Peace for our time? Donald Trump as Neville Chamberlain?

[Elixir]

The Pentagon said they're going ahead with exercises as planned, unless ordered differently.

Also saw an item claiming that to the NK, denuclearization means removal of the US nuclear umbrella. Oops...

Yes, the North Koreans always refer to the denuclearization of the "Korean Peninsula".

What sucks is that if the US military does a joint training exercise, Kim can point to the US for lying to them... and be fucking right about it.

Well then, Mr. Kim can count himself a Troo 'Murrkin, having been fucked by Trump just like the rest of us.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Pentagon said they're going ahead with exercises as planned, unless ordered differently.

Also saw an item claiming that to the NK, denuclearization means removal of the US nuclear umbrella. Oops...

Yes, the North Koreans always refer to the denuclearization of the "Korean Peninsula".

What sucks is that if the US military does a joint training exercise, Kim can point to the US for lying to them... and be fucking right about it.

Well then, Mr. Kim can count himself a Troo 'Murrkin, having been fucked by Trump just like the rest of us.

Then Trump can tweet about the treacheries of the Deep State.

 

[Elixir]

Well then, Mr. Kim can count himself a Troo 'Murrkin, having been fucked by Trump just like the rest of us.

Then Trump can tweet about the treacheries of the Deep State.

Huh? He can do that, regardless. Wasn't it the Deep State that kept Obama's Kenyan birth certificate hidden?

 

[SimpleDon]

Peace for our time? Donald Trump as Neville Chamberlain?

There ought to be a moratorium on allusions to WWII. Really, most of them don't fit.

Allusions to World War II are often useful if for no other reason than to remind us of;

• The disaster that a country faces when it gives into fascism and totalitarianism.
• How fascists use lies to stampede the easily susceptible into irrationally fearing overblown foreign threats, Kommunismus, and some readily identifiable domestic group, die Jüden for 1930's Germany.
• How fascists have to undermine the free press because they deal in the greatest threat to fascism, the truth, die Wahrheit.
• How fascism develops around the absolute loyalty and devotion to a single supreme and seriously flawed leader, der oberste Führer.
• While a functioning democracy depends on consensus and compromise, fascism depends on conflict and division because there simply aren't enough of the really stupid people who are willing to vote for a fascist to form a majority, less than a third voted the fascists into power in 1930's Germany.
• This means that fascism depends on undermining democracy by restricting the ability of many anti-fascists to vote.
• Fascism's strongest support comes from the corporations and business in general because for fascism to succeed they first have to destroy organized labor, which suppresses wages and increases profits.
• Fascists also massively over inflate spending on the military, all out of proportion to any actual threats, providing money to the corporations more often than not from deficit spending.
• The fascists also promise to reduce taxes on the corporations and the wealthy further cementing the support from them and further increasing the national debt while lying that it doesn't, which, incredibly some people believe.

I would be somewhat surprised if you didn't now agree that these lessons from World War II are valuable and worthy of remembering.

That being said, I agree with you that there are few parallels between Chamberlain's appeasement with Hitler and Donald Trump's appeasement with the DPNK and the latest Kim;

• Chamberlain acted for what he thought was in the best interests of England, for Trump this seems to be part of his constant need to satisfy his horribly inflated ego.
• It would be hard to believe that Chamberlain was as unprepared going into the negotiation as Donald Trump was going into his.
• No matter what you believe about Chamberlain, it would be hard to argue that Chamberlain was as poor of a negotiator as Donald Trump is.
• There was probably a better chance that Hitler would fulfill his promises in his argument with Chamberlain, which was next to none than there is that Kim will fulfill what Trump believes that Kim agreed to that wasn't in the document that was signed, which certainly is none.
• Trump failed to reach any mutual understanding with Kim on the meaning of the words used in the agreement, most notably "denuclearization" [sic] which three generations of Kims have used to mean the US withdrawing from the South and no commitment on their part.
• There is nothing in the record and it would be hard to believe that Chamberlain with the full participation of Whitehall was as sloppy and uninformed as was Donald Trump's solo effort.
• Chamberlain had no reason to believe that Hitler wouldn't fulfill the agreement that he signed while Trump, if he had bothered to find out, would have discovered that the two generations of Kims proceeding the current one had failed to fulfill any agreement that they signed undercutting any belief that the current Kim would fulfill any agreement that he signed.
• Kim is as much a psychological prisoner of his father and his grandfather, both lying, brutal dictators, as Trump is of his real estate developer and KKK member* father and his hotelier and prostitute pimping* grandfather.
• Chamberlain wasn't compelled to undercut his best allies before the meeting as Donald Trump was while taking the advice of the one person who has demonstrated repeatedly that he is the biggest threat to the US, Putin, to whom Trump seems to owe so much.

* alleged, but these go far to explain Trump's proven racism and misogyny​

Since you didn't offer any points in support of your assertion and since we are in agreement on it please let the above points stand as an explanation of your and my mutual assertion as a way of correcting what I am assuming was just an oversight on your part.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There ought to be a moratorium on allusions to WWII. Really, most of them don't fit.

This is a standard means of referring to how poorly appeasement performs in the long run as a diplomatic policy.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Well then, Mr. Kim can count himself a Troo 'Murrkin, having been fucked by Trump just like the rest of us.

Then Trump can tweet about the treacheries of the Deep State.

Huh? He can do that, regardless. Wasn't it the Deep State that kept Obama's Kenyan birth certificate hidden?

Ok, Trump can tweet again about the Deep State.

 

[Underseer]

Peace for our time? Donald Trump as Neville Chamberlain?

There ought to be a moratorium on allusions to WWII. Really, most of them don't fit.

Allusions to World War II are often useful if for no other reason than to remind us of;

• The disaster that a country faces when it gives into fascism and totalitarianism.
• How fascists use lies to stampede the easily susceptible into irrationally fearing overblown foreign threats, Kommunismus, and some readily identifiable domestic group, die Jüden for 1930's Germany.
• How fascists have to undermine the free press because they deal in the greatest threat to fascism, the truth, die Wahrheit.
• How fascism develops around the absolute loyalty and devotion to a single supreme and seriously flawed leader, der oberste Führer.
• While a functioning democracy depends on consensus and compromise, fascism depends on conflict and division because there simply aren't enough of the really stupid people who are willing to vote for a fascist to form a majority, less than a third voted the fascists into power in 1930's Germany.
• This means that fascism depends on undermining democracy by restricting the ability of many anti-fascists to vote.
• Fascism's strongest support comes from the corporations and business in general because for fascism to succeed they first have to destroy organized labor, which suppresses wages and increases profits.
• Fascists also massively over inflate spending on the military, all out of proportion to any actual threats, providing money to the corporations more often than not from deficit spending.
• The fascists also promise to reduce taxes on the corporations and the wealthy further cementing the support from them and further increasing the national debt while lying that it doesn't, which, incredibly some people believe.

I would be somewhat surprised if you didn't now agree that these lessons from World War II are valuable and worthy of remembering.

That being said, I agree with you that there are few parallels between Chamberlain's appeasement with Hitler and Donald Trump's appeasement with the DPNK and the latest Kim;

• Chamberlain acted for what he thought was in the best interests of England, for Trump this seems to be part of his constant need to satisfy his horribly inflated ego.
• It would be hard to believe that Chamberlain was as unprepared going into the negotiation as Donald Trump was going into his.
• No matter what you believe about Chamberlain, it would be hard to argue that Chamberlain was as poor of a negotiator as Donald Trump is.
• There was probably a better chance that Hitler would fulfill his promises in his argument with Chamberlain, which was next to none than there is that Kim will fulfill what Trump believes that Kim agreed to that wasn't in the document that was signed, which certainly is none.
• Trump failed to reach any mutual understanding with Kim on the meaning of the words used in the agreement, most notably "denuclearization" [sic] which three generations of Kims have used to mean the US withdrawing from the South and no commitment on their part.
• There is nothing in the record and it would be hard to believe that Chamberlain with the full participation of Whitehall was as sloppy and uninformed as was Donald Trump's solo effort.
• Chamberlain had no reason to believe that Hitler wouldn't fulfill the agreement that he signed while Trump, if he had bothered to find out, would have discovered that the two generations of Kims proceeding the current one had failed to fulfill any agreement that they signed undercutting any belief that the current Kim would fulfill any agreement that he signed.
• Kim is as much a psychological prisoner of his father and his grandfather, both lying, brutal dictators, as Trump is of his real estate developer and KKK member* father and his hotelier and prostitute pimping* grandfather.
• Chamberlain wasn't compelled to undercut his best allies before the meeting as Donald Trump was while taking the advice of the one person who has demonstrated repeatedly that he is the biggest threat to the US, Putin, to whom Trump seems to owe so much.

* alleged, but these go far to explain Trump's proven racism and misogyny​

Since you didn't offer any points in support of your assertion and since we are in agreement on it please let the above points stand as an explanation of your and my mutual assertion as a way of correcting what I am assuming was just an oversight on your part.

How dare you compare Republicans to fascists just because they are behaving like fascists?

I mean, sure, Republicans are doing a bad thing by behaving like fascists, but by calling them out on it, you are doing something much, much worse. You're hurting their feewings!

Say what you will about the new Star Wars movies. Their lampoon of easily-triggered wannabe-fascists is a spot-on satire of modern Republicans.

 

[Trausti]

Fun thread. SimpleDon gives a long exposition on how Trump is Chamberlain. But Underseer says, no, Trump is the fascist. Indeed, up until the loony left became worried that Trump might win the Nobel Prize, Trump = Hitler. (And before that, Bush, McCain, and Romney were Hitler.) Now Trump = Chamberlain. Me thinks what really worries the loony left is that Trump will be successful. Hence, the really dumb analogies.

Birthday boy Donald Trump, 72, formally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after historic meeting with Kim Jong-un

 

[Opoponax]

Now there's this gem: Trump saluting a North Korean general. Frankly, it looks like a moment of awkward where most of us would probably do the same thing. Except now the NK news is running like the world's greatest gif.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/trump-north-korea-salute/index.html

And for the billionth time, what if Obama had done this? Can you fucking imagine? The coffee salute was no misdemeanor, that was a motherfucking high crime. But Trump does this and it's crickets in the retardedverse.

 

[laughing dog]

Time will tell if something good and lasting comes from this meeting. It is too early to come to any judgments about the merits or demerits of this detente.

 

[bilby]

Fun thread. SimpleDon gives a long exposition on how Trump is Chamberlain. But Underseer says, no, Trump is the fascist. Indeed, up until the loony left became worried that Trump might win the Nobel Prize, Trump = Hitler. (And before that, Bush, McCain, and Romney were Hitler.) Now Trump = Chamberlain. Me thinks what really worries the loony left is that Trump will be successful. Hence, the really dumb analogies.

Birthday boy Donald Trump, 72, formally nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after historic meeting with Kim Jong-un

Nobody on the sane left is even slightly worried that Trump might be successful.

Of course, loonies of any kind will worry about things that are unlikely or even impossible.

 

[Axulus]

What we know is that the status quo for the last 65 years didn't do shit. This whole idea of "legitimizing" the Kim regime or giving them a propaganda victory seems completely silly given as the lack of this never improved the situation at all.

The war games can be easily resumed. The sanctions relief is ultimately the biggest bargaining chip.

Will this ultimately improve things? Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What we know is that the status quo for the last 65 years didn't do shit. This whole idea of "legitimizing" the Kim regime or giving them a propaganda victory seems completely silly given as the lack of this never improved the situation at all.

It didn't?

The war games can be easily resumed. The sanctions relief is ultimately the biggest bargaining chip.

Except once a joint exercise is performed, North Korea will be whiny, and correctly say the US broke the agreement. The US would have exhausted diplomatic capital for absolutely no reason or gain.

Will this ultimately improve things?

For North Korea, with lowered Chinese sanctions... umm... yes, a good deal. For the US, only for the idiots that think that meeting, in which:

• Trump saluted a North Korean general
• Trump praised how talented of a Dictator Kim was at such a young age
• Betrayed South Korea by unilaterally saying the US would postpone "wargames"
• Made decisions regarding our alliance with South Korea without even bringing it up with the Pentagon
• Signed a document he didn't understand (North Korea disarmament, what the US wants verses denuclearization of Korean Peninsula, what he signed)

...was a good idea.

Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

The situation could get much worse, that'd be the nuclear war thing. The likelihood of nuclear war however seemed unlikely, though with Trump's bluster regarding fat Kim and fire and fury, people were curious whether Trump was actually dumb enough to try and pull it off, well, at least a conventional war.

 

[Elixir]

It didn't?

Except once a joint exercise is performed, North Korea will be whiny, and correctly say the US broke the agreement. The US would have exhausted diplomatic capital for absolutely no reason or gain.

Will this ultimately improve things?

For North Korea, with lowered Chinese sanctions... umm... yes, a good deal. For the US, only for the idiots that think that meeting, in which:

• Trump saluted a North Korean general
• Trump praised how talented of a Dictator Kim was at such a young age
• Betrayed South Korea by unilaterally saying the US would postpone "wargames"
• Made decisions regarding our alliance with South Korea without even bringing it up with the Pentagon
• Signed a document he didn't understand (North Korea disarmament, what the US wants verses denuclearization of Korean Peninsula, what he signed)

...was a good idea.

Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

The situation could get much worse, that'd be the nuclear war thing. The likelihood of nuclear war however seemed unlikely, though with Trump's bluster regarding fat Kim and fire and fury, people were curious whether Trump was actually dumb enough to try and pull it off, well, at least a conventional war.

As invented crises go, this is YUUUGE - Bigly.
We weren't going to get nuked by NK when Cheato "took" office, and we're not going to get nuked by NK now*. Whatever the threat level was on 1/20/17, it is no less and no greater now. But Cheato got several days of TrumpTV episodes in the can, for the low low price of reducing America's international stature to that of North Korea, hurting American industry by attacking trade partners with whom we have had a trade surplus and alienating our closest military allies.
Anyone else sick of so much WINNING yet?

*Does anyone here REALLY think Kim would take any action that would render his little tinpot dictatorship into a sheet of glass?

 

[laughing dog]

What we know is that the status quo for the last 65 years didn't do shit. This whole idea of "legitimizing" the Kim regime or giving them a propaganda victory seems completely silly given as the lack of this never improved the situation at all.

The war games can be easily resumed. The sanctions relief is ultimately the biggest bargaining chip.

Will this ultimately improve things? Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

You are not making sense. Of course the situation could get worse.

What is fascinating is that this deal is much less binding and less effective (at this time) than the Iranian deal. Yet the Iranian deal was the worst deal ever and had to be scrapped.

 

[Axulus]

What we know is that the status quo for the last 65 years didn't do shit. This whole idea of "legitimizing" the Kim regime or giving them a propaganda victory seems completely silly given as the lack of this never improved the situation at all.

The war games can be easily resumed. The sanctions relief is ultimately the biggest bargaining chip.

Will this ultimately improve things? Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

You are not making sense. Of course the situation could get worse.

What is fascinating is that this deal is much less binding and less effective (at this time) than the Iranian deal. Yet the Iranian deal was the worst deal ever and had to be scrapped.

How would stopping the war games (reversible), and "legitimizing" the Kim regime (already in power for over 65 years) by meeting with him and giving him compliments possibly result in a worse outcome than the status quo? Be specific.

Further, this wasn't a deal. This was a statement of understanding to be a used as a negotiating basis for a future deal. If this was the full deal you'd be right that it is the stupidest possible deal since it wouldn't qualify as a deal even under the loosest interpretation of the meaning of a deal.

 

[Underseer]

Now there's this gem: Trump saluting a North Korean general. Frankly, it looks like a moment of awkward where most of us would probably do the same thing. Except now the NK news is running like the world's greatest gif.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/trump-north-korea-salute/index.html

And for the billionth time, what if Obama had done this? Can you fucking imagine? The coffee salute was no misdemeanor, that was a motherfucking high crime. But Trump does this and it's crickets in the retardedverse.

Yup.

Remember the big stink Republicans made because Obama bowed to a Saudi?

Somehow, all of their previous arguments about Obama are conveniently forgotten now that we are talking about Trump instead of Obama.

- - - Updated - - -

It didn't?

Except once a joint exercise is performed, North Korea will be whiny, and correctly say the US broke the agreement. The US would have exhausted diplomatic capital for absolutely no reason or gain.

Will this ultimately improve things?

For North Korea, with lowered Chinese sanctions... umm... yes, a good deal. For the US, only for the idiots that think that meeting, in which:

• Trump saluted a North Korean general
• Trump praised how talented of a Dictator Kim was at such a young age
• Betrayed South Korea by unilaterally saying the US would postpone "wargames"
• Made decisions regarding our alliance with South Korea without even bringing it up with the Pentagon
• Signed a document he didn't understand (North Korea disarmament, what the US wants verses denuclearization of Korean Peninsula, what he signed)

...was a good idea.

Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

The situation could get much worse, that'd be the nuclear war thing. The likelihood of nuclear war however seemed unlikely, though with Trump's bluster regarding fat Kim and fire and fury, people were curious whether Trump was actually dumb enough to try and pull it off, well, at least a conventional war.

Yes, but Trump is a Republican and white, so all of those are good things.

 

[Underseer]

What we know is that the status quo for the last 65 years didn't do shit. This whole idea of "legitimizing" the Kim regime or giving them a propaganda victory seems completely silly given as the lack of this never improved the situation at all.

The war games can be easily resumed. The sanctions relief is ultimately the biggest bargaining chip.

Will this ultimately improve things? Given that the situation couldn't get much worse, the risk is low and the payoff is high, even if the odds themselves are low.

You are not making sense. Of course the situation could get worse.

What is fascinating is that this deal is much less binding and less effective (at this time) than the Iranian deal. Yet the Iranian deal was the worst deal ever and had to be scrapped.

How would stopping the war games (reversible), and "legitimizing" the Kim regime (already in power for over 65 years) by meeting with him and giving him compliments possibly result in a worse outcome than the status quo? Be specific.

Further, this wasn't a deal. This was a statement of understanding to be a used as a negotiating basis for a future deal. If this was the full deal you'd be right that it is the stupidest possible deal since it wouldn't qualify as a deal even under the loosest interpretation of the meaning of a deal.

Wait, does this mean you admit that your fellow rightists were wrong when they said Obama had legitimized the North Korean regime just by agreeing to meet with them?

Were you among those who argued that Obama legitimized the North Korean regime by agreeing to meet with them? Did you criticize the other rightists when they made that argument?

You'd better pull out a special pleading fallacy fast!

 

[Axulus]

How would stopping the war games (reversible), and "legitimizing" the Kim regime (already in power for over 65 years) by meeting with him and giving him compliments possibly result in a worse outcome than the status quo? Be specific.

Further, this wasn't a deal. This was a statement of understanding to be a used as a negotiating basis for a future deal. If this was the full deal you'd be right that it is the stupidest possible deal since it wouldn't qualify as a deal even under the loosest interpretation of the meaning of a deal.

Wait, does this mean you admit that your fellow rightists were wrong when they said Obama had legitimized the North Korean regime just by agreeing to meet with them?

Were you among those who argued that Obama legitimized the North Korean regime by agreeing to meet with them? Did you criticize the other rightists when they made that argument?

You'd better pull out a special pleading fallacy fast!

Where have I ever criticized Obama for wanting to meet with NK?

I don't recall anyone here ever making that argument. Perhaps you have a link to a post you have in mind?

 

[Underseer]

Ooh, I know! You could suddenly change the subject!

Let's talk about Hillary's emails! Why hasn't Hillary Clinton been impeached yet? This proves that the FBI is biased against Republicans!

- - - Updated - - -

How would stopping the war games (reversible), and "legitimizing" the Kim regime (already in power for over 65 years) by meeting with him and giving him compliments possibly result in a worse outcome than the status quo? Be specific.

Further, this wasn't a deal. This was a statement of understanding to be a used as a negotiating basis for a future deal. If this was the full deal you'd be right that it is the stupidest possible deal since it wouldn't qualify as a deal even under the loosest interpretation of the meaning of a deal.

Wait, does this mean you admit that your fellow rightists were wrong when they said Obama had legitimized the North Korean regime just by agreeing to meet with them?

Were you among those who argued that Obama legitimized the North Korean regime by agreeing to meet with them? Did you criticize the other rightists when they made that argument?

You'd better pull out a special pleading fallacy fast!

Where have I ever criticized Obama for wanting to meet with NK?

I don't recall anyone here ever making that argument. Perhaps you have a link to a post you have in mind?

If you didn't (what the heck, I'll take your word), do you agree that your fellow Republicans were wrong to criticize Obama for simply agreeing to meet with North Korea?

If so, what did you do while most Republicans were screaming about Obama "legitimizing" North Korea just by agreeing to meet with them?

I assume that you are not a giant screaming hypocrite and that you strongly criticized all the other rightists while this was going on?