The Korean Summit thread - The post-summit NK nuclear expansion edition.
BG9 said:
Klinker said:They were handed over many years ago, before Trump.
High minded values are all fine and well but voting in such a way that the keys to nuclear armageddon are handed to a deranged narcissistic 70 year old infant is utterly immoral.
I did not lose much sleep worrying that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama would start a nuclear war. All three were flawed men but that was not one of my concerns.
Trump and his reality T.V. saber-rattling increases the risk of accidental war. Of course, I suppose there were some in his administration who really did think that a bloody-nose attack on NK would have worked out well without losing Seoul in the process.
terp said:
The sad thing about America right now isn't Trump. It's the fact that his opposition isn't questioning the model where we have a popularity contest every 4 years to elect someone to a hyper-powerful position befitting of a monarch.
It's both, actually. Congress has abdicated its responsibilities more every term.
After witnessing 18 months of Trump, anyone who thinks that voting for Prez is a waste of time is 17 kinds of stupid, and 18 kinds of moral bankruptcy.
eta: the same goes for anyone who voted 3rd party, btw.
the cliche is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. But it's also still lesser. I'm pretty sure Al Gore's foreign policy would have involved killing thousands of people around the world. But I doubt he would have devastated an entire country of nearly 50 million people. So yes, it's evil to kill thousands. But it's far worse to rain death, devastation and misery on tens of millions.
Klinker said:
BG9 said:I did not lose much sleep worrying that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama would start a nuclear war. All three were flawed men but that was not one of my concerns.
Klinker said:They were handed over many years ago, before Trump.
High minded values are all fine and well but voting in such a way that the keys to nuclear armageddon are handed to a deranged narcissistic 70 year old infant is utterly immoral.
Neither did I. You and Klinker are correct.
I misread Klinker's comment, misreading he was talking about Kim being handed the keys.
My point is there was no earth shattering nuclear crisis before Trump even though Kim had his nuclear keys well before.
It was with Trump we were informed we has a "crisis" with the help of the usual supine media, followed with our "hero" president saving us.
A Trump manufactured crisis and a Trump manufactured savior (himself).
ml1 said:
the cliche is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. But it's also still lesser. I'm pretty sure Al Gore's foreign policy would have involved killing thousands of people around the world. But I doubt he would have devastated an entire country of nearly 50 million people. So yes, it's evil to kill thousands. But it's far worse to rain death, devastation and misery on tens of millions.
It's good to know that Trump assured the parents of soldiers who died in the Korean War that he would work to bring their sons home.
Klinker said:
I did not lose much sleep worrying that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama would start a nuclear war. All three were flawed men but that was not one of my concerns.
Really? George W Bush's administration argued for first strike against Iran(I believe) based on the argument that Iran is just crazy enough to use them. During the election, Obama's former Secretary of State argued continually to shoot down Russian Jets over Syria as a matter of policy.
LOST said:
terp,
What do you suggest?
Or to quote Lenin,
"What is to be done"?
Go back to Constitutional values. De-Centralize government as was the original intent. The centralization of power is the problem. One person shouldn't matter as much as it seems to. That is not what we're about.
It is going to be tough as the centralization continues and nobody wants to abdicate power. But if the government answers to the people as is claimed here, then if enough people do the right thing maybe we could move towards localizing power.
It's a long shot AFAICT, but the alternative strikes me as pretty grim. Step 1 is to have enough people stop worrying if their vote will count and vote their conscience.
The system seems rigged to elect people who will perpetuate the centralization of power. However, if we can vote Trump in, it would seem that anything is possible.
ETA: Don't stop being you. You're my favorite poster on here. You and I don't agree on much, but you are curious and good natured. Respect.
Klinker said:
High minded values are all fine and well but voting in such a way that the keys to nuclear armageddon are handed to a deranged narcissistic 70 year old infant is utterly immoral.
I don't think the problem is all in the result. Perhaps, it's the system as well. IOW, don't hate the player, hate the game
terp said:
Klinker said:
High minded values are all fine and well but voting in such a way that the keys to nuclear armageddon are handed to a deranged narcissistic 70 year old infant is utterly immoral.
I don't think the problem is all in the result. Perhaps, it's the system as well. IOW, don't hate the player, hate the game
Sure, but if one particular player is going to poop all over the card table and then light the house on fire, whatever else you do, toss him out.
terp said:
Klinker said:Really? George W Bush's administration argued for first strike against Iran(I believe) based on the argument that Iran is just crazy enough to use them. During the election, Obama's former Secretary of State argued continually to shoot down Russian Jets over Syria as a matter of policy.
I did not lose much sleep worrying that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama would start a nuclear war. All three were flawed men but that was not one of my concerns.
There's a big difference between some kook in the administration arguing for a policy that is never adopted and the President himself suggesting something. I think you have lost your sense of perspective.
I mean, here you are blah, blah, blaming and meanwhile, real people are having their kids taken from them and locked in Walmarts while the Interior Department guarantees the right of every business owner to pour toxic waste into the waterways.
One week after the summit, it's time to admit this thing was closer to a clusterflock than not.
NK literally gave us nothing - except a possible promise to work for more.
Trump gave NK prestige, propaganda material, unwarranted praise for Kim from an American President and a weakening of our military position in SK.
We got taken - bigly.
How is this a plus for the U.S. - in any way?
overall I don’t think anything has changed in 1 week so the 377 comments in this thread are still valid in terms of peoples opinions, for and against.
My opinion in a nutshell, is that two long-time adversaries directly talking to each other at the highest level is better than not talking. The upshot of this first step is less risk of nuclear war. So that’s my plus for the U.S.
It's only "less risk" because Trump behaved like an ahole in the past year.
I don't see that as a plus.
Smedley said:
Well Bernie Sanders and I would have to disagree with you.
Bernie simply said that the meeting was a good start. If nothing meaningful follows from the meeting, then it is a loss for us. Trump, of course, cares about nothing but remaining the center of attention and moving from one photo op to the next.
tjohn said:
Smedley said:Bernie simply said that the meeting was a good start.
Well Bernie Sanders and I would have to disagree with you.
-Yes I know. That's my view as well. Differs from the 'clusterflock' characterization that seems to be the general consensus on here.
If nothing meaningful follows from the meeting, then it is a loss for us.
-Things might fray and not move forward at any time. But I don't know why this not working out and being back on square one would go in the L column. Staying the course, i.e. having no dialogue except saber-rattling, pretty much assures the same outcome. The meeting at least was a different approach to try for a different outcome. Some chance is better than no chance.
The only way I see this being a loss would be if KJU is in fact 100% duplicitous and scheming, has zero intention of following through on anything, and is only using this to his own advantage. This is certainly possible, but I see it as a low-probability scenario.
Trump, of course, cares about nothing but remaining the center of attention and moving from one photo op to the next.
-No comment.
Of course, the whole process reeks of mob fire insurance as well. Trump engaged in intense and infantile saber-rattling until the two Koreas went around Trump and started to make nice. Trump then followed suit.
terp said:
LOST said:Go back to Constitutional values. De-Centralize government as was the original intent. The centralization of power is the problem. One person shouldn't matter as much as it seems to. That is not what we're about.
terp,
What do you suggest?
Or to quote Lenin,
"What is to be done"?
It is going to be tough as the centralization continues and nobody wants to abdicate power. But if the government answers to the people as is claimed here, then if enough people do the right thing maybe we could move towards localizing power.
It's a long shot AFAICT, but the alternative strikes me as pretty grim. Step 1 is to have enough people stop worrying if their vote will count and vote their conscience.
The system seems rigged to elect people who will perpetuate the centralization of power. However, if we can vote Trump in, it would seem that anything is possible.
ETA: Don't stop being you. You're my favorite poster on here. You and I don't agree on much, but you are curious and good natured. Respect.
Thank you.
Pictures recently mounted in the West Wing. Trump seems to view at a historical success already.
gerritn said:
I just wonder how he is going to win his Nobel Peace Prize now. It's not like his Middle East Peace Deal is going very well, the Palestinians don't even want to talk to us anymore. Pretty soon our allies are not going to want to be too engaged with us anymore either. And this is after only one year. Can you imagine three more?
thehill.com: Nobel Committee Member: Trump is no longer 'moral leader of his country or the world'
A member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is condemning President Trump for the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has resulted in separated families, saying that the president is "no longer the moral leader of his country or the world."
"What is happening at the border where he is separating children from their parents is a sign that he is no longer the moral leader of his country or the world," Thorbjorn Jagland, who is also the secretary general of a human rights watchdog, Council of Europe, said, according to Agence-France Press.
"He cannot speak on behalf of the so-called free world," he added.
DottyParker said:
thehill.com: Nobel Committee Member: Trump is no longer 'moral leader of his country or the world'
http://thehill.com/latino/393219-nobel-committee-member-trump-is-no-longer-moral-leader-of-his-country-or-the-world
A member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is condemning President Trump for the "zero tolerance" immigration policy that has resulted in separated families, saying that the president is "no longer the moral leader of his country or the world."
"What is happening at the border where he is separating children from their parents is a sign that he is no longer the moral leader of his country or the world," Thorbjorn Jagland, who is also the secretary general of a human rights watchdog, Council of Europe, said, according to Agence-France Press.
"He cannot speak on behalf of the so-called free world," he added.
So he's no longer getting a Nobel Peace Prize? Oh, those poor Republicans who worked so hard to nominate him.
ps- No longer? I didn't know he was a moral leader.
No surprise there:
The US defence secretary, James Mattis, has said he is unaware of any steps taken by North Korea towards dismantling its nuclear weapons programme since the Singapore summit and does not expect any in the immediate future.
BG9 said:
No surprise there:
The US defence secretary, James Mattis, has said he is unaware of any steps taken by North Korea towards dismantling its nuclear weapons programme since the Singapore summit and does not expect any in the immediate future.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/no-sign-of-north-korea-dismantling-nuclear-weapons-mattis-admits
Of course no steps are being taken. No steps or processes were agreed to.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I guess one could argue that that is better than Bush-Cheney getting everyone worked up about the "existential threat" from Saddam Hussein and then coming in as GREAT WARRIORS and invading Iraq.
OTOH Saddam never had WMD and Kim does.