(04-30-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If Trump pulls this off, this is going to be extremely hard for the spin doctors on the left to downplay.

But they're already in overtime trying to find ways to do it.

Can you point to this "overtime" you're talking about?

I really only see most on the left acknowledging the situation just like you do - by prefacing things with "if." And I've seen everything be, "if Trump pulls this off, he deserves credit."

For example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/adam...rth-korea/

http://time.com/5189072/north-korea-dona...mp-credit/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-south...perts-say/

How about this.

(04-30-2018 12:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  LOL, no seriously.

NSFW, styx is a little riled up today.

Quote:As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/us/po...korea.html

(04-30-2018 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So it doesnt seemingly matter that the leaders of N. and S. Korea met, for the the very first time ever.

I find it somewhat amazing that they did, to be frank. What had been a 'never happen in a lifetime event' actually occurred. I do find it interesting how much this is being downplayed, i.e. the events that actually have happened.

I mean, this is actually a tangible bucketload more than the last US Presidential winner actually did for the prize...

The actual importance of the event actually stands with Sadat going to Jerusalem to speak with the Knesset; Sadat and Begin would have won the PP for that action alone, notwithstanding Camp David which followed that historic trip.

But, I am not surprised at the goalposts for this being set back, tbh.

To the bold - this isn't the first time ever. Kim Jong-Il met the leader of South Korea (Kim Dae-jung) in 2000. That was the first ever meeting since World War II. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/j...orthkorea1

Then seven years later, the same type of meeting happened.

The historic nature of this meeting, is that it was the first meeting between the leaders in South Korea.

The reason this event is being downplayed is because it doesn't mean anything - yet. There have been talks directly between the leaders before, but nothing major has come from them. So based on that history, people are pausing to congratulate anyone too much because there is nothing set in stone.

But since you've been misinformed about the number of meetings between the Korean leaders, I can understand why you find this to be a much more significant act than it is.

I guess that since this is so 'in the normal' that Moon is being a bloviating asshat for the following:

Quote:“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize."

and

Quote:"[Trump] deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the U.S.-led sanctions and pressure”.

Bloviating asshat S Korean leader downplays meeting

Sorry about getting the numbers wrong. Im sure that is just a nature of bloviating asshats though.

But, I would surmise I'm not the only one 'misinformed' about the historic nature of the meeting.

Hate to tell you the historic nature of the meeting wasnt that Rocket man 'crossed South', it is the depth that the two countries are interacting. Regardless of two meetings previously between leaders.

Hm, I wouldn't have suggested that Moon was a bloviating asshat - weird term to throw out there.

Where have I contradicted anything you said? All I've said, which OO agrees with, is to not get too far ahead of ourselves. It's great that N and S Korea have had a meeting in S Korea and signed a peace treaty. And I've said Trump does deserve some credit - and he will definitely deserve more if anything substantial comes from these talks.

But until we get something substantial out of these talks, I'm going to hold my breathe. Why is that such a hard position to swallow? You seem rather peeved at that.

I took your last sentence as a snide remark. That's why.

It was a snide remark because you were taking an overly aggressive stance to what is a very reasonable position - that Trump has played a role and will deserve credit, if something tangible comes of these talks. But since we do have some history to go on (which you suggested we didn't), we know that talks between the two Koreas don't always lead to action; therefore, we should hold off on patting anyone on the back.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether not the Korean leaders met for the first time in S. Korea if nothing comes of the meeting. Regardless of that being a first since WWII.

But I see no playing down of this in the press - there are hundreds of articles about this historic meeting, and Democratic leaders are acknowledging that Trump has played a role, and should something tangible happen, deserves credit.

Actually most of those on the left are downplaying what "has" occurred by making the "if" statement; they are going out of their way to downplay what concessions *and* the first nascent meaningful dialogue in 50 years that N. Korea has ever undertaken.

They have moved the goalposts to 'well, without complete de-nuclearization, there rally isnt much there.'

And any kudos is preceded by 'well its only because Trump is a bellicose madman that this happened.' The Adam Schiff statement in the National Review cited is precisely that.

Your other two cites are simply to news organizations making a statement of credit. The last two cites aren't really examples of quoting anyone of 'those on the left' as you preface at all; or are you acknowledging that those media organizations are so inherently biased that they are in fact 'those on the left'? I suggest you proof your 'cites' before proffering them as what 'those on the left' are saying....

(04-30-2018 03:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How about this.

(04-30-2018 12:27 PM)Kronke Wrote:  LOL, no seriously.

NSFW, styx is a little riled up today.

Quote:As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/us/po...korea.html

Did you read the article? I see nothing that talks about not giving Trump credit. Instead, it's an analysis that highlights the difficulties of denuclearization, specifically through the lens of these talks.

It even specifically states in the article:

Quote:There is little question, senior officials and analysts said, that the American-led sanctions, combined with Mr. Trump’s bellicose vows to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea if it threatened the American homeland, helped bring Mr. Kim to the table.

Sorry, not seeing how this is spin, unless you are suggesting that:

1) Trump ripping up the Iran deal is not something that would hurt potential N. Korea talks
2) N. and S. Korea resuming regular diplomatic and trade relations would not make it more difficult for us to use economic sanctions
3) Threatening military action against a country that is trying to extend an olive branch to its sworn enemy is easy

(04-30-2018 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 03:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bold - this isn't the first time ever. Kim Jong-Il met the leader of South Korea (Kim Dae-jung) in 2000. That was the first ever meeting since World War II. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/j...orthkorea1

Then seven years later, the same type of meeting happened.

The historic nature of this meeting, is that it was the first meeting between the leaders in South Korea.

The reason this event is being downplayed is because it doesn't mean anything - yet. There have been talks directly between the leaders before, but nothing major has come from them. So based on that history, people are pausing to congratulate anyone too much because there is nothing set in stone.

But since you've been misinformed about the number of meetings between the Korean leaders, I can understand why you find this to be a much more significant act than it is.

I guess that since this is so 'in the normal' that Moon is being a bloviating asshat for the following:

Quote:“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize."

and

Quote:"[Trump] deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the U.S.-led sanctions and pressure”.

Bloviating asshat S Korean leader downplays meeting

Sorry about getting the numbers wrong. Im sure that is just a nature of bloviating asshats though.

But, I would surmise I'm not the only one 'misinformed' about the historic nature of the meeting.

Hate to tell you the historic nature of the meeting wasnt that Rocket man 'crossed South', it is the depth that the two countries are interacting. Regardless of two meetings previously between leaders.

Hm, I wouldn't have suggested that Moon was a bloviating asshat - weird term to throw out there.

Where have I contradicted anything you said? All I've said, which OO agrees with, is to not get too far ahead of ourselves. It's great that N and S Korea have had a meeting in S Korea and signed a peace treaty. And I've said Trump does deserve some credit - and he will definitely deserve more if anything substantial comes from these talks.

But until we get something substantial out of these talks, I'm going to hold my breathe. Why is that such a hard position to swallow? You seem rather peeved at that.

I took your last sentence as a snide remark. That's why.

It was a snide remark because you were taking an overly aggressive stance to what is a very reasonable position - that Trump has played a role and will deserve credit, if something tangible comes of these talks. But since we do have some history to go on (which you suggested we didn't), we know that talks between the two Koreas don't always lead to action; therefore, we should hold off on patting anyone on the back.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether not the Korean leaders met for the first time in S. Korea if nothing comes of the meeting. Regardless of that being a first since WWII.

But I see no playing down of this in the press - there are hundreds of articles about this historic meeting, and Democratic leaders are acknowledging that Trump has played a role, and should something tangible happen, deserves credit.

Thanks for the acknowledging the snide asshat remark Lad. Glad to know it was intentional. Does you well.

Please move the goalposts away from what has been a very historic set of situations.

By the way, you seemingly either didnt understand my remark or overlooked it and are misinformed.

You keep fixating on 'well its only different because he went South'. My response previously was:

Quote:Hate to tell you the historic nature of the meeting wasnt that Rocket man 'crossed South', it is the depth that the two countries are interacting. Regardless of two meetings previously between leaders.

But please fixate only on the difference that Kim walked across the South line instead of what I actually said.

(04-30-2018 03:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually most of those on the left are downplaying what "has" occurred by making the "if" statement; they are going out of their way to downplay what concessions *and* the first nascent meaningful dialogue in 50 years that N. Korea has ever undertaken.

They have moved the goalposts to 'well, without complete de-nuclearization, there rally isnt much there.'

And any kudos is preceded by 'well its only because Trump is a bellicose madman that this happened.' The Adam Schiff statement in the National Review cited is precisely that.

Your other two cites are simply to news organizations making a statement of credit. The last two cites aren't really examples of quoting anyone of 'those on the left' as you preface at all; or are you acknowledging that those media organizations are so inherently biased that they are in fact 'those on the left'?

This is stupid.

You're right, the left are not giving Trump any credit and are all going out of their way to live with their heads in the sand.

The 'credit' they give is twofold:

a) well without de-nuclearization there isnt much there; and
b) its only because Trump is bellicose, asshat madman that any of this has happened.

Funny, I see both those in Schiff's 'credit' that you loudly proclaim.

Why now?

That is the question that keeps going through my head.

Is it because Kim realizes that this is not the kind of US president he is used to, one he can cow with threats? Possibly.

Is it because Kim is playing a strategy of scare the hell out of them, then offer to negotiate to get things they need/want? Possibly.

No doubt everybody has an agenda. Kim has one, Moon has one, China has one, Russia has one. Does Trump have one? I think so, but then I am one of those who do not think he is a Russian puppet, so Trump's agenda and Putin's will differ significantly..

so now we enter a period in which everybody will be angling to get the concessions they want. If at the end, we have a truly denuclearized North Korea, then I think the lion's share of the credit must go to Trump. A Nobel peace Prize would not be enough.

If, at the end of the road, we have the denuclearization of NK, I will expect the leftist media to downplay Trump's role as much as they can, even if it means adulation for Kim. Hard to call him a madman if it works. hard to call him unfit for office. But they will try. They have too much invested in deTrumping America and turning the map blue.

OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, the only reason that N and S Korea are where they currently are is because Trump is a bellicose moron asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

(04-30-2018 03:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did you read the article? I see nothing that talks about not giving Trump credit. Instead, it's an analysis that highlights the difficulties of denuclearization, specifically through the lens of these talks.
It even specifically states in the article:

Quote:There is little question, senior officials and analysts said, that the American-led sanctions, combined with Mr. Trump’s bellicose vows to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea if it threatened the American homeland, helped bring Mr. Kim to the table.

Sorry, not seeing how this is spin, unless you are suggesting that:
1) Trump ripping up the Iran deal is not something that would hurt potential N. Korea talks
2) N. and S. Korea resuming regular diplomatic and trade relations would not make it more difficult for us to use economic sanctions
3) Threatening military action against a country that is trying to extend an olive branch to its sworn enemy is easy

All I am suggesting is that focusing on Trump's potential loss of leverage instead of the potential upside is trying to belittle his accomplishment. Leverage is something that you lose when you use it. So you have to use it at the right point to get maximum return. You might call it the art of the deal, for want of a better term.

(04-30-2018 04:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why now?

That is the question that keeps going through my head.

Is it because Kim realizes that this is not the kind of US president he is used to, one he can cow with threats? Possibly.

Is it because Kim is playing a strategy of scare the hell out of them, then offer to negotiate to get things they need/want? Possibly.

No doubt everybody has an agenda. Kim has one, Moon has one, China has one, Russia has one. Does Trump have one? I think so, but then I am one of those who do not think he is a Russian puppet, so Trump's agenda and Putin's will differ significantly..

so now we enter a period in which everybody will be angling to get the concessions they want. If at the end, we have a truly denuclearized North Korea, then I think the lion's share of the credit must go to Trump. A Nobel peace Prize would not be enough.

If, at the end of the road, we have the denuclearization of NK, I will expect the leftist media to downplay Trump's role as much as they can, even if it means adulation for Kim. Hard to call him a madman if it works. hard to call him unfit for office. But they will try. They have too much invested in deTrumping America and turning the map blue.

By the way, I think the reason 'now' is:

a) Trump has exhibited that he will not tolerate provocative actions; and
b) The US (through Trump) has indicated that there is a fine area in which *everyone* gets something out of it (a business-level solution).

There is a perfect stability point available:

S. Korea and Trump get the threat of nukes and war on the Korean peninsula drastically reduced (if not eliminated).

N. Korea leadership gets a guarantee of staying in place.

N. Korea can actually gain entry into the 21st century and the global market.

China gets a guarantee that Japan and S. Korea dont go down the nuclear path.

China has to live with a gulag state next to it, but a buffer gulag state, They are willing to accept that in order to stop Japan and S. Korea nuclearization.

US and Korea will also accept that for the gulag state that it has to tolerate, there will be a foundation for peace on the peninsula, and (hopefully) a denuclearized N. Korea.

US can hopefully leverage this to throttle back N. Koreas 'technology' export business.

This can be spun as a win for everyone at the table -- a perfect business solution. You get some things you really want, and you have to give up other things that you hope for, but can live without. We will accept the Kim dynasty's sovereignty and its killing its opponents with packs of dogs and starving it's population to take Rocket Man's finger off a nuclear trigger and for a foundation of peace on the 38th.

But sometimes, in order to get that business deal done, maybe the equivalent of a lawsuit needs to be forwarded to the 'other business' in order to get them to the table in the first place.

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.
Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

What I'd prefer is for left and right to realize that sometimes you have to rattle sabers to get a result. If we had taken more of a Trump approach toward Iran, I think we'd have ended up with a much better deal than the piece of paper we got, which is essentially worthless except getting a bunch of cash back into the hands of the Iranians.

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.
Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

What I'd prefer is for left and right to realize that sometimes you have to rattle sabers to get a result. If we had taken more of a Trump approach toward Iran, I think we'd have ended up with a much better deal than the piece of paper we got, which is essentially worthless except getting a bunch of cash back into the hands of the Iranians.

We're a long way from having this deal done. We're about where Kissinger had Sinai when he passed it off to Carter, and that deal did not go final for a while. But we are further down the road to a deal than we have been before, at least symbolically, and symbols mean something in foreign policy.

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

I see Trump 'doing business'. He threatened the global diplomacy equivalent of a company killer lawsuit to get the counterparty to the table. Any major business person knows this, and does this. Especially where there is ground that everyone can get a portion of what they each want, but not all.

Trump imported a brash business strategy to the global diplomatic arena.

Is he a 'statesman'? Far from it. He is pretty fing effective here, though.

Bellicose? maybe. But the roadmap has 'business solution' printed all over it.

The Art of the Deal?

(04-30-2018 04:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

I see Trump 'doing business'. He threatened the global diplomacy equivalent of a company killer lawsuit to get the counterparty to the table. Any major business person knows this, and does this.

Trump imported a brash business strategy to the global diplomatic arena.

Is he a 'statesman'? Far from it. He is pretty fing effective here, though.

Bellicose? maybe. But the roadmap has 'business solution' printed all over it.

In light of the Nork discussion today:

Quote:Chung In Moon, special adviser to President Moon Jae-in, suggested American fast food giant McDonalds could even set up outlets in Pyongyang as tensions between North Korea and the West thaw.

He said: "They want American investment."

"They want American investment coming to North Korea.

How do you describe "McDonald's" to a N. Korean?

(04-30-2018 04:34 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 04:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  OO -- I see two steps here. Just like with Sadat/Begin.

Step 1: get the right people at the table to talk. This has *never* happened in the Nork situation, regardless that the two Korean leaders have previously met. Second, there has never been a unilateral concession from the Norks as we are seeing. This step 1 is the absolute biggest step. Took balls of steel for Sadat to go to Jerusalem and speak (prior to Camp David). That was the *first* crack in the Egyptian/Israeli wall of ice that had *ever* happened.

This is the biggest step I have ever seen from Norks; nothing compares to this.

Step 2: get the big 'deal' done. But to get to step 2, you *first* have to overcome step 1. Camp David would have never occurred without Sadat traveling to Jerusalem unilaterally.

The left is fixated on: Since we dont have a step 2, nothing really here. Good boy Donny, for getting step 1 done. But step 1 is a *major* change in the relationship. A drastic *and* major change. I am not downplaying the even more historic issue if the denuclearization occurs, in the slightest. But the left *is* downplaying the major event of these sides having the level of interaction here to a major degree. And it is understandable, since a bellicose loudmouth got that step 1 done.

Everything I have read from a left columnist or politician has been of the form 'Well credit for getting the people together, for whatever it is worth. The real credit is only with denuclearization. And by the way, Trump is a bellicose asshat.'

So yes, getting the step 1 is a BFD. A HFD in fact. The countries of North and South Korea are interacting and talking in a way that is quite frankly, unparalleled for the last 60 some-odd years.

I mean, do you disagree that Trump's attitude may have played a role? In the past, all other president's seemed to know not to poke North Korean for fear of a retaliation. Trump's bellicose nature flew in the face of previous administrations' approach and may have been enough to spook North Korea.

Would you prefer that the left and right adulate him for his statesmen like manner and rhetoric? I'm not sure what else Trump has done differently from previous admins, or than this, that may have encouraged North Korea to the table - do you?

Weird. If he gets results through negotiation without firing a shot, isn't that preferable?

He's the least warlike president we've had in decades, and yet he's called "bellicose", while presidents who talk peace but rack up huge body counts are lauded for ending dictatorships and spreading democracy. Orwell was right, "War is Peace".

What's weird?

I never said anything was preferable one way of the other. Since you ask, it's 100% preferable that we get results without military incursion. Trump's remarks to the press and on Twitter have been very saber rattling, and more so than presidents in the past with regards to North Korea. He has lived up to the definition of bellicose in that regard. He seems VERY willing to engage.

I would definitely not call him the least warlike president - he's already struck Syria twice.

You have a point about previous presidents who talked peace and then got us mired in war. But no one today laud's them for being peaceful. It seems you are hung up on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, which was an absolute sham. And I don't see how that has any bearing on this conversation.