North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

[Johnnypenso]

Strikes me as the SK president played them both.

His approval rating went through the roof, he looks like the good guy for meeting with Kim and gets none of the flak for it falling apart.

Well played that man.

Because political popularity is even comparable to negotiating to avoid nuclear annihilation?

 

[Dennisch]

Judging the average reaction on the interwebs, it's almost as if people want Trump to fail in his doings, even if it means that peace will have to wait a bit longer.

These people should have themselves checked for mental disorders.

 

[Joey D]

Judging the average reaction on the interwebs, it's almost as if people want Trump to fail in his doings, even if it means that peace will have to wait a bit longer.

These people should have themselves checked for mental disorders.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Trump was going to fail at the negotiations spectacularly, but I was really hoping I'd be proved wrong and by some miracle, he did something that wasn't stupid.

Realistically though, not having the summit very well could very well mean we just go back to the status quo instead of an all-out war. Chances are North Korea will just continue acting like a tough guy but not actually doing anything and Trump will continue to act like the man-child he is. So really just a bunch of rhetoric that's fairly meaningless.

Part of me also thinks Trump is trying to push through a war before the mid-terms because if the Republicans lose control of Congress, there's a really good chance any war would be voted down right away.

 

[DesertPenguin]

The letter....

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/24/trump-calls-off-historic-meeting-with-kim-jong-un-607126


...had to double check it wasn't The Onion!

Not however a massive surprise given that the two sides clearly had very different end goals, the US wanting disarmament and NK recognition as a nuclear state.

That last sentence of the first paragraph is something a kid would say on a message board in retaliation to some trolling that he took way too seriously. It's a shame he rights his own stuff as there's no civility there at all.

 

[Scaff]

Because political popularity is even comparable to negotiating to avoid nuclear annihilation?

Did you actually think it had even a remote chance of happening, let alone working?

Given that it was setup with the two parties having utterly different aims pretty much made that impossible.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Trump was going to fail at the negotiations spectacularly, but I was really hoping I'd be proved wrong and by some miracle, he did something that wasn't stupid.

Realistically though, not having the summit very well could very well mean we just go back to the status quo instead of an all-out war. Chances are North Korea will just continue acting like a tough guy but not actually doing anything and Trump will continue to act like the man-child he is. So really just a bunch of rhetoric that's fairly meaningless.

Part of me also thinks Trump is trying to push through a war before the mid-terms because if the Republicans lose control of Congress, there's a really good chance any war would be voted down right away.

Exactly

 

[Dotini]

Judging the average reaction on the interwebs, it's almost as if people want Trump to fail in his doings, even if it means that peace will have to wait a bit longer.

These people should have themselves checked for mental disorders.

For awhile I've been worried that some folks would sooner have a civil war than see Trump succeed in the domestic aspects of his presidency. Now that Trump has armored himself in neocons, it seems near certain his domestic critics must content themselves with campaigns of regime change against Iran and North Korea, even if it means nuclear bombing. Should these interventions succeed, I predict it will not stop there, but move on towards ever bigger game.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you actually think it had even a remote chance of happening, let alone working?

I had hoped so, yes and I think this is just part of the negotiating process. It's rather important, especially to the SKs. So political popularity is comparable to negotiating to avoid nuclear annihiation? When I see the word "played" it suggests insincerity. Perhaps a poor choice of words?

Given that it was setup with the two parties having utterly different aims pretty much made that impossible.

I don't believe they have utterly different aims, in fact, I think their goals are quite compatible. Trump wants to look like a hero through de-nuclearization and a Nobel Prize, Kim wants popularity, to come off smelling like a rose and $$$$. The nukes are the Trump card so to speak. It's just a matter of getting the right price. Negotiations will continue.

 

[TexRex]

For awhile I've been worried that some folks would sooner have a civil war than see Trump succeed in the domestic aspects of his presidency. Now that Trump has armored himself in neocons, it seems near certain his domestic critics must content themselves with campaigns of regime change against Iran and North Korea, even if it means nuclear bombing. Should these interventions succeed, I predict it will not stop there, but move on towards ever bigger game.

*scans text*

...

 

[Scaff]

I had hoped so, yes and I think this is just part of the negotiating process. It's rather important, especially to the SKs. So political popularity is comparable to negotiating to avoid nuclear annihiation? When I see the word "played" it suggests insincerity. Perhaps a poor choice of words?

My post was a tongue in cheek observation on the party would came out of the situation best.

I don't believe they have utterly different aims, in fact, I think their goals are quite compatible. Trump wants to look like a hero through de-nuclearization and a Nobel Prize, Kim wants popularity, to come off smelling like a rose and $$$$. The nukes are the Trump card so to speak. It's just a matter of getting the right price. Negotiations will continue.

Kim and NK want recognition as a nuclear state, that's not exactly compatible with disarmament.

http://amp.slate.com/news-and-polit...-must-now-be-recognized-as-nuclear-state.html

 

[UKMikey]

The NK regime appear to be big fans of Kenneth Waltz's theories so I don't think they're getting rid of the nuclear arsenal any time soon. Given this it'd appear to me that further negotiations have more chance of success than attempting to bomb the country (further?) into the stone age.

 

[Blitz24]

They shouldn't have compared this situation to the Libyan one.

Exactly. While there are probably multiple reasons that they decided to get angry, the fact that Bolton even dared to mention Libya would definitely anger Kim's regime. After all, you're basically saying that the leader will be assassinated. I'm sure that's a very good way to make them happy.

 

[Famine]

So did Don pull out before or after Kim destroyed his nuclear test site in front of international journalists?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oys-nuclear-test-site-as-worlds-media-watches

 

[Blitz24]

So did Don pull out before or after Kim destroyed his nuclear test site in front of international journalists?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oys-nuclear-test-site-as-worlds-media-watches

According to the Times, it occurred BEFORE it was cancelled. Then again, if you believe the experts, the site destruction was a formality because it was probably damaged beyond repair.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-nuclear-test-site.html

 

[ryzno]

Exactly. While there are probably multiple reasons that they decided to get angry, the fact that Bolton even dared to mention Libya would definitely anger Kim's regime. After all, you're basically saying that the leader will be assassinated. I'm sure that's a very good way to make them happy.

This should be a perfect example of everyone in DC lying cause they hate Trump. Destroying America is just a sacrifice for the cause.
Just imagine all the other lies about him. Oh yeah, no one cares, its Trump...

*not directed at you
*my opinion

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The NK regime appear to be big fans of Kenneth Waltz's theories so I don't think they're getting rid of the nuclear arsenal any time soon. Given this it'd appear to me that the further negotiations have more chance of success than attempting to bomb the country (further?) into the stone age.

Many of us have long said this though. So it's not too surprising. Then again I'm more of the school of thought Scott Sagan provides.

 

[Rallywagon]

bahh, should have read further... No need to parrot the praise of Trumps awesomeness.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Kim and NK want recognition as a nuclear state, that's not exactly compatible with disarmament.

http://amp.slate.com/news-and-polit...-must-now-be-recognized-as-nuclear-state.html

That's an opinion piece but it does include this:

Part of what is driving the cautious optimism is that Kim also seems to be ready to start placing a bigger emphasis on economic development and he may be willing to make concessions in exchange for growth. “We have looked only on the nuclear side of Kim Jong-un’s rule, trying hard not to look at the other side. He is ready to bargain away nuclear weapons for the sake of economic development,” said Lee Jong-seok, a former unification minister of South Korea.

 

[Scaff]

That's an opinion piece but it does include this:

So the south now speak for the north?

NK has been clear all along that they are not willing to disarm, wanting to be recognised as a nuclear state.

Why on earth would they give up what is in reality the only real bargaining card they have?

Blind optimism on the part of the US and SK doesn't suddenly make something true, and I must confess to finding the whole thing absurd. The very same administration that doesn't trust a word Iran says, blindly assumed that NK was going to suddenly be an honest broker! That's either stunningly incompetent or wildly and absurdly optimistic.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This should be a perfect example of everyone in DC lying cause they hate Trump. Destroying America is just a sacrifice for the cause.
Just imagine all the other lies about him. Oh yeah, no one cares, its Trump...

Hang on... are you saying that Bolton was lying to destroy Trump?

 

[UKMikey]

Then again I'm more of the school of thought Scott Sagan provides.

I would hope most people are when it comes to non proliferation of nuclear weapons. But I was addressing @Dotini's post which suggested Trump's critics at home wanted peace via nuclear war. Personally I thought that would've been more Bolton's thing.

 

[Dotini]

Hang on... are you saying that Bolton was lying to destroy Trump?

Everything that comes out of Bolton's mouth is cynically subservient to the neocon mission, and tantamount to a lie. Before the neocons were employed by and "for" Trump, they were deadset against him. He is merely a diseased horse to be ridden until it falls over. When Bolton suggests to Kim that he will get a sword up his asshole if he doesn't do as we wish, he is exercising the neocon playbook - all the open and naked intimidation, aggression and lethal force necessary to achieve the mission.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Everything that comes out of Bolton's mouth is cynically subservient to the neocon mission, and tantamount to a lie. Before the neocons were employed by and "for" Trump, they were deadset against him. He is merely a diseased horse to be ridden until it falls over. When Bolton suggests to Kim that he will get a sword up his asshole if he doesn't do as we wish, he is exercising the neocon playbook - all the open and naked intimidation, aggression and lethal force necessary to achieve the mission.

Perhaps so, but I wondered if @ryzno saw Bolton as an enemy outside the tent pissing inwards or vice versa.

 

[Dotini]

Perhaps so, but I wondered if @ryzno saw Bolton as an enemy outside the tent pissing inwards or vice versa.

While you're at it, you may as well ask him the same question about Pence. Both have sabotaged the NK talks.

But wait! There may be a silver lining to all this madness: Pending military action against NK may forestall similar action against Iran. Sadly, the US can't bomb everyone and everywhere all at once. We have wasted too many on Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, etc, etc., and are currently running low on our inventory of bombs.

 

[ryzno]

Hang on... are you saying that Bolton was lying to destroy Trump?

I think so.

While you're at it, you may as well ask him the same question about Pence. Both have sabotaged the NK talks.

But wait! There may be a silver lining to all this madness: Pending military action against NK may forestall similar action against Iran. Sadly, the US can't bomb everyone and everywhere all at once. We have wasted too many on Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, etc, etc., and are currently running low on our inventory of bombs.

Wouldn't say no.

 

[Imari]

So the south now speak for the north?

NK has been clear all along that they are not willing to disarm, wanting to be recognised as a nuclear state.

Why on earth would they give up what is in reality the only real bargaining card they have?

Blind optimism on the part of the US and SK doesn't suddenly make something true, and I must confess to finding the whole thing absurd. The very same administration that doesn't trust a word Iran says, blindly assumed that NK was going to suddenly be an honest broker! That's either stunningly incompetent or wildly and absurdly optimistic.

I imagine NK would disarm for the right deal, but at this particular stage of the game it would have to be staggeringly good. And given the US ability to flip flop on past administrations commitments as seen with Iran, there would have to be some spectacular enforcement measures to ensure that the US doesn't renege on their part of the deal.

Frankly, the US has walked themselves into a position where NK probably can't accept a deal that includes disarmament. The US can't be trusted to provide the security that NK would need were they to give up nukes, nor can the US be trusted to maintain their support or commitments in the long term. There are recent examples that demonstrate this.

Thus, NK has to retain the ability to defend itself, including against the US, and that means they need nukes. I don't see how there's anything the US could give or promise that would be anywhere near the value of a nuclear deterrent to NK. Money or economic aid is no good if your country doesn't exist.

And this is why it's important to maintain diplomacy and uphold the past commitments of your country and previous administrations, even if you don't agree with them. Reputation is more valuable than any single deal, treaty or promise. Without the ability to make offer reasonable diplomatic solutions, the only US options are to walk away or to go full retard.

 

[TexRex]

Hang on... are you saying that Bolton was lying to destroy Trump?

I think so.

But...Trump appointed Bolton--despite numerous assertions that such a move would be ill-advised--to replace H.R. McMaster as national security advisor. That doesn't make sense.

Or is it another case of Cheeto Supreme surrounding himself with the wrong people? But that's what the left asserts, so it must be wrong...right?

 

[ryzno]

But...Trump appointed Bolton--despite numerous assertions that such a move would be ill-advised--to replace H.R. McMaster as national security advisor. That doesn't make sense.

Or is it another case of Cheeto Supreme surrounding himself with the wrong people? But that's what the left asserts, so it must be wrong...right?

No. As much as he brags, he was never a DC "insider". He never knew the ins and outs or who to trust.
I do believe both sides dislike him.

 

[TexRex]

No. As much as he brags, he was never a DC "insider". He never knew the ins and outs or who to trust.
I do believe both sides dislike him.

Okay, you asserted that you believe Bolton lied to destroy Trump, even though Trump appointed him. So what happened there? Why would Trump appoint such a wildcard--a maverick, if you will--despite being advised not to do so?

 

[Scaff]

I imagine NK would disarm for the right deal, but at this particular stage of the game it would have to be staggeringly good. And given the US ability to flip flop on past administrations commitments as seen with Iran, there would have to be some spectacular enforcement measures to ensure that the US doesn't renege on their part of the deal.

Frankly, the US has walked themselves into a position where NK probably can't accept a deal that includes disarmament. The US can't be trusted to provide the security that NK would need were they to give up nukes, nor can the US be trusted to maintain their support or commitments in the long term. There are recent examples that demonstrate this.

Thus, NK has to retain the ability to defend itself, including against the US, and that means they need nukes. I don't see how there's anything the US could give or promise that would be anywhere near the value of a nuclear deterrent to NK. Money or economic aid is no good if your country doesn't exist.

And this is why it's important to maintain diplomacy and uphold the past commitments of your country and previous administrations, even if you don't agree with them. Reputation is more valuable than any single deal, treaty or promise. Without the ability to make offer reasonable diplomatic solutions, the only US options are to walk away or to go full retard.

After wants happened with Iran I don't think they would at all.

 

[Imari]

After wants happened with Iran I don't think they would at all.

Perhaps that's a better way of putting it. I think at one stage they might have, but after Iran they couldn't possibly.

Although I guess even before the US walked away on Iran there was probably ample evidence that making such deals was pretty dangerous. There's a reasonable list of countries that have been allies of the US that have been thrown under the bus when it suits.

I also have a nasty suspicion that there are those in power in the US that want a war, not necessarily with NK but with anyone. Not the actual military, the military know what a war entails and while they're willing to do their part they correctly view it as a last resort. But there's a whole bunch of politicians and lobbyists that profit from there being military "consumption" as it were, and that don't get affected by any of the negatives. The US has largely backed out of most of the major conflicts of the last 20 or 30 years, and so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was not so much a push to go to war, but a lack of willingness to put any effort into avoiding it.