The Korean Summit thread - The post-summit NK nuclear expansion edition.
All of a sudden BCC seems to be paying attention to what Trump says.
BCC said:
dave23 said:You can't answer it because there is no answer. The site was blown up, any evidence, if there was any, is long gone'
BCC said:Avoiding the question is one strategy, I suppose.
dave23 said:What do you suggest we do about that ?
BCC said:Is NK destroying evidence interesting, backing down or both?
I said it would be interesting and it was.The North immediately backed down and yet all the bu****it that followed my original comment seems to have disappeared.
The backing down has been answered several times.
Yep. They destroyed evidence and got invited to the big boy table. Backing sown, indeed.
Good morning, all! Vigorous discussions while I slept 
@Smedley, the subtle point in that cartoon likeness of both characters is the resemblance to the commemorative coin - as was pointed out elsewhere, neither national leader’s portrait looks like the actual person, and the cartoon version is related to the coin version.
(This lack of resemblance in brass sculptured portraits seems to be a growing trend, if you’re following recent developments in the sporting world...)
Also, the cartoon was published by The Week, and is still up on its website for all to enjoy.
ml1 said:
ridski said:that's how it looked to me. that's why I can't get a job writing for the Washington Times.
All NK has to do is continue to agree to meet while Trump picks dates and then cancels them, and they look like the adults in the room.
My interpretation, given the things Trump is saying to the press, and the tweets, and everything else he's done is that he's treating this like one more season of Celebrity Apprentice. He throws out a cliffhanger every time it looks like people aren't talking about it enough. Will he rain fire and fury? Will he get a Nobel Prize? Will he cancel the talks? He canceled, but will he recommit to the talks? Tune in next week and see!
Do you think he’s waiting for twitter start up a hashtag to save the peace talks? #savethepeacetalks
I'm still confused by those who saw the possibility of a summit as an example of NK giving something up. NK has been asking to meet with US presidents for twenty years. Generally, when one party gets something they've been asking for all along, you don't call that a concession.
PVW said:
I'm still confused by those who saw the possibility of a summit as an example of NK giving something up. NK has been asking to meet with US presidents for twenty years. Generally, when one party gets something they've been asking for all along, you don't call that a concession.
NK is the big winner in all of this. They almost sound reasonable. No country in their right mind is going to go back up the US in tightening up sanctions again, especially not China.
This is the problem with the GOP this decade, it's easy to say you are against the black guy, but when you stumble into power, what are you going to do?
PVW said:
I'm still confused by those who saw the possibility of a summit as an example of NK giving something up. NK has been asking to meet with US presidents for twenty years. Generally, when one party gets something they've been asking for all along, you don't call that a concession.
This. Kim Jong-un's prestige internally in DPRK has gone up with Trump talking to him directly rather than as part of a larger group of nations. Kim can worry a little less about a coup (part of the reason why he rarely leaves the hermit kingdom and when he does it's usually secretly and by train). Meanwhile Kim has 1) developed nuclear material tech, 2) established it has long range missile capability, 3) destroyed a test site as a show of cooperation, which in reality was because China requested it, as the area had become unstable, and 4) released hostages who were of no real use to DPRK and could serve as a pretense for an invasion. Kim ahead of Trump and has Trump thinking the opposite.
Just as a caveat to 3 above, we don’t know if NK has destroyed the site. We do know that NK blew up 3 out of the 4 tunnels dug into the site, but we don’t know exactly the extent of the damage. It’s possible that NK simply sealed the tunnels and that they could easily clear the damage and re-open them at a later date. But, otherwise I believe yes, there was a huge threat of further collapse and contamination from a leak, which China was very worried about and they convinced NK to shut it down.
President of South Korea and Kim met again today.
Trump spin to follow.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
BCC said:
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
I’m starting to think you got your foreign policy degree from Trump University.
BCC said:
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
NK asks Clinton for a meeting. Clinton refuses.
NK asks Bush for a meeting. Bush refuses.
NK asks Obama for a meeting. Obama refuses.
NK asks Trump for a meeting. Trump agrees.
BCC declares NK the loser.
BCC said:
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
Well this is MOL.
joanne said:
Good morning, all! Vigorous discussions while I slept
@Smedley, the subtle point in that cartoon likeness of both characters is the resemblance to the commemorative coin - as was pointed out elsewhere, neither national leader’s portrait looks like the actual person, and the cartoon version is related to the coin version.
(This lack of resemblance in brass sculptured portraits seems to be a growing trend, if you’re following recent developments in the sporting world...)
Also, the cartoon was published by The Week, and is still up on its website for all to enjoy.
I just scanned theweek.com/cartoons and I don’t see it.
And, you lost me on the cartoon’s connection to the commemorative coin. Can you explain please?
PVW said:
BCC said:NK asks Clinton for a meeting. Clinton refuses.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
NK asks Bush for a meeting. Bush refuses.
NK asks Obama for a meeting. Obama refuses.
NK asks Trump for a meeting. Trump agrees.
BCC declares NK the loser.
And what was the result of 20 years with those 3 Presidents - NK with the bomb.
Are you suggesting Trump also refuse to talk to Kim? That should work out well.
ridski said:
BCC said:I’m starting to think you got your foreign policy degree from Trump University.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
You certainly know better.
Now, address my comment without the snark.
BCC said:
PVW said:And what was the result of 20 years with those 3 Presidents - NK with the bomb.
BCC said:NK asks Clinton for a meeting. Clinton refuses.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
NK asks Bush for a meeting. Bush refuses.
NK asks Obama for a meeting. Obama refuses.
NK asks Trump for a meeting. Trump agrees.
BCC declares NK the loser.
Are you suggesting Trump also refuse to talk to Kim? That should work out well.
None of the previous administrations achieved anything but I think its fair to say that you jumped the gun in declaring big successes based on preliminary blather, especially when it comes from NK. I'll believe a concrete specific deal when I see it. And I hope that you, BCC, will call BS if Trump tries to declare victory based on vague non-committal nice talk that comes out of any future summit because you know he is quite prone to that kind of thing.
BCC said:
ridski said:You certainly know better.
BCC said:I’m starting to think you got your foreign policy degree from Trump University.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
Now, address my comment without the snark.
I never claimed to know better. We have opinions, that's all.
Without the snark? I still fail to see how NK has backed down or is "running back" in this scenario.
NK asks for meeting. US agrees. US withdraws. NK still wants meeting. US still wants meeting.
Please, in your own words, tell me what NK did that leads you to the conclusion that they backed down or ran back or however it is you see it.
ridski said:
Just as a caveat to 3 above, we don’t know if NK has destroyed the site. We do know that NK blew up 3 out of the 4 tunnels dug into the site, but we don’t know exactly the extent of the damage. It’s possible that NK simply sealed the tunnels and that they could easily clear the damage and re-open them at a later date. But, otherwise I believe yes, there was a huge threat of further collapse and contamination from a leak, which China was very worried about and they convinced NK to shut it down.
Testing may no longer be needed. After you test your weapons and you know they work, you know how to manufacture them, why continue testing?
When was the last time we had a Pacific or underground nuclear test? We tested and got the bugs out. No need to further test.
Testing is done in the development phase. We're past that as is the UK, Russia, France, etc. And possibly NK.
But NK does need additional long range delivery missile development.
BCC said: And what was the result of 20 years with those 3 Presidents - NK with the bomb.
Are you suggesting Trump also refuse to talk to Kim? That should work out well.
If you will recall, candidate Obama caught a lot of flak for saying he would be willing to meet with NK as president. I'm generally in favor of talks -- and liked Obama's willingness to meet. But his critics were right that to do so would be a huge concession to Kim. And now Trump has granted that concession as president, but then also walked it back, so gotten the worst of both worlds.
BG9 said:
ridski said:Testing may no longer be needed. After you test your weapons and you know they work, you know how to manufacture them, why continue testing?
Just as a caveat to 3 above, we don’t know if NK has destroyed the site. We do know that NK blew up 3 out of the 4 tunnels dug into the site, but we don’t know exactly the extent of the damage. It’s possible that NK simply sealed the tunnels and that they could easily clear the damage and re-open them at a later date. But, otherwise I believe yes, there was a huge threat of further collapse and contamination from a leak, which China was very worried about and they convinced NK to shut it down.
When was the last time we had a Pacific or underground nuclear test? We tested and got the bugs out. No need to further test.
Testing is done in the development phase. We're past that as is the UK, Russia, France, etc. And possibly NK.
But NK does need additional long range delivery missile development.
Very true.
Here’s the link to the cartoon:
If you look at the coin, and read the many pages of comments on many many sites including MOL, the point is made that the portraits aren’t true-to-life. In fact, the portraits on the coin are very clumsily drawn and executed. (There are several other errors on the coins as well, indicating a rushed production process with little oversight) If you were to take the faces from the coin, and turn them to the angles required for the cartoon, and draw them in Schultz’s style, you get the result depicted. It’s a well-known artistic practice for parody or satire, and a similar practice is used in musical parody.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44247174
South Korea released a film of the latest meeting between leaders:
South Korea released a Hollywood-style film of the meeting
Countries will start making their own deals, without the U.S. It won't be USA first, it will be USA alone.
joanne said:
Here’s the link to the cartoon:
http://theweek.com/cartoons/775272/political-cartoon-north-korea-trump-kim-jong-un-nuclear-summit-cancellation-peanuts
If you look at the coin, and read the many pages of comments on many many sites including MOL, the point is made that the portraits aren’t true-to-life. In fact, the portraits on the coin are very clumsily drawn and executed. (There are several other errors on the coins as well, indicating a rushed production process with little oversight) If you were to take the faces from the coin, and turn them to the angles required for the cartoon, and draw them in Schultz’s style, you get the result depicted. It’s a well-known artistic practice for parody or satire, and a similar practice is used in musical parody.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44247174
That’s not the same cartoon.
PVW said:
BCC said: And what was the result of 20 years with those 3 Presidents - NK with the bomb.If you will recall, candidate Obama caught a lot of flak for saying he would be willing to meet with NK as president. I'm generally in favor of talks -- and liked Obama's willingness to be willing to meet. But his critics were right that to do so would be a huge concession to Kim. And now Trump has granted that concession as president, but then also walked it back, so gotten the worst of both worlds.
Are you suggesting Trump also refuse to talk to Kim? That should work out well.
Trump did not walk it back. He cancelled the meeting in response to the talk of war by NK and within 48 hours they were back, willing to meet at his disposal and talk at any time and in any format..
You were the one who brought up the fact Obama refused to meet. So I repeat, are you suggesting Trump should also refuse to meet with Kim?
ridski said:
BCC said:I never claimed to know better. We have opinions, that's all.
ridski said:You certainly know better.
BCC said:I’m starting to think you got your foreign policy degree from Trump University.
NK talks of war, Trump calls off talks, NK comes running back willing to talk at anytime and with any format and at Trumps convenience - and the loser in this confrontation is -- Trump.
Now, address my comment without the snark.
Without the snark? I still fail to see how NK has backed down or is "running back" in this scenario.
NK asks for meeting. US agrees. US withdraws. NK still wants meeting. US still wants meeting.
Please, in your own words, tell me what NK did that leads you to the conclusion that they backed down or ran back or however it is you see it.
I was referring to your 'foreign policy degree' comment.
Trump did not walk it back. He cancelled the meeting in response to the talk of war by NK and other actions and within 48 hours they were back, willing to meet at his disposal and talk at any time and in any format..
I pointed this out a number of times. I see it as a distinct win for Trump in what I foresee as a long road ahead, with both sides often being FOS as is usual in this kind of bargaining.
BCC said:Trump did not walk it back. He cancelled the meeting in response to the talk of war by NK and within 48 hours they were back, willing to meet at his disposal and talk at any time and in any format..
You don't understand the dynamics. NK says one thing, we cancel. Then they say something else and we cancel our cancel.
NK is calling the shots.
Did you see the nice movie South Korea made about the last meeting? South Korea has had it with us. They're realizing that we're no longer a trustworthy partner. The we're undependable. As have many other countries.
Foreign money managers are looking to reallocate, to reduce their U.S. asset risk. Foreign governments are working to set up alternative banking systems, to be based on non-U.S. reserve currencies. Banking systems that will isolate them U.S. sanctions. Bretton Woods II?
You know why? Because governments don't like to be told what their foreign policy is required to be by another government, like the U.S., under threat of sanctions. Such as the Iran deal. A step that's gone just too far.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
that's how it looked to me. that's why I can't get a job writing for the Washington Times.
My interpretation, given the things Trump is saying to the press, and the tweets, and everything else he's done is that he's treating this like one more season of Celebrity Apprentice. He throws out a cliffhanger every time it looks like people aren't talking about it enough. Will he rain fire and fury? Will he get a Nobel Prize? Will he cancel the talks? He canceled, but will he recommit to the talks? Tune in next week and see!