Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kim isn't doing this for a verbal guarantee of no hostile action by the US.
He's going to want something in return, and my guess is probably the withdraw of US Forces from South Korea.
That would allow North Korea to invade South Korea, and gain control before US Forces could mount a response to the situation, which means more than likely, reunification would be a done deal with the North in control.
I don't think you quite understand the military situation.
The notion that talking to your enemy legitimizes that country’s bad behavior is nonsense. The United States over the years talked to plenty of evil leaders, even psychopaths (see Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong), because it served American security interests. As the hawkish Moshe Dayan, the great Israeli military and political leader said, “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Moreover, the United States record of diplomacy with North Korea is not nearly as bad as most Americans think. Under the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, for example, North Korea closed a nuclear reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility under international inspection and also halted construction of two reactors that, according to U.S. estimates, could have produced enough fissile material for 30 nuclear bombs.
...
That depends on what the US and South Korea have to give up.
Kim isn't doing this for a verbal guarantee of no hostile action by the US.
He's going to want something in return, and my guess is probably the withdraw of US Forces from South Korea.
That would allow North Korea to invade South Korea, and gain control before US Forces could mount a response to the situation, which means more than likely, reunification would be a done deal with the North in control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher
I don't think you quite understand the military situation.
Maybe not ... but does Trump?
I want to be pleased about this I really do but I cannot help but wonder why this week and why the hurried timing?
Tillerson was pretty much blindsided. The special envoy to North Korea is retiring and not yet replaced. No ambassador to South Korea.
But this is the week when Trump demonstrated with the metals tariffs he will ignore skilled counsel from top economic advisors like Cohn (who he also blindsided) ... overrode defense considerations raised by Mattis ... and in the process rode also roughshod over long-term allies like Canada, although there he has backed down for now.
And then at this precise *moment* Kim Jong-un proposes meeting and quickly?
We can hope that the proposal is a natural outgrowth of talks between N. Korea and S. Korea. Too, there has been a lot of cross signaling that includes the United States, although Tillerson is on record as saying he believed any actual negotiations to be some time away.
So the precise timing is worrisome. There's a lot at stake.
He needs help finding Korea on a world map. He gets briefings, and probably makes comments like "Yeah, that sounds good, let's do that" regardless of context.
Well this has been a.... shall we say, "unconventional" presidency so far. I suspect nobody at the State Department heard about this until it was announced publicly.
Clinton got played by NK. GWB got played by NK. Trump on the other hand... well, either he's going to resolve this issue once and for all or he's going to trigger a full-scale regional war in East Asia that quite possibly goes nuclear -- I still can't lay odds on which is more likely.
This could score a big victory for Trump, after all the pontification from critics that his hardline approach is gauche, or stupid, or dangerous. Kim would also not be harmed by this politically, given that the state media will spin this as a climbdown by the USA.
That won't be difficult for Pyongyang to do given the neurotic news cycle in the US. For example:
Quote:
Today, our Glorious Leader met with the President of the United States of America to discuss terms for peace and reconciliation after our most illustrious display of military power and advanced rocket testing struck terror into the hearts of the military leaders of the west, causing the inhabitants of Hawaii close to our territory to cower in bunkers and sewers.
Over a series of three talks, the US will be forced to pay reparations for defaming our Glorious Leader and conducting military exercises near our shores using feeble, obsolete technology from the second world war. It is unclear, though, whether these payments will be made soon given that the USA has suffered great economic damage and social breakdown from sanctions and embargoes put in place by our government, with its struggling underclass turning to violent protests and gun rampages.
In sporting news, North Korea's soccer team defeated Brazil 8:1 in the final of the FIFA world cup in an awe-inspiring performance that broadcast the superiority and dominance of North Korean sporting talent to the rest of the world.
I genuinely wonder sometimes if this is where CNN get their media strategy model from.
Last edited by Hightower72; 03-09-2018 at 03:47 AM..
Trump will solve yet another problem. Clinton gave the North Koreans reactors and Trump will take them back.
And hopefully the small part of the left that is not completely braindead will learn that it is never smart to negotiate in fear and weakness, because your opponents know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.