- helped ably of course by the most inept US President in history.

Kim's nukes, and threats to use them on US soil (specifically Guam) if provoked, convinced Trump to come to the negotiating table. Something that no other US president has been persuaded to do. This alone is a huge victory for Kim and NK - the standard response by past US presidents has been to not want to legitimise NK's regime by meeting with the Kim's as equals.

As for the actual summit, Trump made literally the only concession made - to abandon the war games off NK with South Korea. Furthermore, Trump horrified politicians and media alike in the US by describing them exactly for what they are - a provocation. So Kim not only removed a direct physical threat to his soil, he got the US president to admit they were wrong in the first place. Even further, Trump is now openly talking about removing US troops from the peninsular altogether. Trump got absolutely nothing in return. Nada, Zilch. Worse, he went in assuring everyone he would achieve clear and ironclad commitments by Kim to disarm. He didn't come close. All he got was some wafty vague claim that maybe, sometime in the future Kim might disarm. Pathetic.

Kim's status and legitimacy has skyrocketed overnight. Trump continues to talk about him in glowing terms - for now at least he is no longer "little rocket man" or some crazy murderous despot. Even while the issue of sanctions and trade prospects remains up in the air, really could Kim have hoped for any more from this summit? He not only secured the only actual concession made at the summit, he has also practically legitimised and protected his nukes - given that he is under no obligation whatsoever - I repeat, no obligation whatsoever, to get rid of them. But most of all, he is now a recognised "player" on the international stage, at least as far as the US is concerned. And that, is surely more than Kim could have dreamed of heading into the summit.

Despite a 70 year impasse and failure after failure to stop them developing nukes, you blame Trump, even tho he's had the most significant diplomacy breakthru with them, ever.


No wonder you follow rantings of deluded psychopath from the bronze age.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 11:15am:


Yeah, excellent post.

You've summed it up well.

The little despot with the bad haircut (Kim, not Trump) must be laughing his ass off at the moment.

"I said, I want the same amount of flags as America, and they said 'Sure!'".

"And then I said, show me the sights of Singapore, and they DID!".

"So then I said, admit that your war games on the peninsula are provocative and tell your troops to pull their heads in, and the dotard said 'Sure, will do Mr Kim'"

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:28pm:


Can you provide evidence of anyone here wanting the little fat dictator (Kim, not Trump) wanting to "hang on to his rockets"?

I'm curious.

Trump has just legitimized the North Korean dictator by meeting him one on one. Lets not forget the horrendous human rights abuses committed under Kim Jong Un.

Trump has also sent the message to any other tinpot dictatorship that the way to be recognised on the world stage and get an audience with the US president is to develop nuclear weapons

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:



would you rather we gather our armies on the borders of Nth Korea   and use combat??????...

remember Trump has a bigger army than Kim....



is that what you would prefer??>.



WHY?..

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:


Yep.

He rolled out the red carpet (literally!) for a tin-pot dictator who, among other things, has had members of his own family murdered.

Atrocities Under Kim Jong-un: Indoctrination, Prison Gulags, Executions

What a complete and utter fool Trump is.

YEP LETS GO TO WAR..

the lefties cant stand the thought of Trump being triumphant...

it would break their hearts

"Since Mr. Kim assumed power in 2011, taking over from his father, Kim Jong-il, he has consolidated his power through executions.

"In the first six years as leader, he has ordered the executions of at least 340 people, according to the Institute for National Security Strategy, a think tank arm of the National Intelligence Service.

"In 2016, Kim Yong-jin, the deputy premier for education, was killed in front of a firing squad after showing “disrespectful posture” in a meeting. Hyon Yong-chol, a general over the armed forces, fell asleep in a meeting. He was executed with an antiaircraft gun."

cods thinks he deserves the red carpet treatment though, along with escorted tours of Singapore.

Tsk tsk   

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:


This red carpet.



Why do you like to see tin-pot dictators treated like royalty, cods?

I'm curious.

cods wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:


Where exactly did I mention anything about declaring war?

Kim Jong-Un better start worrying about China now.

As soon as his nukes + the Yanks are gone, China could easily invade North Korea.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:03pm:



China is spending a huge amount of money on building up its military.
They are very pleased that the Yanks will be leaving South Korea.
China might just see North Korea as a failed state & over run it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:16pm:



It's part of the deal Greggy.
Keep up with the news.

The Yanks are getting out.

Aussie wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:



Come on Aussie,
I've been listening to the news on the radio & TV ever since the meeting.
It's the main subject.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:






https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-06-12/trumps-vow-to-end-military...


Trump's Vow to End Military Drills With Seoul Stuns a Region
Donald Trump has upset decades of U.S. defense posture on the Korean Peninsula with his announcement that he's stopping annual U.S.-South Korean military drills and wants to remove U.S. troops stationed in the South.

June 12, 2018, at 9:13 a.m.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:27pm:


You should have read it, Bobby.

"I want to bring our soldiers back home," Trump said, although he added that it's "not part of the equation right now."

Trump.

Quote:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:33pm:


Nothing 'hair splitting' about this Bobby:

Quote:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:48pm:


And I want a threesome with Mila Kunis and Jennifer Lawrence.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 9:48pm:


Did they want to go home before the Singapore Summit?

Frank wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 10:19pm:


We have another fan, and defender, of Mr Kim here.

Oh dear.

Frank wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 10:28pm:


You seem quite confused.

Kim has had hundreds of his people, including family members, murdered.

Do you condone this behaviour?

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:



It's strange isn't it -
Kim developed nuclear weapons that he could never use
without 100% sure retaliation turning his whole country into Trinitite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

It was strange the lead up to this.  Trump's cancellation, then weak "it's a great letter, I haven't read it yet" reason to put it back on the table after this first calls for "I will denuclearise North Korea in this meeting" to after it being put back on, "this is but the first step"...

It's like, as usual, Trump has an (uninformed) opinion of how things would go, learnt just the bare minimum of information to make him realise he had no idea what he was getting himself into, called it all off, realised that this hurt him in his support base because he made them look incredibly stupid with all their claims that he'd already brought peace to the region and should get the Nobel Peace Prize, and that coin, so he found a reason to put it back on (without reading the reason) and then lowered expectations even further.

But all of that aside, with all his rhetoric before the meeting, about the little rocket man, the nuclear buttons etc, most people were worried Trump would go there being the uninformed loudmouth that he is, thinking he knows best and making the situation worse by escalating tensions even further.

Well, that didn't happen, which was great.  But it swung equally as far in the opposite direction.

Trump did exactly what every other president and world leader have tried their hardest not to do and play directly into North Korea's hands.

In reality, it was more akin to a negotiation with terrorists.  The US has a policy of not negotiating with Terrorists because of the message it sends, but this is exactly what Trump did, and not only that, he showed how bad a negotiator he is.

Now, all any nation has to do to get a seat at the big boy table is whatever the hell their want, to their people, to their neighbours, so long as they can become a Nuclear power, they'll get the Red Carpet treatment by the US.

This is either an extremely dangerous precedent, especially given the level of admiration and praise Trump has PUBLICLY shown to this monster but also has signalled to the rest of the world that the US is not to be looked to for leadership anymore.

This is a great opportunity for Russia and especially China to step up and replace the US as the more dominant superpower.

Another of Trump's potential disastrous legacies and like so many others, he seems oblivious to it because he's so focused on himself.  He's stacked his team, those that should be keeping him grounded, with yes men.  It's the worse case scenario.

At the end of the day, while this is on Trump's shoulders, I really don't care whose fault it is, I just hope Trump can realise the situation he's in and finds a way to fix it.  The US with all their faults, their stupid and flawed notions of "leave it to the free markets" and trickle down economics, they are still more in line with our values and the lesser of evils when it comes to "world leadership" (for lack of a better term).

It's the same thing from day one after the election, we wish Trump all the best because his failuers have global impacts, but we don't hold much hope for him not smacking things up.

Time and time again that lack of faith has sadly been proven true for anyone interested in objective reality and taken as further proof of the deep state or some other conspiracy to Trumps supporters, some who are even brought to tears by how mean everyone is being to Trump.

What the actual F..!?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2018 at 12:16pm:


Of course it has. But I'm not sure what your point is.

Is it that nukes work?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 13^th, 2018 at 11:15am:



How so? I have not seen anyone saying that suddenly, LO! the NK regime is legit!  You make up crap as you go - a bit like Mo.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2018 at 8:22pm:


How was he threatening it before, and how has that changed?

Quote:


So the risk has nothing to do with US troops in SK, or military exercises in the region?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 3:43pm:


You haven't heard? Trump is abandoning the exercises, and even hinted at an eventual removal of US troops from the region. Apparently its called a 'gesture of goodwill' that often happens when leaders agree to meet together to diffuse tensions.

Would you like to ask me again how the summit has reduced the risk of war?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24^th, 2018 at 4:06pm:


Yes please Gandalf. Were you worried NK would invade the  US because Trump called Kim rocket man?

Frank wrote on Jun 26^th, 2018 at 7:07pm:


First and foremost - by meeting him. Every US president until Trump has refused to meet him or his precessors on the simply principle that doing so would de-facto create a situation where the US recognises the legitimacy of the Kim regime - something they have been bending over backwards to avoid.

But not only that, he actually signed a document specifically giving recognition of the legitimacy of the Kim regime, as an equal partner in peace.

Thirdly, Trump (in case you hadn't noticed) has unprecedentedly dropped all rhetoric about the Kim regime's human rights abuses against his own people. Instead he now talks about how 'talented' he is, and how he has done a really good job in a "tough" situation at such a young age, and that he "loves his people". This is not the language you use to describe a regime you consider illegitimate and an affront to humanity.

Fourthly, instead of going to the summit to show him who's boss (as he should have), he practically grovelled to him, and (as I keep emphasising) - made the only actually concession that was made - to halt US participation in the joint wargames.

All this happened, coincidentally, after Kim declared that he could strike US territory with his nukes, and even threatened to do so. Call it a happy coincidence if you like - I prefer to call it proof that Kim's nukes work.

its really quite simple FD:

before summit: Trump threatened to annhialate NK
after summit: Trump talks about building peace with NK

If you want an example of "the nature of the threat" - I give you exhibit A - the war games that trump just agreed were "provocative" and agreed to end. You know, the concession you didn't even know happened until I told you.

Tweets are considered official presidential statements FD - as legitimate as a press conference.

Also the 'fire and fury' threat wasn't a tweet.

Trump can do a lot to help world peace - by doing things like attend summits with his enemies and make consessions for example.

no, why?

Is this another case of you having no clue as to what I'm actually arguing - and therefore turning my argument into what you want it to be?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 1:58pm:


How is this any different to what you are saying about Trump's comments and what they mean regarding the risk of war with NK?

Obviously I have no clue what you are arguing. I suggest that you also have no clue. You cannot answer simple questions like what is the nature of the threat and how has it reduced.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 2:16pm:


Not at America, I said at American soil - specifically, Guam. Kim made a very specific threat to launch missiles at Guam last August.

Geez, do any of you guys actually read/watch/listen to the news??

mozzaok wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 2:16pm:


not even close Mozzaok.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 4:59pm:


Ah. So when the US plays war games on cape york, who are they about to invade?

Can you give a more coherent explanation of the nature of this threat, other than blurting out war games and tweets?

Can you give some examples of previous wars where they had practice runs on each other's shorelines before the proper invasion?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 5:11pm:


Thanks for answering Gandalf, and the short answer is no, I do not watch the news. I gave that up in the late 1960's. I found the news to be untruthful mouthpieces for political and/or corporate masters.

Now if you would be kind enough to explain why you think something proved NK has nukes.
I thought you were implying that because Trump toned down his rhetoric, well backflipped on it is probably more accurate, but anyway, that, and the fact that they had a genial meeting, then those facts prove NK's nuke power.

If that isn't even close, could you say what it actually was, that made you arrive at the "proof of nukes", conclusion?
Thanks.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:


facepalm.

Quote:


An entire army stationed on your border when you are still technically at war with no peace treaty? No? How about when that same army conducts what their own president concedes are "provocative" war games off your coast? Let me guess - "gandalf - be more coherent!!"

Quote:


Its called sabre rattling, and in more popular terminology known as "being threatening".

So just to be clear FD - China invades Australia, almost wipes us out - then spends the next 60 years stationing a huge army around our coast, conducting regular "provocative" war games right near us, and then for good measure threatening us with "fire and fury"... you presumably would scoff at the idea that China presented any sort of "threat" to Australia? Can you confirm this is how utterly absurd your position is FD?

You never did address the China-Australia analogy, I wonder why...

mozzaok wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 7:58pm:


No, because I never said that.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 7:58pm:


Trump called for the summit, or at least agreed to it, specifically on a "de-nuclearisation" basis. Or in other words, since Kim's nukes were the very reason for the summit, no summit would have eventuated without them. Kim created a bargaining chip, and Trump obliged him by wanting to bargain with them. Hence the summit. And to be very clear - this was the summit that Kim wanted, for all the reasons of international legitimization that I have pointed out before. Its reasonable therefore to conclude on the aforementioned basis that his nukes were the reason for the summit - that he specifically used the threat of his nukes to force the summit to happen. In any case, at the very least its reasonable to conclude that Kim spruiked his nukes and upped the ante in terms of the threat he posed - purely for as a negotiating tool. There really isn't any other logical explanation - least of all that he wanted to actually bomb anyone and/or go to war over them.

So simply having the summit was a win for Kim, even before anything actually came out of it. That he was actually able to secure the only concession made was just icing on the cake, as was Trump's inability/refusal to insist on any sort of definite timetable for de-nuclearisation, which effectively just legitimised Kim's nuclear arsenal. And all this would not have happened if not for Kim's nukes - or more precisely whatever Trump thinks Kim's (alleged) nukes means for US interests. Thats what I mean by "Kim's nukes work"

Gandalf, you claim the vague promises by Kim as some kind of victory on his behalf, but this only makes sense if there is some kind of higher authority to adjudicate on whether he satisfied a more specific promise. There isn't. There is only the court of public opinion. I see three criteria that a foreign leader would have to satisfy to get a popular mandate for invasion:

1) The public is convinced the Kim is developing nukes.

2) The public is sufficiently supportive of non-proliferation or concerned about the threat posed by Kim.

3) The public considers that the leader has made sufficient diplomatic efforts to resolve the problem.

Kim's bluster and his actions in launching missiles takes care of 1 and 2. Trump just took care of 3, with you celebrating how one-sided his concessions were.

This is why you cannot clearly articulate the nature of the threat to NK or how it has been reduced by his development of nukes or the recent talks.  You can only regurgitate the trivial and naive.

The risk is not that China will defend NK. The risk is that China will want to take NK for itself, or half of NK.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 5^th, 2018 at 9:04pm:


Hang on Mozzaok.....I may very well have this wrong, but was it not you who posted that they do not watch the 'news?'

Quote:


Do I really need to explain this to you Gandalf?

All the countries that I am aware of that might invade NK are democracies Gandalf. Do you think the leaders of democracies might be influenced by the court of public opinion?

No. Is your memory failing you? It was only yesterday afternoon you responded to my argument.

Again, refer to my previous explanation.

The best cure for idiocy is laughter.

OK Gandalf, allow me to answer all your questions. You claim the vague promises by Kim as some kind of victory on his behalf, but this only makes sense if there is some kind of higher authority to adjudicate on whether he satisfied a more specific promise. There isn't. There is only the court of public opinion. I see three criteria that a foreign leader would have to satisfy to get a popular mandate for invasion:

1) The public is convinced the Kim is developing nukes.

2) The public is sufficiently supportive of non-proliferation or concerned about the threat posed by Kim.

3) The public considers that the leader has made sufficient diplomatic efforts to resolve the problem.

Kim's bluster and his actions in launching missiles takes care of 1 and 2. Trump just took care of 3, with you celebrating how one-sided his concessions were.

This is why you cannot clearly articulate the nature of the threat to NK or how it has been reduced by his development of nukes or the recent talks.  You can only regurgitate the trivial and naive.

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:


Exactlemente. This is exactly why we have a thing called martial law and conscription. The voting public tend to disagree with points 1, 2 and 3 in times of war, so a sterner approach is required.

If necessary, military law can be applied to things like striking coal-miners (Ben Chifley), difficult papists (Billy Hughes) rebellious pig-iron loaders (Bob Menzies) or even striking electricians (Joh Bjelke Peterson).

If all else fails, burn a Reichstag and stage a coup (Hitler - and, by FD's definition, Muhammed). Both, by FD's definition, were voted in.

Freeeedom, innit.

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:


smart arsery and dodging the point is smart arsery and dodging the point.

Try and use your head about this issue for a change FD, and while your at it get a grasp of my actual agrument. I did not "claim the vague promises by Kim as some kind of victory on his behalf" - because my point is that Kim is not the one who is/was under obligation to come up with some sort of believable promise to get him off the hook - to some vague and meaningless "court of public opinion" or anyone else. Trump is doing it all for him - in perhaps the most spectacular diplomatic humiliation of an American administration in living memory. He did it by meeting him as an equal on the world stage, by the symbolism of propping NK and American flags to stand side by side. He did it more by ending the war games and acknowledging they were an American provocation, and then he did it by effectively giving Kim's nukes the green light (by revealing that he's not interested in a timetable for denuclearisation, and basically relegating denuclearisation to an 'aspirational goal' only).

This isn't Kim making promises that must be judged by some court of public opinion, this is Trump handing it all to him on a platter - and Kim doesn't have to do anything but say "yah - right on bro".

such as...?