• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kim Jong Un Invites the U.S. to Meet

Lursa said:
:doh The people deify the Jong family. They can do no wrong.

And they blame the US...not their leadership...for all their problems. It's called 'programming and isolation."
Click to expand...

And no other country does such a state of affairs exist, especially on the sheer level of North Korea.

They have reached levels of atrocity far exceeding any others.
 
Tigerace117 said:
And no other country does such a state of affairs exist, especially on the sheer level of North Korea.

They have reached levels of atrocity far exceeding any others.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not a matter of degree and IMO you are still wrong. There are many crises in Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc where there is wholesale slaughter and the starvation is just written off as historically endemic.
 
I don't see how this can be considered "stalling for time". The NK have all the time in the world. I'd rather talk to them before they get their nukes on line. I wish the President all the success in the world, but expect nothing.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, Un and his family are monsters, just like Hitler and Stalin. And yes, I do know South Koreans--- we had some exchange students, I believe the term is, at my high school and they weren't as enthusiastic and filled with the spirit of Korean brotherhood as you seem to fantasize.

And yet, the Korean War isn't over.....artillery is still pointed at Seoul....and nobody wants Pyongyang in charge.....no matter what "new chapter" you think they want.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought...You have not been there, yet you compare the North to the threat level of Stalin...South Koreans seek a peace, it appears many Americans wish to continue the failed policy's of the last 65 years
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Worse? We're at like DEFCON 1.0001 with them right now. Are you really suggesting that talking directly with them will trigger a full scale military engagement?
Click to expand...

We are talking about Trump. Are you really suggesting that Trump is incapable of inflaming an already tense situation?
 
Lursa said:
And we can end up looking weaker and stupider to the rest of the world as well.
Click to expand...

Even worse,NK looks stronger and smarter. By meeting with them, Trump is signalling to the world that NK is important and the leaders of other nations must deal with them.

And poof!!! Our policy of isolating NK disappears
 
Saladin4 said:
Just as I thought...You have not been there, yet you compare the North to the threat level of Stalin...South Koreans seek a peace, it appears many Americans wish to continue the failed policy's of the last 65 years
Click to expand...

Yes, North Korea is literally a product of Stalin. And no, South Koreans don’t want to live under Pyongyang.

Americans seek to keep South Korea to fall under the tyranny from the North.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, North Korea is literally a product of Stalin. And no, South Koreans don’t want to live under Pyongyang.

Americans seek to keep South Korea to fall under the tyranny from the North.
Click to expand...

It's always been pretty much of a toss up over which was the more tyrannical and brutal "leader" - "Kim the 1st" or "Syngman Rhee".

However, there has never been any dispute over which was the more corrupt.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, North Korea is literally a product of Stalin. And no, South Koreans don’t want to live under Pyongyang.

Americans seek to keep South Korea to fall under the tyranny from the North.
Click to expand...

Well, South Korea is also our 6th largest trading partner in the world.

And considering that we supported zero democracies in the third world during a Cold War that was officially argued as a struggle between "democracy and communism," we really should use words like "tyranny" sparingly when discussing American motives to defend our friends. Defending the South was originally about Chinese communism in the North, and we created the country of South Korea (Republic of Korea) in 1948 to draw a line. It was ideological and the North's invasion in 1950, followed by China's official support for the North, more or less kicked off the Cold War. But following the South's First Republic (1948-1960), which was very repressive and prescribed themes of communism; and following military rule (1961-1963), in which Major General Park Chung-hee became the elected President to kick off the Third Republic in 1963, the ROK began to develop its economic systems and tied closely with the U.S. as an eventual trade partner.

And today, while we declare the North tyrannical and focus more on the ideology of "democracy versus communism," South Korea has also become our 6th largest trading partner in the world.
 
MSgt said:
Well, South Korea is also our 6th largest trading partner in the world.

And considering that we supported zero democracies in the third world during a Cold War that was officially argued as a struggle between "democracy and communism," we really should use words like "tyranny" sparingly when discussing American motives to defend our friends. Defending the South was originally about Chinese communism in the North, and we created the country of South Korea (Republic of Korea) in 1948 to draw a line. It was ideological and the North's invasion in 1950, followed by China's official support for the North, more or less kicked off the Cold War. But following the South's First Republic (1948-1960), which was very repressive and prescribed themes of communism; and following military rule (1961-1963), in which Major General Park Chung-hee became the elected President to kick off the Third Republic in 1963, the ROK began to develop its economic systems and tied closely with the U.S. as an eventual trade partner.

And today, while we declare the North tyrannical and focus more on the ideology of "democracy versus communism," South Korea has also become our 6th largest trading partner in the world.
Click to expand...

And yet, the South Korean regime has moderated over time, whereas the North Koreans have only gotten worse. There's a big difference between not being a choir boy and being so psychotic that Stalin thinks you are a good fit to run the country.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
It's always been pretty much of a toss up over which was the more tyrannical and brutal "leader" - "Kim the 1st" or "Syngman Rhee".

However, there has never been any dispute over which was the more corrupt.
Click to expand...

Rhee was, again, not a good guy, but Stalin's Kim was far worse.
 
Tigerace117 said:
And yet, the South Korean regime has moderated over time, whereas the North Koreans have only gotten worse. There's a big difference between not being a choir boy and being so psychotic that Stalin thinks you are a good fit to run the country.
Click to expand...

Sure, but our issue with the North isn't over it's tyranny. Absent it's nuclear program, we really wouldn't care. The North was an environment of tyranny long before the 2017 launch party. Kicking the North Korean can down the road throughout the Cold War, until it eventually achieved nuclear capabilities some fifteen years later (2006 was first test), is why we have to deal with an idiot today.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Sure, but our issue with the North isn't over it's tyranny. Absent it's nuclear program, we really wouldn't care. The North was an environment of tyranny long before the 2017 launch party. Kicking the North Korean can down the road throughout the Cold War, until it eventually achieved nuclear capabilities some fifteen years later (2006 was first test), is why we have to deal with an idiot today.
Click to expand...

Even without nuclear weapons, the artillery pointed at Seoul, and the North's constant aggression, would make Korea a tense point---as it has been ever since 1953.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Even without nuclear weapons, the artillery pointed at Seoul, and the North's constant aggression, would make Korea a tense point---as it has been ever since 1953.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course. All very true. But we chose to largely ignore this because there was no way to sell a second war in Korea. And with the Americanization of the Vietnam War ramping up, the North's push to consume that peninsula just wasn't worth it. In fact, we decided that cutting Korea in half was a suitable remedy to Vietnam. This is why we largely imagined the existence of a North Vietnam to separate it from "democracy," despite Diem being an absolute dictator who stood apart from the mass of his population which shared close cultural ties with the North. Anyway, with the economic trade relationship building in the 1960s, holding the line on the Korean Peninsula was always just good enough.

This is why when partisan stooges wish to blame today on Obama or Bush, I roll my eyes. Nobody really cared about North Korean tyranny prior to 2006. And, of course, by then it was too late. In fact, nobody really cared until Jung-un's 2017 launch party. The most we can hope for when it comes to the achieved North Korean nuclear program is that they behave.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Oh, of course. All very true. But we chose to largely ignore this because there was no way to sell a second war in Korea. And with the Americanization of the Vietnam War ramping up, the North's push to consume that peninsula just wasn't worth it. In fact, we decided that cutting Korea in half was a suitable remedy to Vietnam. This is why we largely imagined the existence of a North Vietnam to separate it from "democracy," despite Diem being an absolute dictator who stood apart from the mass of his population which shared close cultural ties with the North. Anyway, with the economic trade relationship building in the 1960s, holding the line on the Korean Peninsula was always just good enough.

This is why when partisan stooges wish to blame today on Obama or Bush, I roll my eyes. Nobody really cared about North Korean tyranny prior to 2006. And, of course, by then it was too late. In fact, nobody really cared until Jung-un's 2017 launch party. The most we can hope for when it comes to the achieved North Korean nuclear program is that they behave.
Click to expand...

Basically, we were unwilling to risk the Chinese jumping in and causing yet another stalemate unless the North Koreans launched an all out invasion in the first place. And ultimately we figured that just like South Korea, South Vietnam would moderate over time--- which it most likely would have. The North was smart enough not to launch a full scale invasion with conventional forces(instead of the guerilla activity they supported and sending regulars south to act as guerillas) until after the US was unwilling to abide by our commitments.

Oh, people cared about it; we just didn't see an easy way to get rid of them, so we put it off.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Basically, we were unwilling to risk the Chinese jumping in and causing yet another stalemate unless the North Koreans launched an all out invasion in the first place. And ultimately we figured that just like South Korea, South Vietnam would moderate over time--- which it most likely would have. The North was smart enough not to launch a full scale invasion with conventional forces(instead of the guerilla activity they supported and sending regulars south to act as guerillas) until after the US was unwilling to abide by our commitments.

Oh, people cared about it; we just didn't see an easy way to get rid of them, so we put it off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have a habit of kicking the can until an obvious problem becomes far less manageable.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Rhee was, again, not a good guy, but Stalin's Kim was far worse.
Click to expand...

Kim the 1st had one heck of a lot less to work with. For one thing he didn't have Japanese soldiers to use as "enforcers".

Kim the 1st was no better and no worse than could be expected given the political situation.

Rhee, on the other hand, wasn't even as honest as a Prohibition era gangster, but he did have the backing of the US government which poured a ton of money into the ROK to ensure that the Koreans who wanted a socialist government headed by someone who was at least honest and which would provide a government of Korea, by Koreans, and for Koreans didn't rock the boat.

That being said, neither one of them would be someone you would want running any country that you wanted to live in.
 
Summitry is a complicated and lengthy process, expert teams specializing in diplomatic nuance and intelligence make a career of this, it takes many months (even years) to put these things together, the heads of state involved appear at the 'closing', they have scripted roles, each team has worked on every detail and there are not supposed to be any surprises. Trump is dispensing with all of this, he has little respect for the intelligence community (not without reason) and not much tolerance for diplomatic nuance either. My concern is that he goes into this expecting to come out with a clear and simple deal; denuclearized North Korea. What does Kim want and what will Trump offer to get this deal?

Kim has indicated he wants "denuclearization", but to North Korea this means the removal of any nuclear weapons and anti-nuclear weapon defenses threatening them, while for the US this means the cessation of North Korea's nuclear program and the destruction of it's nuclear weapons. Can these two meanings be reconciled? Can Trump agree to remove anti-nuclear weapon defense systems from South Korea in exchange for the elimination of just the North Korean nuclear weapons with the range to hit South Korea? Would an agreement to eliminate only short range nuclear weapons that could be used against just South Korea merit the US removing all anti-nuclear weapon defenses from there?

I expect Trump would seek the elimination of any nuclear threat to the US first, North Korea's capacity to strike the US with a nuclear ICBM is not that clear, they don't have long-range nuclear bombers, their submarines are not that sophisticated and their rocketry is notorious for it's failures. With an estimated 20 warheads, if 6-8 are on ICBMs and 3-4 make it to target, presuming they detonate it is a disaster of monumental proportions, but Kim won't survive. What is it worth to eliminate this threat? Should Trump agree to remove long-range nuclear bombers from Guam and Japan, promise not to target Kim with ICBMs from the US too?

Conventional forces could also be negotiated, no doubt Kim would seek US withdrawal from South Korea, would he reduce his military to a level similar to South Korea's alone? The details here are intricate, how does firepower compare? How many soldiers per artillery, are troops matched per capabilities, how does distance from the border factor, are naval and air force capabilities balanced, what about range and firepower?

The economic sanctions are another issue, there's a great range of these, one would expect Kim to agree on the restrictions on nuclear technology and materials, that he would neither import no export any of this, what could he ask for in exchange? Would an end to the interdiction by US Coast Guard of high seas ship-to-ship cargo transfers be enough, or should North Korea be allowed to freely trade? Economic sanctions are by multi-party, does Trump have the international community on board with whatever deal he makes?

I think the best we can hope for is an understanding that Kim wants a way out of the current predicament and agrees to work with Trump towards that goal, a 'roadmap' of steps North Korea promises to undertake and a commitment from Trump certain milestones will be rewarded with diplomatic recognition, reductions in forces and removal of sanctions.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Summitry is a complicated and lengthy process, expert teams specializing in diplomatic nuance and intelligence make a career of this, it takes many months (even years) to put these things together, the heads of state involved appear at the 'closing', they have scripted roles, each team has worked on every detail and there are not supposed to be any surprises. Trump is dispensing with all of this, he has little respect for the intelligence community (not without reason) and not much tolerance for diplomatic nuance either. My concern is that he goes into this expecting to come out with a clear and simple deal; denuclearized North Korea. What does Kim want and what will Trump offer to get this deal?

Kim has indicated he wants "denuclearization", but to North Korea this means the removal of any nuclear weapons and anti-nuclear weapon defenses threatening them, while for the US this means the cessation of North Korea's nuclear program and the destruction of it's nuclear weapons. Can these two meanings be reconciled? Can Trump agree to remove anti-nuclear weapon defense systems from South Korea in exchange for the elimination of just the North Korean nuclear weapons with the range to hit South Korea? Would an agreement to eliminate only short range nuclear weapons that could be used against just South Korea merit the US removing all anti-nuclear weapon defenses from there?

I expect Trump would seek the elimination of any nuclear threat to the US first, North Korea's capacity to strike the US with a nuclear ICBM is not that clear, they don't have long-range nuclear bombers, their submarines are not that sophisticated and their rocketry is notorious for it's failures. With an estimated 20 warheads, if 6-8 are on ICBMs and 3-4 make it to target, presuming they detonate it is a disaster of monumental proportions, but Kim won't survive. What is it worth to eliminate this threat? Should Trump agree to remove long-range nuclear bombers from Guam and Japan, promise not to target Kim with ICBMs from the US too?

Conventional forces could also be negotiated, no doubt Kim would seek US withdrawal from South Korea, would he reduce his military to a level similar to South Korea's alone? The details here are intricate, how does firepower compare? How many soldiers per artillery, are troops matched per capabilities, how does distance from the border factor, are naval and air force capabilities balanced, what about range and firepower?

The economic sanctions are another issue, there's a great range of these, one would expect Kim to agree on the restrictions on nuclear technology and materials, that he would neither import no export any of this, what could he ask for in exchange? Would an end to the interdiction by US Coast Guard of high seas ship-to-ship cargo transfers be enough, or should North Korea be allowed to freely trade? Economic sanctions are by multi-party, does Trump have the international community on board with whatever deal he makes?

I think the best we can hope for is an understanding that Kim wants a way out of the current predicament and agrees to work with Trump towards that goal, a 'roadmap' of steps North Korea promises to undertake and a commitment from Trump certain milestones will be rewarded with diplomatic recognition, reductions in forces and removal of sanctions.
Click to expand...

All good points...Difficult to imagine the "Hardliners" from both sides agreeing to much.....Unfortunately
 
Two flaming a..holes trying to outflame each other while pretending to act nice. Should be a show.
 
I think there's plenty to agree on for "hardliners" on both sides. Both should recognize their current 'brinksmanship' yields an unacceptable outcome; Indisputably North Korea may attempt a nuclear attack and will be completely destroyed, no matter what one credits Kim with accomplishing, his nuclear capabilities are not match for Trump's.

Hardliners should also recognize these essential truths; that absent the perceived US threat, Kim doesn't need any nuclear weapons; that the sanctions have and will continue to effectively impose substantial hardships, and that a 'normal' relationship of North Korea with the rest of the world would vastly improve circumstances there in every manner.

Reasonable people recognize North Korea is in an untenable position, we may differ on how untenable, but ultimately nobody expects Kim can maintain his level of repression indefinitely, the pervasive internet, smuggled South Korea soap operas and all the recent feedback from those Winter Olympics is bound to expose North Koreans to the other side. Why should a people suffer so harshly just for an artificial border?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Kim the 1st had one heck of a lot less to work with. For one thing he didn't have Japanese soldiers to use as "enforcers".

Kim the 1st was no better and no worse than could be expected given the political situation.

Rhee, on the other hand, wasn't even as honest as a Prohibition era gangster, but he did have the backing of the US government which poured a ton of money into the ROK to ensure that the Koreans who wanted a socialist government headed by someone who was at least honest and which would provide a government of Korea, by Koreans, and for Koreans didn't rock the boat.

That being said, neither one of them would be someone you would want running any country that you wanted to live in.
Click to expand...

No, Kim didn’t have a handful of rapidly departing Japanese troops, true. He just had the full might and brutality of the Red Army at his disposal as Stalin’s puppet.

Given the fact that Kim the first was a Stalinist puppet leader, “incredibly horrific” was the basic standard.

“Honest”? Like who? There wasn’t anybody around to create a “Korean for Koreans”.....unless, of course, you are talking about how the North Koreans claimed they were brutally attacking their neighbor “for Korea”.

Rhee was no choir boy, but Kim and his family were far,far worse.
 
Excellent summary (and without vilification of either side as well).

What Mr. Trump will be able to define as a "win" isn't necessarily what Mr. Kim will be able to define as a "win" and it appears that less than 100% of the two leaders recognize that fact.

"Conflict Theory" would have it that

  1. a resolution in which one side gets 100% of what they want and the other side gets 0% isn't a goal to aim for (because it will never happen);
  2. a resolution in which neither side gets 50% of what they aim for is possible (and could be accepted by both sides);
  3. a resolution in which both sides get more than 50% (but less than 100%) of what they aim for is a reachable goal;
  4. a resolution in which one of he sides gets some of what it aims for and the other gets nothing is a possibility;
  5. a resolution in which both sides get 100% of what they aim for is highly unlikely unless what each of the sides wants is totally unrelated to what the other wants.

Mr. Trump appears to be approaching the (potential [don't count on it ever happening]) meeting aiming for Option 1 (with no backup plan in mind).

Mr. Kim appears to be aiming for Option 3. (but will settle for Option 4.).

PS - If the meeting never happens, then Mr. Kim "wins" more than Mr. Trump does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom