President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

10 hours ago, Beechey said:

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.

 

History bears that out as being true. I just hope it won't be the case for all time - we have the capacity to be better than that. I think. Maybe.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, Mr Mister said:

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.

In Trumps campaign funnily enough his foregin policy sounded much better than Clinton's

 

Thats how poor the US establishment foreign policies have been.  Any knob could have come in and blown the world away with a bit of common sense on the matter

 

Who knew sitting down and talking with someone could result in a progressive communication

 

Trump's success is a lovely example of how s*** other people have been in his position

[Buce]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

In Trumps campaign funnily enough his foregin policy sounded much better than Clinton's

 

Thats how poor the US establishment foreign policies have been.  Any knob could have come in and blown the world away with a bit of common sense on the matter

 

Who knew sitting down and talking with someone could result in a progressive communication

 

Trump's success is a lovely example of how s*** other people have been in his position

 

What exactly is 'Trumps's success'?

 

As far as I can see, all NK has promised is a vague promise to 'work towards de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula'; meanwhile, Trump has halted war games and legitimised Kim on the international stage by treating him as an equal (though, tbf, most people would view that as a grave insult).

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What exactly is 'Trumps's success'?

 

As far as I can see, all NK has promised is a vague promise to 'work towards de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula'; meanwhile, Trump has halted war games and legitimised Kim on the international stage by treating him as an equal (though, tbf, most people would view that as a grave insult).

Are the highlighted parts not successes?

 

Dunno what legitimising means.  Who is legitimate?

 

The whole world legitimises him, constantly talking about him as a threat, a nuclear threat.  If he is a threat then he is legitimate, thats how the world works

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What exactly is 'Trumps's success'?

 

As far as I can see, all NK has promised is a vague promise to 'work towards de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula'; meanwhile, Trump has halted war games and legitimised Kim on the international stage by treating him as an equal (though, tbf, most people would view that as a grave insult).

You see, I don't get why folks are so up in arms about this "legitimisation" stuff. Is it worth anything? Can he buy something with it?

 

If "legitimisation" by sitting down to talk is the first step in actually getting NK to join the rest of the world and lifting 25 million people out of what can only be described as the real-life equivalent of 1984 then I'm all for it. Surely the sanctions that have come before now were intended to work to bring them to the table in exactly this way? Otherwise, what do we do? Just keep them up until there's some kind of internal revolution? That's not really worked so far.

 

I loathe Trump as much as any guy in his administrations favoured demographic would but he's been batshit enough to bring NK to the table in the first place and while it might not lead to anything that has got to be viewed as a success.

Edited 13 June 2018 by leicsmac

[Bryn]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You see, I don't get why folks are so up in arms about this "legitimisation" stuff. Is it worth anything? Can he buy something with it?

 

If "legitimisation" by sitting down to talk is the first step in actually getting NK to join the rest of the world and lifting 25 million people out of what can only be described as the real-life equivalent of 1984 then I'm all for it. Surely the sanctions that have come before now were intended to work to bring them to the table in exactly this way? Otherwise, what do we do? Just keep them up until there's some kind of internal revolution? That's not really worked so far.

 

I loathe Trump as much as any guy is his administrations favoured demographic would but he's been batshit enough to bring NK to the table in the first place and while it might not lead to anything that has got to be viewed as a success.

 

Yeah I agree with this.

 

The North Korean regime is abhorrent. His people are suffering. The West has two choices. Either take him on militarily, which even before they obtained nuclear weapons was deemed to carry too high a risk in terms of the inevitable loss of life on the peninsula or beyond, or you make concessions and bring them into the international fold. The latter means tolerating the terrible human rights abuses in the short term in the hope of alleviating them in exchange for wealth and security.

Edited 13 June 2018 by Bryn

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Are the highlighted parts not successes?

 

Dunno what legitimising means.  Who is legitimate?

 

The whole world legitimises him, constantly talking about him as a threat, a nuclear threat.  If he is a threat then he is legitimate, thats how the world works

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You see, I don't get why folks are so up in arms about this "legitimisation" stuff. Is it worth anything? Can he buy something with it?

 

If "legitimisation" by sitting down to talk is the first step in actually getting NK to join the rest of the world and lifting 25 million people out of what can only be described as the real-life equivalent of 1984 then I'm all for it. Surely the sanctions that have come before now were intended to work to bring them to the table in exactly this way? Otherwise, what do we do? Just keep them up until there's some kind of internal revolution? That's not really worked so far.

 

I loathe Trump as much as any guy is his administrations favoured demographic would but he's been batshit enough to bring NK to the table in the first place and while it might not lead to anything that has got to be viewed as a success.

 

The success is Kim's, not Trump's.

 

NK got what it wanted, and gave up nothing.

[Guest MattP]

Six months ago - "Donald Trump is evil, he's making threats at Kim who has done nothing wrong except protect himself from the USA, what he should be doing is talking to him and bringing him to the table, like an adult"

Now - "Look at Donald Trump, standing there shaking hands and meeting people like Kim, by bringing him to the table he's legitimising evil, this is disgraceful"



Fair play to guys like @leicsmac who seem to be able to put their hatred for Trump to the side on issues like this and realise there is a greater good that could possibly be achieved. It was always going to be the stick and the carrot to bring someone like Kim to the table.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Buce said:

The success is Kim's, not Trump's.

 

NK got what it wanted, and gave up nothing.

Doubt you would say that were you a relative of the three released US citizens from a gulag.

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Are the highlighted parts not successes?

 

Dunno what legitimising means.  Who is legitimate?

 

The whole world legitimises him, constantly talking about him as a threat, a nuclear threat.  If he is a threat then he is legitimate, thats how the world works

 

 

 

 

US gains absolutely nothing from halting war games. In fact it will likely lose influence with SK and Japan given Trump's statements about wanting to pull US forces out of South Korea.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

The success is Kim's, not Trump's.

 

NK got what it wanted, and gave up nothing.

I am honestly unsure that NK really wanted to come out into the world like this, not when the balance of power suited them so well before. I'm certainly unsure that they want to get rid of their nukes (provided that happens as it has to for this to work). 

 

 

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Six months ago - "Donald Trump is evil, he's making threats at Kim who has done nothing wrong except protect himself from the USA, what he should be doing is talking to him and bringing him to the table, like an adult"

Now - "Look at Donald Trump, standing there shaking hands and meeting people like Kim, by bringing him to the table he's legitimising evil, this is disgraceful"



Fair play to guys like @leicsmac who seem to be able to put their hatred for Trump to the side on issues like this and realise there is a greater good that could possibly be achieved. It was always going to be the stick and the carrot to bring someone like Kim to the table.

Yeah...I just don't like the lack of consistency. I think I've said it before but my distaste for Trump and practically all of the policies of his administration comes a very distant second to a course of action that might, just might, help all those 25 million people.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Six months ago - "Donald Trump is evil, he's making threats at Kim who has done nothing wrong except protect himself from the USA, what he should be doing is talking to him and bringing him to the table, like an adult"

Now - "Look at Donald Trump, standing there shaking hands and meeting people like Kim, by bringing him to the table he's legitimising evil, this is disgraceful"



Fair play to guys like @leicsmac who seem to be able to put their hatred for Trump to the side on issues like this and realise there is a greater good that could possibly be achieved. It was always going to be the stick and the carrot to bring someone like Kim to the table.

 

Has anyone ever actually seriously said that Kim had done "nothing wrong"? 

 

And what people were criticising was hostile rhetoric, not him doing completely the opposite. 

 

I think it would be extremely far fetched to suggest he had to do one to do the other or that the meeting is the consequences of the threats. 

 

The threats were and still are stupid, misguided, eye roll worthy chest thumping crap and exactly the same sort of jingoistic, ignorant crap that sparked the Israel rubbish. 

 

He's arrived at a great point here with Korea, potentially, and deserves recognition for being more businessman than politician in this regard. He's taken the "let's stop talking about it and just go over there and speak to the bloke" approach which is grand. 

 

Fair play. 

 

But let's not pretend that there weren't mistakes on the way. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Trump still does loads of stupid horrible things, both domestically and abroad

 

Quite funny that occasionally he does something which looks ok

 

Like a blind man with a shotgun, sporadically hitting a target, sort of  

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

US gains absolutely nothing from halting war games. In fact it will likely lose influence with SK and Japan given Trump's statements about wanting to pull US forces out of South Korea.

Right, they're making a concession there - and IMO a very reasonable one. It shows good faith.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

Has anyone ever actually seriously said that Kim had done "nothing wrong"? 

 

And what people were criticising was hostile rhetoric, not him doing completely the opposite. 

 

I think it would be extremely far fetched to suggest he had to do one to do the other or that the meeting is the consequences of the threats. 

 

The threats were and still are stupid, misguided, eye roll worthy chest thumping crap and exactly the same sort of jingoistic, ignorant crap that sparked the Israel rubbish. 

 

He's arrived at a great point here with Korea, potentially, and deserves recognition for being more businessman than politician in this regard. He's taken the "let's stop talking about it and just go over there and speak to the bloke" approach which is grand. 

 

Fair play. 

 

But let's not pretend that there weren't mistakes on the way. 

A couple on here at the time, I think @ozleicester claimed that the North Korean's (ironic) were only fighting against US imperialism and I think Friendly Ram also said he was a consequence of US policy.

The whole thing shows the benefits of having a someone who is a bit of a nutter in charge at times, no other US President (well maybe Andrew Jackson) would have got Kim to the table as they would never have believed someone was crazy enough to actually act on the threats, with Trump people did actually think that he might do it/

[Beechey]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Right, they're making a concession there - and IMO a very reasonable one. It shows good faith.

Very possibly. I hope it works out for the best. Though I fear if it does not, South Korea will be hung out to dry if US forces are already gone.

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

A couple on here at the time, I think @ozleicester claimed that the North Korean's (ironic) were only fighting against US imperialism and I think Friendly Ram also said he was a consequence of US policy.

The whole thing shows the benefits of having a someone who is a bit of a nutter in charge at times, no other US President (well maybe Andrew Jackson) would have got Kim to the table as they would never have believed someone was crazy enough to actually act on the threats, with Trump people did actually think that he might do it/

 

You lost me at ozleicester. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Very possibly. I hope it works out for the best. Though I fear if it does not, South Korea will be hung out to dry if US forces are already gone.

The SK's would be ready should that occur. They don't need the additional US ground forces to at least hold the NK's to a stalemate until help would arrive from elsewhere - and probably win without that help.

[breadandcheese]

18 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Very possibly. I hope it works out for the best. Though I fear if it does not, South Korea will be hung out to dry if US forces are already gone.

You know that the US could supply air support or missile strikes should such a scenario occur, right? US support doesn't just mean ground troops.

 

The US are not going to abandon SK based on a few promises from Kim

[ozleicester]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

A couple on here at the time, I think @ozleicester claimed that the North Korean's (ironic) were only fighting against US imperialism and I think Friendly Ram also said he was a consequence of US policy.

The whole thing shows the benefits of having a someone who is a bit of a nutter in charge at times, no other US President (well maybe Andrew Jackson) would have got Kim to the table as they would never have believed someone was crazy enough to actually act on the threats, with Trump people did actually think that he might do it/

fake news

[Jattdogg]

Is he gone yet? 

 

...Ohh wrong thread...

 

 

[Beechey]

44 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

You know that the US could supply air support or missile strikes should such a scenario occur, right? US support doesn't just mean ground troops.

 

The US are not going to abandon SK based on a few promises from Kim

I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of a NK attack on the South. You need troops on the ground otherwise you'd lose Seoul in days. We don't know how far a US pull-back will go. If by "troops" Trump means personnel then the aircraft and their crews will be leaving SK, meaning aircraft would have to sortie from Japan, Guam or a USN carrier group. That's the point, Trump is so vague it throws everything in the air. Also US troops being in SK means that any attack on South Korea invariably means also attacking the US, if they no longer have troops there, the risk is reduced greatly.

 

He cited the "great cost" of that deployment as a primary reason for reducing the presence. If that is the case, will be be expecting reductions in US deployments elsewhere (like the ~70,000 personnel they have in Europe)?

Edited 13 June 2018 by Beechey

[breadandcheese]

7 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of a NK attack on the South. You need troops on the ground otherwise you'd lose Seoul in days. We don't know how far a US pull-back will go. If by "troops" Trump means personnel then the aircraft and their crews will be leaving SK, meaning aircraft would have to sortie from Japan, Guam or a USN carrier group. That's the point, Trump is so vague it throws everything in the air. Also US troops being in SK means that any attack on South Korea invariably means also attacking the US, if they no longer have troops there, the risk is reduced greatly.

 

He cited the "great cost" of that deployment as a primary reason for reducing the presence. If that is the case, will be be expecting reductions in US deployments elsewhere (like the ~70,000 personnel they have in Europe)?

 

The scenario above presupposes that NK would attack SK. They would only attempt such a foolish endeavour if they believed that the US would abandon SK. The US will not.

 

So I do not believe the scenario above plausible as NK know that were they to invade SK after the US have removed troops, it would be goodnight NK.

 

 

[Beechey]

16 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

The scenario above presupposes that NK would attack SK. They would only attempt such a foolish endeavour if they believed that the US would abandon SK. The US will not.

 

So I do not believe the scenario above plausible as NK know that were they to invade SK after the US have removed troops, it would be goodnight NK.

 

 

Sorry mate, but history proves otherwise. In the 50's they knew full well the US would likely back NK up and they invaded regardless. I'm not saying it will happen, and I';m not saying NK could even face SK on their own and win, but removing an integral part of SK defence that's been ever-present since the end of the Korean War on the back on an unproven agreement seems foolish and naive. That's without even mentioning halting the war games, which you might argue is an even bigger blunder if this thing doesn't work out.

Edited 13 June 2018 by Beechey

[Simi]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Six months ago - "Donald Trump is evil, he's making threats at Kim who has done nothing wrong except protect himself from the USA, what he should be doing is talking to him and bringing him to the table, like an adult"

Now - "Look at Donald Trump, standing there shaking hands and meeting people like Kim, by bringing him to the table he's legitimising evil, this is disgraceful"



Fair play to guys like @leicsmac who seem to be able to put their hatred for Trump to the side on issues like this and realise there is a greater good that could possibly be achieved. It was always going to be the stick and the carrot to bring someone like Kim to the table.

Embarrassing from both sides, no doubt.