(08-28-2018 03:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-28-2018 03:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (08-28-2018 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-28-2018 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Contrasted with the free reign that Obama the Great employed with respect to NK, yep, still a huge positive move. A lot more to do here, undoubtedly.
As noted before, the steps in NK are very positive especially when contrasted with the Obama "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I say nothing, I do nothing" style of 'leading from behind'.
Or, if you are stating that there is not a net positive, I take it you liked that 'see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, do nothing' policy?
If you are thinking 'absolute terms' you might have a point. When you are looking at it relativistically, I dont think anyone (aside from Un) can state that it is 'the same' or 'worse'. Somehow you seemingly imply that. What a surprise.
I'm saying that nothing tangible came from anything Trump has done. No agreements, no treaties, not hard progress that can be used to hold NK accountable and affect change. And that falls almost squarely on NK. Like I said, it's good that Trump was trying to shoot for the moon, but there was a reason many were cautious to heap praise on him for landing on the moon.
Now we don't even have a friendly relationship with them - the North Koreans have basically ghosted us after all of the hoopla around the summit died down and they're back to being a bunch of diplomatic turds.
Again, great that the Trump admin tried, but we're back to square one with nothing concrete in place to deal with the NK issue.
Square one is the beginning of the Trump administration -- that is Jon Un the aggessive AD/HD panda bear popping off one of his 1.4x GDP firecrackers every year or so, and the same bellicose panda lobbing missiles over Japan at every chance he gets, and the same bellicose panda threatening to nuke Guam.
*That* is square one my young friend.
Funny you dont see that.
As I said before, long road in front of everyone. But where we are *now* is in a different and calmer place prior to the events. Sorry that your sensibilities are so offended that "No agreements, no treaties" are there; but the dynamic is way, way different. Amazingly so.
I guess the reality of that different place is not 'tangible' enough for you to be 'tangible'. I guess what is expected from you is a great big piece of parchment with letters in Gothic font and waxed signings in it. Me, I'll take the 'real world' effect of the de-bellicosed panda-with-nukes as the sort of 'tangible' I can live with. But I guess you need that shiny embossed piece of paper to count as 'tangible'....
I do see where square one is, but we aren't really that far from it, and certainly not in any tangible sense. There is no agreement - not written, not verbalized to the world, and certainly not spoken between private parties (since Pompeo's recent trip to NK was canceled).
Yes, absolutely shocking that someone would want something tangible from the North Koreans in the form of a diplomatic agreement, before one started praising a leader from the US for making headway with a notoriously fickle and unreliable regime.
I mean, where would I get the idea that having signed contracts that outline roles and responsibilities, matched with third-party verification, would ever be a way to evaluate how despotic regimes have actually changed their ways? Such a shocking and unexpected thing to want.
For a lawyer, it's interesting that you seem to dismiss the idea of a binding contract so quickly. Do you view the contracts your client's sign with you with the same sort of flippancy?
No I dont 'dismiss the idea of a binding contract .... with flippancy'. I am old enough *and* experienced enough to counsel certain clients that sometimes the status quo without a 'binding contract' may be good enough to start a relationship. Sometimes it may be advantageous to continue without one. Sometimes not so advantageous.
You'll learn as you age, lad.
And you've obviously never heard the statement (that almost everyone else I know knows of) that sometimes there are no good contracts with bad people.
You'll learn as you age, lad.
And Lord forbid, I actually rent some stuff out month to month as well, how in the fing world *do I* overlook those thingys....
I guess if I was 'embossed seal crazy' (like some posters are seemingly today) I might have a different outlook.
Contracts may be the right vehicle for the right situation. I dont magically shoehorn everything in the life, universe, and everything into a contract like you seemingly have an overriding urge for today. (Except that is, when the contract contains the number 42 in it somewhere.... then Im all over your 'must have a contract for this' urge-thingy.....)
lad, I dont dismiss getting a treaty or some other magic-wax, magic embossed parchment like you seemingly want as a the sine qua non of the life, universe, and everything. But your characterization as 'we are back to square one' is just stupid, as is your idea that the *only* tangible result is that elven manuscript form.
The tangible result is that some obese, bespeckled, jacktard AD/HD panda-bear isnt threatening to nuke Guam, isnt lobbing missiles every other week, and isnt popping off his own nukes every year. While that passes my 'tangible' test, your expectations for 4 months are some fing version of SALT II or the Brest-Livotsk Treaty as being the *only* tangible result.
When I make a comment that that result seems kind of 'large expectation-ish' you respond with a fairly asinine comment about my supposed flippancy on contracts. Bad hair day there, lad?
For the 4 mos, I think it is fairly significant, and a good start. You dont.
*That* seems to be the major and overriding difference here. But, I am not surprised.