Two Koreas Agree To End War This Year, Pursue Denuclearization (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed Friday to finally end a seven-decade war this year, and pursue the "complete denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula. Kim and Moon embraced after signing the deal during a historic meeting on their militarized border, the first time a North Korean leader set foot on the southern side. They announced plans to replace the 1953 armistice that ended hostilities with a peace treaty by year's end. Their statement on a "common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula," stopped short of the "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization" long sought by the U.S. and its allies. The statement didn't elaborate on what the term meant and Kim didn't personally utter the word during remarks Friday. "We have agreed to share a firm determination to open a new era in which all Korean people enjoy prosperity and happiness on a peaceful land without war," Kim told reporters, without taking questions. President Trump hailed the move, declaring "KOREAN WAR TO END!" on Twitter. He has agreed to meet with Kim at a time and place yet to be determined.

Comments

Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Tulsa_Time]

If Obama can get one for doing nothing... this should be a slam dunk.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

What did Trump have to do with this?

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Goaded them on until they neared collapse, and then made them come to the table.

Sometimes the baby wins.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[wonkey_monkey]

I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

If Obama can get one for doing nothing... this should be a slam dunk.

I believe he threatened nuclear war over twitter if he didn't get his way. I'm not certain Obama earned the peace prize, but giving one to this? I think not.

What is this a I'm crazier than you and just stupid enough to actually press the button so do what I want or else?

Sorry, if this works out well great, but I see nothing worth praise here. Most likely they simply don't need to be so overt about testing anymore and their program will go underground. We don't test live nuclear weapons any more either, but that doesn't mean we can't build them.

That all being said, I hope it works out, though there is a long record of things not working out that makes me skeptical and no all of his predecessors were not incompetent.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Type44Q]

You try being black. No, I mean try it. See?? Not so easy...

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Stood in front of the UN and threatened to glass them if they didn't shape up and crashed their economy by directly sanctioning the Chinese companies that had been helping Kim dodge sanctions for years, all while extending an olive branch in a way that no previous president had before.

In a way it's hilarious that Trump will win the peace prize for basically threatening nuclear war, but when every government involved agrees Trump was the key difference it will be hard for the Nobel committee (or the American media) to try to deny it for long.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[HornWumpus]

They've been a joke for a long long time. There is a lot of that going around.

Pulitzer prize is another good example. It was given to 'Red Star Rising' which was pure propaganda in hindsight. Never rescinded.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[RightwingNutjob]

Knowing the Nobel committee, they'll give it to the Dear Leader for having his mountain collap--I mean having the courage to move mountains for peace.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't think the tweets were helpful, Trump did push for tougher sanctions against North Korea. Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do. North Korea has walked to negotiate directly with the United States, while previous presidents have insisted that any negotiations should be part of the six party talks. Trump stepped up the pressure, calling it "maximum pressure", while offering North Korea something the direct negotiations they wanted and a possible way out of the sanctions. Both the United States and South Korea have been clear that denuclearization is necessary to get the sanctions lifted. That is a substantial difference from the strategy of past presidents, and is a logical approach to foreign policy.

The tougher sanctions likely had a significant impact on North Korea and made them more willing to negotiate. Trump's willingness for direct talks signaled a willingness for unprecedented direct talks. The tweets weren't helpful, but Trump's foreign policy did influence North Korea to make real concessions. Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.

When the policies of several past presidents haven't worked, it's time to try something different. That's the same logic that Obama used to justify normalizing relations with Cuba, which is also a reasonable decision. Let's just hope that Trump's threats to about the Iran nuclear deal are an effort to get Iran to extend their promises past 2025 and not a sincere intent to withdraw. If Trump is taking the role of the bad cop while Macron has the role of the good cop to negotiate more with Iran, it may be effective. If Trump actually withdraws, that's incredibly foolish. Trump is just so erratic that it's hard to distinguish legitimate foreign policy from outbursts and uninformed bluster.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Brett Buck]

The sad thing is that you probably really believe this.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[poity]

[x] Not be Bush.
[_] Chant "Yes we can" during a campaign.
[_] Drone strike a bunch of people.

Trump hasn't met all the criteria for the Peace Prize yet, I'm afraid.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Kjella]

More like two people arguing whether Kiss or AC/DC is better with Trump coming in as the crazy friend high on LSD asking if he should bash the other guy's skull in. And then it's like "Uh no we're good, they're both good bands... we're friends, see" because I don't think this happened on its own. I think they realized that Trump might actually set off a new Korean war, regardless if that'd fuck both North and South Korea hard. So when push comes to shove they'd rather come to terms, at least while the crazy guy is in the room...

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Kohath]

I think you'd have to show there was some intent. If two people are arguing, then a third person runs through the room flinging their poop at the walls and gibbering like a madman, it doesn't automatically mean the poop flinger is a master negotiator just because the argument gets cut short.

Notwithstanding Korea, in your example, success speaks for itself.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[mapkinase]

I do not think the analogy is correct here.

There is one unique quality in Trump is that he is willing to think out of the box. Thinking out of the box most of the time stupid, but without that some problems will just remain unsolved.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[shanen]

Good metaphor and I wish I someday saw a mod point to give you.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[DNS-and-BIND]

Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals. This could have been done decades ago, but globalists find North Korea useful as a source of tension. The fact that millions suffer means nothing to them. Trump brought Kim to the table, but naturally nobody wants to give him credit because he's Hitler.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[HRC2020]

Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.

Onward Together!

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yes, Xi Jiping will be happy to receive it.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Citizen of Earth]

Trump also got serious about punishing the Chinese corporations that were supplying North Korea in defiance of the sanctions. Just ask ZTE. It's truly bizarre how deluded some people are about what actually happened here. Watch some Scott Adams videos if you want to know about the courtship ritual between Trump and Kim and the choices left open to Kim. While the lunatics were screeching WW3, Scott was explaining how there'd be peace pretty soon.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[guruevi]

It’s called negotiation and persuasion. Regardless of whether you agree with him, he has a way of getting under his opponents skins. CNN is still talking about the elections while Trump is changing policies right under our noses.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[wonkey_monkey]

He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[prisoner-of-enigma]

People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

Here's what really happened, and none of it was by accident:

1. NK developed their nukes with the intention of saber rattling and getting their way since it's worked so well for the last 70 years.
2. Trump let NK know we can and will turn them into a glowing parking lot if they don't stop doing that.
3. Trump let China know he's quite serious about pushing the Big Red Button on NK and put pressure on China via tariffs, probably with the deal being China pushes NK to start behaving and Trump will remove the tariffs.
4. China values their economic ties with the US far more than anything they're getting from NK, and further NK embarrassed the Chinese leadership with his nuclear testing.
5. China, seeing it in their best interests to reign in NK, told them they wouldn't step in if Trump pushed the Big Red Button and Kim finally figured out he's playing with something that will get him burned. China also probably threatened severe economic pressure on NK if they continued to misbehave.
6. NK, unable to survive economically without China and unable to withstand a US military without Chinese backing, wisely decided it's time to come to the the peace table before things get out of control.

Even you ought to be able to put the pieces together. Trump visits China. Then Kim visits China. Shortly thereafter Kim changes its stance. Only a fool would consider this accidental. Trump leaned on China and China leaned on Kim. This is something Obama could've easily done -- and maybe earned a Nobel instead of being given one for "participation" -- but was too naive to do. But no doubt had this happened on his watch you'd have given him full credit and claimed him a master politician. But since it happened on Trump's watch it has to be accidental, right? Can't give Trump credit. That might validate his ideology and invalidate yours and that simply can't be allowed.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you always judge people not by the content of their actions and words, but by what you think they think?

Admit it to yourself that if Obama, or Hillary, or literally anyone else did the exact same things Trump did in the exact same ways Trump did you would be posting praise instead of condemnation.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Yumi Saotome]

The South Korean foreign minister "believes President Donald Trump is largely responsible for bringing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table".

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26...

Is your understanding of the Korean political situation more astute than hers?

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The Nobel committee would have a collective aneurysm before they'd even consider giving Trump any credit whatsoever for this. Meanwhile they're happy to give Nobel's to terrorists (Arafat) and people who've accomplished nothing except getting elected (Obama).

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[prisoner-of-enigma]

She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr. Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.

Trust me, the sting of losing to Trump and having to live in political exile having never eclipsed her philandering husband's name is far more punishing than any cell could ever be.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Nothing you've posted suggests that Trump was doing anything other than being a belligerent asshole rather than acting like one as part of a cunning plan.

And nothing you've observed has made a dent in that hardened cranium of yours to make you understand that Kim wouldn't have buckled to anyone except a belligerent asshole.

Obama wouldn't and couldn't have done it for many reasons, not least that NK would never have bought it coming from him.

Which, whether you realize it or not, proves my point. NK took Trump's threats seriously because they knew he was serious. Obama they laughed at and manipulated him like a child.

Trump being a gibbering lunatic might just be one of several factors that contribute to a lasting peace between NK and SK. That doesn't make him any less of a gibbering lunatic.

It's easier for you to chalk this up to total chance by a gibbering lunatic than to even consider the possibility this was all planned. This despite all the evidence in front of you that Trump's visit to China, Kim's subsequent visit to China, and Kim's sudden about face are very much intertwined.

It's very childish to go stating your baseless conclusions as to what I'm thinking as fact, when you could instead argue your own point constructively.

I have argued it constructively, even to the point of giving a numbered list backed up with observable evidence. You're just too stuck in your own mindset to listen to it. Hence I'm mocking you, as your response is exactly what I expected.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Brett Buck]

No, I won't bother when the PP is a spew ofnonsense, which is by definition irrefutable (since it contains only emotional venting).

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[prisoner-of-enigma]

He's willing to act outside the box. I don't think thinking comes into it very much.

Thinking without acting sure got Obama a long way towards solving the Korean Peninsula situation didn't it?

You're the one stuck in the box, unable -- no, unwilling -- to consider that Trump's tactics, while distasteful and odious to you, worked whereas the more genteel, cultured, thoughtful Obama didn't. To consider Trump successful would endanger your worldview. Hence you must assume Trump is a lunatic who by complete accident managed to bring NK to heel after decades worth of other administrations had failed.

I've said it since the election and I stand by it: people like you aren't afraid of Trump being a bad President; you're terrified he will be a good one who succeeds where his predecessors failed. You're fearful such successes will prove your ideas and ideologies don't actually work in the real world. Therefore you deny them any credit for their accomplishments in order to protect your pride. You'll never learn, not because you're stupid but because you're stubborn.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Yumi Saotome]

As some anonymous coward pointed out in this thread:

"Clearly deliberately. He has been thinking about this since 1999:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"If they think you're serious, they'll negotiate, and it will never come to (nuclear war)".

Trump then formed a coalition with China and Japan to hit North Korea with sanctions so severe, that they were going to run out of foreign currency and suffer economic collapse within the year:
https://www.ft.com/content/db9...

Given how everyone thought Trump was going to drag the world into a nuclear bomb exchange with North Korea, clearly Kim thought he was serious too.

So, presented with these facts which ended up bringing Kim to the table, how are you going to resolve your clear cognitive dissonance and hatred towards Trump? Continue to deny reality and assume that Trump doesn't know what he's doing?"

Looks like it was a deliberate plan. You may argue that it was a stupid plan and he got lucky, but he went out and achieved exactly what he said he would by having the world believe that he was the madman willing to enter into a nuclear exchange with North Korea just because of insults on Twitter. But then you would have to acknowledged that he had planned this all along in the first place.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[datavirtue]

Amen.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[datavirtue]

They were waiting for someone real to come to the table and tell them they had a bigger rocket. Trump basically roasted this guy on the world stage and now he capitulates? On the surface I think this is great. I would like to hear "denuclearization" and "demilitarization" be thrown around some more but I doubt the media would be allowed to cover that for very long without being forced to trash them instead. We are spending our future in a perpetual standoff with eachother. There is probably a better way.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[crackspackle]

Trump deserves credit for Korean thaw

Fake news did, or at least that's what Trump called them yesterday on his Fox and Friends tirade.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[ShanghaiBill]

The notion of giving a US President a Peace Prize is pretty much insane.

Al Gore got his as a consolation prize for not being president.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Mashiki]

You don't make billions of dollars by sitting on your ass and playing safe either. I'm continually surprised at the number of people who have never seen hardline diplomacy or negotiation, and have only lived in the era's of weak presidents. No other president has done that even though the opportunity has presented itself. Hell the clusterfuck with them nuclearizing was because a weak president didn't bargain hard, and push harder when they had the opportunity to. And instead of going hard when they broke the deal, they let it go on.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Bing Tsher E]

It's not 'our' fucking business to prevent peace from breaking out in Korea. It's for the Korean people to decide.

I can't believe it's even necessary to have to say this.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[jander]

I would add:

7. NK Nuclear test mountain collapsed in on itself and would require significant resources to rebuild. Resources that they no longer have the economic means to acquire.

Agreeing to denuclearize means they get a win without having to substantiate it....

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Bing Tsher E]

If Hillary was President, right now we would at this point be looking at three or maybe a low four digit casualty count in the ground war in Syria. (The globalist neo-con/libs really really really want that natural gas pipeline across Syria. There's some fuming going on behind closed doors)

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Mashiki]

You try being black. No, I mean try it. See?? Not so easy...

Ever try being asian/half-asian in the US and being subject to negative affirmative action policies? Blacks at least get pity points on admission, we get them taken away.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Reverend Green]

That would be yet more proof that he is literally Hitler. Obviously.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Reverend Green]

Democrat partisans sure do like promoting needless wars.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[quantaman]

While I don't think the tweets were helpful, Trump did push for tougher sanctions against North Korea. Meanwhile, Trump also offered to engage in direct talks with North Korea, something past presidents have refused to do. North Korea has walked to negotiate directly with the United States, while previous presidents have insisted that any negotiations should be part of the six party talks. Trump stepped up the pressure, calling it "maximum pressure", while offering North Korea something the direct negotiations they wanted and a possible way out of the sanctions. Both the United States and South Korea have been clear that denuclearization is necessary to get the sanctions lifted. That is a substantial difference from the strategy of past presidents, and is a logical approach to foreign policy.

The tougher sanctions likely had a significant impact on North Korea and made them more willing to negotiate. Trump's willingness for direct talks signaled a willingness for unprecedented direct talks. The tweets weren't helpful, but Trump's foreign policy did influence North Korea to make real concessions. Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.

I was thinking that originally but now I'm not sure it has anything to do with Trump.

NK is pursuing the same thing now it's always pursued, survival.

Previously this took the form of gaining deterrence, first artillery, then Nukes, and finally Nukes that can hit the US. Until they had those things they were never going to engage in serious negotiations.

But now they have all those things their deterrence is kinda maxed out, they can always improve their long range delivery, but realistically they've done the important thing which is prove they can deliver a Nuclear retaliation against the US.

NK isn't talking because of sanctions, or because Trump reached out, they're talking because they got what they've always wanted, Nuclear deterrence, and now they want stability. Denuclearization isn't really on the table, but as long as everyone knows they have long range Nukes they're probably content to stop testing.

Let's just hope that Trump's threats to about the Iran nuclear deal are an effort to get Iran to extend their promises past 2025 and not a sincere intent to withdraw. If Trump is taking the role of the bad cop while Macron has the role of the good cop to negotiate more with Iran, it may be effective. If Trump actually withdraws, that's incredibly foolish. Trump is just so erratic that it's hard to distinguish legitimate foreign policy from outbursts and uninformed bluster.

There's no good cop/bad cop play here. Trump took the narrative that the Iranian deal was a bad deal and ran with it all campaign, it's only through the desperate efforts of his cabinet that he's stayed in.

The problem with the "renegotiate" idea is that Trump has no leverage. It took Obama years to get Europe on board with the sanctions, if Trump decertifies the US sanctions come back but no one else will follow and Iran will be free to develop break-out capability again.

That's not saying the Trump can't negotiate other things with Iran (stop supporting X we'll stop sanctioning Y) but there's no better Nuclear deal to be had.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[quantaman]

Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals. This could have been done decades ago, but globalists find North Korea useful as a source of tension. The fact that millions suffer means nothing to them. Trump brought Kim to the table, but naturally nobody wants to give him credit because he's Hitler.

Kim wanted Nukes that could hit the US. Kim got Nukes that could hit the US. Therefore, Kim is ready to talk.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[DNS-and-BIND]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. CNN is still fake news. You know how you called it a "tirade"? Yeah, that's a value judgement, just like the fake news uses.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[DNS-and-BIND]

Childish bully? Seriously? Educated people actually still believe that nonsense? Pff. Let's ask Saint Bernie Sanders what he thinks:

"Trump took on the Republican establishment, he took on the Democratic establishment, took on the media establishment and he ended up winning the election to become president of the United States. And that is an extraordinary accomplishment. And it talks about perseverance, it talks about very strong political instincts, it talks about a way to connect with people. So I give Donald Trump his due."

It's just that it's so emotionally rewarding to call Trump names. You know what's childish? Name-calling.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Plus1Entropy]

I made a submission a while ago about the Game Theory behind nuclear standoffs, and how Trump's approach actually made a lot of sense from that perspective. Here's a quote from the article:

Imagine you’re Trump or Kim Jong Un, essentially playing a game of chicken. You’re driving at high speed directly toward your opponent who’s also racing toward you. Neither of you wants to chicken out and veer away, but neither wants to die, either. Your best strategy? Rip off your steering wheel, make sure your opponent knows you’ve done so, and hit the gas.

Not a Trump supporter, but hey I'm not gonna complain when a broken clock gives me the right time.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Burz]

You're forgetting *China* imposed sanctions on NK. *That* is what lit a fire under them.

And what lit a fire under the Chinese was having a madman on their border gain control of some H-bombs.

Sanctions and breast beating from the US was more of the same. Trump deserves little if any credit though its given he'll try to claim it and his followers will mindlessly bleat it.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Hognoxious]

You don't make billions of dollars by sitting on your ass and playing safe either.

No, you make it by choosing your parents well.

There is a theory that "sitting on your ass and playing safe" is actually a good thing to do for some people.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[wonkey_monkey]

What you makes you think I hold Bernie Sanders's opinion on everything in any high regard?

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[wonkey_monkey]

You're really missing the point of what I'm saying, but since I've already said it there's not much point saying it again.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[pots]

Obama got his peace prize because Bush, like Trump, was an America-firster and Obama signaled a return for the US to responsible global citizenship. Trump, like Bush, is the opposite of that. Of course he's not going to get a prize.

I'm surprised at how much credit Trump is getting in this thread for this development. It's possible that his hysterics unsettled Kim a little, but it seems much more likely that China slapped him down.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Hognoxious]

It's also possible that he's pulling a Homer and his luck might run out at any time - taking everyone else's along with it.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[tomhath]

China slapped Kim down because Trump put pressure on China. Money talks, reading from a teleprompter walks.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[mapkinase]

Obama did not think or act outside the box a single day in his pathetic weathercock life.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[mapkinase]

I do not think you understand the point I was saying.

Let me try from another perspective.

Bacteria knows how to swim from the "bad" area to the "good" area. You know how? It does not think, it does not measure the gradient, it only know to do one thing: move faster or slower. That's it. When in "bad" area it moves faster, when in "good" area it moves slower. That is enough for bacteria to concentrate in "good" area instead of "bad" area.

Obama is the stupidest of all bacteria. He did not know how to move faster. He is afraid to move faster because of the politburo that holds him.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Camarillo Brillo]

This has NOTHING to do with Donnyboy. That blowhard would take credit for the sunrise (and some morons would believe him too)

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[dbreeze]

qanonposts.com It likely didn't start with Trump, but he has been a vital piece in the good work of those behind it from the beginning.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[fatwilbur]

Trump has no leverage?? He played his cards perfectly here - even looking at his "worst" tweets, he was basically calling Kim's bluff. This was literally a country that can't even provide electricity for it's citizens trying to act tough against the world's largest military power. He got China to back off from NK's support by trying to provoke the US. Only NK is that stupid, and perhaps Russia as well but they actually have some power to back up their words.

And most (Chinese) companies violating the sanctions quickly realize the US is a far, far, far more valuable trading partner than NK ever will be if they were called out on their actions.

It finally took someone to play hardball to solve the problem. Same thing will happen with Palestine.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[wonkey_monkey]

I do not think you understand the point I was saying.

What I don't understand is why you're bringing up Obama.

I haven't said anything about Obama, yet you seem to think you know exactly what I think of him. Not sure how you managed that. Moreover, you seem illogically focused on disproving all the things I haven't said about Obama.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[angel'o'sphere]

Trump should get credit for that, and you're ignoring the real substance of his foreign policy.
No he should not.

Despite your "insightful" rant, Trump has nothing to with it. And referring to north Korea as "they" when it is only one single person we are talking about, makes clear you have no clue.

The only two persons deserving credit for this is Kim Jong Un from NK and Moon Jae-in from SK. Unless I miss something and other negotiators are involved.

Hint: NK agreed to this despite of the US sanctions, not because of them.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[quantaman]

Trump has no leverage?? He played his cards perfectly here - even looking at his "worst" tweets, he was basically calling Kim's bluff. This was literally a country that can't even provide electricity for it's citizens trying to act tough against the world's largest military power. He got China to back off from NK's support by trying to provoke the US. Only NK is that stupid, and perhaps Russia as well but they actually have some power to back up their words.

And most (Chinese) companies violating the sanctions quickly realize the US is a far, far, far more valuable trading partner than NK ever will be if they were called out on their actions.

It finally took someone to play hardball to solve the problem. Same thing will happen with Palestine.

I was actually talking about Iran when it came to Trump having no leverage.

He does have leverage when it comes to NK, but it's more limited than you imply. The sanctions are only effective as their enforcement, and China has a lot of latitude in how strictly they enforce them and to the extent they turn a blind eye to smuggling. And the companies who trade in NK are regional, so they don't care about US markets.

Plus sanctions only hurt the citizens, not the leaders, and Kim isn't that concerned about his citizens. He'd prefer them to be better fed, and there's always the worry that too much starvation leads to revolution, but sanctions are really for show.

Obama couldn't stop Kim and neither could Trump, that's why Kim now has long range Nukes and is willing to talk.

So far, Kim is the only one who's actually gotten what he wants out of this whole thing.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[angel'o'sphere]

Lucky you are not president, you look pretty dumb to me.

I wonder what conclusions you are making when I'm back from my China trip.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[angel'o'sphere]

Exactly!
I was searching for words to write something like this but my english escaped me today :)

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[angel'o'sphere]

Wrong analogy, Kim is Hitler.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Hognoxious]

Great reasoning there, Sparky. Better hope they didn't both read it.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[serviscope_minor]

Watch some Scott Adams videos if you want to know about the courtship ritual between Trump and Kim and

Scott Adams as in the delusional author who used to write a funny comic? Not sure I'll be taking analysis from anyone who things that "fossils are bullshit".

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Uberbah]

Trump surrounded NK with carriers and flew bombers off the coast. Moreover there are hard hitting sanctions that are harming Kim's ability to keep bribing his generals.

You say that like it's been a change. North Korea has been under constant threat of extermination since the 50's, and Clinton started annual practice invasions of North Korea in the 90's - that go on to this day.

North Korean nuclear weapons are regime change insurance, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing that American promises to commit genocide against them would do is get them to produce more nukes and longer range missiles, not less.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Uberbah]

She's more useful not being in jail. Imprison her and she becomes a martyr.

She wont go to jail for the same reason her husband dropped the Iran Contra investigation, the same reason Obama didn't prosecute Bush for war crimes, the same reason Trump wont prosecute Obama for starting wars without Congressional authorization. They're all a part of the same club and aren't about to send anyone to prison least they end up there themselves.

Right now she's a washed-up has-been that's so toxic even Democrats don't want anything to do with her anymore.

With the voters, yes, but the party has been working very, very, very hard to make it clear they DGAF about the voters. From the DNC arguing in court they have the right to rig primaries to Steney Hoyer just getting taped on doing just that. The Clintons are still influence peddlers and most Democratic officials owe them favors - favors the Clintons are happy to call in.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Citizen of Earth]

Scott Adams as in the "delusional" author whose predictions keep coming TRUE. Maybe his model of reality is better than yours. I looked up what Adams said about fossils and it appears that another thing he has said is true: his critics mine the past to find things to dismiss him for but don't bother to actually listen to what he has said, and so, are forced to simply make shit up.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[doccus]

Hillary isn't even gonna run in 2020.. It'll be (Gag!) Oprah!

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[doccus]

You really believe this psyco can suddenly become a peacenik?n I think there's really underlying reasons forcing him into it, or he wants to put everybody at ease before he pushes the button. It's either that or all the higher ups are not getting "gifted" anymore, so pushing Kim to this.. Or China forced him... Nothing to do with western politics tho. So no Nobel for Trump.. solly!

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[doccus]

p.s. yeah.. i did get the humor!

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[serviscope_minor]

Maybe his model of reality is better than yours.

He thinks fossils are bullshit, so I'm going to go with a "no" on that one.

He also engaged in some good JAQing off about the death toll estimate of the holocaust. Apparently that doesn't fit his "model of reality" either despite being well documented.

But then again, he does have a "certified genius level IQ" according to him, so who am I to argue, eh?

his critics mine the past to find things to dismiss him for but don't bother to actually listen to what he has said

Yes this is a thing. If someone has a record of spouting large amounts of bullshit, the rational thing to do is simply ignore them in favour of people who have a better record. After all my time is limited and I can't listen to everything everyone has to say then evaluate all of it with an open mind.

If he's pissy about people ignoring him because of the bullshit, then perhaps he should spout less bullshit.

are forced to simply make shit up.

It's ironic you said that: your accusation of "making shit up" is in fact making shit up.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[eric_harris_76]

Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.

Onward Together!

Sarcasm? I sure hope so.

Yes. It's got to be. Nobody could be that delusional, other than possibly HRC herself. (The "2020 or sooner" was the tipoff.)

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[ebvwfbw]

And it was over a power point presentation denying the prize to a woman that had dedicated her life to peace. Survived the Nazis. Nope, Algore and his power point presentation (over bullshit, none of the stuff he claimed turned out to be true) is much better than her lifetime of work.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[pots]

I'm confused about your comment. How are you connecting this to what I said? Are you claiming that Obama was going to do something that you would blame for costing you thousands of dollars for healthcare, and that the Nobel Committee should have known that you were going to blame it for this, and that your blame for his part in this thing that you think is responsible for costing you thousands of dollars in healthcare would, when it happened, represent poor global citizenship? Or you saying something else? I can't say that your comment made much sense to me.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[DNS-and-BIND]

Childish people who hate Trump typically were for Bernie.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Mashiki]

No, you make it by choosing your parents well.

So not working hard is the reason bill gates did so poorly. Makes sense.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Mashiki]

r/aznidentity reader detected

There's half a dozen class action lawsuits on this already, and it's already well known. The LAtimes even did a piece on it back in 2015. Affirmative action is cancer in a meritocracy, which is the way society *should* be going. The people promoting socjus however, have really been pushing "sexuality, skin colour and race" as most important factor.

Re: Nobel Peace Prize Winner

[Uberbah]

Not sure what you're disagreeing with - sure the Dems are done with voters but, like I said, the party DGAF about voters. They would rather go on maintaining control of the party - and lose elections in the process - rather than do anything that annoys their donors.

What I expect will happen: Dems will make modest gains this fall and maybe take back the house. And then Trump will win a solid re-election over Corporate Cory or Kamela "slave labor" Harris. Mostly because Kenn Star, I mean Robert Mueller's witch hunt still wont have produced a shred of evidence to support the idea that Trump colluded with Russia to swing the election. Trump can hammer that fact 24/7 on the Democrats and the corporate media.

And he'll be right.

Thank you Dennis Rodman!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome job Dennis! Thanks for your help!

Re:Thank you Dennis Rodman!

[Citizen of Earth]

No, you're supposed to believe that Obama set this all up in perfect stealth mode over a year ago, or that Hillary should get the credit because this would have spontaneously happened on her watch while she was continuing Obama's failed policies.

but

[Anonymous Coward]

But is there a way of accusing Trump of doing something wrong here? If you haven't been able to link Trump to this, and blame him for something, you aren't resisting!

Camp Humphries

[PopeRatzo]

It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.

Re:Camp Humphries

[rogoshen1]

Modern day gulag? check
Starving citizens? check
Brutal, oppressive and tyrannical dictatorship? check.

(replying with snarky whataboutism -- "oh but the US blah blah" -- changes nothing, is utterly irrelevant to discussing NK, and absolutely means your mother will contract cancer within the next year. Caution is urged!)

But once the heat ratchets down a little bit, the norks will go right back to the status quo. This changes nothing, other than a few BFF photo-ops.

Wake me when it's unification time.

Re:Camp Humphries

[phantomfive]

Why? They had no problem closing the German bases fairly recently.

Re:Camp Humphries

[liquid_schwartz]

It'll be interesting to see how they negotiate the removal of US forces from South Korea. The US has its biggest bases and airfields in all of Asia over there, and I can't imagine removing them is going to sit well with the Pentagon.

Who cares what the pentagon thinks. If we would focus on US citizens, not other countries and illegals, we could make at least our corner of the world a better place. Foreign wars only make well connected people rich while the common man on both sides dies.

Re:Camp Humphries

[mschoolbus]

The US will not agree, unless South Korea wants to get cut off..

Re:Camp Humphries

[Solandri]

The biggest U.S. military presence in Asia is in Japan. The treaties which ended WWII prohibited Japan from building up a military which it could project overseas. They're only allowed to have a self-defense force (which is why that name often shows up in Japanese anime). In exchange, the U.S. is responsible for protecting Japan from foreign attack. So by necessity it has a large military presence in Japan (though Japan has shoved most of it into Okinawa, whose people are discriminated against by mainland Japanese).

From a logistical standpoint, Japan is an easier destination to reach from the U.S. (and vice versa). A great circle route between the U.S. and South Korea takes you over part of North Korea and Russia, which has resulted in simple mistakes producing tragic consequences in the past.

Re:Camp Humphries

[PopeRatzo]

The biggest U.S. military presence in Asia is in Japan

That's true, but it's not the same as saying the biggest US bases and airfields are in South Korea. Desiderio Army Airfield is listed as the biggest and busiest US airfield in Asia. Maybe my information is out of date though.

Either way, we've got a lot of personnel and materiel over there. It'll be interesting to see what losing those bases does to those South Korean local economies.

Re:Camp Humphries

[schwit1]

Won't happen. The Chinese now control the South China Sea which means the US will want to keep its options available.

Re:Camp Humphries

[PopeRatzo]

Why? They had no problem closing the German bases fairly recently.

The US still has lots of bases and airfields on the European mainland, though, doesn't it?

Re:Camp Humphries

[Anonymous Coward]

From what? As someone who has actually lived in South Korea, working on a US base as a DoD contractor, what exactly will they be missing? South Korea is already quite a ways ahead of the US in terms of development and technology.

Re:Camp Humphries

[HornWumpus]

They built an artificial island. Their Navy is still relatively weak, just not as weak as it was 10 years ago. In a 'shooting war' they are toast.

Re:Camp Humphries

[phantomfive]

I think the main one left in Europe is in Italy. The US still has lots of bases and airfield in Asia, but they are less important now. For a couple decades now, the US has had the ability to launch planes from Missouri, bomb a target in the middle east (or anywhere else in the world, really), and return home so the pilot can sleep in America after the mission. With that kind of projection ability, foreign bases are a lot less important, and to some degree all you need is refueling stations. Of course troop movements still take time, but with North Korea ending their war, there doesn't seem to be any place that requires troops to arrive withing a few hours notice (remember, airstrikes still can happen anywhere with a few hours notice). It is strategically acceptable in most areas of the world (I'm making my own judgment call there, but I think the Pentagon agrees) to ship the troops from the US mainland, especially since the US owns the seas.

I only know from unclassified comments, but it seems like (again, to me) the Pentagon worries more about losing the ability to wage wars in multiple locations simultaneously (roughly, total military size) than they do about closing foreign bases.

Re:Camp Humphries

[mapkinase]

Adding: one of the largest US _tank_ brigades in the world is in South Korea.

Trump is cracking on China, America's enemy number one, and it brings the fruits.

Re: Camp Humphries

[Bing Tsher E]

Their new 'island' is a few heavy seastorms away from being a reef again. The sea is very unforgiving, and time is on it's side.

Re:Camp Humphries

[PopeRatzo]

The US still has about 40 bases in Germany. Also a base in Kosovo, Camp Bondsteel, that is surprisingly big.

Even though a bunch of bases in Germany closed, we have a lot of "co-bases" with NATO left where the main force is American.

Re: Camp Humphries

[mschoolbus]

The insurance policy of the US military. Goes beyond North Korea.

Re: Camp Humphries

[gravewax]

The insurance policy of good relations with China and Japan is always going to be a far better insurance policy than the US can ever provide. SK is a well developed country, without the threat of war hanging over it from North Korea a total divorce from US political influences would likely be a hugely positive development for them.

Re:Camp Humphries

[gravewax]

In a shooting war between any of the major powers ALL NAVY vessels are weak or obsolete and would be the first casualties in any major conflict, especially any Navy operating a significant distance from its home base.

Re:Camp Humphries

[Gryle]

I think the main one left in Europe is in Italy

No, not even close. Wikipedia has a list of military bases in Europe. The bases in Italy provide easy access to the Mediterranean. The bases in Germany, particularly Grafenwoehr and Hoehnfelds, are large-scale maneuver training areas, used by both NATO members and US allies.

Re:Camp Humphries

[angel'o'sphere]

The biggest air base of the united states air force, on the world, is Rammstein, Germany.

Re:Camp Humphries

[Uberbah]

They're only allowed to have a self-defense force

Which is all anyone needs, anyway. Costa Rica doesn't even have an army - guess how many times they've been invaded. This is about the U.S. finding an excuse to occupy as many countries as possible, not defending anyone.

Re:Camp Humphries

[angel'o'sphere]

An invading force in the Chinese sea would face the Chinese Air Force and most likely long range cruise missiles and ground to sea missiles, you don't need a navy anymore to defend a coast line. Those times are long gone.

Re:Camp Humphries

[angel'o'sphere]

China is enemy of _no one_ (except you count Tibet), since the Vietnam war is over, they were not even remotely involved in any war.
That the US consider China an enemy is a pure US thing. Why the funk would they, the Chinese, fight you? Attack you?
On the other hand China is the leading nation in development aid for Africa ... they put America the shame in many things. Perhaps that is why you now want to call them "enemy"?

Trust, but verify

[TomR teh Pirate]

Kim has made a lot of commitments, none of them worth the paper they were printed on. I'll believe it when the inspectors believe it.

Re:Trust, but verify

[Anonymous Coward]

This right here. This dude and his family runs concentration camps.

Trump did what none of the presidents before him did. He shamed China into doing something.

Basically "hey china take care of this shit"
"nope"
"yeah hey world check out these pics of China braking our sanctions"
"hmm yeah so what"
"hey I am thinking about trade sanctions"
"lets talk"

Basically NK was no longer politically useful for China. Now the real work begins. Getting them to clean their shit up.

Re:Trust, but verify

[mapkinase]

You do not need a commitment to flick up an underground nuclear testing site. You just flick it up and, voila.

Re:Trust, but verify

[Uberbah]

Cool! Should NATO bomb Los Alamos down to bedrock, or should the Russians do it?

Re:Trust, but verify

[Uberbah]

"hey I am thinking about trade sanctions"
"lets talk"

Lulz. The next time you're at a store, just try and find a consumer product that isn't made in China. If they wanted to play hardball, all they'd have to do is block exports to the U.S. for a week and Wal-Mart alone would take of the problem for them.

Re:Trust, but verify

[dyfet]

Here is the thing, peace is really cheap for Kim. He doesn't have to give up his kidnapped sex slaves or dynastic rule or address any past crimes at all. He can lock-in those gains. On the other hand, I really doubt he has any illusions of the dynasty and his pampered ass surviving another Korean war. Keeping his own pampered ass comfortable is far more important than the old party line of unification. For Moon, the motivations are related; clearly he has no illusions of the US caring about how many millions of Korean may die or how many decades of Korean prosperity will be wiped out just so that Trump can show he has a "bigger button". Letting Kim has his fantasy play land in the north is the price of survival for Moon's South Korea, and one he is very willing to pay given the options.

How did we come to this?

[Mystiq]

I'm still confused how this even happened. Is Trump such a dick that North Korea wants to be the good guys again because they're afraid for their safety? What is the state media narrative in North Korea right now?

Re:How did we come to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

NK has always wanted reunification. So, this is in line with THEIR wishes, not ours. The catch is the terms that they will insist on for denuclearization. This will almost certainly require US forces to leave South Korea. And then what's to guarantee that Kim won't invade?

Re: How did we come to this?

[Type44Q]

I'm still confused how this even happened

Someone gave Kim a ride in a TR-3B and it went down something like this.

Re:How did we come to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump imposed sanctions.

Yes, sanctions have been tried before, but past presidents started with soft sanctions... then said "but we don't want to hurt the starving people" or got screwed by the regime conveniently changing their mind on supposed "negotiations" at the last second.

Trump started sanctions at a 10, and quickly cranked things up to 11. But despite these tough sanctions, n.korea was still flexing its muscle (launching many test missiles). That is when the US discovered trade ships still delivering goods from china to n.korea, after which, the navy started patrolling the area and doing "military exercises", back when everyone was sure "okay we might wake up and witness nuclear armageddon tomorrow". The US has been at war with chinese and n.korean businesses... it's war, 2018 style. For the first time ever, the sanctions seemed to have actually had an effect on the elite of n.korea.

You cannot discount trumps visit to china, either. Like it or not, many in the chinese populace viewed trump as a rock star and he was warmly received all through out asia. The olympics were all for show, but just the fact that n.korea was there, and recognized on the world stage, might have had something to do with kim getting the courage to venture out.

I'm almost too embarrassed to admit that if this really happens, Trump deserves the nobel... at least more than Obama did. And that's coming from a two time Obama voter.

Re:How did we come to this?

[phantomfive]

It wouldn't have happened if North Korea didn't want it, so they deserve credit. Kim Jong Un has spent a lot of time outside North Korea so he knows how things are.

Beyond that, Trump talks like the "internet tough guy." You know how when someone threatens to punch your face on the internet, you just laugh? Once North Korea realized that Trump's threats ("I have a BIGGER nuclear button!") were just noise, they gained confidence that he wasn't actually trying to destroy them. This contrasts with Bush's way of aggressiveness, which sounded malicious ("Axis of Evil"). (I will allow someone else to analyze Obama's way of talking).

Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.

Re:How did we come to this?

[eaglesrule]

With Trump making noises about putting tariffs on Chinese imports and adding to the cooling off of Chinese growth, support for North Korea may have come up on the bargaining table.

There is also the matter of the collapse of the nuclear test facility with unknown repercussions within N Korea.

It didn't seem clear that appeasement through saber rattling was going to work with Trump. With peaceful overtures comes a way to ease sanctions and dependence on Chinese support.

Re:How did we come to this?

[Junta]

There's a lot of evidence that their nuke testing went badly (cave in destroying the site) and thus they may feel the need to give up on it. They may be trying to suddenly cash in their chips before everyone is 100% certain that they stopped testing because they had to. They presumed a successful nuclear program was within reach and the key to dominating through intimidation, and they had a reality check. Pivoting to saying "well.. we proved ourselves and we don't have anything to prove to anyone, so... uhh.. yeah we'll come to the table now... not because we see no other option, but because we want to... yeah that's it"

The reports of the cave in seemed to mark the change in rhetoric, the response to Trump's brinkmanship seemed to pay back the aggressive words with interest, right up until the incident.

Re:How did we come to this?

[Solandri]

It's a combination of factors. Trump and his hardline stance giving Kim no room for belligerent talk. South Korea recently electing a very liberal President (some even call him communist). And Kim still being relatively new to the reins of power in North Korea (2011).

The combination of the three has produced a unique situation where the political stances which had been the status quo for over 50 years can be thrown out without anyone losing face. The long-term North Korean stance has been that South Korea is a puppet state of the U.S., and until now they've refused to negotiate solely with South Korea, always insisting on negotiating with the U.S. instead. The U.S. in turn has insisted that all major belligerents in the war be involved in any peace treaty talks (North and South Korea, U.S., China, and Russia). And South Korea's leadership has with a couple short exceptions been fairly conservative, and unwilling to yield almost anything to North Korea.

Trump broke with the 5-country peace treaty stance the U.S. has held for decades, and agreed to meet with Kim one-on-one. It's a Nixon-goes-to-China situation, where only a hard-line opponent could give ground on a long-held position without losing face. Kim broke with North Korea's insistence that South Korea was a puppet state and that any peace treaty be negotiated between it and the U.S., and agreed to meet Moon directly as representatives of two nations. And Moon agreed to meet Kim, which former Korean Presidents from conservative parties probably wouldn't have been able to do without being kicked out of power by their own party.

Kim also happens to be a k-pop fan. And one of the best ways I've found for reconciling two people with an acrimonious history is to start with something they both like. It sounds cheesy, but it forces you to think of the other side as being comprised of real people just like yourself, not nameless faces onto which you can project decades of ingrained stereotypes and prejudices.

Re:How did we come to this?

[Junta]

Well, the nuclear testing cave in that people are pretty sure happened probably contributed... I mean the change in tone seemed to happen very suddenly after that.

Either their testing damaged their capabilities to continue their program irreparably, or having a major seismic instability introduced on their border strained things too far with China inducing them to intervene...

I think they suddenly realized *they* needed to denuclearize, and better to make it seem like a favor to foreign relations than a defeat.

Re:How did we come to this?

[Junta]

The whole "oh, NK is peaceful, they say they want reunification!" was an odd take on the sentiment. They've *always* wanted unification. Unification sounds all nice and happy, but that's also what a totally successful invasion would have looked like.

Re:How did we come to this?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Also Trump pushed China hard to put pressure on North Korea, so that surely helped, too.

The point being Obama had eight years in which he could've done exactly the same things and had this happen on his watch...but didn't. Same goes for Clinton. If nothing else it proves the touchy-feely-hug-them-and-they'll-love-us approach was and remains the most idiotic way to influence tyrannical dictators. You'd think we'd have learned that given how well it worked in the 1930's but Obama was apparently too naive -- or too prideful -- to learn from history.

Some of you here may not be old enough to remember liberals everywhere demonized Reagan the same way they're demonizing Trump now. "OMG HE'S A MADMAN WHO'S GOING TO START ARMAGEDDON!" They didn't realize that such a perception was the fucking point. People like Hitler, Kruschev, Saddam Hussein, Ghadaffi, and the Kim clan only respect one thing: power. So long as they perceived America as unwilling to pull the trigger, they acted however they saw fit. As soon as the Oval Office was occupied by someone they knew would pull that trigger, they changed their tone. It's an ugly way to play the game but sometimes it's the only option. Shrinking from it only emboldens people like Kim.

Re: How did we come to this?

[phantomfive]

That's a little extreme. Trump did good work but things have changed internally in North Korea, too. Clinton might have been able to finish the peace at this time, there are still too many unknowns to make a judgement. If Kim writes an autobiography I will read it eagerly. As for your post, your partisan rhetoric sounds angry and provokes eye rolls from people who are more sophisticated, people who understand that the situation is complex.

Re:How did we come to this?

[q_e_t]

Reagan was actually morally opposed to nuclear weapons, which was a significant factor in pushing for talks.

Sure, us liberals loved to hate him back then, but he was a better man than we realised. An example would be his letters, with personal cheques, to distressed citizens.

Re:How did we come to this?

[ebvwfbw]

He's not that big of a dick. It just shows how crazy our press and the Democrats are here that even North Korea is better at working with Trump than they are. That is how out of whack our press and the Dems are. I predict they will lose big in the 2018 elections.

Re:How did we come to this?

[mjwx]

I'm still confused how this even happened. Is Trump such a dick that North Korea wants to be the good guys again because they're afraid for their safety? What is the state media narrative in North Korea right now?

State media... something about Dear Leader being a great peacemaker for the good of the great socialist republic or some such.

What actually happened was that China threatened to stop protecting North Korea. Most of this will have been driven by Beijing.

MASH

[Anonymous Coward]

So Hawkeye can finally go home to his wife? Damn, that will bum him out.

Re:MASH

[jwhyche]

Hawkeye wasn't married.

Re:MASH

[Digital Avatar]

Sure he was. He was married to a dry martini.

Re:MASH

[Ellis D. Tripp]

He was married in the original novel, not in the TV series loosely based on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Trumps super negotiator powers

[Joe_Dragon]

Trumps super negotiator powers

Kim won

[rsilvergun]

we've acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of North Korea. That's what this was about. As soon as Trump said he'd meet with Kim, Kim won. He doesn't need the nukes any more. He's still got enough firepower to flatten South Korea, so he's still got his hostage situation. The nukes were just a trick to get us to the table and to get us to legitimize his reign. Worked too.

On the one hand I should be upset we're giving approval to yet another dictatorship. On the other hand NK is hardly the first and Trump just got outmaneuvered and lost his shot at an Iraq style war. On the other other hand there's still Iran, and they don't have a hostage to protect them.

Re:Kim won

[eaglesrule]

North Korea is ripe for unfettered capitalism and indentured slave labor, though. Surely that has to factor in somehow.

So the Job Creators get to fatten themselves that much more, Kim skims off the top and stays in power to live like a Saudi prince, this frees us up for a war with Iran to the delight of the military industrial complex, and Trump gets to crow that he accomplished something. What's wrong with that plan?

Re:Kim won

[fatwilbur]

"acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler" - this is a very weak point I think something only an anti-Trump zealot would highlight as a negative here. Whether "acknowledged" in some official manner or not, he is most definitely the top person in power in NK and running the show there, the de facto ruler. Whether or not you agree with their form of government (I sure as hell don't), not acknowledging him as leader sounds like the old way of doing things, and we saw how well that worked.

Prodigy...

[ElitistWhiner]

US has been in conflict with North Korea beginning 1866 with the current Korean War de jure dating back from present to 1950. A decade would be about right to de-escalate, de-nuclear, disentangle the peninsula from the source of conflicts that remain.

Re:Prodigy...

[CrimsonAvenger]

US has been in conflict with North Korea beginning 1866

Interesting notion. Especially since North Korea didn't exist until 1945. Before that, Korea was a single nation, ruled variously by the Chinese, the Japanese, and even occasionally the Koreans....

Re:Prodigy...

[novakyu]

Even more interesting notion. When has Korea ever been truly independent of foreign control?

Re:Prodigy...

[novakyu]

And yet, vast majority of Goguryeo's territory has nothing to do with current Korea. Once again, what an interesting notion, "Korea being ruled by Koreans." And let's not talk of Yi Dynasty.

Finally took action that mattered

[thesupraman]

And finally pushed people to take action on taking away the flow of luxury goods to 'the great leader' and his cabal.
Since prior to that, their life of luxury has been untouchable, why why WOULD they want anything to change?

The old approach was to do things that in effect punished the general population, but never EVER touch those in control,
after all they are the ruling elite, and you just cannot do anything to THEM, think of the children!

It's because he's...

[Anonymous Coward]

So ronery, so ronery.

Wow

[93 Escort Wagon]

People are really over-reacting to this - on both sides. It's certainly better news than if the two presidents had walked away from the table shouting "LOCK AND LOAD!" - but, right now, it's just words, and there have been plenty of words before.

Moon isn't an idiot - he's well aware he's got 25 million of his people living in and around a city that's only 35 miles from North Korea. He hasn't committed to much of anything... nor has Kim. "Ending" a war which has effectively been over for 70 years is a symbolic gesture, but little more than that.

Re:Wow

[Citizen of Earth]

Because of Trump's sanctions, Kim has only three choices open to himself: (1) attack the US or South and die the same day, (2) ride his Communist economy down to zero without the outside world and be killed by his own people within two years, or (3) become a globe-trotting elite rock star who oversees the strongest growth his people have ever known. Which would you choose? "Wow" is a tell-tale sign of cognitive dissonance.

Re:Wow

[guruevi]

Talk to people in Korea before you say the war has been over. Just because people aren’t continuously exchanging gun fire doesn’t mean there are no people dying in war zones.

Re:Wow

[bussdriver]

People should wise up and watch a good old movie to get some apparently new thoughts:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...

NK has been saying stuff about deals forever; plenty of informed people realized that they didn't have a nutcase leader and they were going to get a position of power and some form of equality (nukes) so they could negotiate as one of the "big boys." The Iraq war only proved what a lot of smart people thought since the cold war. When they could theoretically nuke US leaders back, I expected them to adopt the same sort of line other nuclear adversaries.

Don't be so naive and think Trump had hardly anything to do with this... NK is going out of it's way to see all the actually important players 1st and do all the real work. China deserves most the 3rd party credit; the next super power... who is shrewd enough to become the unquestionable world power before the formal boasting begins.

Re:Wow

[thegarbz]

but, right now, it's just words,

This is something that everyone seems to have forgotten. The red vs blue armies are so quick to shout "Trump is awesome" and "This is not Trump's doing we're lucky we're not at war" to realise what has actually happened:

Two leaders had dinner and smiled at a camera.

And that was it.

Re:Wow

[Uberbah]

NK has been saying stuff about deals forever; plenty of informed people realized that they didn't have a nutcase leader and they were going to get a position of power and some form of equality (nukes) so they could negotiate as one of the "big boys."

North Korea's threats are retaliatory - "we can hit you back if you strike us" - and their nuclear weapons program is pure regime change insurance. Americans may have forgotten that they killed three million Koreans in an illegal war, flattening every city in the north, but they haven't. Nor are they willfully blind to the annual practice invasions the U.S. has been running every year since the Clinton Administration. Which means every year NK has to mobilize a million people in case this time it's for real. During planting season - and then you use the resulting food shortages to complain about those craaaazy North Koreans some more.

Re:Wow

[angel'o'sphere]

The war in Europe ended 1991, with the so called 2+4 talks/treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Before that WEST Germany was considered occupied. German police had no right to stop an american soldier who was speeding, not even if he overrun a pedestrian.
The war is over when all parties agree so, not just because a cease fire or an occupation last 40 or 70 years (and even then it might be tricky).

Re:Wow

[swillden]

"Ending" a war which has effectively been over for 70 years is a symbolic gesture, but little more than that.

Have you been to the DMZ? The war has been on hold, but hasn't been over. Both sides are armed to the teeth and serious as shit there.

Re:Wow

[sysrammer]

The Korean war began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea, and so far NK has been unwilling to end it.

Re:Wow

[sysrammer]

The WWII was over when the axis powers surrendered unconditionally. This was in 1945.

Re:Wow

[angel'o'sphere]

Not for germany ... the war in germany ended 1991, perhaps you want to read my previous post: AGAIN

What does he need them _for_?

[rsilvergun]

As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there. It's not like the Israelis who, thanks to anti-Semites and their deeply rooted hate (boarding on psychosis), have to worry about nut cases rolling in to exterminate them and just not caring about conventional weaponry. The NK/SK dynamic has always been a hostage situation. It's odd that the media never really talks about it. Then again like I said we're shopping around for our next big war. Looks like NK is out of the running. Syria & Iran are next up.

Re:What does he need them _for_?

[HornWumpus]

There would be an insane artillery dual. But N Korea's guns are in fixed implacements that have been zeroed for decades. They wouldn't get off more than a few rounds. Less, if they were shooting at the civilian areas rather than the S Korean guns.

The people I've known that served in the Korean DMZ are of the opinion that they were there to keep the South from going North, for decades now. Look at the relative size of the economies.

If it wasn't for China, the second Korean war would have happened in the 1980s and wouldn't have taken but a couple of days.

Re: What does he need them _for_?

[Bing Tsher E]

Seoul is his own people. The civil war is to wind down. Koreans killing Koreans is the old way.

All the armchair generals here, and all over the US when it comes to Korea, fail to acknowledge that it is a Korean issue for Koreans to resolve.

One of the really big breakthroughs is Kim's willingness to negotige with the South Korean president directly. For many, many years the North Korea refused to acknowledge the South Korean government as anything more than a US controlled puppet. The NK side for years always referred to south Korea with a lower case 's'.

This is the time for Koreans on both sides of the line on the map to make change, if they can. One thing I have been disappointed about is the lack of attention to how the people in the north are reacting.

Re:What does he need them _for_?

[quantaman]

As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there. It's not like the Israelis who, thanks to anti-Semites and their deeply rooted hate (boarding on psychosis), have to worry about nut cases rolling in to exterminate them and just not caring about conventional weaponry. The NK/SK dynamic has always been a hostage situation. It's odd that the media never really talks about it. Then again like I said we're shopping around for our next big war. Looks like NK is out of the running. Syria & Iran are next up.

You're always a bit braver when the gun is pointed at your head instead of your neighbour's.

The artillery is a good deterrent, but not a great one when the US and China are your biggest threats. NK needs long range nukes if it wants to make sure that one of the giants doesn't decide they can "probably" solve the Kim problem without risking Seoul.

I don't see that happening

[rsilvergun]

any more than we pulled out of Japan. NK is still a military threat to SK anyway. And why would SK spend money on defense when we're doing it for them?

Re:I don't see that happening

[PopeRatzo]

any more than we pulled out of Japan. NK is still a military threat to SK anyway. And why would SK spend money on defense when we're doing it for them?

Asian press has been reporting that the US out of South Korea will be one of Kim's conditions. It's not unprecedented. In 1991, Bush Sr removed all US nukes from South Korea.

We've been doing that for ages

[rsilvergun]

what triggered this is folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war and let NK make good on their threat to flatten Seoul.

I still don't like this outcome. We've not acknowledged Kim Jun Un's regime as legitimate. At least legally (and practically, since there's plenty of folks who don't follow politics enough to know NK's a monarchy and not a Democracy).

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

No.
Three triggers.
First, China is sick of their shit.
Second, their military power is smoke and mirrors.
Third, they're afraid that Trump is a big enough asshole to call their bluff, even if it means a few thousand people in south Korea get killed.

Re:We've been doing that for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

"folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war "
Trump is unpredictable and nobody knows exactly what he will do and this is a good thing. He is a poor President but he is necessary. The status quo needs to be challenged on both the domestic and international relations sides. Prior to Trump the US had been 100% predictable when it came to addressing international relations. Being predictable gives your adversaries the upper hand in almost every conflict. If you know what your adversary is going to do you can adjust your actions accordingly. Russia knew it could invade Crimea and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable. Russia figured a few meaningless economic sanctions was a small price to pay for taking control of it's former eastern bloc vassal states. Russia thought they would have a friendly US President who would withdraw the Obama era sanctions instead they have received quite a few hard kicks in the nuts by an unpredictable US President. Trumps unpredictability finally got China to enforce the economic sanctions targeting NK. Trumps tariff war threats against China has also finally got China talking about addressing the US complaints against China for it's unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, and intellectual property theft. China is dealing with an unpredictable US President who thinks the US could actually win a trade war with China. Trumps boisterous Twitter attacks on the NK missile man was unprecedented and certainly not Presidential. Trump's unhinged ramblings about destroying an entire country using the big button on his desk really broke the mold. It's one thing for some little country with a few nuclear bombs to threaten the US but it is an entirely different matter when a country with enough nuclear missiles to blow up the world 3 times over openly threatens to use them. I actually thought Trump sounded rather excited about the prospect of pushing his big button.
When Trump questioned the usefulness of NATO and complained about countries not fulfilling their funding commitments those behind in their payments suddenly ponied up the money owed.

Trump scares people. He is not a politician and never even tries to be one. He is not a Republican or Democrat. He is not a liberal or conservative. He has shown no interest in playing politics with the DC power elite and he seems to enjoy attacking the media. He certainly doesn't play the identity politics practiced today. He is not a statesman or skilled orator. He is everything a President shouldn't be but when his Presidency is over he may be remembered as the President who finally ended the NK-SK war. The President who reminded US allies that relations between countries go both ways. If you are going to constantly criticize and berate the US don't expect US military support and lopsided trade deals to continue. He may be the President who finally forced the Palestinians to face reality, disarm, and sue for peace with Israel. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem is just a kick in the head for the Palestinians who need to realize they have lost 3 wars against Israel and if there is a 4th the US will not prevent Israel from ending the conflict any way they see fit.

Re:We've been doing that for ages

[datavirtue]

Spot on.

But I say "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want real."

Fake, pretend fuckers have been dragging us down into the ditch for far too long.

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[DaHat]

Kind of hard to start a new test site while their economy is crippled.

Honest Q: When has the North Korean economy not been crippled?

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[Bert64]

When it was propped up by the soviet union...
For many years, the north was ahead of the south economically. That only changed after the collapse of the USSR.

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[Hognoxious]

I've heard the saying "making a mountain out of a molehill", but never the other way round.

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[dunkelfalke]

Not quite that late. North Korea fell back in the early seventies or so.

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[phantomfive]

The outcome isn't done yet. War still isn't over, and both Korea's want unification.

Re: We've been doing that for ages

[angel'o'sphere]

That is nonsense ...
Go read a book about it!

Re:We've been doing that for ages

[Uberbah]

We've not acknowledged Kim Jun Un's regime as legitimate.

Given the number of democracies overthrown by the United States and that fact that it supports three quarters of the world's dictatorships, having the U.S. judge a country's legitimacy is like setting up your sister on a blind date with Ted Bundy.

Re:We've been doing that for ages

[g01d4]

He is a poor President but he is necessary.

I think the jury is still out on this for both foreign and domestic issues. China (South Sea) and Russia (Crimea, Ukraine, Syria) haven't changed and even excluding Syria the Mideast is still a massive, well, shit hole The current Korean Kumbaya moment will need to stand the test of time to demonstrate its value. It's also as much or more due in large part to the recent Korean president whose attitude towards the North differs from his predecessor. Domestically Trump's unpredictability has, if anything, hindered his working with Congress, limiting any accomplishments to something a little more than a 'triangulating' Democrat might achieve.

Re:We've been doing that for ages

[mjwx]

Spot on.

But I say "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want real."

But they ended up with Trump... the most fake and pretend mother fucker of them all.

Trump is an example that people will happily flock to a pleasing lie that makes them feel better than accept a slightly uncomfortable truth. An extreme example.

So what you really meant to say was "Presidential, professional: Who gives a fuck. People want their egos massaged and biases confirmed"... because that's what Trump did. Hes as real as a page 3 girl's tits.

Who is the more dangerous fool?

[shanen]

Having trouble trying to imagine the technology-based link of this article. How SNS run amok allows super-liars to take over countries and cling to power? Doesn't seem to apply very well to North Korea, especially back when Kim's grandfather became dictator.

Big picture context: China does NOT want a strong and unified Korea. That could be quite troublesome. China would probably prefer an extremely weak and unified Korea, but if they can't get that, then the current divided mess is acceptable. There isn't going to be any REAL peace in Korea unless China approves. I actually thought the Chinese were going to make a deal of taking Taiwan in exchange for giving up North Korea...

I think that right now Kim Jong-Un is just teeing Trump up for a YUGE kick. Kim is NOT going to retire to a dacha, no matter what Putin promises, and he knows it. Kim is just pretending to be the reasonable dictator. Case 1: He's going to trust Trump to tell the truth? Case 2: He's trusting Trump to phuck it up and give him a YUGE enemy? Dictators LOVE enemies, and the more incompetent the better. Actually Trump already teed himself up. By threatening to walk out to "win", Trump has defined a game of reverse chicken. Whoever walks out first "wins". If they ever meet, I'm betting Kim walks out first.

If anyone is actually pulling Kim's strings, it must be Putin. The punchline there is that Putin is making money on every side. By controlling the timing, he can make money betting on every side. No one actually knows where his money is hidden, but he can even sell his own companies short when he triggers stuff that looks bad for them, then bet on the other side when he flips the switch.

Re:Who is the more dangerous fool?

[Mashiki]

You should probably pay more attention to S.Korean politics. They just finished having an election there after the previous president was impeached and was a batshit crazy feminist that believed she was the reincarnation of a god and actively operated drugging dens for teen girls and the head of one of their largest multinational companies was directly bribing the president for policy. And, illegally destroyed documents(server wipes) tying all of this together. But was too stupid to destroy handwritten notes. Her daughter is singing like a bird and so loudly that it's damn right hilarious to save herself from life imprisonment. The two other options between Moon were, soft-China and soft-Japan neither won. Moon on the other hand has had a reunification desire after a friend of his was assassinated by Park's father in the 1960's for pushing for reunification.

In the end it doesn't matter what China wants, or even Japan, or the US. It's S.Korea and N.Korea's choice, and it looks like finally it might just happen with help from all parties involved.

Obama got his for "Not being.Bush"..

[Ellis D. Tripp]

, and holds onto it despite continuing and expanding many of Bush's policies and wars while in office..

It just happened...

[elcor]

You can feel how much the invisible is influencing the world these days. It is nice that everybody finally agreed to get out of this mess and move onto something more joyful. Thanks.

Completely Unrelated

[quantaman]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that NK has to take a break from Nuclear tests since they literally nuked their Nuclear test site into oblivion.

The thing to remember is that NK cares about the survival of the regime above all else. Kim Jong Un has no intention of denuclearization or re-unification.

I suspect his end game is Nukes, a mostly closed border, no US army on his doorstep, and no one trying to orchestrate regime change.

If the US, South Korea, and China are happy with that the war can probably end.

Re:Completely Unrelated

[avandesande]

And how do you know all this? Maybe Kim is a little bit more clever than you think he is and doesn't believe the current path for NK is sustainable. We recently made peace with Cuba without interfering with the current political structure and without hangings. Perhaps Kim sees himself as the savior that will reestablish some sense of normalcy to NK. Just a thought but I bet being a dictator in NK is both isolating and boring.

Well Done President Trump!

[Ferretman]

IF (and it's a big if) this pans out you definitely deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ferret

Re:Well Done President Trump!

[gravewax]

think you meant well done Moon Jae-in? basically really only 2 things that have lead to the possibility of peace, Moon Jae-in's efforts and North Korea's collapse of their test site. If they even nominated Trump it would be truly a last straw for the peace prize, it was bad enough when they gave it to Obama, it would make the whole thing into an even worse joke.

He probably doesn't care

[Okian Warrior]

what triggered this is folks think Trump and his Cabinet are crazy enough to actually go to war and let NK make good on their threat to flatten Seoul.

No! What really triggered this is folks think Trump is literally Hitler!

(Gotta love the gymnastics people are attempting, just to put Trump in a bad light here.)

The reality is that he probably doesn't even care about the Nobel prize - he probably viewed North Korea as another problem to fix, and went and fixed it. Next up: Iran.

My take, after watching his actions over the past couple of years, is that he doesn't actually care what people think or say about him.

So please tell us how he's flinging poo everywhere, has no plan and doesn't think and doesn't read and is stupid and immature and is literally Hitler...

..and has somehow just racked up yet another massive win.

For the world.

Re:He probably doesn't care

[Rockoon]

My take, after watching his actions over the past couple of years, is that he doesn't actually care what people think or say about him.

Trump is in the unique position of being more popular than the press. Flinging dung at him will only work if people like you. The cast of characters that are constantly on the air waves flinging dung, are neither liked nor trusted. Not one bit.

I think your underestimating modern weapons

[rsilvergun]

and by modern I mean the last 50 years. Remember, it's 2018. Even if his stuff is 50 years old we're talking the 70s. And he's been blowing off his populaces well being for weapons this entire time. I'm guessing he's got plenty of OK stuff from the Soviets.

Re:I think your underestimating modern weapons

[angel'o'sphere]

They did not get any military stuff from the soviets since the 1970s, most likely neither from the Chinese.

We don't think Trump is Hitler

[rsilvergun]

we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash.

I know this all seems like hyperbole, but I also know that, as a historic fact, folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power. Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

No, *you* think he's a proto-hitler. The same guy that isn't rounding up people, but is more then happy to come out swinging against him. The same guy who isn't telling the police to shoot people, but is more then happy to attack them publicly win or lose. The same guy who places blame on both groups, but also says both groups have good people in them. And you're screeching "but he didn't DENOUNCE THEM!" just like the media told you. He's put people into place who are ardent believers that the constitution isn't a "living breathing document" but foundational to the point that it's sacrosanct and all law should be build around, and not that the constitution should fit the law. He's doesn't care to play nice with the media, this isn't a fault. It's a bonus. Trust in media is declining worldwide and he isn't the cause of it, the media itself is.

For a fascist, proto-fascist, next hitler he's doing a pretty shit job. You have no pattern recognition in this, if you did you would have been screeching at Obama when he was using EO's to create policy by fiat, and leaving the US in the current cluster fuck with DACA among other massive abuses of executive power bypassing the house and the senate. Hell you would have been screeching when Obama was preforming extra-judicial killings of american citizens without trial. At least Bush Jr. attempted to give some semblance of legal rights how badly it was regardless.

God damn give your fucking head a shake. At this point, it seems like the anti-trumpers would have been happier with another war or three. And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side after the tea party groups drove them out, and to the democrats and progressive left? I'm not fucking surprised.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Rockoon]

folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power.

Hitler rose to power preaching socialism and labor unions. Fucking think for once.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[thegarbz]

At this point, it seems like the anti-trumpers would have been happier with another war or three.

Don't worry, by all accounts that is still coming.

Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Hognoxious]

Once a socialist always a socialist!

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[squiggleslash]

Hitler rose to power saying he'd imprison socialists and union leaders. He ran on a platform of scapegoating Jews, which he claimed was behind both movements. Just what the fuck are you talking about?

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[LordAba]

we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash. .

And the left are trying to erode free speech in a way that can be used by the next dictator as well... look at the UK almost sending a man to jail for a Nazi joke. I view Trump as the lesser evil here. The alt right haven't been as big in the news lately now that antifa are being negatively viewed in the media as well... and it's still social death to be actually racist (as opposed to the fake racist that social Marxists like to throw around). I personally think we are doing better, except for the fighters in the courts trading free speech for feelings.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[LordAba]

Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

Except for when crime statistics are concerned. Apparently because that's racist!

The interesting thing is that... it really isn't about race. It's more about single family homes. ~70% of Black children come from single parent homes. The race that is doing the best in the US (Asian) are ~15% from single families. Coming from a single parent home tends the child towards lower economic status while growing up, higher chance of committing a crime, lower education, etc... they are basically behind at nearly all points of their life.

Granted, try talking about family values to the people who blame racism on everything and see how far that gets you. I'm not even talking about "traditional" values... I have no problem with a married gay couple adopting (since last I looked they tended toward stable relationships and higher economic strength than straight married couples). Just, you know... condoms are fucking cheap.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[serviscope_minor]

And you're screeching [...]

I would say that it's ironic such an accusation is coming from you, but that would be the height of understatement.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Hognoxious]

~70% of Black children come from single parent homes.

That's because the fathers are put in prison by white people!

(InB4 AmiMoJoke)

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Rockoon]

I'm talking about what actually happened in Germany, facts in evidence due to the films of over a decade of Hitlers speeches. What are you talking about?

Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Rockoon]

Which Hitler backpedaled on when he came to power.

Does it matter? He roses to power preaching socialism and workers rights, therefore his base of support consisted of people that wanted socialism and workers rights. Those are the people that became concentration camp guards and worked in his war factories. Hitler drove the message all the way from the left, through the extreme left, and settling on the extreme right. The socialist workers right people because the extreme right, not like the narrative you fucks have been spinning where people like Dave Rubin are "extreme right."

..and today the left is attacking Trump from the right with their McCarthyism and their pro-war pro-bombing position on the middle east

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

I would say that it's ironic such an accusation is coming from you, but that would be the height of understatement.

Well well, if it isn't the person who can't click on links that would refute their talking points. Life sure is tough in that bubble isn't it?

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

Let me see, them flyover peoples are getting 'uppity' and need to be knocked down huh? Where have I heard that one before...oh right. It was from democrats, with regards to blacks. Strange that when a political party which labeled itself as "working class" refuses and then pisses all over a large segment of it, people have enough. Never mind that you should be more worried with antifa and their communist agitation or anything.

So let's get this right: Expecting law enforcement, to do their jobs hands untied and issues to be dealt with by the courts is white supremacy. Especially with dealing with illegals, who of course directly impact african americans the most by taking jobs at a lower rate of pay. See the shining example of two bakeries in Illinois in the last month. Or the fact that the previous administration implemented the highest "catch and release" program under any president in US history.

Requirements for sanctuary, or temporary residency require that you tell the truth. If you lie, out you go. FYI the system is extremely lenient on retroactive changes if you do so in person.

Relentless attacks on the press? Oh, so he's telling the secret service to go shake down some WAPO reporters? Hey, you know who actually did that? Obama, repeatedly. Not only did he do that, but he illegally wiretapped multiple reporters from AP, AFP, Rueters, and Fox.

Funny how you were happily complacent when the previous government was doing the things you're proscribing to Trump and he's *not* doing.

I'm not sure which is more pathetic. That you think the "R's in congress are goose stepping" or that you just finished blindly ignoring the democrats implementing a purity test for party affiliation. You fucking hack.

Re: We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

And considering all the neocons who flipped from Bush Jr's side

What's the problem? You don't like the fact that all those neocons flipped from the republicans after the tea party drove them out, and were welcomed with open arms by the democrats? You know why don't you? Because they both hate the more centrist, smaller government movement in the republicans that have been building over the last decade. Go on, look up all those speech writers, pundits, inner-circle people who couldn't find a war they didn't like. Go look where they are now, what think-tanks they work for, who pays them. You're gonna run into an awful lot of democrat/progressive/big-hollywood people involved.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

Wow, one dumb headline and you Trumpers are tripping over yourselves to praise him.

I'll tell you what...when the de-nuclearization actually happens, then you can have your victory party and pat yourselves on the back.

THIS IS JUST MORE BULLSHIT FROM THE BULLSHITTERS AND IN A FEW MONTHS THERE WILL BE MORE SABER RATTLING

I remember you, it was back in 1987 and you were spewing the same garbage against Reagan. I'm not sure what's most pathetic with the left today and I mean this in the truest sense. That you're so die-hard against anything positive in this, or that I can find across multiple leftwing sites, that if Trump has anything to do with this it's "so bad for us, that another war would be a better option." Disgusting.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

I personally think we are doing better, except for the fighters in the courts trading free speech for feelings.

And trying to make that law don't forget. As can be seen in Canada, where the Liberal Party is trying to change the definition of allowable evidence including the revocation of exculpatory evidence which could find an individual innocent.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[mjwx]

we think he's a proto-Hitler. He's not competent enough (or brutal enough) to be the next Hitler. What we're afraid of is that he's eroding the institutions that are supposed to stop the next (real) fascist. He's also probably going to tank the economy (between the Walstreet deregulation, massive debt for tax cuts and general graft and incompetence). And nothing helps a fascist rise to power better than an economic crash.

I know this all seems like hyperbole, but I also know that, as a historic fact, folks said the same thing back when Hitler came to power. Patter recognition. We humans can do it if we try...

So less of a Hitler and more of a Pinochet or Franco... although I suspect Franco was far more competent.

I'll say it out loud, the reason why Trump is compared to Hitler is that both of them made it popular and acceptable to openly be a bigot. However I cant see Trump holding together a government through force of will like Hitler did.

Re:We don't think Trump is Hitler

[Mashiki]

socialists

That's wrong, it was communists. Because the german communist party had been funding a group called antifa who'd been running around for several years, burning businesses, attacking people who refused to bow to them and so on. Are you that fundamentally ignorant of history? Never mind, the answer to that is likely yes.

It's a sign

[TimMD909]

Pretty sure that they found a ginger cow in a field. This is the end times.

Re:War Not Only Inevitable But Imminent

[irving47]

Aw, man... We're DUE for SOMEthing good happening in this arena (international politics). I'm *not* hippy-leaning, but "give peace a chance."

Even imcompetents beat you now?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's so incompetent, why does he keep beating you?

Enjoy the cognitive dissonance. "Though this be madness, yet there be method in it," as the Bard said.

He's not stupid. He's not incompetent. You're the one who is out of the loop here. The rest of us actually saw him winning it and realized he would ahead of time when you guys were utterly shocked that he won and frantically trying to figure it out.

Re:Even imcompetents beat you now?

[squiggleslash]

He also keeps losing.

But to answer the point about the two things he "won": ultimately he won the primary and the general election because it's easy to win when you don't follow the rules. Trump doesn't follow the rules. Those who follow the rules aren't brazenly bigoted and divisive in an election, scapegoating everyone from undocumented Mexican immigrants to Muslims, nor do you promote violence, they know it's an easy win but it destroys the country in the long term. Trump did anyway.

You don't accept help from foreign powers. Trump did anyway.

You don't encourage people to commit crimes against your opponent and take advantage of the results. Trump did anyway.

Combined with a milquetoast press that hated Trump's rival even though it knew she was more qualified, and was more than happy to repeat the most batshit insane conspiracy theories about her from the well oiled right wing machine that's been churning these things out since the early 1990s, and with Comey's refusal to the two candidates equally, and Trump had a hidden advantage. And even then, he only won because our elections are broken, and consider trees more important than people.

Otherwise, he's been mostly losing. The election candidates he's backed have consistently failed. His attempts to turn bigotry into policy have been overturned and obstructed by everyone from judges to five star generals. He can't keep hold of any of this staff. The Republicans in Congress have pretty much ignored him when passing legislation.

By any reasonable metric, he's a failure. He can only "succeed" when he does by breaking the rules. Just as his property empire is built upon unpaid contracts and convenient bankruptcies.

Re:Even imcompetents beat you now?

[Mashiki]

"Doesn't follow the rules" played the primary fully within the rules, didn't rig it, got the most delegates, beat the field. Unlike the democrats who: rigged their primary, paid off the primary opposition, used super delegates to ensure only one person won. Then, when she was running received multiple donations for foreign nationals including saudi arabia, and russia.

Yeah, he's losing so much that this is the first time in 15 years people have seen a 4% increase in their wages while the price of goods remained flat against the GDP.

But hey, let's look at Hillary's reasonable metric of success. She helped further destabilize the middle east, killed a dictator that was in the state of modernizing his country. Which then fell into warring semi-antonymous areas who held their own military power(the only reason why ISIS was unable to get a foothold there). Then bragged about how it was a great thing. Then she wanted to drone someone at a foreign embassy, on allied soil. Boy we're just getting started with that success.

Have nukes, get respected.

[Qbertino]

It's that simple.

Especially if you're enemy no1 and show that you're ready to use them.

I'm looking at you, Ukraine.
Or you think Putin would've pulled off his little stunt if the Ukraine were still armed with ICBMs?

Re:Have nukes, get respected.

[quenda]

Or you think Putin would've pulled off his little stunt if the Ukraine were still armed with ICBMs?

If you mean the annexation of Crimea, then yes. ICBMs would have been about as useful as a hand grenade in a dispute over a taxi fare.

Gullible

[spinitch]

A totalitarian slave state is not likely going to give up its survival means. More likely a ruse to lift sanctions that will then falter. Of course need to play along on the remote chance progress might occur but should hedge that outcome. E.g Seoul residents should migrate further away from border.

Re:Gullible

[iggymanz]

that's right the USA isn't going to stop attacking people that didn't attack it, wars and rumors of war are profitable and keep the sheeple patriotic

Polack navy's new submarine sinks

[Hognoxious]

The NK nuclear program was crippled 5 weeks ago by a massive explosion.

That's pretty ironic, if only in an Alanis Morissette kinda way.

Re:Polack navy's new submarine sinks

[angel'o'sphere]

Reminds me about the movie "Dogma" ...

Re:Public masturbation of 184564

[Mashiki]

Imagine being so bitter that you can't refute anything either. What a sad life.

Peace breaks out

[Camarillo Brillo]

It's about fucking time! MASH has been off air since 1983,

qanonposts.com

[dbreeze]

If you're truly interested in what's going on behind the curtain, I recommend you spend some time catching up and get in the fight. As much as Alex Jones is vilified, he is right about one thing: There IS a war on for your mind...

NK was CIA op from way back...

[dbreeze]

qanonposts.com Catch up, or get left behind in ignorance and fear.

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

[Hognoxious]

If you know what your adversary is going to do you can adjust your actions accordingly. Russia knew it could invade Crimea and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable.

That might work when you're playing with conventional weapons, which could take years and cost millions of lives.

However it could also cause one side to think they're in a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation and overreact leading to a really futile and stupid gesture on somebody's part.

Every word in that post was false

[Uberbah]

Insert Luke picture here.

we've acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of North Korea. That's what this was about.

No. This is about the fact that Americans killed three million Koreans in an illegal war, flattening every city in the north. Americans may have let that one slip down the memory hole but they haven't - along with the dozens of democracies the CIA has overthrown since the 50's. There's also the annual practice invasions the U.S. has been running every year since the Clinton Administration. Which means every year NK has to mobilize a million people in case this time it's for real. During planting season - and then you use the resulting food shortages to complain about those craaaazy North Koreans some more.

This is about North Korea wanting to get off the Regime Change list, and it's nuclear weapons are Regime Change Insurance. Nothing more, nothing less. North Korea has tried negotiating with each new administration but are blown off teach time.

He still needs the nukes, and he won't give them up.

As long as he can blast Seoul into rubble (and he can) I just don't see him needing them. He's got plenty of deterrent right there.

Come again? A top Republican outright said attacking North Korea would be totally worth it and those hundreds of thousands of South Koreans (at least) would just be collateral damage. Democrats DGAF about civilian casualties, either - Obama was happy to send drones after children and the Clinton Administration let half a million Iraqi kids die from sanctions.

And then there's John Bolton, who's such a warmonger 'he makes Dick Cheney look like Noam Chomsky'. And Trump just named him his top advisor on warmongering. So if you were in North Korea facing that kind of history, and these kinds of war criminals, would you be so carefree in giving up your deterrence?

American Exceptionalist BS

[Uberbah]

People like you said the same BS about Reagan and the dissolution of the USSR: it was all accidental, would've happened anyway, Reagan was an incompetent warmonger, blah blah blah. You simply refuse to grasp that a hardline, belligerent stance backed up with credible threats of military action actually work when facing down tyrannical dictatorships.

All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people. Same reason Ahmadinejad enjoyed popular support he wouldn't have had with constant American threats to bomb Iran for a nuclear weapons program that Bush and then Obama knew full well Iran didn't have.

Here's what really happened minus the neocon gaslighting

FTFY.

1) The U.S. killed three million Koreans in an illegal war in the 50's

2) The U.S. flattened every city in North Korea in said illegal war

3) The U.S. has been practicing invasions of North Korea every year since the 90's

North Korea's nuclear weapons are regime change insurance against your imperial warmongering. In some small back corner of your mind even you know you're full of shit here - compare the number of countries attacked by North Korea since the 50's (one, South Korea in tit for tat exchanges of artillery) to the number of countries the U.S. has bombed in just this century.

Re:American Exceptionalist BS

[corydoras]

Yes, this.

Thinking that North Korea is now backing down because they created a military threat to themselves is absolutely backwards. The threat has always been there.

Now they have teeth, and no one's going to dare invade.

Re:American Exceptionalist BS

[prisoner-of-enigma]

All that belligerence delayed the collapse of the USSR as aggressive foreign threats only inspire patriotism among the people.

As usual, your ideology so blinds you to reality you cannot see the forest for the trees. Reagan realized the USA could never compete with the USSR in a straight-up conventional conflict. The USSR had too much manpower and conventional resources (tanks, planes, etc.). So Reagan came up with the novel idea of playing to the USA's strengths, mainly technology and the economic benefits of capitalism. In essence, we spent the USSR to death by rendering their massive conventional strengths obsolete with, among other things, stealth technology. Had SDI become a reality we'd have rendered their strategic forces largely obsolete as well, although I'll freely admit the USA might've spent itself into oblivion implementing it. The socialist planned economy of the USSR was horrifically inefficient and could not compete. The Cold War was won economically, not militarily.

As for the "illegal" Korean War...just stop. Please. The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 authorized the President to provide US troops for UN missions. If you wish to insist the Act itself is unconstitutional then please get the SCOTUS to agree with you and then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just frothing. Missouri v. Holland (1920) holds treaty obligations may empower the Federal Government powers otherwise outside its domestic constraints and provided the basis for the UNPA.

Re:American Exceptionalist BS

[prisoner-of-enigma]

your imperial warmongering

Oh I almost forgot: the 1960's called. They want their communist propaganda slogans back along with your entire collection of Che Guevara t-shirts. Peace out Comrade!

Re:Crazy AF John Bolton, is that you?

[doccus]

The status quo needs to be challenged on both the domestic and international relations sides. Prior to Trump the US had been 100% predictable when it came to addressing international relations. Being predictable gives your adversaries the upper hand in almost every conflict.

You just justified Kim acting (as portrayed in western media) as a crazy hothead willing to nuke Japan.

Russia knew it could invade Crimea

Russia didn't invade shit, propagandist. Russia had an existing base in Crimea - if moving troops through there is an "invasion" then your dumb ass invades 30 locations in Germany alone each year.

and start a civil war in Ukraine because the US reaction was totally predictable.

It was the United States that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, you nazi POS. Do try and explain why it was totally legit for the U.S. to spend five billion to 'bring Ukraine the future it deserves' but totally illigit for Russia to accept Crimeas vote to succeed from the junta.

Thank for saving me having to write the exact same thing. It seems that there's two camps, those that follow what's REALLY going on.. which takes (heaven forbid!) some actual effort, or the MSM / "Newsmax" crowd, who gladly swallow the pablum spoonfed them...
THX for not being the latter!

Trump ran on populism too

[rsilvergun]

so yeah, populism works to get fascists in power. Preaching doesn't mean doing. Looks at Jim Baker and Clefary Dollar. It's easy to fool desperate people because, Hey, what Have You Got to Lose? Now, who else do we know who used that line...

Re:Trump ran on populism too

[Mashiki]

Yeah, so did Justin Trudeau. Does that mean he's Hitler as well? About Macon? May? They both did as well, gee it's almost like you scream fascist so often that it's losing all it's meaning. Just like "racist, sexist, homophobic" and so on. The fact that you fail to understand that the reason Trump won was because he *is* the warning shot across the bow to the establishment, and you've still not figured that out is rather telling.

Watch the election in Ontario, Canada. Because it's about to happen again, and guess what? It's directly due to the policies, beliefs, ideas, and values that you, and others like yourself have pushed for years.

Re:Public masturbation of 184564

[Mashiki]

Come on little coward, it's not that hard. Why don't you tell everyone which parts are fake, besides that all being public record.

Re:Public masturbation of 184564

[shanen]

Z^-4

mod parent up

[bussdriver]

too bad I don't have mod points. Really good points I wish I remembered to make.

Re:mod parent up

[Uberbah]

thanks :)

Re:Public masturbation of 184564

[Mashiki]

So if you're so scared of competing opinions and fact, why even bother posting here? Or is your echo chamber so important to you that you think it should apply to everyone.

Re:Public masturbation of 184564

[shanen]

Z--5