| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
On June 12 2018 13:49 calh wrote: At least their flags have the same colors, and are both stars and stripes. well both leaders of these two countries probably go to the same barber so ... | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity? See: WW2, where the US & UK allied with the far worse but strategically less problematic Soviets against Nazi Germany. Nixon goes to China, which split the Soviet & Chinese alliance., yet Mao was responsible for the systematic murder of 10s of millions of Chinese. Geopolitics is an ugly game, but the USA also has defense treaties with SK & Japan. Deescalation is in the USA's strategic interests (but not the economic interests of certain factions), which is why this is happening. Though as I've said back in the thread, these deals were already done. It isn't the 1800s, so leaders don't meet without agreements already finalized. This type of deal has been "available" since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but it's been pretty clear it was the US side that had no interest in taking it. It's also now extremely clear that "foreign policy experts" in the media are nothing more than propaganda agents for whatever factions they're aligned with. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
What a strange, strange world. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 12 2018 16:29 Taf the Ghost wrote: See: WW2, where the US & UK allied with the far worse but strategically less problematic Soviets against Nazi Germany. Nixon goes to China, which split the Soviet & Chinese alliance., yet Mao was responsible for the systematic murder of 10s of millions of Chinese. Geopolitics is an ugly game, but the USA also has defense treaties with SK & Japan. Deescalation is in the USA's strategic interests (but not the economic interests of certain factions), which is why this is happening. Though as I've said back in the thread, these deals were already done. It isn't the 1800s, so leaders don't meet without agreements already finalized. This type of deal has been "available" since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but it's been pretty clear it was the US side that had no interest in taking it. It's also now extremely clear that "foreign policy experts" in the media are nothing more than propaganda agents for whatever factions they're aligned with. This is nothing like WW2 there is no hitler that needs defeating by joining up with a slightly less bad monster, if anything Kim is the hitler he has concentration camps. This just seems like a deal for Kim's and trumps advantage no one else | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24374 Posts
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity? It's not easy to work with Trump but Kim seems to have brought us all closer to a more favorable situation. I think he deserves some credit. Hard to trust a word Trump says, but an end to the Korean war is possibly just over the horizon unless the US refuses despite SK clearly supporting reunification. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity? Yeah.What a total joke eh. ![[image loading]](https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article478846.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/DC278C6E-F757-D814-A7E096566209FD85.jpg) | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On June 12 2018 16:29 Taf the Ghost wrote: See: WW2, where the US & UK allied with the far worse but strategically less problematic Soviets against Nazi Germany. Nixon goes to China, which split the Soviet & Chinese alliance., yet Mao was responsible for the systematic murder of 10s of millions of Chinese. Geopolitics is an ugly game, but the USA also has defense treaties with SK & Japan. Deescalation is in the USA's strategic interests (but not the economic interests of certain factions), which is why this is happening. Though as I've said back in the thread, these deals were already done. It isn't the 1800s, so leaders don't meet without agreements already finalized. This type of deal has been "available" since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but it's been pretty clear it was the US side that had no interest in taking it. It's also now extremely clear that "foreign policy experts" in the media are nothing more than propaganda agents for whatever factions they're aligned with. What deal has been made except for a weaker statement than all previous statements across multiple decades that North Korea will "denuclearise". Like show your working out here with sources because you've been posting a whole lot of stuff from a position of authority. | ||
|
calh
537 Posts
On June 12 2018 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote: It's not easy to work with Trump but Kim seems to have brought us all closer to a more favorable situation. I think he deserves some credit. Hard to trust a word Trump says, but an end to the Korean war is possibly just over the horizon unless the US refuses despite SK clearly supporting reunification. Showmanship aside, I can't imagine SK seriously supporting reunification. Remember what that did to West Germany, which was already a top economy at the time. and East Germany was also one of the better economies in the Pact. For SK who have their own systematic problems, to carry one of the most backward countries in the world is probably asking too much. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24374 Posts
On June 12 2018 17:52 calh wrote: Showmanship aside, I can't imagine SK seriously supporting reunification. Remember what that did to West Germany, which was already a top economy at the time. and East Germany was also one of the better economies in the Pact. For SK who have their own systematic problems, to carry one of the most backward countries in the world is probably asking too much. Well...Nearly 80 Percent of South Koreans Say They Trust Kim Jong Un and the majority of the population has thought reunification was necessary for a while now. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity? IF you're in elementary school you are in good company. Everyone older than that understands that in foreign politics there are no friends nor enemies, but interests. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity? I know right. If only we could start a war that could potentially end the lives of hundreds of thousands of Koreans north and south of the border to make humanitarians in the west feel better about themselves. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On June 12 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote: Well...Nearly 80 Percent of South Koreans Say They Trust Kim Jong Un and the majority of the population has thought reunification was necessary for a while now. Why you provide a source for a statement that wasn't argued about, but provide absolute nothing for the "support for reunification"? But let me help you: Younger South Koreans don’t share the pain caused by the peninsula’s divide, or the inclination to see North Koreans as long-lost brethren. Last year’s survey by the unification institute found that while more than 47 percent of respondents in their 60s and older said the two Koreas must reunify “because they belong to the same nation,” less than 21 percent of respondents in their 20s said so. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/world/asia/koreas-olympics-reunification.html | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24374 Posts
On June 12 2018 18:16 mahrgell wrote: Why you provide a source for a statement that wasn't argued about, but provide absolute nothing for the "support for reunification"? But let me help you: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/world/asia/koreas-olympics-reunification.html I thought people in this thread would know the part about reunification, the South Koreans trusting Un (which is one of the main factors of all this) is new. From the article you cited: A survey last year by the government-run Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul found that far more South Koreans in their 20s now oppose reunification — 71.2 percent — than support it. Across the population, support has dropped to 57.8 percent from 69.3 percent just four years ago. So support is down, but largely as a result of the South Koreans who are far more westernized and addicted to capitalism (the younger ones who see them as 'coming only with empty spoons'). Alas, the statement I made about reunification being necessary being the majority view of South Koreans, your own source confirmed it. | ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On June 12 2018 18:04 SoSexy wrote: IF you're in elementary school you are in good company. Everyone older than that understands that in foreign politics there are no friends nor enemies, but interests. This part is blatantly untrue. Idealism or lack thereof is something that is a subject of study within most international relations courses, specifically in "constructivism". Which you would know if you had read at least a glossary of a IR textbook. While "classical realism" is a common way to approach the subject, it is definitely not the only one and has been the subject of a lot of academic criticism. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On June 12 2018 17:52 calh wrote: Showmanship aside, I can't imagine SK seriously supporting reunification. Remember what that did to West Germany, which was already a top economy at the time. and East Germany was also one of the better economies in the Pact. For SK who have their own systematic problems, to carry one of the most backward countries in the world is probably asking too much. I highly, highly doubt there is ever a real chance at any reunification. There's a chance, somewhere down the line, of some form of Confederation, though. Probably as much for NK security realities vs China as anything else. As much as NK has been a Chinese proxy for a while, people really do forget how much the Koreans & Chinese don't like each other. It's not as bad as how much both groups hate the Japanese, but the fact we haven't had a shooting war between the factions since 1954 is a pretty good place for the region. On June 12 2018 17:51 Womwomwom wrote: What deal has been made except for a weaker statement than all previous statements across multiple decades that North Korea will "denuclearise". Like show your working out here with sources because you've been posting a whole lot of stuff from a position of authority. I need not know what is in the Deal(s) to know about how high-level Foreign Policy normally operates. Everyone talks, always, even if "official" channels are dead. Leaders meeting is too much of an optics disaster if deals aren't already done, so the major agreements are already in place before they even set meeting dates. What are those agreements? From: Reuters/CNBC U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un pledged on Tuesday to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula while Washington committed to provide security guarantees for its old enemy. "President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula," said a joint statement issued after their historic summit in Singapore. So the official joint-statement from the USA & NK is that the USA will being providing "security guarantees" to NK, while NK will be in the process of giving up its nukes. That was the first layer of agreements. Details are going to be about money, support and other things. Those take a while to hammer out, much like any business deal both parties want. Some stuff just takes time. Now, the fun stuff: Who does NK need protection from? What is the internal political dynamics of NK? How have they changed? What has changed in the last 2+ years with NK? The reason I can talk from a "position of authority" is that I'm not declaring the state of the current situation, I just simply know how certain things work in this realm. I have no inside source nor special details. But what I can do is look beyond the Noise (which is what the Media does to you), and look for the things that are There and the things that are Not There. Countries don't act irrationally, regardless of what the optics of the leader is showing. (A lesson some of you will not learn for the entirety of the Trump Presidency.) I stated back in the thread, a ways now, that the entire Strategic framework of NK's actions revolves around who killed Kim's older brother. It's a fixed data point with no fixed answer for why it happened. The answer for "Why?" gives you the deepest insight for what has been going on, but no one has a clear answer. The US State Department has accused the Kim Regime of the assassination, but that doesn't mean anything. Kim's older brother could have replaced Kim, so who would be able to cause that to happen? There are a lot of answers to those questions, but which ones are correct? What I can tell you is that keeping a nuclear weapons program actually didn't serve NK's strategic interests. It's expensive, difficult, causes you nothing but problems and pisses off the neighbors like few other things. Thus, Kim's actions now are fully in NK (the people, not the elites within the government) interests. Or, it's very much in Kim's personal interest, and the people of NK will benefit for it. We won't have answers to some of these questions for decades, if ever. Which is why we're in the "Optics Phase". Many things have been agreed to. What has been? We'll find out when they roll them out for optics purposes. Yet, things could still go sideways, especially if there's a successful coup attempt in NK. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
I mean, your literal argument is "I know how to world works and I can speak Trump while you idiots can't." I'm sorry if that makes me an idiot but that's extremely unconvincing. To bring up Dennis Rodman, people would expect some working out if you argued that he wasn't one of the greatest rebounders of all time. They would want something factual, like a simple rebound rate statistic, rather than a whole bunch of feels that can be summed up as "Probably don't understand what I just said if u don't REALLY hoop" Really, what makes this situation any different from the 1994 Agreed Framework where the language actually less vague that what we got today? If your argument hinges off an assumption or feeling that a combination of South Korea having a pro-unification administration and Trump having no qualms complementing dictators is going to solve things, feel free to say that. But leave the armchair strategizing at home, there's zero way to dispute any of it because you're not showing any working out. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On June 12 2018 19:51 Plansix wrote: The meeting is all talk. We will have to wait years before we see if it did any good. NK could start test launching ICBMs over Japan next month and we would be back to square one. My opinion is the deal was done months ago. Why else would Kim Jong Un release the three American prisoners and blow up their tunnels at their nuclear site last month? (May 25th).Throws away his two trump (ha) cards before the 'important summit'? No, deal was done before. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 12 2018 18:05 zeo wrote: I know right. If only we could start a war that could potentially end the lives of hundreds of thousands of Koreans north and south of the border to make humanitarians in the west feel better about themselves. Not wanting to do a nonsense deal with Kim doesn't mean you want to start a war. US could continue to isolate the north and encourage regime change without starting a war. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g7697 Coldzera  720ceh9446 WinterStarcraft401 C9.Mang0259 Sick132 olofmeister128 NeuroSwarm89 ViBE19 |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Soulkey
INu's Battles
SHIN vs Cure
ByuN vs Zoun
PiGosaur Cup
Patches Events
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Percival vs TBD
TBD vs herO
OSC
Replay Cast
OSC
BSL: Ladder Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
