There's no argument against rapprochement and no argument against easing hostilities as far as I know, Erik (not-unless it's entirely one-way at least). Not from me anyway. If you read through my posts my criticism is of Trump's strategy re this summit and the result that came from it.
I want to re-emphasize too that the blame for what so far is a fiasco should not be laid primarily at his feet. In an important sense he's been painted into a corner by his predecessors and China (who have been two-faced re NK from the beginning — Baden
I think the following video btw conveys Trump's childlike mentality — Baden
Call me old fashioned, but when the Russian government is actively trying to influence and manipulate our democratic elections, while the Trump administration and GOP-controlled three branches of government do nothing, I find it hard to care about yet another round of empty promises from the DPRK. — John Doe
Out of curiosity: Do you also have a problem with the history of the US meddling in the affairs of others around the globe? — Erik
Yes, which puts honest criticism in a difficult position. As I intimated in the Shoutbox earlier, just because the one who said said you failed doesn't like you doesn't mean you succeeded. You don't get to take that magic carpet ride out of every predicament you get yourself into. Presidents should be held to high standards and maps out of crises drawn from fuzzy warm aspirations are just as likely to lead to perdition as to salvation. Anyhow, we're still in limbo at the moment, so it could be worse. — Baden
Something about the way the mind typically works seems to make rooting for someone you hate to succeed virtually impossible, even if it's in something that may benefit you personally. — Erik
It's more of a missed opportunity than an active harm. If it works out, all's well, but right now, as things stand, what Trump got (i.e. nothing), with all his bluster about being a great deal maker is an embarrassment. — Baden
Trump could have let his advisers take the lead on this summit seeing as he didn't prepare for it himself (by his own public admission) instead he insisted on going by "feel" and publicly announcing that beforehand, which made him a sitting duck for manipulation. Knowing him, he did this so that if the meeting was a success he could take all the glory, and prove himself the Master of the Art of the Deal, or whatever. And the result of this is there is no clear result. We have to rely on the bare hope NK are sincere (and, as they never have been before, that's a big ask). — Baden
Not necessarily. Concessions are important to make, and a freely made concession will sometimes elicit a concession from the other side as well - or at least will put greater pressure for one... ie, I did this for you, now when I ask for a favor, you better do it for me.(First rule of negotiation: Never give anything away for free). — Baden
I think from a negotiation point of view that praise was great. It showed Kim that Trump is willing to accept him on the world stage if he obeys, which is exactly what the North Koreans have wanted for so long. That's why they got nukes in the first place, they wanted to sit down at the table with the big boys and play (that didn't work out very well).3) The excessive praise of Kim was unnecessary and will only embolden autocratic tyrants around the world (not to mention Kim himself). — Baden
Agreed.1) A commitment (if not a timetable, which at this stage would have been an unrealistic demand) to CVI (Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible) denuclearisation from North Korea was expected to be and should have been a red line demand from the US coming into the summit. — Baden
So unless the goal of the US was to get nothing here and give several things away, they failed. Simple as that. That doesn't mean the whole thing will be a failure. — Baden
Come on man, that's pocket change at that level... Talk about a couple billion dollars, and I might believe you.This then allows him to maintain power while he pockets $300mil in a Rosneft deal with Russia, sells trade policy to China in exchange for $500mil loans to his company, and forces more and more rounds of diplomatic horse-trading that go through his hotel in D.C. — John Doe
I did this for you, now when I ask for a favor, you better do it for me. — Agustino
I think from a negotiation point of view that praise was great. It showed Kim that Trump is willing to accept him on the world stage if he obeys, which is exactly what the North Koreans have wanted for so long. That's why they got nukes in the first place, they wanted to sit down at the table with the big boys and play. — Agustino
Agreed. — Agustino
Now you're learning :joke:Calculated concession?? :gasp: ;) — Baden
The thing to consider is how negatively you will be affected if your concession is not reciprocated. In that case, in this situation, you just lose a little bit of face, but other than that, nothing is lost. NK is just too weak to be able to do anything - sure, they may deceive with the nuclear program for awhile, but that's it. The moment the U.S. gets angry, it will be over for them, and the concession will be taken back, at literarily no loss. Who cares that dictators around the world are happy? Feeling happy does not change their fate, nor does it make them stronger. It may impact our culture to one extent or another, but that's it. And the impact will be, imo, overall positive, since it's part of the deconstruction of the politically correct status quo which is much needed in order to allow free thinking to flourish and help the West escape from the impasse we find ourselves in.Claiming that you shouldn't give anything away for free in a negotiation is not really the same as saying you should never consider making a calculated concession, which I agree with you could be a good idea given the right circumstances (even though it's always a risky strategy in proportion especially to the size of the concession). So, a calculated concession is not really giving something for free as it only succeeds when it's reciprocated, i.e. the concession reduces either to a surreptitious trade or it fails. So, here there's no evidence the military exercises concession was calculated to put pressure on NK, no evidence that they gave anything in return, and no evidence that it puts any pressure on them to do so. Further, Trump mentioned money when he spoke about it, which, if that is part of the motivation, is an absurd consideration at this point in the chess game. So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... — Baden
I agree. :eyes:im, morally speaking, is hardly above Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein in terms of his brutality (if not the damage he's managed to exact with it). — Baden
Sure, but in that case it's irrelevant. Kim doesn't actually become any stronger unless he will have Trump's continued support, and that will require that he play his part too. So what exactly is the giveaway from America's point of view? That tyrants around the world get a moment of joy? That's literarily nothing in the chess game.But again, was this a calculated concession or a simple giveaway to him and every other tyrant the world over? I'd bet on the latter. It's simply that Trump respects, likes, and to a certain degree wishes to emulate strongmen. It's part of his political character. — Baden
1) A commitment (if not a timetable, which at this stage would have been an unrealistic demand) to CVI (Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible) denuclearisation from North Korea was expected to be and should have been a red line demand from the US coming into the summit. — Baden
2) There was no need to make a concession on military exercises as it wasn't in the draft statement, wasn't (apparently) expected by the South Koreans and was (apparently) granted by Trump on a whim (First rule of negotiation: Never give anything away for free). — Baden
3) The excessive praise of Kim was unnecessary and will only embolden autocratic tyrants around the world (not to mention Kim himself). — Baden
Any country coming into any negotiation, even a preliminary one, must have goals with regard to the outcome and can only be judged in terms of their success on the basis of those goals. I'm sure you'd agree with that. So unless the goal of the US was to get nothing here and give several things away, they failed. Simple as that. That doesn't mean the whole thing will be a failure. It's not over yet, obviously. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.