The Summer of Summits

[*bfine32*]

G7 in the books and NK just hours away. Let's see if we can have a thread to discuss the merits of either or both without turning into Trump and going ad hominem.

G7- Depending on which side of the aisle you sit you will probably view Trump's actions differently. Some will view him as standing up for American's interest; while others will see him as petulant. Personally, I think Trump should be censured for his comments about allied leaders, but I would be curious to know exactly how much of the bill the US has been paying in the past.


NK- I think this may be the reason Trump lashing out at the Canadian PM. Perhaps a feeble attempt to show Kim that he means business. I do hope that the NK summit is fruitful and a road map is created to NK becoming a productive member of society and perhaps a move toward unification with the South.

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2018, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: G7- Depending on which side of the aisle you sit you will probably view Trump's actions differently. Some will view him as standing up for American's interest; while others will see him as petulant. Personally, I think Trump should be censured for his comments about allied leaders, but I would be curious to know exactly how much of the bill the US has been paying in the past.

From all accounts, things went relatively well at the G7. Even after Trump got things off to a rocky start with his suggestion that Russia be brought in, the mood was pretty good throughout. Though he was apparently seen dozing and just not listening while Macron was talking.

All in all, I have no problems with tariffs. They can be effective tools to help your population when you have an industry that needs a bit of a hand up. I think the tariff decisions being made are not being done in a wise manner and that is part of the problem here. The majority of economists expect a net harm coming from the new tariffs under the Trump administration, and I don't think this is taking into account retaliatory actions. That is what has really put the international community in an uproar, that the tariffs seem to be arbitrary and unnecessary. I think that the negative impacts to our relationships with our allies because of this situation are going to be hard to pull out of.

(06-11-2018, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: NK- I think this may be the reason Trump lashing out at the Canadian PM. Perhaps a feeble attempt to show Kim that he means business. I do hope that the NK summit is fruitful and a road map is created to NK becoming a productive member of society and perhaps a move toward unification with the South.

Oh, it absolutely is. Kudlow essentially spelled this out. I hope this is a fruitful summit, as well, I just don't have much faith in it being too fruitful. There are a lot of details to work out, and while I understand why denuclearization is the main topic I am not happy that they aren't going to be discussing human rights issues. I, personally, feel like what Kim will want for denuclearization should not be given without additional discussion surrounding human rights issues in the DPRK.

[jj22]

There's a sense of anxiety on both sides (Dems and Trump supporters) concerning how Trump will be with Kim. Fox and Friends even slipped and called it a meeting of Dictators. He's likely going to be much happier then he was with our allies as he seems to be when he's with Putin as well. Trump supporters claim they trust him, but after the weekend I see cracks in their thinking.

The thinking is Trump won't stand up to Kim, as there's a move by Trump to align America with Russia and NK and against our traditional allies in Canada and Europe. We saw this play out at the G7 Trump spent pouting because Putin wasn't there. I'm not sure what to make out the potential of the summits, but I hope he goes representing America and not Russia again.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2018, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: G7 in the books and NK just hours away. Let's see if we can have a thread to discuss the merits of either or both without turning into Trump and going ad hominem.

G7- Depending on which side of the aisle you sit you will probably view Trump's actions differently. Some will view him as standing up for American's interest; while others will see him as petulant. Personally, I think Trump should be censured for his comments about allied leaders, but I would be curious to know exactly how much of the bill the US has been paying in the past.

Censored? You're becoming such a minority within your own political realm... I think you're right of course. The US is putting themselves into a corner where there's hardly a coming back. Being the most unreliable partner in this world, displaying an attitude of being the only man left in a completely neutered world. It's deeply offensive and will not be treated lightly, I suppose. This will have consequences for centuries to come, and I don't see the US as a winner in that development.
Also, Putin back in the G7? What kind of crazy talk is that.

As for paying the bill, sure Trump is right in some regard (say defense spending or the automobile industry), hence I can understand some measures and maybe even some tariffs, but I miss explanations as well. At some point, I had the feeling Trump considers our sales taxes tariffs, as if the US paid for them instead of the consumer, and as if it weren't applied to all products sold. I often don't know what he could mean with his numbers except that one.
Also, I guess he looks at trade deficits and gets to the wrong conclusion that the world is taking advantage, while I guess what that deficit really means is that US citizens consume way more than the country can possibly produce, even in times of nearly full employment.

(06-11-2018, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: NK- I think this may be the reason Trump lashing out at the Canadian PM. Perhaps a feeble attempt to show Kim that he means business. I do hope that the NK summit is fruitful and a road map is created to NK becoming a productive member of society and perhaps a move toward unification with the South.

I hope that, sure I do, but I have zero confidence in that happening. Kim could have no interest in an unification with the south, or in any unilateral move towards denuclearization, and why should he. On the other hand, though it sounds like a cliché I also think he craves for the photo op and the sign of being accepted as a leader in the world.
Then again, when Trump gives away too much in exchange for little or even ineffective symbolic steps towards denuclearization, the message to other countries is, you want to get something out of the world, start building nukes as well, you'll get respected for it.

[fredtoast]

G-7 was just a bunch of huffing and puffing. No real new policy best I could tell.

The NK summit is interesting. I wonder what Kim is going to demand. People act like we need Chinas help to "take care of" the NK problem, but China loves having NK as a buffer between the west friendly SK and their own borders. China is in no hurry for a new regime in NK that is more friendly with the west. Also want to point out that a big reason this summit is moving forward is because the new President of SK, Moon Jae-in, is much more interested in making it work that former SK leaders.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2018, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, it absolutely is. Kudlow essentially spelled this out. I hope this is a fruitful summit, as well, I just don't have much faith in it being too fruitful. There are a lot of details to work out, and while I understand why denuclearization is the main topic I am not happy that they aren't going to be discussing human rights issues. I, personally, feel like what Kim will want for denuclearization should not be given without additional discussion surrounding human rights issues in the DPRK.

I could not disagree more.  I'd trade a guarantee of no regime change and even remove troops from S. Korea in exchange for complete and verified, by the US, denuclearization, ceasing counterfeiting US currency, ceasing malignant cyber attacks and a complete cessation on kidnapping foreign nationals.  As much as I'd like to see the people of N. Korea treated better I see that as a complete non-starter issue for Kim and of far less importance than the other items on my list.  North Korea developed nuclear weapons so they could preserve the regime, they won't give them up unless they get assurances that the regime will not be interfered with.  Getting them to loosen their grip at home is pie in the sky thinking, it just won't happen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2018, 02:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: G-7 was just a bunch of huffing and puffing.  No real new policy best I could tell.

The NK summit is interesting.  I wonder what Kim is going to demand.  People act like we need Chinas help to "take care of" the NK problem, but China loves having NK as a buffer between the west friendly SK and their own borders.  China is in no hurry for a new regime in NK that is more friendly with the west.  Also want to point out that a big reason this summit is moving forward is because the new President of SK, Moon Jae-in, is much more interested in making it work that former SK leaders.

It's partly Moon and it's partly that N. Korea feels they are now bargaining from a position of strength.  What many people don't seem to get about the Kim's, and totalitarian leaders in general, is that appearances are more important than facts to them.  He can play this meeting off at home as a meeting of equals.  As an equal he can give something away in exchange for something he can claim is of equal importance and not lose face.  On the contrary, if he earns any concessions at all he can play this off as a huge victory at home.  I say let him, as long as we get what we want then he can claim an overwhelming victory at home from now until doomsday.

[NATI BENGALS]

I had a dream last night Dennis Rodman, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un were having a meeting about world peace and nuclear weapons.

Then i woke up and the shitting thing was real

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2018, 08:47 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I had a dream last night Dennis Rodman, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un were having a meeting about world peace and nuclear weapons.

Then i woke up and the shitting thing was real

If only he knew "how it was supposed to work"




He really should take a Political Science class

[Dill]

(06-11-2018, 01:21 PM)jj22 Wrote: The thinking is Trump won't stand up to Kim, as there's a move by Trump to align America with Russia and NK and against our traditional allies in Canada and Europe. We saw this play out at the G7 Trump spent pouting because Putin wasn't there. I'm not sure what to make out the potential of the summits, but I hope he goes representing America and not Russia again.

I don't think Trump is intentionally aligning the US with Russia and the NK, though he is furthering their policy goals with nothing yet to show for the US. If you are GB, Canada, Germany and Japan you have to wonder what is happening when the US leader loudly claims the G7 ought to be G8 again and disses the leaders of our most trusted allies.

Trump's actions over the last year seem to align Russia, China, and the NK, not so much with the US, but with each other, and ever more closely than before. He has cleared a lot of international space for them (by which I mean, created a power vacuum), while giving them ever more incentive to cooperate.

US foreign policy realists have to be pretty shocked and confused right now as the US president most concerned with appearing "strong" seems to undermine US power and leadership at every turn.

[Dill]

(06-11-2018, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, it absolutely is. Kudlow essentially spelled this out. I hope this is a fruitful summit, as well, I just don't have much faith in it being too fruitful. There are a lot of details to work out, and while I understand why denuclearization is the main topic I am not happy that they aren't going to be discussing human rights issues. I, personally, feel like what Kim will want for denuclearization should not be given without additional discussion surrounding human rights issues in the DPRK.

Pretty sure there is not going to be any "denuclearization" under Kim's terms, unless the US agrees to get rid of its nukes and submits to international inspections too.

And China will ultimately have as much say in what happens on the Korean peninsula as the Koreans do. Russia will have some say as well.  But neither is included at the moment. Japan will WANT a say, and would have it for sure under any other president. Dennis Rodman may play a role as well.

From Kim's side, the NK leader has achieved the impossible: the first NK dictator to get a US president to agree to a meeting (on one try, no concessions!)--and on a world stage.  And before any discussion of the details which prevented other US presidents from meeting. The Korean people's sacrifices for the nuclear program have won this victory.  And if a peace treaty can be signed, then what is the rationale for the continued US military presence in SK? Or the naval exercises and bomber flyovers? Another Korean People's victory. This achieved, the turn not is to economic development. Putin and Abe want to meet with Kim now too. Already had a sit down with Singapore's Loong. Concentration camps be damned. NK's pariah status has been transmuted to celebrity as international corporations smell investment potential, even as US relations with its allies is fracturing.  Give the Pueblo back. Conduct a joint military exercise with SK. Vow never to kidnap Japanese children. Destroy 5,000 old centrifuges. Pull back 5,000 heavy guns from the border. Set a schedule for disarmament "talks," beginning maybe in August, and a summit with SK about family re-unification and/or economic coordination. Trump needs a foreign policy success very badly. Keep coasting with talk of "peace" and "concessions" and in a year it will be very difficult to maintain sanctions.

From Trump's side a A LOT has already been accomplished; no president has ever met with a North Korean leader so this is a HISTORIC FIRST. Obama never did that. Trump could get a PEACE TREATY right away which, again, no other president has accomplished in 70 years. Previous presidents let things go too far; now Trump is "handling" the problem. His sanctions brought Kim to the table, plus the military option. Hillary would not have done that. He got two hostages back. Kim knows Trump means business from the tough talk given US allies. "The eyes of the world are watching."  (Lol, just heard that on Fox.)  This will create jobs in the US. Ready to walk away if the deal is "not good."

The bump in the road may be Trump's claim that NK cannot reach the capability to strike the US, and that full, inspected de-nuclearization of NK is the US ultimate goal here. "In perpetuity and verifiable" as IL Rep. Allan Kinzinger says. Fox commentator General Keane assures Foxdom that the Trump team knows to sign no peace treaty UNTIL denuclearization.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2018, 12:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Pretty sure there is not going to be any "denuclearization" under Kim's terms, unless the US agrees to get rid of its nukes and submits to international inspections too.

And China will ultimately have as much say in what happens on the Korean peninsula as the Koreans do. Russia will have some say as well.  But neither is included at the moment. Japan will WANT a say, and would have it for sure under any other president. Dennis Rodman may play a role as well.

From Kim's side, the NK leader has achieved the impossible: the first NK dictator to get a US president to agree to a meeting (on one try, no concessions!)--and on a world stage.  And before any discussion of the details which prevented other US presidents from meeting. The Korean people's sacrifices for the nuclear program have won this victory.  And if a peace treaty can be signed, then what is the rationale for the continued US military presence in SK? Or the naval exercises and bomber flyovers? Another Korean People's victory. This achieved, the turn not is to economic development. Putin and Abe want to meet with Kim now too. Already had a sit down with Singapore's Loong. Concentration camps be damned. NK's pariah status has been transmuted to celebrity as international corporations smell investment potential, even as US relations with its allies is fracturing.  Give the Pueblo back. Conduct a joint military exercise with SK. Vow never to kidnap Japanese children. Destroy 5,000 old centrifuges. Pull back 5,000 heavy guns from the border. Set a schedule for disarmament "talks," beginning maybe in August, and a summit with SK about family re-unification and/or economic coordination. Trump needs a foreign policy success very badly. Keep coasting with talk of "peace" and "concessions" and in a year it will be very difficult to maintain sanctions.

From Trump's side a A LOT has already been accomplished; no president has ever met with a North Korean leader so this is a HISTORIC FIRST. Obama never did that. Trump could get a PEACE TREATY right away which, again, no other president has accomplished in 70 years. Previous presidents let things go too far; now Trump is "handling" the problem. His sanctions brought Kim to the table, plus the military option. Hillary would not have done that. He got two hostages back. Kim knows Trump means business from the tough talk given US allies. "The eyes of the world are watching."  (Lol, just heard that on Fox.)  This will create jobs in the US. Ready to walk away if the deal is "not good."

The bump in the road may be Trump's claim that NK cannot reach the capability to strike the US, and that full, inspected de-nuclearization of NK is the US ultimate goal here. "In perpetuity and verifiable" as IL Rep. Allan Kinzinger says. Fox commentator General Keane assures Foxdom that the Trump team knows to sign no peace treaty UNTIL denuclearization.

Is this a long aside to explain how Trump "doesn't know how it works"? Or are we conceding naybe he does?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-12-2018, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this a long aside to explain how Trump "doesn't know how it works"? Or are we conceding naybe he does?

I know when i voted for Trump one of the big things i had in mind was hoping we would alienate our allies and buddy up with North korea and Russiar. Its like a dream come true.

Better be a Trump hotel in NK.


For real though. Good on him. Making peace is great. His praise for dictators and what will probably be a big investment in NK isnt very America firstyish though

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2018, 08:17 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: For real though. Good on him. Making peace is great. His praise for dictators and what will probably be a big investment in NK isnt very America firstyish though

I just remembered this, but did anyone else see the Freudian slip on Fox News where someone called the meeting between Trump and Kim a meeting between two dictators?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-12-2018, 08:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just remembered this, but did anyone else see the Freudian slip on Fox News where someone called the meeting between Trump and Kim a meeting between two dictators?

A little insight into the thinking over at your favorite state run propagana center

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this a long aside to explain how Trump "doesn't know how it works"? Or are we conceding naybe he does?

Lol, Trump knows how international diplomacy "works."  Sure.

Read that "long" post. Then then think of something specific to respond to.