North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

I'd argue that neither of them deserve it, but that's just me. If anyone deserves a peace prize for North Korean relations it's surely Moon Jae-In. As far as I can tell America's contribution has been waving it's military willy around, whereas South Korea has actually been engaging in diplomacy and has really achieved a lot.

I'm not sure that giving someone a Nobel Peace Prize when their main contribution was threatening nuclear war sends the right message.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" was a great line from Teddy Roosevelt.
"Walk softly, carry a big stick and brag about it on Twitter" is the 2018 version. Peace isn't always achieved by being conciliatory and walking in with your hat in your hands. See: WW1, WW2.
 
....Never even realised that Obama had snagged a Nobel prize until now. That seems a bit....weird to me.

But whatever, Trump winning a Nobel should be even more weirder. Honestly, I feel that a sitting president shouldn't even be eligible in the first place - I mean, isn't Trump supposedly doing his job here? Why should he win a Peace prize for doing his job? Or, is that something so monumentally incredulous, the world needs to award his Donaldness for doing something (almost) sensible?

I dunno. You wanna award him something? Wait until that Mueller thing is done and dusted. Then decide what you want to award him with...
 
....Never even realised that Obama had snagged a Nobel prize until now. That seems a bit....weird to me.

But whatever, Trump winning a Nobel should be even more weirder. Honestly, I feel that a sitting president shouldn't even be eligible in the first place - I mean, isn't Trump supposedly doing his job here? Why should he win a Peace prize for doing his job? Or, is that something so monumentally incredulous, the world needs to award his Donaldness for doing something (almost) sensible?

I dunno. You wanna award him something? Wait until that Mueller thing is done and dusted. Then decide what you want to award him with...
Its the ol two wrongs makes a right mentality i think. The justification Ive seen is always "well, Obama got one for making a speech" rather than "Trump did this and thus deserves it." I dont agree that a sitting president shouldnt be eligible, but certainly there should be a good reason, and the means that brought about the reason ought to be scrutinized as well. Someone earlier wanted to use WW I and WW II as an example, to use the same, if we award based on results and not the means as well, had Hitler won the war, completely, then certainly there would have been a form of peace and he should then be award the NPP. Surely as ridiculous an idea as awarding someone a peace prize by promising war if peace isnt achieved.
 
....Never even realised that Obama had snagged a Nobel prize until now. That seems a bit....weird to me.

But whatever, Trump winning a Nobel should be even more weirder. Honestly, I feel that a sitting president shouldn't even be eligible in the first place - I mean, isn't Trump supposedly doing his job here? Why should he win a Peace prize for doing his job? Or, is that something so monumentally incredulous, the world needs to award his Donaldness for doing something (almost) sensible?

I dunno. You wanna award him something? Wait until that Mueller thing is done and dusted. Then decide what you want to award him with...
Interesting point. Would being instrumental in bringing nuclear disarmament and a lasting peace to Korea, should it happen of course, be somehow not award worthy because of some potential and unrelated scandal?
Its the ol two wrongs makes a right mentality i think. The justification Ive seen is always "well, Obama got one for making a speech" rather than "Trump did this and thus deserves it." I dont agree that a sitting president shouldnt be eligible, but certainly there should be a good reason, and the means that brought about the reason ought to be scrutinized as well. Someone earlier wanted to use WW I and WW II as an example, to use the same, if we award based on results and not the means as well, had Hitler won the war, completely, then certainly there would have been a form of peace and he should then be award the NPP. Surely as ridiculous an idea as awarding someone a peace prize by promising war if peace isnt achieved.
I think the point of Obama getting a NPP for making a speech has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with setting the bar really low for future winners. It would be incredulous, should Trump and the South Koreans actually succeed in N. Korea, that he not get the award, given how low the bar was reset by awarding it to Obama. If you can get it for making a speech surely a few tweets should put you in the running as well:sly:

#tweetsarespeechtoo
 
Interesting point. Would being instrumental in bringing nuclear disarmament and a lasting peace to Korea, should it happen of course, be somehow not award worthy because of some potential and unrelated scandal?

....I guess it would, if that scandal, unrelated or not, brings forth doubt on the potential recipient's.... uh, character. No, wait, that's not the word I'm looking for.... Well, it sure would be awkward to award him a Peace something-something when he's sitting in a jail cell, for one... Not saying he might end up in one, but it's one of the several possibilities, no?

But, what are the criteria for anyone to win the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm asking, because I am genuinely stumped as to why Obama walked away with one. I mean, he's got that Snowden thing going on, which, in my eyes at least, tarnishes whatever legacy he left behind a great deal.

Hmm... why do I get the feeling that the people behind the awarding Nobel prizes, especially the Peace one, are leaning towards those candidates who are deemed popular/politically correct? I am probably wrong on this one and they are legitimately choosing on merit only. Probably, but, hmm....

Totally off topic, so don't mind me. Do carry on.
 
North Korea releases US prisoners, another so-called demand by Trump.
North Korea has freed three U.S. citizens detained for years in the communist country, bowing to another demand of President Trump ahead of his planned meeting with Kim Jong-un.

The three Americans — Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim — were released from a North Korean labor camp and sent to Pyongyang for medical treatment, the Financial Times reported.

Though out of the brutal labor camp, the men remain in the grasp of Mr. Kim’s regime.

They currently are believed to be convalescing in a hotel outside Pyongyang.

“We believe that Mr. Trump can take them back on the day of the U.S.-North Korea summit, or he can send an envoy to take them back to the U.S. before the summit,” said Choi Sung-ryong, an activist pursuing release of North Korea’s political prisoners.

The release of the three Americans marked another significant victory for the Trump administration, which also won North Korea’s agreement to discuss giving up its nuclear weapon program as a prerequisite for the talks.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/2/north-korea-releases-us-detainees-bows-another-tru/
 
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" was a great line from Teddy Roosevelt.
"Walk softly, carry a big stick and brag about it on Twitter" is the 2018 version. Peace isn't always achieved by being conciliatory and walking in with your hat in your hands. See: WW1, WW2.

Certainly, but I still don't think anyone deserves a peace prize for achieving it through war. As I said, that doesn't seem like it sends the right message.

Interesting point. Would being instrumental in bringing nuclear disarmament and a lasting peace to Korea, should it happen of course, be somehow not award worthy because of some potential and unrelated scandal?

I really don't think Bill Clinton deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim
Sooooo...is only Kim Sang Duk "also known as Tony Kim," or are they known as such collectively, as in, say, a musical act?
 
....I guess it would, if that scandal, unrelated or not, brings forth doubt on the potential recipient's.... uh, character. No, wait, that's not the word I'm looking for.... Well, it sure would be awkward to award him a Peace something-something when he's sitting in a jail cell, for one... Not saying he might end up in one, but it's one of the several possibilities, no?

But, what are the criteria for anyone to win the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm asking, because I am genuinely stumped as to why Obama walked away with one. I mean, he's got that Snowden thing going on, which, in my eyes at least, tarnishes whatever legacy he left behind a great deal.

Hmm... why do I get the feeling that the people behind the awarding Nobel prizes, especially the Peace one, are leaning towards those candidates who are deemed popular/politically correct? I am probably wrong on this one and they are legitimately choosing on merit only. Probably, but, hmm....

Totally off topic, so don't mind me. Do carry on.
Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore won it for making a movie. Anything is possible.
 
Al Gore won it for making a movie.
Yeah, that's a fair assessment of why Gore was awarded the prize. Jack Horner should get it based on the same merit.

Remember, Kissinger was also a recipient.

But who has won it in the past really doesn't matter. What really matters is that even if it's announced tomorrow that Trump will be awarded it, it still took him 39 times as long as Obama. Sad.
 
By thinking Trump deserves the Nobel peace price your essentially saying via butterfly effect right lol?

I mean you could say the same for Hitler, his defeat paved way for the greatest peace in world history.

I would wait till after Trump talks to the Fatman before thinking about peace prizes, this can all go south very quickly.
 
Last edited:
Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore won it for making a movie. Anything is possible.

Likewise, there's a historical list of people who almost certainly deserved a Peace Prize but never got one. The prize is at best a poorly administered popularity contest and at worst a cynical political tool.

I mean, if Kissinger can get one and Ghandi can't, the thing really has very little value.
 
Likewise, there's a historical list of people who almost certainly deserved a Peace Prize but never got one. The prize is at best a poorly administered popularity contest and at worst a cynical political tool.

I mean, if Kissinger can get one and Ghandi can't, the thing really has very little value.
Value or not it still looks good on the resume.
 
...Oh, Singapore, is it? Hmm. I thought the patriarch of the ruling family there is a big fan of the South Korean dictator from the sixties and seventies, General Park something-something? Forgive me, my memories aren't as good as it used to be...

Well, I hope nothing goes wrong.
 
...Oh, Singapore, is it? Hmm. I thought the patriarch of the ruling family there is a big fan of the South Korean dictator from the sixties and seventies, General Park something-something?

Perhaps so, but at a time when Korea was in turmoil that dictatorship was all that helped South Korea out of the dust. Park Chung-Hee is a very controversial figure (ultimately assassinated, possibly by NK) but South Koreans largely consider him to have been one of their greatest Presidents. If the Singaporean counterpart you're referring to is Lee Kuan Yew then he's dead. He was hugely influential in bringing Singapore out of the Empire and was very progressive in his political/social views, far more so than leaders of surrounding countries at the time (and arguably the world). Through his efforts Singapore stands very much on its own feet and serves as a diplomatic hub amongst the tiger economies. That (coupled with some truly luxurious appointments) makes it an ideal place for this meeting.
 
The "summit" between Trump and Kim Jong-un may not happen, as the dictator is threatening to pull out. Just when you thought the mule might be useful, it kicks you in the head. Peace and prosperity for the North would now be canceled, and fire and fury back on the program.
 
The "summit" between Trump and Kim Jong-un may not happen, as the dictator is threatening to pull out. Just when you thought the mule might be useful, it kicks you in the head. Peace and prosperity for the North would now be canceled, and fire and fury back on the program.

So if this does happen, then there's a greater threat the US will go to war with North Korea. With a presumed war with Iran right around the corner, there's a chance the US could be fighting two war on two different fronts at the same time.

You know who fighting wars on multiple fronts worked well for? Nazi Germany...oh wait, not it didn't.
 
So if this does happen, then there's a greater threat the US will go to war with North Korea. With a presumed war with Iran right around the corner, there's a chance the US could be fighting two war on two different fronts at the same time.

You know who fighting wars on multiple fronts worked well for? Nazi Germany...oh wait, not it didn't.
You know who else fought a war on two fronts? The United States... Oh wait...
 
Back