Korean Peace Process

[DaBigTrain]

I think the path forward you've described is acceptable. However, criticism is warranted based on the handling of it by the current administration.

It was absolute madness when Trump was challenging KJU on twitter and openly discussing starting a war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not madness. A very well planned out strategy by a true academic.

[gatoveintisiete]

I’d be willing to be a Trumper lab rat, let’s see if I can be convinced of something

Mexico will pay for the wall

not convinced

[Dugout DickStone]

Tariffs are good for the economy

[gatoveintisiete]

Tariffs are good for the economy

negotiating process that ends ultimately with truly fair trade is good for the economy

But you already know that partiStone

[Dugout DickStone]

Look how easy it was

[gatoveintisiete]

Look how easy it was

You don’t get it 

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1015952396219043840

[steve dave]

so in the end we just let NK silver back our president in front of the world. it was so easy.

[sys]

Also, like Trump is a dishonest bad person, but stuff like this still boggles my mind.

as i've already mentioned, i think there is a chance that trump can work his magic on 'pub minds and spin them into accepting then north korea is going to have nukes and there is nothing we can do about it.  i won't give him any credit for that, because process matters and if he does achieve that, he will have done so using a fundamentally dishonest process that is damaging to our democracy - but it will still be a slightly positive outcome.

Henry Kissinger? Iran-Contra? School of the Americas? CIA black sites? Abu Gharib? Obama NSA? Obama drone program?

I have no doubt Trump will be revealed to have been up to some heinous crap, but "a fundamentally dishonest process that is damaging to our democracy" is just astounding.

The guy gave a signed CD of Elton John's Rocket Man to KJU! He is a lying moron all the time!

He isn't some Machiavellian operator, he's just a bored old guy that wants to watch TV and golf and yell about stuff that is bothering him.

kk, your post is absolutely ridiculous.  first you enter into some sort of daxian whataboutism instead of making a legitimate argument ("maybe we should just ask the bombed cambodians what they think of meeting with north korea, eh?").  as you certainly know, the entire premise of your argument is flawed.  all of those things can be bad (i have no desire to debate each individually) and yet have no bearing on the morality or efficacy of trump's action.

then you betray that, once again, you completely miss the point of the discussion.  each example you mention is of some foreign policy initiative that was pursued by the responsible parties because they felt, whether correctly or not, that it furthered american interests.  deception, to the extent that it occurred, was involved in concealing the action from the public.  trump's action is different in kind.  he engaged in foreign policy as theatre.  the primary intent was to manipulate domestic public opinion.

the deception is not incidental to the policy action, it is the policy action.

[Kat Kid]

Also, like Trump is a dishonest bad person, but stuff like this still boggles my mind.

as i've already mentioned, i think there is a chance that trump can work his magic on 'pub minds and spin them into accepting then north korea is going to have nukes and there is nothing we can do about it.  i won't give him any credit for that, because process matters and if he does achieve that, he will have done so using a fundamentally dishonest process that is damaging to our democracy - but it will still be a slightly positive outcome.

Henry Kissinger? Iran-Contra? School of the Americas? CIA black sites? Abu Gharib? Obama NSA? Obama drone program?

I have no doubt Trump will be revealed to have been up to some heinous crap, but "a fundamentally dishonest process that is damaging to our democracy" is just astounding.

The guy gave a signed CD of Elton John's Rocket Man to KJU! He is a lying moron all the time!

He isn't some Machiavellian operator, he's just a bored old guy that wants to watch TV and golf and yell about stuff that is bothering him.

kk, your post is absolutely ridiculous.  first you enter into some sort of daxian whataboutism instead of making a legitimate argument ("maybe we should just ask the bombed cambodians what they think of meeting with north korea, eh?").  as you certainly know, the entire premise of your argument is flawed.  all of those things can be bad (i have no desire to debate each individually) and yet have no bearing on the morality or efficacy of trump's action.

then you betray that, once again, you completely miss the point of the discussion.  each example you mention is of some foreign policy initiative that was pursued by the responsible parties because they felt, whether correctly or not, that it furthered american interests.  deception, to the extent that it occurred, was involved in concealing the action from the public.  trump's action is different in kind.  he engaged in foreign policy as theatre.  the primary intent was to manipulate domestic public opinion.

the deception is not incidental to the policy action, it is the policy action.

I resent being compared to Dax, but your rhetoric about this “damaging our democracy” deserves context. You never even bothered to explain how it damages our democracy, you seem to just say because it is dishonest. To which I reply, so is almost everything Trump says! He is a bullshit artist with a rotting brain.

I haven’t heard your actual theory- he thought this was a wag the dog for domestic purposes only move? some very complicated Machiavellian 4D chess?

Trump is a rough ridin' imbecile who just says and does things. Decoding his intentions is a game that his advisors mostly fail at, but apparently you have cracked the code. If you think this core dishonesty has damaged American democracy, I would be happy to discuss that but this a common action (and not a particularly egregious example) not some unique action.

So for this foreign policy as theatre theory—
I don’t understand the distinction between squashing the Paris talks or concealing the bombing of Cambodia with this summit. Maybe there is some nuance that I am missing there, but those actions were expressly to manipulate public opinion.

Feel free to explain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

I haven’t heard your actual theory- he thought this was a wag the dog for domestic purposes only move? some very complicated Machiavellian 4D chess?

Trump is a rough ridin' imbecile who just says and does things. Decoding his intentions is a game that his advisors mostly fail at, but apparently you have cracked the code. If you think this core dishonesty has damaged American democracy, I would be happy to discuss that but this a common action (and not a particularly egregious example) not some unique action.

So for this foreign policy as theatre theory—
I don’t understand the distinction between squashing the Paris talks or concealing the bombing of Cambodia with this summit. Maybe there is some nuance that I am missing there, but those actions were expressly to manipulate public opinion.

Feel free to explain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i don't agree that trump is an idiot bull in a china shop.  he's a narcissist and that pathology sometimes causes him to do things against his interest, but in general he acts rationally to further his interests.  the link below is a good summary of the north korea talks.  nixon sabotaging the peace talks prior to the election is a good comparison, bombing cambodia isn't.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trumps-deal-with-kim-jong-un-is-a-con-job-and-youre-the-mark.html

[Kat Kid]

I haven’t heard your actual theory- he thought this was a wag the dog for domestic purposes only move? some very complicated Machiavellian 4D chess?

Trump is a rough ridin' imbecile who just says and does things. Decoding his intentions is a game that his advisors mostly fail at, but apparently you have cracked the code. If you think this core dishonesty has damaged American democracy, I would be happy to discuss that but this a common action (and not a particularly egregious example) not some unique action.

So for this foreign policy as theatre theory—
I don’t understand the distinction between squashing the Paris talks or concealing the bombing of Cambodia with this summit. Maybe there is some nuance that I am missing there, but those actions were expressly to manipulate public opinion.

Feel free to explain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i don't agree that trump is an idiot bull in a china shop.  he's a narcissist and that pathology sometimes causes him to do things against his interest, but in general he acts rationally to further his interests.  the link below is a good summary of the north korea talks.  nixon sabotaging the peace talks prior to the election is a good comparison, bombing cambodia isn't.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/trumps-deal-with-kim-jong-un-is-a-con-job-and-youre-the-mark.html

What if you can are narcissistic and an idiot? I still don't understand how this is somehow damaging to democracy beyond the whole Trump thing. Again, all I've said about this thing from the beginning is that when Trump says things like "30 million could've died" and that he saved us from it. He's a little more than half right. He obviously would've had a large share of the blame for that unthinkable catastrophe, but because the tail risk of Trump doing something cataclysmic is so significant, how can you not view these peace talks as positive?

Further, Saletan seems to offer up some Nat Sec/IR conventional wisdom masquerading as "art of the deal" talk. How can we view the strategies of previous presidents as anything other than wholly ineffective? He doesn't even so much as mention this other than to say that Trump said that other presidents wouldn't meet with Kim and then Trump's standard bravado. But this is self-evidently true. Obama and Bush would've never met with Kim. The comparison is on what changes in the relationship.

He also completely neglects to mention South Korea in all of this. It would probably be very interesting to know what they think of this considering they share a border and ostensibly have the most to "lose" in all of this. The reporting that I have seen is that South Korea is very interested in easing tensions and supported the summit. Why this is never talked about is odd to say the least.

[sys]

how can you not view these peace talks as positive?

what makes you think future conflict is less likely now than it was in 2016?

How can we view the strategies of previous presidents as anything other than wholly ineffective?

i think we both agree that nk disarming itself is not a realistic goal.  as such, it makes no sense for either of us to judge past policy by that standard.  by more realistic standards, it is virtually impossible to judge past strategy as either effective or ineffective - because we'd have to posit some counterfactual as a basis of comparison.  on the positive side it took nk an extraordinarily long time to develop a functional nuclear device, they haven't attacked sk and have been largely isolated from the external world and we still maintain a strategic presence on the korean peninsula.  on the negative side, their regime hasn't collapsed or liberalized or reunited with sk, they still pose a military threat to sk and more recently show evidence of having functional nuclear devices to threaten farther afield.  and of course their citizenry has been opressed for well over half a century.  it's very easy to imagine scenarios both much worse and much better than how things have actually turned out, but i don't think either of us are in any position to evaluate the likelihood of alternate scenarios if us policy had been other than it was.

He also completely neglects to mention South Korea in all of this.

the us and sk do not have completely convergent interests.



and just to reiterate - all of this is interesting to discuss, but it is irrelevant to the point that trump's aim was principally, if not wholly, to impact domestic opinion.  that is the fundamental dishonesty.  that's why i said in my original post, that you took issue with, that while it might end up generating positive results, i would not credit those results because the process was dishonest.

and i don't think it's likely that the impact will be positive, btw.  trump took the accumulated leverage generated by past policy and he spent it on a photo op. 

[star seed 7]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1016327387154395138

[Dugout DickStone]

He needs to bust out that contract tonight.  That would be Tony Hawk 720 level crap

[sys]

interesting thread.

https://twitter.com/duyeonkim/status/1015641655611985920

[Kat Kid]

how can you not view these peace talks as positive?

what makes you think future conflict is less likely now than it was in 2016?

How can we view the strategies of previous presidents as anything other than wholly ineffective?

i think we both agree that nk disarming itself is not a realistic goal.  as such, it makes no sense for either of us to judge past policy by that standard.  by more realistic standards, it is virtually impossible to judge past strategy as either effective or ineffective - because we'd have to posit some counterfactual as a basis of comparison.  on the positive side it took nk an extraordinarily long time to develop a functional nuclear device, they haven't attacked sk and have been largely isolated from the external world and we still maintain a strategic presence on the korean peninsula.  on the negative side, their regime hasn't collapsed or liberalized or reunited with sk, they still pose a military threat to sk and more recently show evidence of having functional nuclear devices to threaten farther afield.  and of course their citizenry has been opressed for well over half a century.  it's very easy to imagine scenarios both much worse and much better than how things have actually turned out, but i don't think either of us are in any position to evaluate the likelihood of alternate scenarios if us policy had been other than it was.

He also completely neglects to mention South Korea in all of this.

the us and sk do not have completely convergent interests.



and just to reiterate - all of this is interesting to discuss, but it is irrelevant to the point that trump's aim was principally, if not wholly, to impact domestic opinion.  that is the fundamental dishonesty.  that's why i said in my original post, that you took issue with, that while it might end up generating positive results, i would not credit those results because the process was dishonest.

and i don't think it's likely that the impact will be positive, btw.  trump took the accumulated leverage generated by past policy and he spent it on a photo op.

This is getting exhausting and we are just dropping arguments left and right.

1) I think that this engagement has reduced the likelihood compared to the “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. A presidential summit seems less likely to be a precursor to nuclear war than the rhetoric during Bush or even Obama. Call me crazy. I also said, it is an improvement from when Trump and Kim were threatening nuclear war against each other (obviously Trump’s fault)

2) if all the rhetoric and “isolation” of North Korea was just theatre and was never going to accomplish its stated aims then how is that not self-evidently worse than engagement? You don’t have to engage in a counter factual because we agree that the underlying purpose was inevitably doomed, but what about all the collateral damage? The cost of “playing hardball” when everyone knows it is pointless. The IR people claim that it is all part of this non-proliferation deterrent effect when we isolate North Korea. But let’s look at what lesson someone would learn. Iraq, Libya, North Korea what is the difference? What is the lesson hat will be learned by Iran? How is any of this less damaging or important than some sort of collateral effect on our own democracy because Trump is a liar?

3) Whig brings us to, how is this lie somehow worthy of any distinction between Trumps other lies?

4) Lastly, what rough ridin' leverage do you think we have over North Korea? LOL. How could Trump squander something that we don’t have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sys]

1) I think that this engagement has reduced the likelihood compared to the “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. A presidential summit seems less likely to be a precursor to nuclear war than the rhetoric during Bush or even Obama. Call me crazy. I also said, it is an improvement from when Trump and Kim were threatening nuclear war against each other (obviously Trump’s fault)

2) if all the rhetoric and “isolation” of North Korea was just theatre and was never going to accomplish its stated aims then how is that not self-evidently worse than engagement? You don’t have to engage in a counter factual because we agree that the underlying purpose was inevitably doomed, but what about all the collateral damage? The cost of “playing hardball” when everyone knows it is pointless. The IR people claim that it is all part of this non-proliferation deterrent effect when we isolate North Korea. But let’s look at what lesson someone would learn. Iraq, Libya, North Korea what is the difference? What is the lesson hat will be learned by Iran? How is any of this less damaging or important than some sort of collateral effect on our own democracy because Trump is a liar?

3) Whig brings us to, how is this lie somehow worthy of any distinction between Trumps other lies?

4) Lastly, what rough ridin' leverage do you think we have over North Korea? LOL. How could Trump squander something that we don’t have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.  i don't think your argument is crazy.  i do think it is unsupported by evidence (to some extent, by necessity, it is an unknowable).
2.  of course your hypothetical engagement is counterfactual.  good grief, kk, that's definitional.  you appear to be arguing that confrontational foreign policy (sanctions, etc) is, in and of itself, a bad thing?  sorry, that's not a belief to which i ascribe, to argue that it is detrimental, i need to see evidence of actual detriment.
3.  well, i don't intend to argue that his lying in general is non-detrimental, and i certainly don't believe that it's rational to believe that because he is an inveterate liar his n+1 lie can produce no harm beyond lies 1 through n.  however, i do think it is fair to distinguish between elaborate actions taken to deceive and deception which is simple mischaracterization of fact.
4.  sanctions.

[Kat Kid]

1) I think that this engagement has reduced the likelihood compared to the “Axis of Evil” rhetoric. A presidential summit seems less likely to be a precursor to nuclear war than the rhetoric during Bush or even Obama. Call me crazy. I also said, it is an improvement from when Trump and Kim were threatening nuclear war against each other (obviously Trump’s fault)

2) if all the rhetoric and “isolation” of North Korea was just theatre and was never going to accomplish its stated aims then how is that not self-evidently worse than engagement? You don’t have to engage in a counter factual because we agree that the underlying purpose was inevitably doomed, but what about all the collateral damage? The cost of “playing hardball” when everyone knows it is pointless. The IR people claim that it is all part of this non-proliferation deterrent effect when we isolate North Korea. But let’s look at what lesson someone would learn. Iraq, Libya, North Korea what is the difference? What is the lesson hat will be learned by Iran? How is any of this less damaging or important than some sort of collateral effect on our own democracy because Trump is a liar?

3) Whig brings us to, how is this lie somehow worthy of any distinction between Trumps other lies?

4) Lastly, what rough ridin' leverage do you think we have over North Korea? LOL. How could Trump squander something that we don’t have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.  i don't think your argument is crazy.  i do think it is unsupported by evidence (to some extent, by necessity, it is an unknowable).
2.  of course your hypothetical engagement is counterfactual.  good grief, kk, that's definitional.  you appear to be arguing that confrontational foreign policy (sanctions, etc) is, in and of itself, a bad thing?  sorry, that's not a belief to which i ascribe, to argue that it is detrimental, i need to see evidence of actual detriment.
3.  well, i don't intend to argue that his lying in general is non-detrimental, and i certainly don't believe that it's rational to believe that because he is an inveterate liar his n+1 lie can produce no harm beyond lies 1 through n.  however, i do think it is fair to distinguish between elaborate actions taken to deceive and deception which is simple mischaracterization of fact.
4.  sanctions.

1 & 2) yeah this was unclear. I was trying to explain that I think it is extremely unfair for you to look at what actually happened (sanctions, tough rhetoric etc.) and the result (NK went nuclear) and then say that it is essentially unknowable as to what would've happened if we had pursued a different strategy because NK was going to get the bomb no matter what so let's move on and not examine this further. Even if we grant your premise, What did all of that accomplish then? How can you stack up all of that history and say that it was good? This is what I was saying, I was granting your premise and not even bothering to argue that it was certain or more than likely that we could've prevented NK from getting the bomb with a different strategy (though I would argue this seems at least possible).

2) I don't think I am categorically against sanctions, but please feel free to provide some examples where sanctions have been successful. Iraq? Iran? NK? Palestine? What is the success story? Is being able to cast the dictator refusing to play ball with the US as a monster while their people starve and die of preventable disease because of the sanctions the true victory?

3) ok, but this is like picking out a rain drop from a puddle and examining it to see if it might be particularly wet.

4) what have the sanctions accomplished?

[sys]

1&2.  i agree that it is possible.  i also think it is possible it could have turned out much worse.
2.  certainly iran.  to some extent russia.  as per 1&2, it is pretty hard to establish a clear narrative as you must posit a counterfactual.  i don't think they are some gigantic lever by which to move the world, but i also don't think it's accurate to dismiss them as wholly ineffectual.
3.  eh, most of his lies aren't the story for a solid two weeks and a prominant feature in the news for months.  by volume alone, this is more consequential.
4.  they generated leverage that trump exchanged for a photo op.

[Kat Kid]

1&2.  i agree that it is possible.  i also think it is possible it could have turned out much worse.
2.  certainly iran.  to some extent russia.  as per 1&2, it is pretty hard to establish a clear narrative as you must posit a counterfactual.  i don't think they are some gigantic lever by which to move the world, but i also don't think it's accurate to dismiss them as wholly ineffectual.
3.  eh, most of his lies aren't the story for a solid two weeks and a prominant feature in the news for months.  by volume alone, this is more consequential.
4.  they generated leverage that trump exchanged for a photo op.

I think all of that is pretty reasonable. But I still don't know what "leverage" we had over North Korea. Kim clearly does not care at all that his people are starving.

[DQ12]

1&2.  i agree that it is possible.  i also think it is possible it could have turned out much worse.
2.  certainly iran.  to some extent russia.  as per 1&2, it is pretty hard to establish a clear narrative as you must posit a counterfactual.  i don't think they are some gigantic lever by which to move the world, but i also don't think it's accurate to dismiss them as wholly ineffectual.
3.  eh, most of his lies aren't the story for a solid two weeks and a prominant feature in the news for months.  by volume alone, this is more consequential.
4.  they generated leverage that trump exchanged for a photo op.

I think all of that is pretty reasonable. But I still don't know what "leverage" we had over North Korea. Kim clearly does not care at all that his people are starving.

Right.  Assuming the sanctions were producing leverage, how would you expect to see any benefit produced by the leverage outside of some kind of negotiation between the states? 

[sonofdaxjones]

The thing I appreciate about the resident LibBots is that you sat around and said nothing for 8 years.

Senator Barrack Obama advocated direct talks with the Axis of Evil.

President Barrack Obama advocated:

1.  Overthrow or attempt to overthrow of the Axis of Evil

and/or

2.  Ignoring members of the Axis of Evil while they solidified their nuclear and WMD delivery ambitions

and/or

3.  Paying one of the worst actors billions of dollars to at most postpone their Nuclear ambitions for awhile (while they spread their influence across the Middle East and no sit on the border of the only secular Democracy that remains in the Middle East) . . . while said actor strengthens their WMD delivery systems capabilities. 

[Kat Kid]

dax. sometimes I get accused of being unclear, but that is your SOP.

Obama tried to overthrow Iraq?

I also don't understand how you have managed to convince yourself that the Iran deal was one of the worst things in the world but this engagement with NK is good.

[sys]

Right.  Assuming the sanctions were producing leverage, how would you expect to see any benefit produced by the leverage outside of some kind of negotiation between the states?

there's the idea that sanctions can increase internal pressure on a regime such that they reform or are overthrown.  an idea that, i admit, is largely unsupported by empirical evidence.  and even if it might work somewhere, nk would be a very poor candidate for such a possibility.

more relevant - you exchange the release of sanctions for some tangible concession.  trump got nothing.