NOKO Peace Summit

Now, as to the war games issue in general...

So Trump has called for an end to war games. OK. But even he's said that's contingent on how things go with NK, even in that very statement. Well in that context is it so extreme? he didn't say we're done, he said we will be done with them IF things proceed as he hopes with NK's de-nuk efforts. Seems reasonable to me. It seems clear at some point the goal is to actually end this 70 year open war.

If this were another President, it's likely the announcment would be far more scripted and coordinated, but would it be any more surprising if this were Hillary negotiating with Kim? that we'd end our maneuvers pending the outcome of NK's efforts to de-nuk? that would seem pretty reasonable woudln't it?

So the difference is not in the action, but just in the delivery. Trump is off the cuff, impulsive. He's a man used to making the big decisions and moving on, sometimes consulting people but often going with his gut and his own counsel. That's what big CEO types do all the time, and that's who we elected.

He's not a polished politician, he won't call for a blue ribbon panel to study everything so as to avoid controversy and decisions. He'll open his mouth and put it right out there, and make the call as he goes.

But there's nothing radical in this process with NK. he had an historic meeting, they agreed to a general direction, that's pretty typical. Trump has offered Kim some things Kim wants, including upping his status on the world stage, ending the war games and probably offering trillions in US foreign investment in the NK. NK just has to stand down its nuclear program and start opening up to the West to receive all the benefits.

It's a good deal, and a great deal for us long term. It's the right direction. It wont' be done with polish and practice surrounded by career diplomats, but since in 70 years they haven't advanced the ball on this issue one yard, and have stood by as the North got nuclear weapons and ICBMs, I'm all for a different approach.

Shouldn't we all be for that given the failures of our career diplomatic corps on this issue for literally generations?

I think everyone is for it going forward. The problem is as it has always been however. When it comes to fulfilling their side of any agreement will they actually do so, or will the regime just use it to tighten their grip and slightly weaken the US/SK alliance. They have now been treated as equals on the national stage and we are basically negotiating with a rogue and oppressive regime that supports terrorism.
Will it invite Iran and others to do the same?

I believe however that you must negotiate with anyone possessing nuclear capability that shows a genuine interest in peace. Others like Russia have proven they do not operate in good faith...NK holds the cards for now making it unprecedented in negotiations, but we must find out if the young leader actually has the heart for peace.

He hasn’t shown the heart for much of anything else good though

I can all but guarantee you NK will not operate in good faith, and they will face pressure from Russia and China to not comply.

We're going to try to buy them off. Buy them with prestige and foreign investment. It's our biggest negotiating tool in all such deals. We did the same with Carter with Egypt, giving them billions in aid and access to markets if they'd recognize Israel and end the conflict.

But NK will face a lot of pressure, internal and external, to not move this direction. The process will be in fits and starts, two steps forward and one back.

But it's far better than missile tests over Guam, and we have to try. We just have to get what we are promised as we go, and I think Trump will want that verification in place. I know Bolton and others aren't fooled and will not remove any real pressure until NK shows compliance.

If I read the facts correctly, I think the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations both did advance the ball, only to have NK sneaking around the terms of their agreements after several years of success.
Clinton reached an aid-for-disarmament deal in 1994 that halted North Korea's plutonium production for eight years, freezing what was then a very small atomic arsenal.

Bush took a tougher stance toward North Korea, and the 1994 nuclear deal collapsed because of suspicions that the North was running a secret uranium program. But Bush, too, ultimately pursued negotiations. That led to a temporary disabling of some nuclear facilities, but talks fell apart because of differences over verification.

The Clinton and Bush administrations combined to provide $1.3 billion in assistance from 1995 to 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress.
Slightly more than half was for food aid and 40 percent for energy assistance.
Subsequently North Korea stopped producing plutonium for eight years under the 1994 agreement.
Suspicions emerged later however that North Korea had been secretly seeking to enrich uranium so thee gains there are admittedly in doubt.

So this is not new, other than the young dictators desire to have this play out on the world stage. This could indicate a new willingness to change how his family's regime operated in the past and a true interest in peace and economic partnership with the South as well as with the US.

That will be interesting to watch unfold..as will Rodman's reaction to it ;)
___

Clinton did reach an agreement, with Carter as the negotiator. The problem is it let the NK escape from a massive drought that nearly broke the nation, and didn't verify or get anything reduced. As it turns out, the NK was continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

That's the key. We can't let up the pressure unless and until we can verify we're getting what was promised. That's not easy, and wont' be easy no matter who is President, but I hope the fact the NK has duped multiple US presidents and broken multiple deals will mean we are more serious about being sure.

In the end we've never engaged the NK regime in a serious and extensive way to get real change. I have no idea if we can get it now, but it will take more than a "we give you aid, you do this thing" kind of deal. It will take a broad deal like we made with Egypt, where we got a complete shift away from the Soviets.

But as I said, I do not expect the NK to just suddenly start operating in good faith. I expect fits and starts, but I do think the latest sanctions were tough enough it has pushed Kim to reconsider his approach. If he can't feed his army and esp. buy off his inner circle, he has problems.

IMO the key is being willing to be more extreme on the stick side, so the carrot side works. Kim needs to be convinced that the next step for the US is a naval blockade to stop trade that breaks sanctions, and that we will go to war if necessary.

He needs to feel his regime is really at risk in order to get him to be serious. Clinton had that within him but clearly sending Carter is a very different approach, and obama was so very feckless in foreign affairs there was no way he'd make progress on the NK. Everyone knew he'd back down and never be willing to respond with real force.

I think Trump, like Reagan before him, has enough moxy that our enemies really do think he'd go far enough to get the job done, and that's the key to this working. If Kim really believes Trump would do what none of them would do and he'll actually attack Kim in some way, then we have a real chance at this working. if he thinks he can play us again, this won't work.

I chuckle at the Trump will bring down the democracy because of his "lies" stuff. After the bastions of truth we have had in Obama, the scandaless president (forget the IRS one, the fast and furious one, the plane of money to Iran one) who kept us safe with no terrorist attacks (forget the guy hacking up people while yelling Ahlah Akbar since that was work place violence, Fort Hood since that too was labelled work place), to little Bush and his WMD, to Slick Willie who didnt have sex with that intern, to Bush Sr and his no new taxes to Reagan and the whole Iran contra thing, to Nixon and Watergate...guess the only one not going to be the end of the democracy due to lying was Carter, possibly the worse President of all time, the one who had the audacity to meet with and shake the hand of Yassar Arafat, leader of the PLO, perhaps the greatest and original "terrorist" organization.

No, if there is any downfall of democracy, it will be from the politicians hell bent on holding power who will go to whatever means to maintain power. That would be the people like Harry Reid, who was more than happy to change the rules as he saw fit. Or those who play to special interests, or those within who curry favor and allegiance to their party over country. Then throw in some outside interests in our electoral process like Russia which democrats so much attack to illegal voters whom they vigorously protect. Those are what threaten a democracy, not a 72 year old blowhard. He is no more a SINGULAR threat to bring down this country than was Obama. Many on the right felt exactly the same about Obama. He had the support of much of his party. Trump does not. The idea that the Donald is somehow going to instill himself as supreme ruler, or even be the next FDR is bizarre.

I won’t dare try to put the other spin on things here because the only interpretation of facts you find here are those that support the vote that was cast. I see it as one must support until the end hoping the warnings from within the Republican Party and without are baseless.
Otherwise the mistake in judgement will be historically wrong and and in support of anti American sentiment. That’s where we are currently.

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule. The danger has even been pointed out by the former republican candidate for President and many in that party, and by the majority of the press, by most of the free world. But since Democrats happen to believe the same thing supporters find it easier to believe in everything from deep state conspiracies to lizard people and baby food bases on Mars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The Ulchi Freedom Guardian annual joint exercise is scheduled for the Fall of 2018

---

I saw that on news reports. The initial interview I saw with a Congressman on the Armed Services Committee was in error. Early indicators from Pompeo’s Asian trip to see leaders in the region indicate that the cancellation of the maneuvers is not an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The Clinton and Bush administrations combined to provide $1.3 billion in assistance from 1995 to 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress.
Slightly more than half was for food aid and 40 percent for energy assistance.
Subsequently North Korea stopped producing plutonium for eight years under the 1994 agreement.

---

The problem with providing assistance or cash upfront is that there is no incentive for follow through by the recipient. This is a poor business move. I know when hiring work done if you pay up front those doing the work may not finish, or may not finish in a timely manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule. The danger has even been pointed out by the former republican candidate for President and many in that party, and by the majority of the press, by most of the free world. But since Democrats happen to believe the same thing supporters find it easier to believe in everything from deep state conspiracies to lizard people and baby food bases on Mars.

---

I think you are confusing this administration with the Dems and anti-Trumpers.

-Hillary’s campaign hiring foreign agents to create a dossier

-Anti-Trumper attempts to overturn the electoral primary results leading up to and during the GOP convention

-Attempts to push the Electoral College delegates to flip their votes

-Manufacturing of the collusion fiction.

-Impeachment attempts without the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors”

If the shoe fits, we wear it. History will likely wash out the fiction and leave the facts.
We must all be sure our descendants know where our loyalties lay. I am comfortable myself that justice is being served one way or another.

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

The problem with providing assistance or cash upfront is that there is no incentive for follow through by the recipient. This is a poor business move. I know when hiring work done if you pay up front those doing the work may not finish, or may not finish in a timely manner.

---

I know it because its how the Iran deal worked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule.

---

Please list them. Any of them. I see these broad statements all the time about how Trump is undermining our system, and not one specific thing he's done that supports the claim.

He calls out the media for "fake news", and they claim that somehow any elected official calling them out is somehow undermining democracy, but that's nonsense. The press has never been above being called out by those who disagree with them, ever. that's the only thing I ever see really listed, and it's not accurate. It's accurate Trump calls them out, but it's also accurate that a big majority of Americans think he's right in his accusation, so that's not exactly systematically undermining the system. That's the "free press" undermining the system by refusing to be objective.

But seriously, what are these Machiavellian steps being taken to dismantle the Constitution?

BTW, McCain et al haven't "pointed it out", they've just made the same claim you're making. That's not the same thing. I'm curious what specific actions he's taken that are so out of the norm they are threatening the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

---

You have much more faith in history than I. :)

History is written by the victors, and in the end this battle isn't about Trump at all, but about the war between individual liberty and social justice, i.e. the collective state. Whichever side wins in the US, that side will surely insure history favors them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

If the shoe fits, we wear it. History will likely wash out the fiction and leave the facts.
We must all be sure our descendants know where our loyalties lay. I am comfortable myself that justice is being served one way or another.

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

---

Unfortunately this is not at all true. History tends to be heavily slanted by the present. If you want evidence of this one only need to look at the recent uproar over the Founding Fathers.