(06-12-2018, 05:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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"
Sorry sunshine. Things arent all rainbows and unicorns.
Like our deal with Iran there are a lot of things people have issues with.
In this one we have multiple bankruptcy guy who has hired a litany of shitbags taking a evil dictator for his word because he trusts him.
In the meantime he is straining relationships with trustworthy allies and throwing our support behind Russia who without a doubt is actively interfering in our democracy.
Can you honestly say we should all just be cool with that...?
(06-12-2018, 09:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Trump continues his administration of style points over substance points. Very little to really take away from this, negative or positive.
The first ever meeting between the leaders of NK and USA and it's "very little". At least folks are consistent. It is too funny. I'm sure many agree with Bill Mahier hoping we have a recession. Because anything successful done during the Trump administration is a bad thing.
(06-12-2018, 09:30 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sorry sunshine. Things arent all rainbows and unicorns.
Like our deal with Iran there are a lot of things people have issues with.
In this one we have multiple bankruptcy guy who has hired a litany of shitbags taking a evil dictator for his word because he trusts him.
In the meantime he is straining relationships with trustworthy allies and throwing our support behind Russia who without a doubt is actively interfering in our democracy.
Can you honestly say we should all just be cool with that...?
Of course no one should think everything is rainbows and unicorns and I spoke out on my views of Trump's comments after the GS7 comments. It's just this meeting was a great thing and one no one in their lifetime has seen. And to watch the usual suspects try to paint it in a badlight is humorous.
What adds to the humor personally is that someone started a thread about Trump thinking about legalizing medical marijuana (I don't need corrected on the actual wording) and someone asked "How could the left find anything negative about that". My response was "In the most ingenious ways". I was being factious (or at least I thought), but this thread proves, like most things, I was 100% correct.
(06-12-2018, 09:16 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Trump continues his administration of style points over substance points. Very little to really take away from this, negative or positive.
The first ever meeting between the leaders of NK and USA and it's "very little". At least folks are consistent. It is too funny. I'm sure many agree with Bill Mahier hoping we have a recession. Because anything successful done during the Trump administration is a bad thing.
(06-12-2018, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course no one should think everything is rainbows and unicorns and I spoke out on my views of Trump's comments after the GS7 comments. It's just this meeting was a great thing and one no one in their lifetime has seen. And to watch the usual suspects try to paint it in a badlight is humorous.
What adds to the humor personally is that someone started a thread about Trump thinking about legalizing medical marijuana (I don't need corrected on the actual wording) and someone asked "How could the left find anything negative about that". My response was "In the most ingenious ways". I was being factious (or at least I thought), but this thread proves, like most things, I was 100% correct.
The humorous thing is NK agreed with SK 2.5 months ago for complete denuclearization of the peninsula.
Trump went in. Praised a dictator and gave him a platform he didnt deserve. Ripped free press. And offered concessions for basically the same deal. And it is the best deal ever. Because trumpet logic
(06-12-2018, 09:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.
Well done B! Excellent overview. You are right about the importance of borders (I remember your post about Chinese borders last year, and the number of personnel required to watch it). Just want to pick out a few points of agreement, with a bit of my own coloring in places.
1. Exactly right about '53. NK defeated in '50. US in Pyongyang. But the failure to imagine why the Chicoms would be upset with a US satellite on their border and the arrogance regarding capabilities of "Asian" troops led to the fiasco. Frozen Chosin and divided Korea. At the very most the remaining NK sate would have held only a quarter of the peninsula and less than 10% of the population, if we'd signed a peace treaty with them.
2. Right about the Cold War too. Once the Armistice was signed there was no good reason to expend more blood and treasure in Korea when blocking the USSR everywhere else rightly took priority. Even if there had been no Vietnam I don't see a justification for going back to Korea.
3. End of the Cold War requires a structural shift in US foreign policy, a reordering of priorities--especially concern for stabilizing Russia, the Balkans and the Middle East. But hampered by the return of Pre-ww2 isolationism. When NK begins pursuing nuclear technology, Clinton rightly tried to do something about that. Sharing technology with Pakistan, by the way, is one example of the dangers posed by NK at the time--creating yet ANOTHER major nuclear flashpoint with another paranoid nation.
4. 9/11 creates another structural shift in foreign policy. Bush's choices greatly constrained what Obama could do. Trump's efforts to undo Obama accomplishments have left US FP in chaos. NK getting the bomb under Bush and a potentially delivery system makes it now a focus diplomacy.
Where we may disagree is over the easy lay up. Are those people around the basket on Trump's team or not? Hard to tell. Is Russia going to block China so Trump can make the shot or is Russia going to block the shot? My thinking is Trump would take wild shot and blame teammates for the miss. NK never had the bomb when Clinton dealt with him. Now they are in a position of power--equal partners. The easy lay up, if it was ever there, is surely gone now. Call time out and re pick the teams?
(06-12-2018, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is too funny. I'm sure many agree with Bill Mahier hoping we have a recession. Because anything successful done during the Trump administration is a bad thing.
lol... though I have to admit I've been there. Not with an US recession (because I love all of you deeply and insincerely), but in my own country, when I thought one government party to do/say/plan things I thought abhorrent and devastating. In many respects. No way I'd wanted those guys reelected, if it took a bad economy, so be it.
I only feel slightly ashamed about that now. I guess I get it.
As for Korea, my favorite leftist sources paint a picture of Trump giving up joint military operations with South Korea in exchange for nothing new or of substance. Are they wrong?
(06-12-2018, 10:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Where we may disagree is over the easy lay up. Are those people around the basket on Trump's team or not? Hard to tell. Is Russia going to block China so Trump can make the shot or is Russia going to block the shot? My thinking is Trump would take wild shot and blame teammates for the miss. NK never had the bomb when Clinton dealt with him. Now they are in a position of power--equal partners. The easy lay up, if it was ever there, is surely gone now. Call time out and re pick the teams?
North Korea serves a purpose for China. But it also serves a purpose for Russia. Notice that Russia and China are not nearly as concerned with North Korea having nukes as the U.S. is. In fact, they are almost completely unconcerned about it. Yet, they have been 'within range' of those nukes from the very beginning.
(06-12-2018, 11:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: As for Korea, my favorite leftist sources paint a picture of Trump giving up joint military operations with South Korea in exchange for nothing new or of substance. Are they wrong?
Yes and no. They are not necessarily wrong, on face value anyway. I think it is supposed to be a 'good faith' offering to wet NK's appetite for further negotiations.
Will it work? Yes. NK likes to get gifts, especially since they have never really felt beholden to any of the gift givers in the past. But if all they have to do is have more meetings where they get more gifts, then I'm pretty sure they will be onboard for that too. And I suspect that before this is over, NK will get a LOT more gifts. This admin and the GOP in general need the publicity of appearing like they are doing something. That may be even more valuable to them that any actual accomplishments.
(06-12-2018, 11:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: lol... though I have to admit I've been there. Not with an US recession (because I love all of you deeply and insincerely), but in my own country, when I thought one government party to do/say/plan things I thought abhorrent and devastating. In many respects. No way I'd wanted those guys reelected, if it took a bad economy, so be it.
I only feel slightly ashamed about that now. I guess I get it.
As for Korea, my favorite leftist sources paint a picture of Trump giving up joint military operations with South Korea in exchange for nothing new or of substance. Are they wrong?
Well he did say we were giving them up unless we see future negotiations are not going as it should. I have been part of these war games and their publicity far outweighs their effectiveness. So we've given up a propaganda act that we can take back whenever we choose.
As to the point of wishing for financial hard times for your fellow citizens; can't say I agree with it.
(06-12-2018, 11:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: As for Korea, my favorite leftist sources paint a picture of Trump giving up joint military operations with South Korea in exchange for nothing new or of substance. Are they wrong?
He's not giving up anything, he's suspending them for the time being. It's not like we can do a joint military operation in ten days if we want.
(06-12-2018, 11:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well he did say we were giving them up unless we see future negotiations are not going as it should. I have been part of these war games and their publicity far outweighs their effectiveness. So we've given up a propaganda act that we can take back whenever we choose.
Accidentally edited my answer away... In short, I responded - that seems a bit vague, South Korea now irritated, all at least not quite enough for me to call that summit a success... and also, the leftist interpretation, as of now, doesn't look unfair or misleading to me.
(06-12-2018, 11:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the point of wishing for financial hard times for your fellow citizens; can't say I agree with it.
I admit I see how it's bizarre. It's not completely illogical though, assumed one considers some other major topics more important than the economy.
If I'd have to choose a harder economical environment and some things I consider utterly important done the right way (or at least not the wrong way), or a good economy and the exact opposite happening on these topics - yeah, at times I can go for the first option. And the elections decide the outcome on these topics. So well, whatever helps then.
I'm not saying it's one of my proudest thoughts, but I sure had it.
(06-13-2018, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's not giving up anything, he's suspending them for the time being. It's not like we can do a joint military operation in ten days if we want.
Well, that's a bit of semantics, I do get it though, so fair enough. It's still quite a gift to Kim to even suspend them.
(06-13-2018, 12:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that's a bit of semantics, I do get it though, so fair enough. It's still quite a gift to Kim to even suspend them.
Sure. However, if you can flatter someone susceptible to flattery and give an autocrat an ability to grandstand back home without giving up a thing of substance why not do it? If you're trying to extract concessions from them down the road that is.
(06-13-2018, 12:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure. However, if you can flatter someone susceptible to flattery and give an autocrat an ability to grandstand back home without giving up a thing of substance why not do it? If you're trying to extract concessions from them down the road that is.
(06-13-2018, 12:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: That's what Kim said...
Heeeeyyyyyyyoooohhhhhhh.
I know you won't get that cultural reference. But seriously, it's hard to make that joke when every "legitimate" news outlet is talking about how Trump gave away the cow for three magic beans.
(06-13-2018, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you won't get that cultural reference.
I'm surprisingly fine with that.
(06-13-2018, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But seriously, it's hard to make that joke
Nah, was easy.
(06-13-2018, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: when every "legitimate" news outlet is talking about how Trump gave away the cow for three magic beans.
But what does my remark have to do with said outlets. I'm not an outlet. I see both spins in outlets, the ones saying it was a brilliant plan to show a gesture of goodwill, others seeing as an unnecessary gift without proper return and hence a bad deal.
Sure, it's sad that it was quite clear which outlet would say what even before the summit. But in this case, the "hater and loser" outlets seem to have the more solid point. Trump kind of got little in return for quite an irritating, not so unsignificant concession.
Granted, I'm preoccupied, in the sense that I don't think Trump is an exceptional negotiator and similar doubts.
(06-13-2018, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you won't get that cultural reference. But seriously, it's hard to make that joke when every "legitimate" news outlet is talking about how Trump gave away the cow for three magic beans.
Trump is from a society where criticism of a leader is permitted (at least for the time being, anyway). In contrast, criticism of Kim in NK is a literal death sentence. We in the West have always maintained that our leaders are better because of that criticism. And, for all of his perceived faults, hasn't Trump proven time and again to be a master of turning that same criticism against the very critics? In fact, I dare say that that may be the very skill that led him to be elected in the first place.
Trump criticizing critics is as ubiquitous in today's society as critics criticizing Trump. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
(06-13-2018, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's not giving up anything, he's suspending them for the time being. It's not like we can do a joint military operation in ten days if we want.
He's not suspending them he's trying to end them. It's caused severe push back from both parties, including confusion from VP Pence. It was a significant concession given it was Kim's main demand and Trump got nothing in return. No need for spin if you are applauding his work at the summit right?
And no it does not work like that in the real world of military operations. You can't just up and say hey lets have military operations we'll be there in 10 days!
Kim is not a good man and has done some of the most horrific things to his people since Hitler. A spoiled brat. That's why no American President has ever legitimized him on the World Stage until now. That's a positive, not a negative. The pictures comparing Trump moping and pouting with our Allies in the last 19 months vs how he is with Putin/Russians, and now Kim is outrageous. I'm glad people are comparing the two to see what is going on here, and I'm glad even Trump supporters are starting to get frustrated with Trumps adoration for Dictators like Kim.
Sorry Bfine. Americans won't be shamed for not standing with the "Honorable" Kim (as Trump called him yesterday), and we (on both sides) won't sit quiet and watch Trump get played for a fool by him. Trump got his supporters to stand with Putin, but Kim it seems was a little too much by their reactions to the concessions yesterday.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
For the record. North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie.
Quote:"Success doesn’t mean every single move they make is good" ~ Anonymous "Let not the dumb have to educate" ~ jj22
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
