Peace for our time? Donald Trump as Neville Chamberlain?

[Underseer]

Just in case you need to have your memory jogged:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/poli...tions-regarding-negotiations-with-north-korea

I know it's easy to forget that when FOX tells you to believe one thing about an issue, that they instructed you to believe exactly the opposite not so long prior.

 

[Underseer]

FOX personality admits Trump gave away everything and got nothing in return, FOX audience calls for his head:



If Shep doesn't stop telling the truth on FOX News, some FOX News audience member is going to actually carry out one of the many death threats Shep no doubt receives on a regular basis.

Should we start a pool on how much longer Shep will live if he keeps this up?

 

[Trausti]

A president who loves to be flattered knows how to appeal to the vanity of dictators.

All of which brings us to the key point: What exactly do we have to lose by being nice, by stroking Kim’s ego and promising him “prosperity like he has never seen” (to quote the video) and long-sought-for acceptance? Our pride? Just about everything else has been tried—sanctions upon sanctions—and still the Kim regime has marched to the precipice of invulnerability to U.S. retaliation. It is within months of testing a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach U.S. shores, according to some reports.

After Trump reacted with unprecedented threats last fall, promising to “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary, Kim quickly started talking, first to South Korea, then to Washington. The immediate concern for U.S. interests is less the nukes than those intercontinental ballistic missiles that can target us. It’s noteworthy that Kim promised Trump at the summit—according to Trump, anyway—that he would destroy a major missile engine testing site. If he doesn’t do that and doesn’t open up his nuclear program to inspectors quickly, well, that only brings us back to square one: the nowhere place that every previous administration was stuck in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A president who loves to be flattered knows how to appeal to the vanity of dictators.

All of which brings us to the key point: What exactly do we have to lose by being nice, by stroking Kim’s ego and promising him “prosperity like he has never seen” (to quote the video) and long-sought-for acceptance? Our pride? Just about everything else has been tried—sanctions upon sanctions—and still the Kim regime has marched to the precipice of invulnerability to U.S. retaliation. It is within months of testing a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach U.S. shores, according to some reports.

After Trump reacted with unprecedented threats last fall, promising to “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary, Kim quickly started talking, first to South Korea, then to Washington. The immediate concern for U.S. interests is less the nukes than those intercontinental ballistic missiles that can target us. It’s noteworthy that Kim promised Trump at the summit—according to Trump, anyway—that he would destroy a major missile engine testing site. If he doesn’t do that and doesn’t open up his nuclear program to inspectors quickly, well, that only brings us back to square one: the nowhere place that every previous administration was stuck in.

Sensible ideas haven’t worked yet, so let’s try uneducated blind folded stabs in the air and call it diplomacy.

President be naked and Trausti be like ‘let’s give this outfit a try’.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Stopping the joint military exercises without consulting our Allies hurts our standing with them. It also means we and our allies will be slightly less able to deal with any military incursion by North Korea if it so chooses to do so (not likely,but possible). Legitimizing a dictator gives that dictator more positive PR in his/her country and more international prestige.

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.

As I wrote earlier, only time will tell whether this understanding bears any fruit. But I see you elided over my my point which was
What is fascinating is that this deal "understanding" is much less binding and less effective (at this time) than the Iranian deal. Yet the Iranian deal was the worst deal ever made and had to be scrapped.

 

[Elixir]

...this wasn't a deal. This was a statement of understanding to be a used as a negotiating basis for a future deal. .

B-b-b-but ... Cheato told us the danger from NK was over. Done. In the past. No longer exists.
An American President wouldn't LIE about something upon which millions of American lives might depend.
WOULD HE?

 

[lpetrich]

Trump: 'No Longer a Threat' North Korea Still an 'Extraordinary Threat'

He Tweeted:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
2:56 AM - Jun 13, 2018

And the Sudetenland was all that Adolf Hitler had wanted (sarcasm).

But then on Friday, the White House announced that they were extending an old executive order dealing with North Korea and justified it by the “unique and extraordinary threat” that his nuclear program still poses to the United States:

quoting:

“The existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States,” read the notice, delivered through the press secretary on Friday.

So which is it?

 

[lpetrich]

This is somewhat old news:

House Republicans nominate Trump for Nobel peace prize | US news | The Guardian

Eighteen House Republicans have nominated Donald Trump for the 2019 Nobel peace prize.

In a letter spearheaded by the Indiana Republican Luke Messer and sent to the Norwegian Nobel committee, the lawmakers claim that Trump should “receive the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work to end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula and bring peace to the region”.

The rules for a Nobel prize nomination are relatively loose. Nominations can only be made by people who belong to a handful of categories, including members of a national legislation body, university professors and former winners of the prize – but there are no other restrictions. In 2018, there were 330 nominees to win the award, which will be announced in December. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was the 2017 winner.

The only such award that he deserves would be an Ig Nobel one.

 

[Jayjay]

It would be funny if the award were to be given to Kim and Moon for the same reason, without mentioning Trump.

Oh the angry tweets he'd send...