View Topic

Given the reportedly successful talks between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea hosted in Singapore, I was wondering what the peoples of Wintreath are thinking.

What does everyone think of the 4 articles agreed upon?

Spoiler

1. The United States and the DPRK committed to establishing new U.S.–DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. The DPRK commits to working toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/12/619168996/read-the-joint-statement-from-president-donald-trump-and-kim-jong-un

What do you think about the US and South Korea pausing joint war games? Do you think it's a blunder or an important step towards peace (or anything in between)?

What do you think about President Trump's comments about Kim and DPRK human rights abuses?

Do you think these negotiations are the beginning of the end of hostility in the Korean peninsula?

At the moment, it's merely a glorified photo op...neither Trump or Kim are above going back on their 'commitments' and have done so many times. I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or so they're back to insulting each other and calling each other names. But at least at the moment, as the previously far more isolated regime, I'd say it's a win for North Korea on propaganda alone. If they drag their feet on their 'commitments' it's going to be much harder to put the genie back in the bottle and reset things to as they were before.

I think this agreement brings North Korea a step closer to the world table and helps legitimize its regime, but honestly I'd prefer this pretend peace than more flexing and further escalation to war.

As a Singaporean - pretty pleased. $20m is pretty good for the advertising the country got, particularly since most of it was spent in Singapore anyway.

As an American - we got fucking hosed by our own president, because he just casually threw away (at least nominally) military exercises with South Korea, which surprised literally everyone, including our own military.
Not to mention, of course, the fact that we've sort of de facto legitimized Kim's rule by meeting with him under no preconditions. 45 makes out like he's the first person to think of talking to a Kim, which is patently false - its just that all his predecessors have made bare minimum human rights demands, which they haven't wanted to meet, and so no meetings occurred.
As it is, all we have is vague promises to denuclearize and make peace on the peninsula, which have been made, what, 4, 5 times already? He's gonna piss all over them at the first available opportunity.

I thought that the summit was a pain in the ass. Suddenly you had cops crawling all over the place, a whole bunch of downtown was crazy jammed and forget about driving near town. God, the only thing worse will be the National day celebration.

As for the peace talk itself, what do war games provide? What's so important about them? Ultimately, as far as I can see, they provide very little more than a sabre rattleat the North Koreans. It's not like the troops themselves are going anywhere yet. And legitimaizing Kim? Really? Because, what, if you dont talk to Kim he just goes away? I presume you would have the same criticism of Obama, then, since he wanted to meet with Kim Jong Un to. And for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton since they met with Kim Jong Il. Yeah, they were no longer Presidents but hey, they legitimaized Kim, right?

I personally do not like the deal. I think it's thin and likely to fall apart. But criticise things worth criticising, for heaven's sake.

As for the peace talk itself, what do war games provide? What's so important about them?

Recognize that in the event war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, the US and South Korean militaries, along with whatever other allies they should have on hand, will need to coordinate - war games provide opportunities to practice that.
Should war not break out, sure, then they're pointless. But the whole point is that North Korea has been saber-rattling much more, shelling South Korean islands, sinking South Korean ships...practicing for war against a state that could well try to conduct a war if it feels like it seems appropriate.

And legitimizing Kim? Really? Because, what, if you don't talk to Kim he just goes away? I presume you would have the same criticism of Obama, then, since he wanted to meet with Kim Jong Un to. And for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton since they met with Kim Jong Il. Yeah, they were no longer Presidents but hey, they legitimized Kim, right?

He wanted to meet Kim Jong Un. But he didn't, because KJU refused to meet the preconditions for a meeting, or even merely having basic diplomatic relations, just like both Bushes, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc. Recognize that the US doesn't even have diplomatic relations with North Korea; everything needs to be done through intermediaries (or 'officially' unofficially, such as 'coincidentally' in the (Insert Nation Here) Embassy while both are ostensibly supposed to be meeting those representatives).
As to Clinton and Carter; when they're private citizens, they can do what they like.

As for the peace talk itself, what do war games provide? What's so important about them?

Recognize that in the event war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, the US and South Korean militaries, along with whatever other allies they should have on hand, will need to coordinate - war games provide opportunities to practice that.
Should war not break out, sure, then they're pointless. But the whole point is that North Korea has been saber-rattling much more, shelling South Korean islands, sinking South Korean ships...practicing for war against a state that could well try to conduct a war if it feels like it seems appropriate.

And legitimizing Kim? Really? Because, what, if you don't talk to Kim he just goes away? I presume you would have the same criticism of Obama, then, since he wanted to meet with Kim Jong Un to. And for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton since they met with Kim Jong Il. Yeah, they were no longer Presidents but hey, they legitimized Kim, right?

He wanted to meet Kim Jong Un. But he didn't, because KJU refused to meet the preconditions for a meeting, or even merely having basic diplomatic relations, just like both Bushes, Bill Clinton, Reagan, etc. Recognize that the US doesn't even have diplomatic relations with North Korea; everything needs to be done through intermediaries (or 'officially' unofficially, such as 'coincidentally' in the (Insert Nation Here) Embassy while both are ostensibly supposed to be meeting those representatives).
As to Clinton and Carter; when they're private citizens, they can do what they like.

Carter and Clinton are representatives of America and would certainly legitimize anyone they meet.

As for the excercises, there has already been one this year. And they have had 2 every year since, like, 1952. If the South Koreans and the yanks cannot work together yet then I doubt one more would do the trick.

And I would much rather peace talks then a war.

Look, I'm not the biggest fan of this deal and have very little faith that this will work. However, I'm happy its at least happening. And if Obama had met Kim like this, I'm curious, would you be upset?

Carter and Clinton are representatives of America and would certainly legitimize anyone they meet.

As for the exercises, there has already been one this year. And they have had 2 every year since, like, 1952. If the South Koreans and the yanks cannot work together yet then I doubt one more would do the trick.

And I would much rather peace talks then a war.

Look, I'm not the biggest fan of this deal and have very little faith that this will work. However, I'm happy its at least happening. And if Obama had met Kim like this, I'm curious, would you be upset?

There's a difference between being being somehow representative of a country and being the leader of a country. Look at LKY - when he was PM, he was PM exclusively. When he stopped being PM, he started being on the board of all these various entities like JP Morgan or whatnot - because while he couldn't do it before without showing some manner of favoritism, as a private citizen he can do what he wants.

Onto exercises - I suppose then what's the point of ICT? My friends kena every year (I'm safe because exit permit). If after 2 years of NS people don't know what to do, then I doubt another 2 weeks would do the trick.

As for whether I'd be upset if Obama met Kim 'like that' - well, yes, because the US got shafted. But it wouldn't have happened, because Obama isn't a moron, as he demonstrated by not doing that when he was president.
Which is arguably what I say every time 'well if Obama did X, would you be angry' - no, because he wouldn't do X, because he's not a fucking idiot who talks to someone, gets excited about an idea, and then announces that idea without running it past anyone like America is a monarchy and he's the glorious god-emperor thereof.

There has been 50 years of the politics of "not legitimaizing" North Korea, of demanding change, of refusing to engage them.

In that time, nothing has changed. In that time, North Korea got a friggin Nuke. The old way of "not legitimaizing" North Korea, as if they give a flying fuck what the world thinks of them or as if Russia or China give a damn what their "legitimacy" is, of pretending that if you slap enough sanctions then North Korea will solve itself and that suddenly the human rights abuses will sort themselves out when we have 50 years worth of proof that will never happen.

And now there really is only 2 options. Diplomacy or war. Those are the two options now. And any move away from war is welcome. I understand having reservations about the peace deal. I also have reservations about the peace deal. There is no concrete promises, no pathway to denuclearization. But I expected nothing less in the first official meeting two hostile nations had in 50 years. At least they are talking. I am fine with the exercises being given up. Its not like they cannot be put back on. Its not like the troops will cease to be effective. And the legitimization argument is, in my opinion, a bad argument. So criticise the things worth criticising, not just expedient nonsense.

And please, Obama was hardly some genius level political operator. Trump is a joke but Obama was hardly some great paragon.

My point is, we gave up things that North Korea desperately wanted for little more than the president getting his ego stroked. And the net result of that is that the country's institutions look weak, because clearly if you can get the right person elected, you can get whatever you want - which significantly ups the ante for people interfering in US elections now. I mean, I suppose at some point the shoe was going to wind up on the other foot and everyone else was going to realize that they should start trying to affect US elections - but wow the weakness it's exposed is fucking embarrassing.

And yes, the approach to North Korea over the last 50 years has been rubbish. But what we've given up recently is meaningful, and what North Korea has given up is...a lot of promises and a nuclear test site that they'd already blown up anyway. Which is clearly some fantastic dealmaking, courtesy of the author of the Art of the Deal, and is so much better than the Iran deal. And if you believe that, I've got some amazing, grade-A condos to sell you, you've got a view of Mar-A-Lago...

As for what I'm saying about Obama - in no way am I calling him some sort of genius. But he certainly wasn't completely out of his depth when negotiating with other world leaders, stabbing our allies and own people in the back and immensely increasing the prestige of our enemies whenever prompted.

But other than the excercises, which is not the end of the world, what have the yanks given up?

...talking to Kim Jong Un at all?
And I mean, sure, neither of those things the end of the world. But after the media stuff dies down, other political leaders are gonna look at it and think 'mm, the blood is in the water now', because the US looks weak, because it's given up long-held-back things that the other side desperately wanted because the president valued his brand or image or whatever over the long-term strategic interests of his country. And so everyone is going to realize all you need for a weak US is a weak president. And if that's all you need, you don't need to be so obviously going for one candidate over another in the actual elections - all you really need to do is set up the primaries, which are much less carefully watched, so that no matter which candidate is presented, both will knuckle under to the court of public opinion, instead of doing what's actually good for the country in the long-term.

Not that long-termism is anything that US administrations have given much of a shit about for the last 4 decades or so, but at the very least they'd consider the medium term. This one seems to barely be thinking about the current term.

Talking to Kim is the problem? Just talking? Really? So what, more of the same? Fear with a threat of war hanging over our heads? And again, I ask, beyond the Joint Excercises, what did the yanks give up? I really do not see how merely talking to the North Koreans makes the US look any weaker than when the US talked to the Iranians.

Right, what I'm saying is 'what they gave up is talking to Kim, period'.
Saying 'we'll talk to you when you improve your human rights record and provide bona-fide commitments to denuclearization' has been the US policy standpoint on any dialogue with North Korea since the '90s.
Then Donald threw that away so that he and Kim could lim kopi and talk cock sing song for the global media to eat up because if they're talking about a Trump-Kim conference half the world away, they'll stop talking for a bit about his terrible fucking policies in the US or his terrible fucking choices in his personal life or the circumstances under which he was elected or the Mueller investigation or any of the shit that showcases what a fucking shitshow his administration has been, because he's been playing the distraction game for the last year and a fucking half in a game of 'ooh look here' so that people aren't busy thinking about all of the terrible fucking EOs he's been signing or the legislation Congress has been passing, and this is just the culmination of all of that until the next fucking media storm he generates with some brand new magical distraction device.

In contrast, when the US talked to Iran, they had some preconditions. Iran met those preconditions. Talks happened.

EDIT: I really, really don't want to make it seem like I'm going off on you here. I'm just fuckin tired of 45 and the pure, unadulterated form of runaway crony capitalism his administration represents.

The tactic of "no talking until civil rights changes" has been a smashing success, after all, in that time North Korea has gotten a firmer grip over its population, its secured more economic certainty from its allies who could not care less about civil rights abuses and it got a bloody nuke. Brilliant! That tactic was so successful, lets do more of it! Hell, give it ten more years and who knows what North Korea will do next!

I'm not terribly happy about this deal. Its thin and I have my doubts it will work and I wish that anyone but Donald J Trump was doing it but what I'm not upset about is that it happened at all because when it comes to Republicans and hostile nations they have a tendency to try and solve the problem with a military invasion so excuse me if I'm over the moon at the prospect that for  once the first response was not the last resort.

And I dont get the criticisms that typically come from Reactionary Neo-cons who led the world into such classics like Vietnam and Iraq. Diplomacy is weakness? Really? So what is the alternative? I do not like DJT either but I hope to god he succeeds because if not then I suffer not him. And a peace process is preferable to more fear and loathing in the Korean Peninsula.