President Trump & the USA

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

Probably one of the stupidest things you've posted in a while. 

 

I hate Trump, I would smile if an unpleasant injury forced him from office, if his wife saw sense and ****ed off or if he gets his dues for any one of a billion foul things he's done. 

 

But communication with NK isn't one of them.

 

First step to improving the lives of North Koreans is discourse with the outside world. Their lives are never going to improve as an isolated state with closed doors. 

Given how high the bar is set from Ozleicester that's some effort as well. It's amazing how people who claim to be peace-loving and virteous can't tolerate the thought of it as soon as someone they don't like might play a part in achieving it, if this was Barack Obama doing it they'd be calling for

 

Nothing has been achieved yet of course, but them shaking hands and talking is gfar better than shouting "my button is bigger than yours" at each other.
 

55 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Yep it's strange, don't remember such a reaction for Obama engaging with other despot regimes such as Iran and Cuba.

Spot on.

 

Although it's absolutely hilarious watching people almost crying over good diplomacy because they hate Donald Trump, we do live in a strange World.

[leicsmac]

Glad to see there's at least a bit of nuance going on in these last few posts.

 

As Finn said, everyone on here knows my opinion of Trump. His economic policies are questionable. His social policies are terrible (backed largely by the fundie base that he's beholden to). His scientific policies (with the exception of NASA) are so far beyond terrible that you can't see them with the James Webb Telescope and show blatant and actionable disregard for any kind of good future.

 

None of that should be forgiven and I want him gone either through impeachment or in 2020 - whichever is nearer.

 

However...with all that in mind, what's gone on today isn't a bad thing, and like Nixon with China Trump has this one aspect of his presidency that might be remembered for the right reasons (not that it comes close to making up for all the other stuff, of course - again, same with Nixon).

 

The way I see it, there are three ways you can look to get a dictatorial regime to engage with the world and become more open: you can sanction them until there is some kind of internal revolution, you can sanction them until they come to the table of their own accord, or you can mobilise the big guns, get in there and stomp them flat before installing your own dictator (the tried and tested US approach of old). If there are other options, please feel free to enlighten me.

 

With NK, the first has been waited for but doesn't look like it's going to happen - at least in anywhere near a reasonable timeframe, and the third would be an utter bloodbath that really no one should be in favour of.

 

Which leaves us with the second one.

 

Yes, there may be nothing that comes out of the discussion today and we may be back where we started in 12 months time, but just isolating these regimes is of no use unless there's an end objective for doing so. Today is, perhaps, part of that objective.

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

This is exactly why it concerns me.. i have to explain this sh*t to people...

 

Legitimise his regime = make him appear as a relevant and important part of the world political environment, give the impression to other dictators that the free world will be happy to discuss with you, no matter what crimes you have or are committing to your people.

 

You dont send the CEO of Barclays up to the Ashby branch to find out why Jan hasnt made budget this month. 

 

Still as Trump said its a "Very important document" and the simpletons will applaud and throw confetti, Kim will return home and continue to kill and torture.

 

Try telling the Japanese people whose houses he was firing test missiles over that he wasn't already an important part of the world political environment. 

 

What a ridiculously arrogant statement that is. 

 

What on earth is your criteria for a state being internationally, politically relevant? Size? So Palestine is an irrelevance we can just ignore then? 

 

North Korea is one of the biggest humanitarian crises on the planet. What's your plan? Ignore him til he comes crawling to us? That's worked superbly for the last 60/70 years. 

 

I can understand the legitimise argument for some tinpot dictator that took over last Wednesday in a military coup and is holding his nation to ransom. 

 

But Kim is one of the most entrenched world leaders on the planet. 

Edited 12 June 2018 by Finnegan

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Honest question (with absolutely no underlying tone)...

 

Do you actually feel there is a chance of nuclear war?

No I don’t think there is a chance of nuclear war, not at all.

 

And I think there’s a probably even less chance today than yesterday as they’ve now met face to face.

 

If the meeting builds even the slightest bit of trust and understanding on both sides then that helps to lessen any threat I’d have thought.

[Buce]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

No I don’t think there is a chance of nuclear war, not at all.

 

And I think there’s a probably even less chance today than yesterday as they’ve now met face to face.

 

If the meeting builds even the slightest bit of trust and understanding on both sides then that helps to lessen any threat I’d have thought.

 

Sorry to be pedantic, mate, but you can't have less than 'not at all'.

[Guest]

As I see it, it's true that Trump has effectively legitimised Kim as a statesman and appears to have given up wargames and a meeting on level terms with the POTUS for very little so far.

 

Ordinarily this issue of giving Kim an improved status is seen as a real issue but is it really? Does it really matter? It's hard to say. Saddam, Gadafi etc were granted statesman status and it didn't stop the west vilifying and then removing both. It's smoke and mirrors really.

 

If it were a competition for who had gained what so far then Kim is way ahead. He's got nukes, a new status and the end of war games. But political willy waving is all a bit sad and some credit should go to Trump for meeting him and for the meeting appearing to go well.

 

I'm not convinced the bloke has a clue what he's doing most of the time but perhaps this is an example of just meeting somebody in the real world being more important than worrying about invented slights or gains that really mean very little.

[Webbo]

basically all the people who were accusing Trump of wanting to start a nuclear war 6 months ago are now complaining because he's trying to make peace.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, Vacamion said:

 

 

 

We’ll see if their actions match today’s words.

I think we all realise that this could all fall flat but even if it does,trying to make peace is still the right thing to do.

[Guest MattP]

"Anyone can make war, but it takes a real man to make the peace" - Donald J. Trump

[CarbonVirtine]

Goshm 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

"Anyone can make war, but it takes a real man to make the peace" - Donald J. Trump

Gosh, I'm going to cry.... counts me out as a peace maker then

[Vacamion]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

"Anyone can make war, but it takes a real man to make the peace" - Donald J. Trump

 

I had my uncle executed by flamethrower.

 

Kim Jong Un

[CarbonVirtine]

Kim Jong Un has got a cool signature. I'm envious.

[Buce]

 

"I grab women by the pussy" - Donald 'real man' Trump.

[maynefox]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'm not convinced the bloke has a clue what he's doing most of the time but perhaps this is an example of just meeting somebody in the real world being more important than worrying about invented slights or gains that really mean very little.

 

I think your post is pretty much spot on. Who knows Trump or Kim are doing. What I would say is that a large part of Trump's ego is factor for all of this.

He wants to win and boast about a Noble Piece Prize. He wants to up-show Obama and past administrations. I feel it is his vanity that is driving this and that quite possibly he doesn't have a plan.

 

As people have pointed out the last 60/70 years of U.S. policy towards to North Korean hasn't exactly worked. Perhaps there is a clear strategy behind this? The aim is to de-nuclearise the peninsular. My concern is that Trump is now ingratiating a dictator who still has the nukes. Kim has been legitimised.  

 

My only issue is with the right wing-media (Russia Today  Fox News). For years they slagged off Obama and his administration. Calling them cowards and traitors for talking to Iran. Now Trump, who is dealing with a nut-job is this great peace-making politician. Bizarre.

 

My prediction is that this time next year, "normal" relations will have been restored.

[Finnegan]

Bit premature for that Nobel prize tbf. 

 

 

I mean, you think that's scenes from Palestine in the wake of the US embassy move. Its actually a bunch of angry Canadian pig farmers at the northern border a week from now. 

[Beechey]

Big step to halt war games with South Korea and Japan. Effectively ends preparation in case of a NK invasion of the South. He's also said he wants to see US troops removed from South Korea. I'm unsure whether this man understands the reason they're there. It is to protect the South from the North, yes, but also to make the US so important to the South that they cannot go to another great power for protection. I'd be curious to see what he does with US forces in Japan then, as they're more of an issue than those in SK. You could assume the buildup of forces in Guam will be more present to not degrade US presence entirely in Asia though. I don't see why he's boosted US defence pending by more than 1x UK if he's just going to sit on the forces and not utilise them for geopolitical reasons. Seems odd.

 

All of this makes more room for China in the South Asia Sea though.

 

Feel like we're seeing the end of US hegemony in Asia and Europe here.

Edited 12 June 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

38 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Bit premature for that Nobel prize tbf. 

 

 

I mean, you think that's scenes from Palestine in the wake of the US embassy move. Its actually a bunch of angry Canadian pig farmers at the northern border a week from now. 

It's all OK now.

 

Kim has offered to host peace talks between the US and Canada in Colombia next week.

 

26 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Feel like we're seeing the end of US hegemony in Asia and Europe here.

 

I agree, yet again he was ramping up the pressure on Germany in the press conference, talking about paying for their safety while they kill them on trade in return.

 

It's not out of the question he withdraws from NATO unless Europe starts to pay its way. (Fair given the paltry amount Germans pays in relation to its GDP)

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's all OK now.

 

Kim has offered to host peace talks between the US and Canada in Colombia next week.

 

I agree, yet again he was ramping up the pressure on Germany in the press conference, talking about paying for their safety while they kill them on trade in return.

 

It's not out of the question he withdraws from NATO unless Europe starts to pay its way. (Fair given the paltry amount Germans pays in relation to its GDP)

Germany won't spend 2% of GDP on defence. How could Merkel justify spending almost $80bn on their armed forces when their people are so staunchly against any kind of military intervention? Even the UK only meets the 2% target through fudging the numbers. Europe's defence spending as a whole is shambolic. At least in this country there are calls for it to be reviewed, but the same won't happen in Germany. Trump also seems to fail to understand the workings of international trade as well, it's not as if the German government is screwing the US over, US customers are simply buying German goods. One way to change that is to make German goods so expensive that the US populace can only afford alternatives (what he's doing, which is good for exactly nobody). The alternative is to make US goods better.

 

If he decides that NATO is not worth the expenditure (which is funny because he recently upped the US defence budget by like $60bn for seemingly no reason at all) then European countries will have no alternative but to increase their spending; not only this, but the US will lose most of whatever influence it has left over European nations.

 

I'm amazed at the downturn the United States has seen in its influence in just a year and a half.

Edited 12 June 2018 by Beechey

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Germany won't spend 2% of GDP on defence. How could Merkel justify spending almost $80bn on their armed forces when their people are so staunchly against any kind of military intervention? Even the UK only meets the 2% target through fudging the numbers. Europe's defence spending as a whole is shambolic. At least in this country there are calls for it to be reviewed, but the same won't happen in Germany. Trump also seems to fail to understand the workings of international trade as well, it's not as if the German government is screwing the US over, US customers are simply buying German goods. One way to change that is to make German goods so expensive that the US populace can only afford alternatives (what he's doing, which is good for exactly nobody). The alternative is to make US goods better.

 

If he decides that NATO is not worth the expenditure (which is funny because he recently upped the US defence budget by like $60bn for seemingly no reason at all) then European countries will have no alternative but to increase their spending; not only this, but the US will lose most of whatever influence it has left over European nations.

 

I'm amazed at the downturn the United States has seen in its influence in just a year and a half.

 

This sounds like an opinion that continued US influence over various nations around the world through overt and covert means is a good thing? Please do correct me if I'm assuming wrong though.

 

Or is this a case of "better us than them, if we don't do it then they will" with respect to exerting such influence? Cynical realpolitik at work?

[Beechey]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This sounds like an opinion that continued US influence over various nations around the world through overt and covert means is a good thing? Please do correct me if I'm assuming wrong though.

 

Or is this a case of "better us than them, if we don't do it then they will" with respect to exerting such influence? Cynical realpolitik at work?

Realpolitik, yeah. Just depends on your view. SK is too small militarily to act alone without some kind of support in the face of NK and China, so it basically requires a larger party for support. If the US leaves I don't see who will fill that void, possibly a deeper relationship with Japan who are also building up their military is the only thing that makes sense to me.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Realpolitik, yeah. Just depends on your view. SK is too small militarily to act alone without some kind of support in the face of NK and China, so it basically requires a larger party for support. If the US leaves I don't see who will fill that void, possibly a deeper relationship with Japan who are also building up their military is the only thing that makes sense to me.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that once this is all done the powers that be actually leave Korea alone? 

 

Or am I underestimating the power of human nature to be shit to each other again?

[Beechey]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that once this is all done the powers that be actually leave Korea alone? 

 

Or am I underestimating the power of human nature to be shit to each other again?

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Smaller single powers will always fall into a sphere of influence of a greater power.

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. Smaller single powers will always fall into a sphere of influence of a greater power.

Not buying that. It isn't in "the rules" for humanity to have to always be that unpleasant and cynical.

[Beechey]

56 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not buying that. It isn't in "the rules" for humanity to have to always be that unpleasant and cynical.

Maybe not in the future, but it's been the case since the earliest days of nation-states and before (in feudal systems etc). Even in tribal systems that were disconnected from nation-state societies it was the case. I think we'll eventually move past it looking at the difference between now and say 100 years ago, but I can't see it being soon.

Edited 12 June 2018 by Beechey

[Mr Mister]

I hate Trump, but I'll give him credit for having the foresight to go with a different approach in dealing with North Korea and meeting its leader (they managed to get an agreement that could bring stability to the Korean peninsula, and officially end the Korean War). Previous Presidents never had the foresight to do this. Trump did.