The Sociopath With The Weird Haircut Actually Showed Up For The Summit In Singapore

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

What about post 11 do you disagree with?

Why so negative? "Probably not".

And then you wrote:

I have no problem with the new top-down approach. Sure it legitimizes the regime and that's a negative but the previous approach certainly wasn't accomplishing much either.

So my question to you is: Do you agree with Hillary's foreign policy/relations philosophy? If not, which part(s)?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-even-enemies/

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

With Trump it's more of a "which way is the wind blowing" as opposed to deep geopolitical analysis as you touch on above - considering the impact of a decision from all the angles.

This can be a good thing or a bad thing btw...deep geopolitical analysis has gotten the USA into plenty of shitstorms in the past, so it's no bargain doing it that way either...

This isn't really deep geopolitical analysis though... just leverage and sales.

Something I learned selling cars is that when you have closed the sale you stop selling... Its a pretty common mistake and that's what happened here.

I'm sure if he could take those comments back he would.

As far as the overall peace process right now... I mean its not much different than 36 hours ago. The top-down approach is something different and might yield results. Might not. Can't fault them for trying though and we will see what happens.

Trump people will see this as the huge win it isn't.... at least not yet. SALT, START, ABM, New START, even the JCPOA were all wins because they were articulated and working.

We'll see how it plays out. Most of it has been pretty interesting to watch.

Sidenote: Bolton is on the way out methinks. Which is good for everybody.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

It can be an issue though with the other countries applying pressure to North Korea.

We all know that pressure from China helped to make this summit happen as they were the ones really throttling the regime. If you make a statement like that and then backtrack it gives China the ability to ease sanctions.

China wants the status quo.

If NK and China feel that Trump isn't keeping his word, on something he didn't have to give in the first place, what is to stop them from using that as an excuse to provide aid to the regime?

I've said its not the end of the world but it is a loss of leverage. Joint Exercises were a carrot we no longer have because it was given away pretty freely.

What Trump giveth, he can just as easily taketh away. Your panties are in a wad over absolutely nothing.

At least Trump didn't promise to give NK billions in the dead of night under the cover of dark...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why so negative? "Probably not".

And then you wrote:

I have no problem with the new top-down approach. Sure it legitimizes the regime and that's a negative but the previous approach certainly wasn't accomplishing much either.

So my question to you is: Do you agree with Hillary's foreign policy/relations philosophy? If not, which part(s)?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-even-enemies/

Why so negative?

Because nothing else has worked. North Korea is as belligerent as it gets and nothing here is particularly different aside from Trump and Kim actually meeting face to face.

Just because it doesn't work out though doesn't mean Trump will have failed.

I said at the beginning they have all of the leverage and they still do... not much can really change that. It isn't Trump's fault they have a viable nuclear deterrent at this point. That they embarked on their worldwide "humanitarian" tour right before the summit is also outside of his control.

As far as Hillary's foreign policy the article you linked it mostly dealt with women and not really related to North Korea. I think she is more of the old school which is basically ignore North Korea. Sanction and ignore.

That method works as well. I mean eventually the regime will die off...

Sure it won't lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula but I don't think any of us really care about peace on the Korean Peninsula. In some ways the status quo is certainly preferable to all the different problems that would arise should that occur.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What Trump giveth, he can just as easily taketh away. Your panties are in a wad over absolutely nothing.

Why would we giveth anything?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Why would we giveth anything?

A good will gesture? That can just as easily be taken away? I mean...it's not like Trump gave Rocket Man the keys to Fort Knox.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Why so negative?

Because nothing else has worked. North Korea is as belligerent as it gets and nothing here is particularly different aside from Trump and Kim actually meeting face to face.

Just because it doesn't work out though doesn't mean Trump will have failed.

I said at the beginning they have all of the leverage and they still do... not much can really change that. It isn't Trump's fault they have a viable nuclear deterrent at this point. That they embarked on their worldwide "humanitarian" tour right before the summit is also outside of his control.

As far as Hillary's foreign policy the article you linked it mostly dealt with women and not really related to North Korea. I think she is more of the old school which is basically ignore North Korea. Sanction and ignore.

That method works as well. I mean eventually the regime will die off...

Sure it won't lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula but I don't think any of us really care about peace on the Korean Peninsula. In some ways the status quo is certainly preferable to all the different problems that would arise should that occur.

Go back and read the article. I said that Hillary elaborated on her foreign policy PHILOSOPHY. Just because she mentioned two female leaders doesn't suggest her philosophy was dealing only with women.

Do you agree with her foreign policy philosophy? If not, which part(s)?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Go back and read the article. I said that Hillary elaborated on her foreign policy PHILOSOPHY. Just because she mentioned two female leaders doesn't suggest her philosophy was dealing only with women.

Do you agree with her foreign policy philosophy? If not, which part(s)?

Sorry about that.

No, I don't agree with her.

She doesn't understand the purpose of proxy conflicts. Syria and Korea are both locations of these conflicts. I'm perfectly content to play in the sand box that is Syria.

The lines there are pretty clear. You've got a loose group of Russia, Assad, and Iran on one side. Then the US, the West and some rebels. Finally, ISIS and other fringe groups. We can all battle it out there with minimal effort from the major players. Eventually someone will win there... Likely the first group and it will end. In the mean time the main goal is to play the part and just keep it from spilling out.

Korea is kind of the same thing. No one really really really wants things to change and if the regime was less belligerent it probably would be pretty calm there. The regime is paranoid though and sought, despite massive pressure, to forge ahead to a nuclear deterrent no matter the cost. Now they have one so... what's next...?

The reason why the status quo is nice is because Korea serves this useful purpose of being the place where East faces off against West. Democracy against authoritarianism... It also happens to be conveniently separated by the world's largest minefield.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Sorry about that.

No, I don't agree with her.

She doesn't understand the purpose of proxy conflicts. Syria and Korea are both locations of these conflicts. I'm perfectly content to play in the sand box that is Syria.

The lines there are pretty clear. You've got a loose group of Russia, Assad, and Iran on one side. Then the US, the West and some rebels. Finally, ISIS and other fringe groups. We can all battle it out there with minimal effort from the major players. Eventually someone will win there... Likely the first group and it will end. In the mean time the main goal is to play the part and just keep it from spilling out.

Korea is kind of the same thing. No one really really really wants things to change and if the regime was less belligerent it probably would be pretty calm there. The regime is paranoid though and sought, despite massive pressure, to forge ahead to a nuclear deterrent no matter the cost. Now they have one so... what's next...?

The reason why the status quo is nice is because Korea serves this useful purpose of being the place where East faces off against West. Democracy against authoritarianism... It also happens to be conveniently separated by the world's largest minefield.

"She doesn't understand" -- but you do? (Have you considered applying for a job at the State Dept.? The pay must be pretty good.) So if you were the president of the U.S. how would you handle NK since you have a total handle on proxy conflicts?

And for whom is NK a proxy? And NK serves a "useful purpose" for whom?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"She doesn't understand" -- but you do? (Have you considered applying for a job at the State Dept.? The pay must be pretty good.) So if you were the president of the U.S. how would you handle NK since you have a total handle on proxy conflicts?

And for whom is NK a proxy? And NK serves a "useful purpose" for whom?

I did apply for State several years ago and did a bunch of interviews before deciding against it. I actually PMed PA about it back then. It was right when Benghazi happened.

Anywho second question first. North Korea is a proxy of the Chinese and to a lesser extent Russia. They are useful in the sense they waste a rivals resources both militarily and in terms of political capital. North Korea does a ton of that for them while serving as a buffer from the westernized Asian countries.

Second part... I would have probably just ignored them. You act like a bratty child and you get treated like a bratty child. Sanctions and ignore. I understand that the rules change when you have a credible nuclear deterrent which they now do but still... what are they really going to do with it? They are a poor, paranoid nation, led by a ruling elite that really just wants to stay in power. Now they are still all of those things with nuclear weapons and they want to cash in on that clout. Don't believe me? Here is what Tom Cotton thinks...

There is a school of thought that the United States should not sit down, that the United States president should not sit down with two-bit dictators. I think there’s some validity to that school of thought with the exception once those dictators have nuclear weapons. You know, countries like Iran and Cuba and other two-bit rogue regimes don’t have nuclear weapons, yet. They can’t threaten the United States in that way. Once North Korea had nuclear weapons, once they have missiles that can deliver them to us, I would liken it to past presidents sitting down with Soviet dictators. It’s not something that we should celebrate. It’s not a pretty sight. But it’s a necessary part of the job to try to protect Americans from a terrible threat.

Source

Note that Tom Cotton is a ardent Trump supporter. I'm not and while I don't like legitimizing North Korea I don't have a problem with the summit in and of itself.

So why was North Korea able to succeed in ways Iran, Iraq, and Libya weren't? Trump fans will say its different because we finally have a "tough guy" in the White House. I don't buy that, both Bush and Clinton extensively wargamed a Korean conflict and it was deemed too costly. That's not an assault against Trump just saying he isn't the only one that's thrown out military force as a threat for compliance. I've touched on the uniqueness of the situation before but this next post from a foreign policy forum sums it up nicely.

Note: it doesn't blame Trump but merely suggests why North Korea was able to pull this off when others have failed...

The honest-to-goodness narrative here is that North Korea forced the world's sole superpower to the table by developing nuclear weapons which could conceivably hit America, then Trump got there and made concessions. Kim is going to go home and be hailed as the biggest hero in North Korean history. He can point at this as a sign of success and say that he alone brought the United States to heel and forced the President to acknowledge North Korea as America's equal.

I mean, if Kim does scrap all his nukes and we end up singing kumbaya in five years' time, then I'll happily eat a dish of crow on this one. But Kim's set the model for dictators who want to beat America: Get nukes and make the human cost of intervention too high for all but the craziest of the crazy neocons to seriously consider it, then alternate between olive branches and sabre-rattling until you have enough bombs to force America to the table. North Korea made an Iraq-style preemptive war too costly by hanging a huge Sword of Damocles over Seoul in the form of innumerable pieces of old but lethal artillery ready to be fired if America so much as lifted a finger, and because of that threat of inconceivable civilian casualties combined with the North's willingness to go back on its word or outright lie in the pursuit of the bomb, it was simply impossible for America to take decisive action to stop the North's nuclear program.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I did apply for State several years ago and did a bunch of interviews before deciding against it. I actually PMed PA about it back then. It was right when Benghazi happened.

Anywho second question first. North Korea is a proxy of the Chinese and to a lesser extent Russia. They are useful in the sense they waste a rivals resources both militarily and in terms of political capital. North Korea does a ton of that for them while serving as a buffer from the westernized Asian countries.

Second part... I would have probably just ignored them. You act like a bratty child and you get treated like a bratty child. Sanctions and ignore. I understand that the rules change when you have a credible nuclear deterrent which they now do but still... what are they really going to do with it? They are a poor, paranoid nation, led by a ruling elite that really just wants to stay in power. Now they are still all of those things with nuclear weapons and they want to cash in on that clout. Don't believe me? Here is what Tom Cotton thinks...



Source

Note that Tom Cotton is a ardent Trump supporter. I'm not and while I don't like legitimizing North Korea I don't have a problem with the summit in and of itself.

So why was North Korea able to succeed in ways Iran, Iraq, and Libya weren't? Trump fans will say its different because we finally have a "tough guy" in the White House. I don't buy that, both Bush and Clinton extensively wargamed a Korean conflict and it was deemed too costly. That's not an assault against Trump just saying he isn't the only one that's thrown out military force as a threat for compliance. I've touched on the uniqueness of the situation before but this next post from a foreign policy forum sums it up nicely.

Note: it doesn't blame Trump but merely suggests why North Korea was able to pull this off when others have failed...

ET, whatever the little Rocket Man takes home with him, and whatever public chess pounding he does before the people, you just gotta know that deep in the recesses his very dark heart the little guy knows that NK is amounts to a tick on the world's butt.

NK didn't "succeed" in anything. As a goodwill gesture, Trump offered a carrot instead of a stick, and that carrot can be reclaimed any time by Trump. But let the U.S. try to get the 150 billion back from Iran...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

ET, whatever the little Rocket Man takes home with him, and whatever public chess pounding he does before the people, you just gotta know that deep in the recesses his very dark heart the little guy knows that NK is amounts to a tick on the world's butt.

NK didn't "succeed" in anything. As a goodwill gesture, Trump offered a carrot instead of a stick, and that carrot can be reclaimed any time by Trump. But let the U.S. try to get the 150 billion back from Iran...

NK succeeded in creating a credible nuclear deterrent. NK has weapons and delivery systems than can easily reach our allies. That is more than a tick. This is a country that was able to develop a nuclear deterrent despite massive international pressure for 30 years. Cruise Missile Bill Clinton and Axis of Evil George Bush both wanted to take this regime out and when it was wargamed it was realized its simply not possible. The cost of collateral damage is too high. NK has effectively held a city of about 5 million people hostage for half a century in order to be able to build nuclear weapons. Now they still have that city held hostage AND have nuclear weapons... its more than a tick.

My first question is why did Trump give him anything at all? Honestly why? A goodwill gesture for the Kims? For nothing in return? That doesn't seem foolish to you?

Second, be honest if Obama was the one doing this would you be explaining it away? The answer is NO you all would be hammering him. Most posters here absolutely lost their shit when he bowed to the Japanese Prime Minister. But Trump shaking hands, calling Kim honorable, and doing goodwill concessions now passes muster around here?

We now have images of North Korean flags sitting side by side with ours. The president calling him an honorable and likable guy... this is the same dude who took his brother out at an airport with VX about 9 months ago.

I get this is a different approach and I understand its a new scenario. He has to say nice things about the guy right now. I'm actually giving the administration decent marks along the way but Trump is fallible. Giving away joint exercises in exchange for nothing is bad diplomacy. I still contend it was never part of the plan and he just sort of blurted it out at the presser. This is evidenced by the video I posted of him actually saying it and the list of people who didn't know it was on the table: the Pentagon, the South Korean Embassy, the South Koreans themselves.

Sure we can take it back but we gave it away for nothing. If we take it back the North Koreans can simply just walk away from the table too and we are back to square one. It was a mistake, probably not a major one, but a mistake nonetheless and none of his supporters can admit when its obvious.

You can not like the Iran Deal and parts of it, I don't either. Sure we gave up stuff. In the end though Iran was incapable of building nuclear weapons for at worst the next 10 years or so. North Korea actually has nuclear weapons so if you think we aren't going to have to give up stuff for that to happen you are crazy... we are already giving up shit.

Ultimately NK and China want the United States off of the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans may actually be able to get that in exchange for getting rid of their weapons. Trump would probably take that deal as it "brings the troops home and '#MAGA.'" I have very little doubt Kim would take that deal. He will be lauded as kicking the imperialist Americans off the Peninsula without firing a shot and a hero invited to every single Chinese Dinner Party his fat ass can walk to.

The status quo would be preferable to me over that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

NK succeeded in creating a credible nuclear deterrent. NK has weapons and delivery systems than can easily reach our allies. That is more than a tick. This is a country that was able to develop a nuclear deterrent despite massive international pressure for 30 years. Cruise Missile Bill Clinton and Axis of Evil George Bush both wanted to take this regime out and when it was wargamed it was realized its simply not possible. The cost of collateral damage is too high. NK has effectively held a city of about 5 million people hostage for half a century in order to be able to build nuclear weapons. Now they still have that city held hostage AND have nuclear weapons... its more than a tick.

My first question is why did Trump give him anything at all? Honestly why? A goodwill gesture for the Kims? For nothing in return? That doesn't seem foolish to you?

Second, be honest if Obama was the one doing this would you be explaining it away? The answer is NO you all would be hammering him. Most posters here absolutely lost their shit when he bowed to the Japanese Prime Minister. But Trump shaking hands, calling Kim honorable, and doing goodwill concessions now passes muster around here?

We now have images of North Korean flags sitting side by side with ours. The president calling him an honorable and likable guy... this is the same dude who took his brother out at an airport with VX about 9 months ago.

I get this is a different approach and I understand its a new scenario. He has to say nice things about the guy right now. I'm actually giving the administration decent marks along the way but Trump is fallible. Giving away joint exercises in exchange for nothing is bad diplomacy. I still contend it was never part of the plan and he just sort of blurted it out at the presser. This is evidenced by the video I posted of him actually saying it and the list of people who didn't know it was on the table: the Pentagon, the South Korean Embassy, the South Koreans themselves.

Sure we can take it back but we gave it away for nothing. If we take it back the North Koreans can simply just walk away from the table too and we are back to square one. It was a mistake, probably not a major one, but a mistake nonetheless and none of his supporters can admit when its obvious.

You can not like the Iran Deal and parts of it, I don't either. Sure we gave up stuff. In the end though Iran was incapable of building nuclear weapons for at worst the next 10 years or so. North Korea actually has nuclear weapons so if you think we aren't going to have to give up stuff for that to happen you are crazy... we are already giving up shit.

Ultimately NK and China want the United States off of the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans may actually be able to get that in exchange for getting rid of their weapons. Trump would probably take that deal as it "brings the troops home and '#MAGA.'" I have very little doubt Kim would take that deal. He will be lauded as kicking the imperialist Americans off the Peninsula without firing a shot and a hero invited to every single Chinese Dinner Party his fat ass can walk to.

The status quo would be preferable to me over that.

It is far better to first talk to evil dictators to give them the opportunity to repent of their ways before taking more drastic action. You certainly don't want Trump to nuke the dictator and all the people with him, do you? Your "solution" is no solution whatsoever! All you want to do is for the U.S. to leave NK alone -- place more sanctions on them. How has that been working out? Apparently not too good, since now you apparently think NK is this great nuclear superpower -- that rivals all the other superpowers in the world.

Trump is on the right track. He has not given up anything to NK that cannot easily be taken back. Talk is cheap. War is costly on many levels. Sanctions are virtually useless, since by your own admission NK is supported by Russian and China -- China who is their next store neighbor can easily supply NK's needs. This status quo, then, should be sought to be changed.

[horses4courses]

I laughed just now hearing that nervous allies are trying to
figure out what will come out of the Singapore meeting.

Allies???
We don't need no stinking allies.

Apart from Israel, we really have none.
It's Trump's America versus The World.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It is far better to first talk to evil dictators to give them the opportunity to repent of their ways before taking more drastic action. You certainly don't want Trump to nuke the dictator and all the people with him, do you? Your "solution" is no solution whatsoever! All you want to do is for the U.S. to leave NK alone -- place more sanctions on them. How has that been working out? Apparently not too good, since now you apparently think NK is this great nuclear superpower -- that rivals all the other superpowers in the world.

Trump is on the right track. He has not given up anything to NK that cannot easily be taken back. Talk is cheap. War is costly on many levels. Sanctions are virtually useless, since by your own admission NK is supported by Russian and China -- China who is their next store neighbor can easily supply NK's needs. This status quo, then, should be sought to be changed.

To the bolded:

But he has already given something up... in exchange for nothing. Obama made that statement yesterday he would be slaughtered here... just saying.

To the rest:

Yes I would just continue to ignore and sanction them.

If you look at my post about proxy wars and then your above post its pretty easy to see why. China and Russia will still have to support a financially and materially a broke regime that can't support itself. They have to waste resources to do that.

North Korea isn't going to start a war... it would be tragic and bloody but the outcome is still a foregone conclusion. They will lose. More importantly China and Russia would not allow that to happen.

Secondly, our presence in the Peninsula serves other purposes... it really really really pisses off the Chinese.

So yes... I would just sanction and ignore them. It hurts our main rivals more than us. That is not to say what Trump is trying right now is "wrong". I don't think he is. He is trying something different and it might work but I'm pretty skeptical and you should still be too... but the status quo is easy to go back to.

I'm giving them high marks... but giving something in exchange for nothing is a mistake. He DID do that. I know you're trying to minimize it but you're doing that because it was a mistake. Would you have done it?