up Kim as just the greater guy ever, there's no reason for China to exert to political pressure to make sure regional interests actually follow through on sanctions.

And there's a bunch of others. How does the US now put pressure on Turkey or Cuba for imprisoning journalists, when they're ignoring the forced labour camps in NK?

Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.

No, I'm sure it was Obama's weakness that emboldened him.

 sebster wrote:
. How does the US now put pressure on Turkey or Cuba for imprisoning journalists, when they're ignoring the forced labour camps in NK?

Given Trump's past statements on who he wishes he could lock up, this is not likely to be a problem for this administration.

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

'

What other country has been invading other countries like US? People make noise about russia but at least they haven't invaded and toppled goverments of other countries with made up charges. US has done that before, US could have done that easily with NK as well. Not like anybody could even stop them short of triggering apocalypse. So only reason US hasn't done is that it would be too painful to them by casualties to their allies. The moment US doesn't mind sacrificing SK is the moment they can invade at will.

The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.

Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA invaded France, Holland, Italy, Germany, Japan and Tunisia in WW2, and maybe some others.

Is that part of your metrics for saying the USA is very agressive?

Wasn't even talking about that old. I'm talking about events that happened in my life time and even more specifically things that happened when I was old enough to realize(hint I was born 14.6.1982 so you can figure out range of potential things from there)

If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable

What I am saying is that you have an impression that the USA is highly aggressive and goes about invading places, but what we need is a list of the places it has invaded and the circumstances, in order to compare with other countries.

For example, the USA invaded Kuwait and Iraq in the early 1990s in coalition with other nations, under UN resolution, to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invaders.

In 2014 Russia invaded the Crimea in order to annex it.

You see how these two cases are different.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable

You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya

Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba

This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.

Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable

You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya

Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba

This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.

Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.

I didn't forget. I'm going off the ones that Tneva82 said happened in his lifetime, I'm pretty sure he hasn't been alive since 1882. Also really, South Korea? And US troops never supported the Kuomintang against Mao, it was WW2 assistance, real aid only came once Taiwan became the Kuomintang state. Unless you want to go over your theory of Taiwan not being a country again.

And yes, the US has had a terrible record in the Cold War. However, aside from Iraq its absolutely doing better now. The 4 invasions weren't really proper invasions either (Granada being an invitation to intervene, Panama having killed US citizens and Afghanistan the whole 9/11 happening), only Iraq didn't have a real justification. The only reason that the US is so exceptional in this is that it is the only power able to project itself around the world like this while being the sole remaining superpower and policeman of its international system. Also people having memories from before they were born is a paradox, then its not a memory, its just history. Russia and China are exceptional in their goals compared to the US in the 21st century.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.

Now, seeing as the Soviet Union invaded half Europe, with a continuous military presence for 45 years, I'm going to dispute that claim of yours. Just ask the Czech.
That's not to say the US haven't been a lot more proactive at regime change and fething up countries they don't like than people seem to credit them for, mind...

Through all this, a key advantage in the US arsenal has been the US' ability to appear benevolent, at least to their allies. Whether this was actually the case or not is largely irrelevant, it worked well enough for most purposes. This perception has been changed rather abruptly with presidents like W. Bush, and Trump, and I'm not sure people in the US realize just how much they're losing there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone now congratulating Trump for defusing the fear of war with NK should remind themselves that it was Trump's aggressive Tweeting which stoked up the tension and fear of war in the first place.

Nonsense - this has been an ongoing issue for over a decade - really for almost 70 years.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nonsense - this has been an ongoing issue for over a decade - really for almost 70 years.

It's an ongoing issue that was in a relatively stable position before Trump started tweeting at the situation. North Korea's bad behavior was directed only at its own citizens, and there wasn't a whole lot of concern over war beyond the general background level of risk. People only started talking about an impending risk of war when Trump threatened to nuke North Korea and escalated the situation beyond the background level. Now we seem to be back down to the everyday level of war threats and Trump somehow gets praise for it.

Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world. NK hasn't been a threat for anything but the past year - when trump started talking tough with them.

Is that how you see it?

When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW. While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will. This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.

Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world.

Of course it has caused tension. But you'll notice that North Korea still has those nukes, and their only concession was to stop testing at a test site that was already destroyed. Their nuclear program is the background level of risk. It was there before Trump's twitter threats, it's there now.

When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress?

I don't really, because nothing of substance has happened there. You're ignoring the fact that things like this are how North Korea plays its game. It's a whole good cop/bad cop cycle, this is just the part where North Korea plays nice in front of the cameras and offers symbolic statements of cooperation.

That is due to Trump BTW.

{citation needed}

You know that the two leaders met and shook hands without Trump, right?

While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will. This is actually a very standard way to open up diplomatic talks with a nation - the criticism of it is totally unjustified. He is talking it up a little to much but it's Trump - hes not going to stop being a loud mouth.

So you agree that the value of the summit is entirely hypothetical and it means nothing if it isn't followed by more than just propaganda? And that, if no concessions by North Korea follow, Trump gave them free propaganda fodder because he didn't understand how diplomacy works?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

And is that primarily due to:

A) A South Korean President who's notably less hawkish than his predecessor.

or

B) Fire and Fury?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Right...the past 12 years of nuclear testing havn't caused any kind of tension with the rest of the world. NK hasn't been a threat for anything but the past year - when trump started talking tough with them.

Is that how you see it?

When you see NK and SK leaders meeting on camera shaking hands in front of the rest of the world? You don't see progress? Mind boggling.That is due to Trump BTW.

In what way is it due to Trump? NK and SK started talking without Trump, and it was NK that reached out, it was Trump that canned the talks then said they were back on after NK said "we're still open to it"

While the summit didn't produce anything substantial - I am sure their next meeting will.

Based on what? NK's track record? Where they play around and blow it all up down the road? Trump's track record? Of doing the exact same thing at ten times the pace?

We can hope something happens, but if you're *sure* something will happen, you're living on the moon.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years

I don't see what's changed in Korea. Kim is using the same playbook as his dad and grandpa. He rattles his saber, tensions increase. He plays nice, makes agreements and gets aid. Then he ignores agreements, and starts rattling his saber again. This will play out the same way, sure the sun will rise.

Yes, there's the nuclear component, but it's nothing Kim can ever use without ensuring the absolute destruction of his country and family. It's just a bigger saber to rattle.

Now, what's changed in the U.S. is that we have a president who's less interested in long-term solutions than scoring points immediately by putting on a big show and capturing some good optics. Trump is a massive fething gift from God to the Kim regime.

But again, this also works politically for Trump, because most people don't have a shred of understanding about the history and situation on the Korean peninsula. And when Kim reneges and starts rattlin', Trump will fire off some angry tweets and the whole charade will begin anew. Trump and Kim can use each other for each other's benefit indefinitely. It's a great deal for Trump...not so much for the U.S., rest of the world, or the people of NK.

If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?

Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years

Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?

Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years

Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.

Because it happened with the Kim jong il, there were literally a collage of all the times the two leaders have shaken hands before in this thread earlier

 Xenomancers wrote:
If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?

Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?

Nobody here can answer that, but given that he has nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of big guns aimed at Seoul, chances are low. The threat to Kim has not changed, the US was just as capable under Obama, and his retaliatory measures remain just as capable, while Trump, beyond Twitter bluster, has yet to show any particular increase in military aggression in practice.

More likely Kim is completely out of money to run his regime and needs access to foreign capital and/or critical food/resource imports. That's typically what drives NK reproachment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

Besides the past 2-3 times it has happened in the past 20 years

Humm - sounds like BS. I've watched several docs on NK/SK relations and this was never mentioned. Never with the current Kim Jong anyways.

Given that the current Kim has only been in power 5 of those 20 years, that's probably why. That said, his behavior has matched his predecessors pretty much step for step thus far.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Standard? I must have missed when Clinton, Bush and Obama met with Kim Jong Il. Obama with Un or that time everybody met the Ayatollah?

Also you seriously underestimate the role Moon played to make this happen.

I was speaking about SK and NK meeting and shaking hands talking about peace - this is unprecedented. The two countries have technically been at war for 70 years and they don't talk. They have had a ceremonial neutral zone the entire time.

Really, so I imagined the two previous times South Korean presidents met Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang to attempt a normalisation of relationships? Did I also dream that president Kim Dae-jung received the nobel prize for peace in 2000 in recognition of his efforts?

New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?

 Xenomancers wrote:
If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?

What risk is there? If the US does anything to him North Korea erases Seoul from the map, and that's not even considering the nukes. Meanwhile coming to the US and meeting with the US president is a major propaganda victory for North Korea. Of course they'll accept the chance if Trump is dumb enough to offer it for free.

Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?

It's possible. Trump is unstable and incompetent enough that I could see him being afraid that Trump won't understand (or won't care about) the political and military situation that makes doing anything to North Korea impossible and will let South Korea die if it means taking down North Korea. But fear of a madman with a suicide bomb isn't the same as fear of a competent and powerful enemy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?

Because it's the same old pattern so far, and nothing new has been accomplished. The only reason to see any optimism here is if you want to believe in Trump.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If Kim Jong comes to the US - something big is going down. You think he'd risk coming here if he did not have genuine intentions of improving NK relations with the rest of the world in a meaningful way?

Also - have you considered the fact that Kim Jong is probably a lot more scared of trump than you are?

Risk coming? You're acting like the US would immediately throw him in gitmo if he sets foot on US soil. There is no risk attached, if Kim decides to screw the deal he will be long gone to Pyongyang.

And if Kim is truly scared of Trump, that only makes Trump look worse at negotiating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
New leaders can make new change. Why can't you look at this in a positive way?

Because looking at this in a positive way doesn't meant throwing all history and background knowledge overboard. North Korea is inherently untrustworthy because the absolute monarchy does everything it can to keep itself in power and screw everything else.