Talk is an excellent first step toward peace, however unlikely, and wherever and whenever it may be found. Kudos to President Trump for accepting. Now, let's see what it brings. Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fered-meet-Trump-suspend-nuclear-program.html
I was quite surprised myself to hear from his people, but he likely heard of the wife's cooking and here we are.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of meeting with the guy and elevating his status as a respected world leader as he runs a totalitarian cult of personality state replete with massive concentration camps. His government is a pariah in the world and should remain so.
As long as there are torture camps, the only thing to talk about is him stepping down. I've been very consistent on this.
I'm a fan of preventing a nuclear exchange, and refusing to attempt a peaceable means of deescalation for fear of "elevating his status" is of such comparitively silly unimportance as to not be taken seriously. I don't see the choices as merely being: A) A nuclearized North Korea, or B) The current regime and death camps You can continue to sanction him, just as we've done for near 30 years, and which have failed to bring about the changes that each of you - and we all - want to see occur. You can go to war, and watch as the number of dead killed in the first 3 days of that exchange easily eclipse the number who have died in death camps and at the hands of this regime. Or you can talk. I'm for talking, not only - but first - and for as long and earnestly as it shows any signs of making peace possible. I can't believe we've each assumed these positions, but no truly peace-loving person could deny the potential for optimistic opportunity, here, however cautiously. And believing this silliness is being driven by nothing more than your own personal biases against President Trump, I seem to recall his predecessor expressing a willingness to talk to anyone in the pursuit of peace. He just never did it. Stop me if you've heard this one before.....
I don't like the swipe at the end, nor do I like the idea of talking to Un. But, now that they have ICBMs, the game has changed. I tend to agree with Tenny on this one. Not confident it will work,especially with Trump doing the talking, but if talks can change the situation, then talk. There are other tools that can bring about change other than a hammer. I give it less than .01% chance, but get free flowing information in North Korea and watch the people there handle the change themselves.
It'd be shame if I were to look through post histories at your thoughts on NK and iran in the past. It's syria all over again.
The only way this ends is with these two becoming besties and Un going to a slumber party at mar a largo and they paint each other's toe nails.
I was not opposed to Trump’s approach to the NK situation when he seemed to be going off the rails. The past approach has clearly not worked. We can’t trust the guy obviously, but let’s see what he has to say. Here is the problem though. If Un pulls shit that makes Trump look bad, it highly escalates the risk of military action. Trump knows he’s far from any international political wins - here’s his shot. He’ll go ape if it doesn’t work out.
That's just it: it's all reckless. There is nothing stable about how the two have interacted. And doing it all so publically can introduce inflammatory elements that don't make this a necessarily safe course of action.
Look through anything that you want - these are not simple things, both circumstances and my opinion change. NK is a nuclear power. I've always wanted a peaceable path to both a regime change and denuclearization. If there's any way to somehow worsen a nuclear exchange, it's to have it occur on China's doorstep. Iran is not a nuclear power, and cannot be allowed to achieve that end, under any circumstances. And even if such prevention requires the imminent risk of war, I'd hope - and have consistently hoped - that such would only be after all efforts toward a peaceable solution were tried, had failed and no other similar measures could be reasonably employed. Had previous administrations taken my advice in the former, instead of simply trying to appease the tyrant with sweet, sweet western cash - that wouldn't be the powder keg it is today, Korea is likely reunified, as the Un family's reign of terror would be a long and distant memory. I would have praised Obama were he willing to open a discussion with Un, in the pursuit of peace. Or W. Or Clinton. Or Bush 1. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Jimmy Buffet. Or you. Not because I've got any higher or better moral ground or greater understanding than anyone else - but because failing to do so is madness. Madness. Not just errant. Not "agree-to-disagree". Madness. So let me be clear on my position, here (bookmark this, so as to prevent future searches): It is absolutely stupid - inarguably and indefensibly stupid - to assert that a peaceful process shouldn't be pursued, wherever possible, practicable and can be reasonably employed. It is stupid, meaning, having or showing a great lack of understanding or common sense. That your desperate hatred of Trump has pushed you to the point where his mere willingness to meet with Un in seeking a peaceful solution is met with immediate derision - all while blindly (albeit conveniently) ignoring the sizable progress which his administration has obviously made, so as to even have us at this point of any opportunity - says a great deal more about you than you may think, and well beyond your disdain of Trump, alone. I'll predict this - if Trump's meeting doesn't lead to Un's voluntary and immediate removal from power, it will be accused by some as being a colossal error and an enormous waste of time. Or, we'll soon accuse Un of having rigged the election for Trump, too. Stick with what you know and whatnot.
I don't see how you can say not being great with a face to face meeting with Un with no prior negotiations is due to it being trump doing it, while argusng these are not simple things. Seems contradictory. Here's the thing: if it weren't trump or some other Team Tenny person doing this, you'd hate it. You have hated less risky peace maneuvers than this, repeatedly. Spare me the sanctimonious pursuit of peace routine, I've read enough of your foreign policy thoughts to see through that. The facts are that trump is going to sit down with a mass murdering dictator of an impoverished totalitarian state as an equal, for free. No concessions, no putting of anything on the table. Not even the release of any foreign prisoners. That's the most lopsided diplomatic posturing in US history I can think of. I'm not against a peace process, I'm against anything that legitimizes that regime and how they conduct themselves. If you wish to willfully forget that the one thing I liked about trump's foreign policy was his toughness on nk, so be it. This is a mistake. Hope it works out.
And if being a nuclear power is what justifies meeting them, you're only encouraging iran and everyone else to become nuclear.
