GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


..that the fact America and North Korea are engaging in dialogue is a good thing? Whether you believe Trump should be credited with this meeting or not, it's a good thing that the two countries are talking to each other.

Or does anyone believe it's a bad thing?

What do you think will be the outcome, if any, of these talks? And what is Kim Jong-un's motivation for engaging in dialogue?

settingsOptions
There are 23 Replies

It is a good thing. But it bothers me that Obama was called weak and a traitor for even mentioning the possibly of working with the Regime at the start of his presidency.

Over all heres hoping for the best. Eastern Germany is still not up to par with its western counter parts. Years after the Wall fell. If this succeeds... the Koreans have a lot of work to do.

Posted Tuesday by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

..that the fact America and North Korea are engaging in dialogue is a good thing? Whether you believe Trump should be credited with this meeting or not, it's a good thing that the two countries are talking to each other.

It's good imo. But I'm uneasy about the shitting on G7. Should've just cancelled tbh. Dunno why you want to bother pissing off allies.

But it bothers me that Obama was called weak and a traitor for even mentioning the possibly of working with the Regime at the start of his presidency.

There's always some dumbass bullshit both ways on tons of issues. This is one of them.

Posted Tuesday by Fox Forever
Fox Forever

Dunno why you want to bother pissing off allies.

Its a childish negotiating tactic to establish dominance.
I've read several books on the topic 30 some years ago and I expect it to blow up in Trumps face.





Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Or does anyone believe it's a bad thing?

Not yet, but its still early and we've seen what kind of moron Trump is.

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I think it's a good thing. A common criticism Ihave read leading up to the summit is thst Trump's actions "legitimize" the North Korean regime in the eyes of other world powers. They also speculate thst Trump, being notoriously susceptible to flattery will be too soft on the regime after a few rounds of golf and hookers with the Korean leadership.

Edited Tuesday by Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
 

It's more that none of this really builds on the more specific frameworks that were developed and pushed by the Clinton and Bush administrations when it came to bilateral relations and nuclear disarmament. It's not really anything that hasn't been raised before.

The North Koreans have agreed to nothing substantial on paper that isn't vague statements or weasel words. Meanwhile it provides a nice photo opp so Kim doesn't have to put up with being an utter pariah. Paradoxically, this is in complete contrast to the detail of the Iran deal.

The North Koreans will probably scupper this accord somehow by sinking a ROK ship or something, and we'll be back to square one. That's what typically happened in the past.

Posted Tuesday by Arch
Arch
 

I think the difference with Obama is that he tried to go for diplomacy first. Trump meanwhile has been extremely belligerant towards NK up until recently. With Obama his initial stance makes him seem weak; with Trump it seems like he's softened and is seeing reason. However I think this was his plan all along, and the belligerance and even his actions at G4 were tactical.

My feeling is that the outcome of the meeting will be de-escalation more than anything. I don't think we'll see any actual solutions, but the situation will de-escalate down into where it was pre-Bush. So probably a scaling back of nuclear ambitions and Northern Aggression (heh) in exchange for a loosening of sanctions and a scaling back of US presence on the peninsula. Kim will still maintain nukes and the US will still maintain presence, but the overall belligerence from both sides will be significantly lessened.

To be honest, I don't think there even *is* a permanent solution. The North and South both have legitimate claims over one another. The North isn't going to give up their bargaining chip (nukes) and the US isn't going to abandon their ally.

Posted Tuesday by Xhin
Xhin
 

And what is Kim Jong-un's motivation for engaging in dialogue?


Well for one thing, dialogue legitimizes his regime. That's a powerful bargaining chip moving forward. But I could also see him needing a way to renew ties with China and BRIC in general. I don't think he's particularly interested in less non-BRIC sanctions, but having China not trying to reign him in is pretty important.

Shitting on G7


See I think this was a good tactical move. It shows Kim that Trump is willing to step outside of the US's normal position and should make Kim likely to do the same. It's a lot easier to repair relationships with allies that need you than it is to break down relationship barriers with your enemy.

Plus Trump still has some reasonable concerns with our foreign alliances. We honestly can't afford to fully support their militaries anymore, nor is there as much need because we actually work well with BRIC rather than having them as absolute enemies like the USSR was. Plus these nation's are a lot more prosperous than they were in the years after WW2 so they really don't need our full financial support.

Posted Tuesday by Xhin
Xhin
 

Xhin, are you really still making the 4-D chess defense? Lol

Posted Tuesday by pacman
pacman
 

Why is this about Trump, it was just a photo-op, South Korea did the negotiating with Kim.

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I think the difference with Obama is that he tried to go for diplomacy first. Trump meanwhile has been extremely belligerant towards NK up until recently. With Obama his initial stance makes him seem weak; with Trump it seems like he's softened and is seeing reason. However I think this was his plan all along, and the belligerance and even his actions at G4 were tactical.


Diplomacy is not weak. Violent force should be the last and final tactic one should use.

And lol at his actions being tactical.

Posted Tuesday by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

dialogue legitimizes his regime.

That is a totally meaningless statement unless you lean towards authoritarianism.

North Korea is a Country its there and even on the map and they have a government that we may or may not like. Its there, accept it and deal with it.

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

And what is Kim Jong-un's motivation for engaging in dialogue?

Credibility on the world stage. And Drumpf is simply handing it to him.

Posted Wednesday by GC/MS
GC/MS
 

Iran must be feeling justifiably ripped off right now.

Posted Wednesday by Agis
Agis
 

I'm thinking more and more this is a non-issue.
On other forums I see so many fear response to Kims nuclear program. Then Trump makes this stupid tweet with pathetic assurances about how all safe now and relax. What a bunch of snowflakes. OMG North Korea is going to get US!!! Cowardly fear threat authoritarian thinking just like Kim.

Posted Wednesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Yes, not having war would be a good thing.

Ive seen zionist Jew Ben Shapiro be very critical of the peace summit. If you notice his tribe will ways advocate for war.

Posted Wednesday by #85
#85

Iran warns North Korea not to trust Trump:

A cute media stunt, but since this is international politics and not high school it is unlikely that the Iran Deal has or will factor at all into the considerations of the North Koreans.

Ive seen zionist Jew Ben Shapiro be very critical of the peace summit. If you notice his tribe will ways advocate for war.

Shapiro's skepticism will probably prove correct. We can certainly hope that this will amount to something more, and I'll sing the praises of the Trump Administration (even if I do so incredulously) if it does, but if this is just a cheap photo opportunity then it is a mistake and one that we make at the cost of our own integrity.

Edited Wednesday by Famov
Famov

Trump tweeted yesterday :

"A year ago the pundits & talking heads, people that couldn’t do the job before, were begging for conciliation and peace - “please meet, don’t go to war.” Now that we meet and have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un, the same haters shout out, “you shouldn’t meet, do not meet!”

This is very true. Remember Trump was elected on an anti war platform. My only issue is the syria strikes which were overall not a big deal and probably him placating his neocon base. He was against Iraq war, against Syrian intervention (on record at least) and so far has not added to any conflicts like Bush and Obama both did.

Posted Wednesday by #85
#85

A cute media stunt, but since this is international politics and not high school it is unlikely that the Iran Deal has or will factor at all into the considerations of the North Koreans.

I disagree. Killing the Iran deal set a terrible precedent for us going forward on the international stage, as does our general habit of pulling out of deals and treaties (particularly those made by previous administrations of the opposing party, so as to score political brownie points within one’s own party - tell me, who is it that treats international politics like high school again?)

Posted Wednesday by pacman
pacman
 

"Deals and treaties"? No need to conflate the two. A treaty requires the consent of Congress, or two thirds of the Senate if we want to be specific. As far as I know the Constitution does not give a legal definition for what constitutes a "deal", and so for our purposes it is more usefully regarded along the lines of a pinky swear, or something similar.

Well, I should be fair. The Iran Deal was actually an executive agreement. It is not a great leap to suggest that government officials from every regime, and especially those involved with the contentious Iran Deal, are aware of this distinction and that President Obama's signature wasn't going to be worth its weight in ink should the opposition party actually gain power. The scrapping of the Iran Deal was done to the praise of virtually every Republican in government after all, and so this isn't merely a Trumpian fit of insanity. It probably wasn't even his idea, regardless of what he said while campaigning. It was on its way out, and they've known it since November 2016. And as I'm sure you remember, Republicans warned the Iranians that this is exactly what would happen! The relevant actors on stage merely waited for their cue to react in abject horror at the incoming nuclear holocaust.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_the_Leaders_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
If you remember our thread on this letter from way back, I condemned the Republicans for undermining the sitting president, irrespective of anything else. It seems I am not as sensitive to outrage as I used to be. Regardless, they had reason to believe that this was going to happen and it is incredibly unlikely that it figures at all into North Korean calculus.

Edited Wednesday by Famov
Famov

Cowardly fear threat authoritarian thinking just like Kim.

Psygnosis, there goes that word you love again. I guess you just throw it at anything, hoping that whatever it sticks to will collapse under the weight of everything that word implies. How's that working for you?

Posted Last Night by GC/MS
GC/MS
 
Reply to: Can we all agree..?

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on