Kim/Trump Summit Disaster

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 12:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The problem is you can't call Kim out on it.  "Hey Kim if you didn't authorize this, then let's see the perpetrators punished." "Sure".  At which point Kim would grab a handful of guys and have them shot.  

A US president can and should call him on it. I grant it would be bad to call him out during a summit, but that is one reason why you prepare for summits.

Part of the prep for a world-class summit is having these side issues settled, condemnations issued, rebuttals etc. over and done. At the very least he could say Warmbier was a separate issue--no confirmation of Kim's lie then, and no risk to ongoing diplomacy by insulting. Just tell people "This summit is about nukes; we are working on the Warmbier issue through other channels."

Obama took flak for not raising the issue of one prisoner when he settled the Iran Deal.  It is proper there was no public discussion of that, and that the deal was not conditioned upon it, and O. kept his focus.  We have a lot of past models for this kind of engagement, and involving Republican heroes. Reagan's five summits with Gorbachev (1985-88) come to mind. Those resulted in, among other things, the INF Treaty that Trump just refused to continue. (Trying to think if there have ever been two world class summits in a row which have bagged nothing. Somebody remind me if so.)

Don't know if Kim would have his guys shot. Not a good move to kill your killers for killing if you want to keep them killing.  

If I'm Kim I don't want to do ANYTHING inside my regime because a US president called for it. That said, it is entirely possible somebody effed up, took a beating too far, and is now cleaning latrines in one of the vast gulags Trump supposed Warmbier was lost in.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 04:02 PM)Dill Wrote: A US president can and should call him on it. I grant it would be bad to call him out during a summit, but that is one reason why you prepare for summits.

Part of the prep for a world-class summit is having these side issues settled, condemnations issued, rebuttals etc. over and done. At the very least he could say Warmbier was a separate issue--no confirmation of Kim's lie then, and no risk to ongoing diplomacy by insulting. Just tell people "This summit is about nukes; we are working on the Warmbier issue through other channels."

Obama took flak for not raising the issue of one prisoner when he settled the Iran Deal.  It is proper there was no public discussion of that, and that the deal was not conditioned upon it, and O. kept his focus.  We have a lot of past models for this kind of engagement, and involving Republican heroes. Reagan's five summits with Gorbachev (1985-88) come to mind. Those resulted in, among other things, the INF Treaty that Trump just refused to continue. (Trying to think if there have ever been two world class summits in a row which have bagged nothing. Somebody remind me if so.)

Don't know if Kim would have his guys shot. Not a good move to kill your killers for killing if you want to keep them killing.  

If I'm Kim I don't want to do ANYTHING inside my regime because a US president called for it. That said, it is entirely possible somebody effed up, took a beating too far, and is now cleaning latrines in one of the vast gulags Trump supposed Warmbier was lost in.

Maybe I didn't say it well.  Hence the oblique criticism.  I'm saying it sucks that you can't use that tactic because he'd be more than happy to execute a few people to prove his point.  They don't have to be the guys who did it.

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 04:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe I didn't say it well.  Hence the oblique criticism.  I'm saying it sucks that you can't use that tactic because he'd be more than happy to execute a few people to prove his point.  They don't have to be the guys who did it.

Yes.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2019, 12:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bfine certainly had his doubts.

Nah, bfine was just giving the family the courtesy of processing the data and then expressing their views before giving them his. Oh I was also providing an opportunity for you and the rest of the open-minded to hurl personal insults.

As I said; if the family is outraged I join in this outrage. POTUS should retract his statement and publically announce that he holds Kim personally responsible for Otto's death.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2019, 05:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, bfine was just giving the family the courtesy of processing the data and then expressing their views before giving them his. 

So when did you get in touch with the Warmbiers to give them this opinion?

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 05:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, bfine was just giving the family the courtesy of processing the data and then expressing their views before giving them his. Oh I was also providing an opportunity for you and the rest of the open-minded to hurl personal insults.

As I said; if the family is outraged I join in this outrage. POTUS should retract his statement and publically announce that he holds Kim personally responsible for Otto's death.

And his heart grew three times that day....because someone else said it was okay. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2019, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So when did you get in touch with the Warmbiers to give them this opinion?

GMDino Wrote:And his heart grew three times that day....because someone else said it was okay. 

I don't need to get in touch with them to give them my opinion. Perhaps being a resident of Cincy they read the boards from time to time. If so they have my thoughts; if not, they have my prayers. Just so they know my reaction was done more so with them in mind than the dude who made the comments.

But you 2 have fun.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2019, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't need to get in touch with them to give them my opinion. Perhaps being a resident of Cincy they read the boards from time to time. If so they have my thoughts; if not, they have my prayers. Just so they know my reaction was done more so with them in mind than the dude who made the comments.

But you 2 have fun.

I am sure they will be thrilled to see that you refused to criticize what Trump said because you thought they might not be upset over it.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2019, 07:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am sure they will be thrilled to see that you refused to criticize what Trump said because you thought they might not be upset over it.

Be sure all you want. I've witnessed/ felt the effects of loved ones respond in many different ways.

If they are offended I would gladly apologize. As to you: par for the course; but apparently, no one cares. 

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2019, 07:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Be sure all you want. I've witnessed/ felt the effects of loved ones respond in many different ways.

Really?  How many of them were not upset when their son was tortured to death and the POTUS defended the person responsible?

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2019, 08:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Really?  How many of them were not upset when their son was tortured to death and the POTUS defended the person responsible?

Not sure what you're looking for here. but consider it found and get back under your bridge. 

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Business as usual with North Korea has brought us, finally, to a nuclear armed regime headed by a petty dictatorship and the closest thing to 1984 the world has ever seen outside the book.  Continued business as usual would not produce different results as the past 60 years should have adequately demonstrated.

Part I: “Business as usual.” This history is the baseline from which Trump’s diplomacy should be judged, his promises to end military exercises and bring home all U.S. troops etc. His decision to lead with his ace. Twice.

1         1953 the Korean war stopped North Korea from taking over South. The war is not over, and reunification of the peninsula under the DPRK is still policy goal #2 of the North (#1 being survival).

2         After 1958, when NK first began exploring the possibility of nuclear development under the USSR’s wing, a direct invasion to topple the regime was largely off the table, given the tremendous costs—including a likely WW 3—involving the new nuclear USSR plus China.

3         “Business as usual” since ’58 has included a KORUS agreement and 28-30,000 US troops in SK, plus additional forces in Japan and naval contingents rotating in and out of the area.

4         From 1958-2006, NK became a pariah nation, a problem for its former socialist block friends, while SK, protected along with Japan, became an Asian “tiger” with liberal democracy and a strong economy, another US military ally and strong trading partner. This is a good result.  (In 2002, Saddam Hussein had been contained In Iraq for a billion dollars a year. Thinking that was a bad result produced the Iraq War, a much worse result.)

5         The one realistic chance of preventing a nuclear NK, was the Agreed Framework of Clinton, for whose abandonment Clinton and Bush bear as much responsibility, if not more, than NK. Once abandoned, there was little the world, let alone a US president, could do to stop nuclear production beyond sanctions leading to regime change. 

6         Post NK’s development of nukes, “business as usual” under Bush and Obama, included the strongest sanctions regime in history, the prime motivator for the recent North-South talks led by Moon (wherein Trump saw his opportunity for a “historic first”). This involved not only the US and the UN, but also additional unilateral sanctions by countries like Japan and South Korea. This was/is the most promising diplomatic track available.

There is therefore no real ground to assume 1-4 and 6 have produced no results or bad results, or been “ineffectual,” or an “abject failure,” or to assume that “different results” will be better results—especially if Trump’s efforts to “shake things up” weaken sanctions and alliances, encourage NK to continue, and/or provoke war.
 

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get the nebulous concerns of some, I also find them to be abstract, and thus difficult to quantify or even prove.  ...  What I don't get is the labeling of this effort as an abject failure when it's still embryonic.  This is a marathon and not a sprint. 

Part II: on the “nebulousness” of some difficult to quantify concerns. The clouds dissipate if one compares the reach and power of NK from before the summit to after. And then the difference between a marathon and a sprint also becomes clearer.

1.       How many world leaders had Kim met with before the Singapore Summit? The answer is one—Moon of SK, on that very small peninsular stage, and motivated by the “ineffectual” policy of sanctions. How many world leaders has Kim met with since Singapore? Six and at least two more pending, plus Pope Francis is considering a visit. China, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Russia and the U.S.—some very large actors there, one of whom visited him at home. Indonesia invited him to the Asian Games in Jakarta.  Mongolia has also invited Kim. And Japan, fearful of losing its formerly secure place at the table, now wants an audience. This is not a draw power Kim had before the summit, and it is created by insecurity Trump has generated in allies.  The promises of “lasting robust peace” and “eventual de-nuclearization” are certainly nebulous, but these numbers are not. How hard is it to prove that Kim was in his box before, when he had never even left the Korean Peninsula, and now he is out?

2.       Can we not assess how our allies’ dismay at Trump’s handling of NK, including his publicly expressed desire to remove troops from SK, has increased Kim’s power? All we have to do is watch SK and Japan, who benefit most directly from the “abject failure” of previous policies which have protected them for six decades, and which Trump speaks of dismantling.  Trump’s threat of removing US troops—that makes it MORE necessary that Moon/Abe reach their own accommodations with Kim or LESS? If it is MORE, then does that give Kim more power or less? Before, Japan refused all diplomatic relations with NK. Now Abe has vowed to restore them. Why suddenly the need to SPRINT? We find the same dismay among Trump’s own foreign policy advisors, who (if Woodward is to be believed) have gone so far as to remove orders from Trump’s desk to prevent him from impulsively canceling KORUS. They TRY to articulate some semblance of coherent policy with goals, but, as with the ME policy, Trump changes his mind that afternoon and undermines them.

3.       So why don’t these allies/advisors recognize Trump’s negotiations as a marathon, not a sprint? Largely because Trump has treated them as a sprint.  He has ignored his PDBs and diplomatic groundwork and rushed to the big photo op. Compare this to the “marathon” whereby diplomatic relations were established with China or the ratification of Salt I-II or the Iran Deal and the difference from a sprint is quite apparent, with the President, the BIG KAHUNA, appearing in the final stage of a prepared process, a framework in place both sides understand, conversant with the issues and relevant diplomatic history. Days after the 1985 Fireside Summit Reagan did not express surprise that Gorbachev had not already begun removing Intermediate missiles from Poland. That was because he had a plan, understood what obstacles were still before him--that there WERE obstacles before him--worked with experts who knew more, and couldn’t care less about photo ops. He did not have to "walk away" from anything.

4.       Are the disincentives created by Trump’s non-summits really that “abstract” and/or “difficult to prove”?  We have seen how his bust up of the Iran Deal created incentives for allies to work around sanctions now (INSTEX). The disciplined network of internationally monitored and enforced control which addressed Iran, Russia and NK, and which Congress is struggling to maintain (see for example Public Law 115-44, the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act of 2017), took a serious hit. And now it is to be deployed against NK with its former effectiveness? By people who have no idea what Trump policy is from one week to the next?

5.       Can anyone in this forum identify a single substantial “accomplishment” on the US side (e.g., remains and prisoners returned) that could not have been brought about by preparatory, lower-level diplomacy, saving the summit for capstone achievement? And does anyone dispute that this traditional diplomatic tack would NOT have immediately brought Kim face-to-face with a US president to produce a “historic first”? For those who go by Trump’s actions, not his words, his unfiltered, impulsive choices do indeed reveal who he is, why he lost his first picks for Secretary of State, for Defense, and his Chief of Staff. And if YOU can see this, why cannot our allies and adversaries? Why not Kim?
 
 

[CJD]

I miss the days when our president was merely referring to Kim as Little Rocket Man.

Now that they've fallen in love, Kim definitely seems to wear the pants in the family.

In all seriousness, no American should be celebrating Trump's failure in this regard.

North Korea is the probably the biggest danger in the coming years and the fact that our President was completely unable to get a single thing out of him (while travelling 90% of the way to see him) is not a funny or partisan issue.

The World has a huge problem on its hands and I hope someone finds some way to deal with it without creating the next world war.

[Benton]

(03-02-2019, 01:16 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I miss the days when our president was merely referring to Kim as Little Rocket Man.

Now that they've fallen in love, Kim definitely seems to wear the pants in the family.

In all seriousness, no American should be celebrating Trump's failure in this regard.

North Korea is the probably the biggest danger in the coming years and the fact that our President was completely unable to get a single thing out of him (while travelling 90% of the way to see him) is not a funny or partisan issue.

The World has a huge problem on its hands and I hope someone finds some way to deal with it without creating the next world war.

I think trump is playing nice with the dictators because it's next to impossible for foreign companies to gain access to their countries without lopsided deals that make them unprofitable. Trump wants access to their markets for his company's sake.

Which is why I think he's going to explode not too long after his presidency ends and he's of no use to the communists, who go back to lopsided deal making with him.

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing about that.  First off, I will say that I sympathize with the man's family.  That being said, Trump lambasting Kim publicly over it will, a. not bring the guy back to life and b. damage further attempts at diplomacy.  Kim is used to zero criticism.  If he receives any he feeds people to dogs or straps them to an antiaircraft gun and then fires it.  I actually think Trump gave Kim a face saving way out of this.  I get that you don't think he deserves one, but I'd say a potential resolution of the North Korea problem is more important than holding Kim's feet to the fire in the press over this issue.

Lastly, and I know this will sound insensitive, but Warmbier made a series of dumb as hell decisions.  First, visiting North Korea at all is a huge gamble.  It's not like the regime's practices and intolerance are not well known qualities.  Then he commits a crime, giving them impunity to try him as a public spectacle and reinforce the ugly view of the US to their citizens.  Seriously, the guy went into a lion's cage and pulled its tail.  What happens next should surprise no one.

Am I saying he deserved what happened, absolutely not.  But if you take the extreme, and obvious risk of going to N. Korea you'd best be on your best behavior. 

Why are “lambasting publicly” and declaring that you trust him and believe that he would never do it the only options?

I don’t disagree that attempting to steal something from the worst dictatorship in the world was an absolutely horrible idea.

[GMDino]

So, naturally because he got criticism from the family, DJT walked back and claimed he was "misinterpreted" in what he said.

He's a coward and has no diplomatic ability.

That, followed by the 2 hour 20 minute "speech" at CPAC (with all the flop sweat) makes me worry more about his mental state.

Throw in that Pompeo got caught in not knowing what NK even said after the meetings and they really are the "Gang that Couldn't Shoot Lie Straight".



https://t.co/xjVCDdb9i8?amp=1

[jj22]

As Trump announces he'll continue to end the America/SK joint military practice, it's clear Kim has gained an extraordinary win from his manhandling of Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(03-04-2019, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: So, naturally because he got criticism from the family, DJT walked back and claimed he was "misinterpreted" in what he said.

He's a coward and has no diplomatic ability.

That, followed by the 2 hour 20 minute "speech" at CPAC (with all the flop sweat) makes me worry more about his mental state.

Throw in that Pompeo got caught in not knowing what NK even said after the meetings and they really are the "Gang that Couldn't Shoot Lie Straight".



https://t.co/xjVCDdb9i8?amp=1

The State Dept under Trump has been utterly pathetic. With the recent reports that Trump complains that his generals focus too much on national security and not enough on economics and business, it's clear that this will never change. 

(03-04-2019, 11:28 AM)jj22 Wrote: As Trump announces he'll continue to end the America/SK joint military practice, it's clear Kim has gained an extraordinary win from his manhandling of Trump.

"Deceitful man-child handed everything by his father who throws tantrums if he doesn't get his way" describes both of them, but one was raised to run a dictatorship and one was raised to inflate his wealth to get loans to build apartments and then not pay contractors. One has a clear upper hand in his understanding of these talks. 

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 11:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The State Dept under Trump has been utterly pathetic. With the recent reports that Trump complains that his generals focus too much on national security and not enough on economics and business, it's clear that this will never change. 

I go back and forth between maybe we were wrong that we wanted a non-politician or a businessman to run the country and maybe we shouldn't have elected the one who was a failed business man with a huge ego and a tendency toward childish behavior.

(03-04-2019, 11:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Deceitful man-child handed everything by his father who throws tantrums if he doesn't get his way" describes both of them, but one was raised to run a dictatorship and one was raised to inflate his wealth to get loans to build apartments and then not pay contractors. One has a clear upper hand in his understanding of these talks.