Trump, Kim sign "comprehensive" document

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 12:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: Yes, they wanted to be apart of this summit, Kim even invited them. Trump and the WH however denied them the invite and went at it alone. Alienating them in the process.

I wonder what SK thinks of the US making "security guarantees" to their sworn enemy NK?

[NATI BENGALS]

If you are a fan of human rights its a loss. If you are a fan of dictators and feeding family members to dogs its a win.

Good people on both sides

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 12:47 PM)jj22 Wrote: So you attack my use of the quote function. Sorry guy. Not impressed. These are things people do when they have nothing to provide to a debate.

I asked that you please learn the quote function so your posts would be more easily understood.  If you think that's an attack then the internets may not be the place for you.  As for points being made, I provided several.  If you choose not respond that's your choice, but acting like none were made comes across as petulant and ill equipped to actually debate them.

(06-12-2018, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A big reason this summit is happening is because Moon Jae-in wanted it.  He is more open to negotiating with NK than previous SK leaders.

Precisely correct, Moon had a huge hand in bringing this together.

(06-12-2018, 12:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I wonder what SK thinks of the US making "security guarantees" to their sworn enemy NK?

Probably not a damn thing.  Or are you suggesting that we'd sit back and let the North invade the South again because we made a security guarantee?

(06-12-2018, 02:14 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: If you are a fan of human rights its a loss. If you are a fan of dictators and feeding family members to dogs its a win.

Good people on both sides

Let's put it this way.  One deal has denuclearization and doesn't address human rights.  It has an 85% chance of being accepted and implemented.

The other deal has denuclearization and addresses human rights. It has a 20% chance of being accepted and implemented.  Which do you go for?

[fredtoast]

(06-12-2018, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably not a damn thing.  Or are you suggesting that we'd sit back and let the North invade the South again because we made a security guarantee?

I have no idea what it means.  Any "security guarantees" that NK would need would probably be against SK attacking them.  That is the country they have ben at war with for over 60 years.

That is why I say it makes no sense.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no idea what it means.  Any "security guarantees" that NK would need would probably be against SK attacking them.  That is the country they have ben at war with for over 60 years.

That is why I say it makes no sense.

Good thing you're not involved in this process then.  I completely understand what it means.  It's a promise that the US will not pursue regime change if N. Korea plays ball on things to be named later.  It's an empty promise as it could be revoked at any time if N. Korea reverts back to non-compliance.

[jj22]

(06-12-2018, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I asked that you please learn the quote function so your posts would be more easily understood.  If you think that's an attack then the internets may not be the place for you.  As for points being made, I provided several.  If you choose not respond that's your choice, but acting like none were made comes across as petulant and ill equipped to actually debate them.


Precisely correct, Moon had a huge hand in bringing this together.


Probably not a damn thing.  Or are you suggesting that we'd sit back and let the North invade the South again because we made a security guarantee?


Let's put it this way.  One deal has denuclearization and doesn't address human rights.  It has an 85% chance of being accepted and implemented.

The other deal has denuclearization and addresses human rights. It has a 20% chance of being accepted and implemented.  Which do you go for?

Like I said. Not impressed.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-12-2018, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I asked that you please learn the quote function so your posts would be more easily understood.  If you think that's an attack then the internets may not be the place for you.  As for points being made, I provided several.  If you choose not respond that's your choice, but acting like none were made comes across as petulant and ill equipped to actually debate them.


Precisely correct, Moon had a huge hand in bringing this together.


Probably not a damn thing.  Or are you suggesting that we'd sit back and let the North invade the South again because we made a security guarantee?


Let's put it this way.  One deal has denuclearization and doesn't address human rights.  It has an 85% chance of being accepted and implemented.

The other deal has denuclearization and addresses human rights. It has a 20% chance of being accepted and implemented.  Which do you go for?

I still have my opinion that they royally fscrewed up with their tests. Like a little kid playing with fire who got badly burned. So they were eager to come to negotiations. 

Not many months ago i saw a story about russia basically buying north Korean slaves. Now we want to be nice to russia and give the fat evil kid a seat at the table.

Nk may not have nukes. But guess who is bragging about the unblockable ones. Hint. Its the ones who were buying slaves and breaking sanctions

[*bfine32*]

It is entertaining watching folks trying to spin a negative on this. I saw some clips where left-leaning media sources did the same thing it was equally as humorous:

"Nothing about human rights in a summit about denuclearization"

"We are alienating SK by working toward the denuclearization of NK"

"They're both fat"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 04:52 PM)jj22 Wrote: Like I said. Not impressed.

Given the content of your posts I think I'd be concerned if you were.  Thanks for the attempt though.

[Millhouse]

(06-12-2018, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's put it this way.  One deal has denuclearization and doesn't address human rights.  It has an 85% chance of being accepted and implemented.

The other deal has denuclearization and addresses human rights. It has a 20% chance of being accepted and implemented.  Which do you go for?

The common sense answer should be the first option as denuclearizing NK is the top priority over all else. 

Sorry, but if it means them having nukes while committing human rights violations, or not having nukes while committing human rights violations, I'll take them just not having nukes. Sometimes we cant have all the cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2018, 05:26 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The common sense answer should be the first option as denuclearizing NK is the top priority over all else. 

Sorry, but if it means them having nukes while committing human rights violations, or not having nukes while committing human rights violations, I'll take them just not having nukes. Sometimes we cant have all the cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes.

Precisely.  The North Korean state cannot exist unless it keeps an iron grip on its citizenry.  Since the entire point of developing nuclear weapons was to help ensure the state's survival adding human rights abuses to any deal simply makes the likelihood of such a deal being achieved remote.  North Korea cannot exist as is without said human rights abuses.  By tying the two to any potential deal you are essentially asking North Korea to disarm and then destroy itself when the whole goal of arming themselves in the first place was to preserve the state.

Arguing for human rights abuses to be included is altruistic but incredibly naïve and demonstrates a marked lack of understanding of the motivations of North Korea.

[Millhouse]

(06-12-2018, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Precisely.  The North Korean state cannot exist unless it keeps an iron grip on its citizenry.  Since the entire point of developing nuclear weapons was to help ensure the state's survival adding human rights abuses to any deal simply makes the likelihood of such a deal being achieved remote.  North Korea cannot exist as is without said human rights abuses.  By tying the two to any potential deal you are essentially asking North Korea to disarm and then destroy itself when the whole goal of arming themselves in the first place was to preserve the state.

Arguing for human rights abuses to be included is altruistic but incredibly naïve and demonstrates a marked lack of understanding of the motivations of North Korea.

And not only all of what you said, but not too long ago there seemed to be a possible path to war with them to get rid of the nukes. Now that path seems to hopefully been reversed in a peaceful manner to achieve that very same objective.

For the human rights, which the NK government is certainly guilty of and have committed crimes that should be punished by an international court, what can really be done short of invasion and occupation for a forced government change? I agree with you, not much can really be done there because of the family's iron grip on that country. Only way that changes is if KimYung wants to make drastic reforms to do so, which could lead to a coup from hardliners. Of course we have no way of knowing if that is even a possibility, but what we do know is there is now a possibility for them to at least denuclearize.

[Bengalzona]

(06-12-2018, 05:26 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The common sense answer should be the first option as denuclearizing NK is the top priority over all else. 

Sorry, but if it means them having nukes while committing human rights violations, or not having nukes while committing human rights violations, I'll take them just not having nukes. Sometimes we cant have all the cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes.

I tend to agree based upon "we are in this situation right now and need to move on from here" (meaning, we never should have let this get to this point, IMAO).

I'm no fan of Trump, as most of you know. But I have stated several times before that I think this may be a problem he is capable of sorting out. It is not "sorted out" yet, but I still believe that. North Korea has needed a 'different approach' for several decades now.

[Millhouse]

(06-12-2018, 06:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I tend to agree based upon "we are in this situation right now and need to move on from here" (meaning, we never should have let this get to this point, IMAO).

I'm no fan of Trump, as most of you know. But I have stated several times before that I think this may be a problem he is capable of sorting out. It is not "sorted out" yet, but I still believe that. North Korea has needed a 'different approach' for several decades now.

Same here. As much as I loathe Trump's rhetoric with our allies amongst other things, dealing with NK is perhaps the one area where his style might actually work.

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 09:19 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
   

with the 4 points, 1 and 2 are symbolic and broad.3 again reaffirms an earlier agreement between NK and SK. 4 is the only significant one. NK is going to return some remains and prisoners. Obviously that's great. Not sure if it implies we'd return defectors. 

The rest is just an agreement that Pompeo will meet with someone to handle these 4 points.

Thanks for posting that.  That Trump is talking with Kim, who is a "strong" leader unlike the cowardly Trudeau, is a good thing. Much better than talk of fire and fury and naval exercises near the NK coast. That said, further comments.

1. Not much there, as you say, except we agree to what Kim already agreed to, without defining "denuclearization."  What is NOT in this agreement is probably most significant for evaluating it. You for got to add that this is a "Historical first".

2. This is the kind of agreement you get without the groundwork/preparation which goes over technical details.  Denuclearization, as imagined on Fox news, would require inventories of uranium mines, processing sites, missile construction and testing facilities, along with a centrifuge count, an agreement on verification, a schedule for inspection with specifications for unannounced visits, and more. Until there is agreement--not just talk or agreements to start talking--on points such as these, nothing is really going forward.

Another indication of lack of prep--the impulsive cancellation of "War games" (using NK's terminology) and talk of removing all troops from SK, blindsiding our ally.

3. Kim was on rocky political ground at home--until this meeting. If he chooses to dig in his heels at some future point of denuclearization, his support might be stronger and more consolidated than before. I will bet you $10 that sound bites of Trump lavishing praise on the Dear Leader for this strength and smarts are playing over and over on NK tv this week. Did Trump HAVE to do that? Another historical first.

4. If I remember correctly, a meeting with the president was a dangle in Clinton's Agreed Framework, to happen after the nuclear sites were removed. Kim got that "historical first" up front, with a concession about US/SK "War games".  More importantly, Kim's legitimization on the world stage is the big win for him. Think of the photo op with Kim and Trump before the row of alternating NK and US flags--the implied equivalency. Kim is now talking with world leaders without US mediation. Meetings with 4 of the big players in the international system could mean less US leverage over the NK economy.  An outcry over such open dealing with a guy who murders family members and keeps hundreds of thousands in concentration camps may roll back some of Kim's diplomatic campaign, but that is uncertain given the expanding vacuum of international leadership. Genie out of the bottle now?  Can we tell Canada, China, and Russia to keep on the sanctions or else?

In short, it seems that this meeting has significantly widened NK's options while narrowing the US's.  They clearly have the most to show for it at this point. If Trump remains in power for the next year, he and Kim can keep up talk of meetings and "agreements" while nothing changes on the ground.  Fox may hold his feet to the fire if their commentators keep talking about specifics, so this could still eventually end badly.  A prediction--talk of whether/how Trump has been played will in a few months mean Trump has to show that he wasn't. That will begin to drive policy.

[Dill]

(06-12-2018, 06:11 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I tend to agree based upon "we are in this situation right now and need to move on from here" (meaning, we never should have let this get to this point, IMAO).

I'm no fan of Trump, as most of you know. But I have stated several times before that I think this may be a problem he is capable of sorting out. It is not "sorted out" yet, but I still believe that. North Korea has needed a 'different approach' for several decades now.

LOL your decoding of polit-speak is right on.

A comment and a question, though.

Seems to me Clinton's Agreed Framework was a good "approach," which could have been better managed. Bush/Bolton's rejection of that framework turned NK back on the nuke road, and quickly.  Even so, isolation and sanctions have, I think, also been a "good" approach given the remaining options after the collapse of the AF. Trump ramped up the pressure for while. One especially effective and new ploy was Tillerson convincing countries to send back Korean workers, whose remittances were keeping the NK economy afloat.  Hard to know if NK was brought to the brink of collapse by all this, but if it was, then the big summit appears to be relieving that pressure with no real return.

I don't see how NK can be "sorted out" without the kind of meticulous groundwork which prepared the way for the Iran Deal. And I don't see even that working without partnering closely with China, SK, Russia, and Japan. Do you see Trump leading such an approach? In my view, even if he got such a process started he would likely foul it up by contradicting statements by his representatives and impulsively adding or changing conditions in response to pressure from Fox and his base. He could not pull together the international support needed while at the same time insulting potential partners and threatening trade wars or abandonment of existing treaties.

The kind of "sorting out" I see most likely from Trump would follow a brief military escalation, a result with no real winners.

[Bengalzona]

(06-12-2018, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL your decoding of polit-speak is right on.

A comment and a question, though.

Seems to me Clinton's Agreed Framework was a good "approach," which could have been better managed. Bush/Bolton's rejection of that framework turned NK back on the nuke road, and quickly.  Even so, isolation and sanctions have, I think, also been a "good" approach given the remaining options after the collapse of the AF. Trump ramped up the pressure for while. One especially effective and new ploy was Tillerson convincing countries to send back Korean workers, whose remittances were keeping the NK economy afloat.  Hard to know if NK was brought to the brink of collapse by all this, but if it was, then the big summit appears to be relieving that pressure with no real return.

I don't see how NK can be "sorted out" without the kind of meticulous groundwork which prepared the way for the Iran Deal. And I don't see even that working without partnering closely with China, SK, Russia, and Japan. Do you see Trump leading such an approach? In my view, even if he got such a process started he would likely foul it up by contradicting statements by his representatives and impulsively adding or changing conditions in response to pressure from Fox and his base. He could not pull together the international support needed while at the same time insulting potential partners and threatening trade wars or abandonment of existing treaties.

The kind of "sorting out" I see most likely from Trump would follow a brief military escalation, a result with no real winners.

Okay... Wall of Words time:

The "Korea Question" should have been settled back in 1953. We just had no willpower to facedown the Chinese. Of course, it never would have gotten that far if an overhyped general hadn't pushed the attacks all the way to the Yalu River. Truman was not a great POTUS, but he was correct about this. The NK army was defeated and in the hills and we were sitting in Pyongyang and the flatlands. That was the time to make a peace on the best terms. Ah... Monday Morning QBing, I suppose.

Ike, JFK, and Johnson all put it in the background to focus on the anti-commie shitstorm they created in Vietnam, all of them hoping that NK would just quietly and peacefully implode upon itself. Like Cuba, it did not. We were so wrapped up in winning the unwinnable war in Vietnam, we hardly took notice as a nation when NK nabbed one of our ships and crew (see USS Pueblo, 1968).

Nixon had an opportunity when he opened diplomacy with China (still a great diplomatic coup, IMO). Unfortunately, his admin was crooked and would not be around long enough to develop that opportunity.

The Middle East and gas crisis forced Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr. to focus primarily on the Middle East ("Clean up in Aisle 5: Middle East. Thank you!"). Efforts from our side during those years were as half-hearted as the NK efforts. Once again, we hardly took notice when NK soldiers killed two of our officers with axes in 1976 (see Korean Axe Murder Incident).

Now, being a child of most of those generations, I would be remiss if I did not point out the elephant in the room during those time periods: the Cold War. North Korea shares a land border with three countries: South Korea, China and....Russia (formerly USSR). Visions of CCCP tanks flooding the thin corridor through NK to meet our troops always raised a cloud over this whole thing and was probably more influential than our fear of Chinese troops flooding over the Yalu.

(You'll notice that I tend to mention this land border thing quite a bit when referring to politics, diplomacy and other countries. It is something many Americans don't get right away because we only have two neighbors and we have pretty much kept them under our thumb for over 100+ years. We are pretty unique in that respect: 'Murican Privilege, if you will. Other countries see their borders a bit differently.)

That brings us to Clinton. With the fall of the USSR and our seeming "victory over the whole Middle East!" in the Gulf War, we felt we were in a prime position to do diplomatic stuff throughout the world. And the Clinton admin tried to. In fact, they may have tried too much. They had diplomatic pokers in the coals all over the globe: North Korea, Somalia (a nasty gift left to them by Bush Sr.), Bosnia, the former USSR states, ongoing stuff with Iraq, Israel/Palestine, etc. They had a lot of energy at the time and the cloud of the Cold War was lifted. They really thought they could do it all. Unfortunately, they ultimately fell short in almost every case. They came as close as any admin had come to creating the "Two State Solution" in Israel/Palestine. They made the biggest inroads into reaching deals with North Korea. But, ultimately, it was all for naught. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades (and large-yield nuclear weapons).

Yes, there were frameworks there which could have been built upon. Bush Jr. came along and they were not. Conservatives were very critical of the Clinton admins effort to become "the World Policeman". Obviously, I think there is some basis to that criticism. Unfortunately, like a lot of things in modern politics, that criticism was taken to extreme positions by many on the Right. The "stick-our-heads-in-the-sand" crowd re-emerged after 50 years of silence. This was ramped up to a new level after the 9/11 attacks and morphed into the "I don't see why we can't just go whup up on the Arabs, come back home and just leave the rest of the world alone!" ideology along with the "Second Coming is at Hand!!!!!... Let's help it along!" crowd and the "Finally!! Bad guys to point the finger at and create fear!!!" crowd.

Lost in the hype of the "Sole Super Power 90's" and all of the emotions after 9/11 was any sort of moderate, thoughtful approach to foreign affairs. Things such as just focusing on one diplomatic effort at a time until it is seen to fruition or verifying intelligence information before invading other countries. Considering the dramatic swings, is it any wonder that a bad agent such as NK would choose a policy of "Let's just sit this admin out and see what we can get from the next one."? For all of our failures in foreign policy in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's (and there were many), at least you could say they were consistent and pragmatic. In foreign policy, those are good things. Inconsistent and fanciful always end up biting you in the ass eventually (as we will soon relearn).

Bush Jr. did something in in 2002 that many initially criticized a lot. In his "Axis of Evil" speech, he targeted North Korea among with Iran and Iraq. There was a lot of speculation that this led NK to build nuclear weapons in 2006. That speculation was incorrect. NK was well on their way to developing the bomb long before that speech. What Bush and National Security knew at that time and most of the rest of us didn't was that NK was actively exporting technology such as centrifuges to create weapons-grade nuclear material. This was how Pakistan developed their bomb in 1998. We got Libya to admit to this and to turn over their arsenal. We also learned that NK had shipped stuff to Iran. The Bush admin called out NK on this and later revealed some of what they had discovered.

Overall, I'm not a fan of the Bush Admin. IMO, instead of invading Iraq we should have been invading NK. Hit the source. But the Bush admin did us a service by revealing the information and calling out NK. The unfortunate after effect was that any attempts to reach NK diplomatically during the Bush admin would be cutoff and NK pressed forward on their nuclear program and their missile program.

That brings us to the Obama admin. Their approach was a cautious diplomatic outreach. This gets a lot of criticism from the Right because 1) it was the Obama admin attempting to do anything, and 2) they didn't feel the Obama admin was trying to do anything (see Schrödinger School of Obama Criticism). The reality of the situation is that there was very little Obama could do at that time. Because the previous admin had called NK out, there was a lot of bad blood. In a situation like that, you have two options: 1) outright war, or 2) patient, cautious approach. Option 2 was the better option at that time. The time for war was 1953 or 2002, not now or anywhere in between. But the Obama admin was not entirely inactive. The continued to try and keep a dialogue going with NK and, perhaps more important, they kept Bush-era restrictions in place.

This has actually been a great set-up for the current admin. As much as they would deny it, there is as much (if not more) enthusiasm for getting to the table from the North Korean side at this point as from our side. They want restrictions eased.

I see this as a basketball play which took 18 years to develop. Bush Jr. passed the ball half court to Obama. Obama dribbled it to the three-point line, but instead of shooting passed the ball to Trump, who now has the opportunity for an easy lay-up.

[CKwi88]

Trump continues his administration of style points over substance points. Very little to really take away from this, negative or positive.

[NATI BENGALS]

^wrong it was a pass to Rodman who threw an allyoop to Trump

[Bengalzona]

(06-12-2018, 09:18 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: ^wrong it was a pass to Rodman who threw an allyoop to Trump

I don't know. It seems Rodman's best roles were always playing defense and being a big distraction for the other team....