[Hong Wu]

What do you think my position was?

[Red_Army]

I explained in my previous post.

[Sivad]

[Red_Army]

Watching Democrats criticize Republicans for this after Republicans criticized Democrats for the Iran deal just reminds me of the scene in Face Off where Nicolas Cage and John Travolta shoot at their own reflections/each other.

[Hong Wu]

Regarding the Iran deal, they are two very different countries and situations, or as Trump said, they aren't giving NK $150 billion.

So if Iran already had nukes, as well as enough conventional artillery set up to kill tens of millions of people, and diplomacy had been failing for decades, they would probably get treated differently. This is part of the emerging Trump doctrine, which apparently includes acknowledging the reality of situations and not just setting yourself up to win overly simple debates with people who refuse to look at the whole picture.

[Beren]

Iran is a far more powerful country with far more potential than Kim's NK, actually.

Trump is certainly correct in pointing out that he made history in meeting amicably with his North Korean adversary. But it is yet to be determined whether he made a historic breakthrough or a historic blunder. No previous U.S. president considered it prudent to embark on summitry with so little preparation or on terms so favorable to the other side, let alone to promise to unilaterally discontinue defensive joint U.S.–South Korean military exercises on the Korean Peninsula. For his part, Kim can rightfully boast that he has accomplished what his father and grandfather could only dream of: achieving the twin goals of building a viable nuclear weapons capability and then winning international acceptance as a “very honorable” peer, as he was referred to by the leader of the free world.

In the end, the joint statement that emerged from the summit is but a diluted version of numerous past aspirational documents put forward by North Korea and its negotiating partners. It lightly echoes inter-Korean agreements dating back to the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It contains watered-down versions of pledges in international deals such as the 1994 Agreed Framework and the 2005 joint statement of the fourth round of the six-party talks. It allows North Korea to slide from its previous commitment “to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and [return] at an early date to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty].” And it offers a vague promise “to work toward complete denuclearization.” This can hardly be construed as progress. The Singapore joint statement is worrisomely silent on ballistic missiles, let alone chemical weapons, cyberwarfare, nuclear proliferation, and (unsurprisingly) human rights.

In any case, even a robust joint statement could not serve as a reliable indicator of progress given North Korea’s spotty record of compliance and follow-through. So at this point, what progress can each side credibly claim to have achieved based on its goals coming into the meeting?

North Korea’s most urgent priorities were to loosen the stranglehold of sanctions and to reduce the risk of a U.S. preventive attack or a “bloody nose” strike, all without being forced to relinquish the “treasured sword,” as Kim described them, of its nuclear weapons. Other priorities included using the lure of a peace treaty to undercut U.S.–South Korean military exercises and deployments, eroding the North’s isolation and pariah status, and obtaining economic assistance and investment on terms consistent with regime control and stability. Pyongyang also hoped to alleviate the pressure on the nuclear issue and criticism of its human rights record by finding ways to fracture the solidarity among the five main players: China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Kim sought to play them off against one another and strengthen the “accommodationist” camp in South Korea, which sees the South's alliance with the United States as an impediment to inter-Korean rapprochement.

By these measures, the Singapore summit has capped an astonishingly successful spring for Kim.

It's not the full article.

[Hong Wu]

Iran is a far more powerful country with far more potential than Kim's NK, actually.


It's not the full article.

Your article doesn't discuss Iran...

[Beren]

Your article doesn't discuss Iran...

That's a great observation.

My comment regarding Iran was a side note.

[colliric]

I'll be honest with you, I think anyone from the MSM who doesn't see this as a pure victory for both sides, is obviously brain damaged.

The USA was basically choking North Korea and making the opressing situation remain locked in. Trump did the right thing by giving NK everything they wanted. They didn't ask for much.

The best diplomacy isn't always about holding out for the "deal that benifits us financially the most". Sometimes you've just got to do the right thing and help those poor starving Koreans get well fed.

[One Degree]

I think it is too soon to make any real judgements, but it is a real possibility Trump is using this as a statement to the world of ‘fair dealing’ on a one to one basis.

[Red_Army]

Yes @Hong Wu That is a great example of the hypocrisy and mirror shooting I was discussing. Thanks for that!

[Hong Wu]

I think practically anyone can point out the differences in these situations and attacking Trump for doing something that other Presidents have been trying and failing to do for decades is going to backfire in a very tangible way for American leftists and the MSM, the latter clearly being in the middle of a credibility crisis as it is.

[Red_Army]

I find it hilarious that you think North Korea will get rid of their nukes without some sanctions being lifted. There will be a deal similar to the Iran deal or nothing will be accomplished. The only reason to get rid of the nuclear program is money. If you're right about the deals being different then Trump's accomplishment will consist of a photo op. If you're wrong then you'll just parrot Trump's newest excuse for his flip-flopping because you have no principles.

[Hong Wu]

I don't think I commented on economic sanctions. You keep trying to make my argument for me, I don't need to own your characterization of me you know. It has no relevance even on PoFo.

[Unperson-K]

We've had one summit with a fairly non-committal protocol signed. For comparison, it was a long and torturous path that took Reagan and Gorbachev from 'one summit in which positive things were said' to 'the Soviet Union will no longer enforce communism in the signatories of the Warsaw Pact'.

I have no faith that Trump is either capable or willing to undertake that kind of tortuous path. Gorbachev and Reagan were both inspired by conviction, rightly or wrongly, which allowed them to take a policy path lasting years. I don't believe that is the case here, especially with regards to Trump.

[annatar1914]

We've had one summit with a fairly non-committal protocol signed. For comparison, it was a long and torturous path that took Reagan and Gorbachev from 'one summit in which positive things were said' to 'the Soviet Union will no longer enforce communism in the signatories of the Warsaw Pact'.

I have no faith that Trump is either capable or willing to undertake that kind of tortuous path. Gorbachev and Reagan were both inspired by conviction, rightly or wrongly, which allowed them to take a policy path lasting years. I don't believe that is the case here, especially with regards to Trump.

You are mistaken. President Trump has the conviction of saving America and Capitalism from themselves, and America/Capitalism are almost synonymous in his mind, btw. Therefore, being a true believer in Capitalism as fanatical as any die-hard Marxist Leninist is about Communism, he can be expected to act according to those beliefs.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I wouldn't be surprised if the leftist commentariat had expressed the same scepticism about Reagan back when the process with Gorbachev started.

[colliric]

I have no faith that Trump is either capable or willing to undertake that kind of tortuous path. Gorbachev and Reagan were both inspired by conviction, rightly or wrongly, which allowed them to take a policy path lasting years. I don't believe that is the case here, especially with regards to Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard ... t_to_China

Doesn't really make a difference. Those that follow will remember this day as being historic and the countries relationship is certain to change for the better.

Kim Jong Un on American Soil will be a historically significant visit. Maybe as significant historically as Khrushchev's 1959 visit was.

Nixon's Visit to China happened in his last days as President, yet changed things forever.

[Red_Army]

@Kaiserschmarrn well they'd have been right then too. Reagan was also an idiot and had dementia. The commies would tell you that he lucked out because his opponent was a traitor. I'd say that Gorbachev regardless of his motivations made a lot of poor choices if he wanted to preserve the Soviet Union. In other words I think Gorby had a lot more to do with the fall than Reagan.

That being said I want to reiterate that I think this is a positive move by Trump and wish him the most success possible. I don't care to pillory Trump at the nation's expense. Trump is not consistent as to his attitude in this situation, but Kim probably isn't either. He could be the perfect person to deal with North Korea, we will see.

[Unperson-K]

I wouldn't be surprised if the leftist commentariat had expressed the same scepticism about Reagan back when the process with Gorbachev started.

Actually, it was the rightist commentariat who criticised him (hardliners didn't like the fact that he sat down and talked with a communist). And they were right to express scepticism, given how long and difficult the process was.

Doesn't really make a difference. Those that follow will remember this day as being historic and the countries relationship is certain to change for the better.

You can believe that, if you wish. It might happen. But at the moment, it's just a statement of blind faith.