So it begins - historic nk summit

[SupremacyKing2]

Donald Trump is the greatest gift the enemies of the the United States have ever been given.

Can you imagine what the Right would be saying if Obama had done that?

 

[sophie]

Can you imagine what the Right would be saying if Obama had done that?

Don't need to imagine; it's happened a couple times, e.g.:

 

[Berzerker]

Thing is, monsters don't really need a lot of help to remain in power. They can always just gas their Kurds, or whatever. What we help them do is maintain their national production of whatever it is that we want to buy from them for far below market value.

Would you sell Saddam the chemicals needed for gas attacks or would you boycott him? If Kim doesn't want to be sanctioned he can make peace and people might not boycott him as much. Maybe the reason Kim is talking is because of the sanctions. NK makes peace, we leave, and maybe they give up their nukes. I'd be happy with the first two. NK is like a vassal in civ, they cant do anything of consequence without China's say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...3af-9551-b79320bff7d3/?utm_term=.597641475932

You're more optimistic than I am. To call it an ongoing process it has to have started, and there is no indication that it has, or that it will.

It started... No more on the border military games and dropping some sanctions. Trump made the first move and the media is claiming he gave away the house for nothing. Well, he didn't really give anything away. Everything is contingent on Kim responding, he doesn't 'reciprocate' and we resume the sanctions and war games. But the ball is in his court now, its about give and take.

In match play golf one of the golfers will be the first to offer their opponent a gimme. Thats a short putt the player can pick up without putting. "Thats good". The player does that expecting their opponent to reciprocate later. If they dont, no more gimmes... And since I hate short putts I love match play. Plus I dont worry about total strokes in match play.

I wonder what Federica Mogherini thinks about Trump and the whole thing. He just torpedoed her deal to denuclearize Iran and now he talks smugly about how courageous peacemakers are and how momentous this summit is. And shortly before he bragged about how he didn't need to prepare anything. He could just look at Kim to see if he meant business.

She wants so badly for this deal to fail. And to kick Trump in the groin.

He'll get back to Iran... Has Iran informed the other parties to their agreement it has become void or are they sticking to the deal?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe the reason Kim is talking is because of the sanctions. NK makes peace, we leave, and maybe they give up their nukes. I'd be happy with the first two.

DPRK has always wanted "peace" with the US. The Korean conflict was, and is, DPRK against RoK and their US ally. "Peace" with the US unilaterally makes that DPRK against RoK one on one and leaves RoK in a much poorer position to settle things. That's called "cut and run," and has consequences.

"Maybe the reason Kim is talking" isn't the sanctions...more likely it is because he has always wanted to. So did his father. So did his grandfather. They were always told "US Presidents don't make time for petty dictators who maintain power through mass murder of their own people." In DPRK this summit is seen very clearly as "US FINALLY READY TO SURRENDER." You expect that to lead to a good outcome?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

DPRK has always wanted "peace" with the US. The Korean conflict was, and is, DPRK against RoK and their US ally. "Peace" with the US unilaterally makes that DPRK against RoK one on one and leaves RoK in a much poorer position to settle things. That's called "cut and run," and has consequences.

Any peace deal would have to include South Korea. Basically, the US would facilitate a peace agreement between South and North Korea. There is no way that the US would just make peace with North Korea and leave South Korea hanging. This isn't a civ game after all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Any peace deal would have to include South Korea. Basically, the US would facilitate a peace agreement between South and North Korea. There is no way that the US would just make peace with North Korea and leave South Korea hanging.

Perhaps you should explain this to Donald Trump. There is absolutely no indication that he is aware of this.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Perhaps you should explain this to Donald Trump. There is absolutely no indication that he is aware of this.

You could try but we already know what he'll say.
"We don't need them! I'm the only one that matters! Greatest dealmaker of all times! No collusion!"

 

[aelf]

It's interesting that this thread is overwhelmingly negative about the results of the summit, whereas in this part of the world, the optimism has bordered on the tone of North Korean propaganda. I think that says something...

This is the precipice of imminent war Trump claims to have brought the world back from the brink of? The whole summit, complete with the ridiculous movie-like trailer was nothing but a circus to satisfy Trump's ego.

...which is this: Trump thinks that the summit has given him an ego boost, but over here, the view is very different.

Firstly, it's a PR coup for Kim Jong Un, who received celebrity treatment in Singapore and has managed to charm the viewing public. Secondly, it's also a PR coup for the regime in Singapore, which has been milking the the summit for all its worth in terms of positive publicity - the perfect chance to showcase that the regime is still capable and internationally respected, to distract the domestic public from mounting dissatisfaction after a series of unpopular decisions.

Nobody here seems to think that Trump really gained anything from it (until his Nobel Peace Prize actually materialises, at least).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Two fat guys who spend hours doing their hair every day.

IDK for sure, but I guess so

If you go back in the tit for tat period between Trump and Kim:
Kim did a "tat" every time there was a military exercise, although the tit's, the exercises, did not become always head lines in the US news media.

The only Moderator Action: Word removed Trump seems to care about belong to Ivanka.

Moderator Action: Please do not use that word in that context on the forum. It's offensive. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commodore]

There is no way that the US would just make peace with North Korea and leave South Korea hanging.

And why not? Why are we expected to continue to put our soldiers in harm's way for a conflict that ultimately doesn't concern us? The Korean War is, at it's heart, a civil war. And isn't the US always criticized for sticking its nose in other countries' business when it has no right to? Yet now we are also being criticized for finally deciding to pull our nose out of someone's business for once? We owe South Korea nothing.

Even though he ultimately went back on the following quote, I think Lyndon Johnson's words about Vietnam are pretty relevant here:

We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.

I think the US needs to start applying that philosophy globally as well. I'm tired of seeing the US bleed for a world that shows its gratitude by spitting on us in return. Our foreign policy should be centered around telling the world "you better learn to protect yourselves, because we aren't going to protect you anymore." Let's see how long the world likes living under Chinese and Russian boots.

 

[Lexicus]

The Korean War is, at it's heart, a civil war.

No, it's at heart a proxy war between puppet administrations set up by rival foreign powers.

I think the US needs to start applying that philosophy globally as well. I'm tired of seeing the US bleed for a world that shows its gratitude by spitting on us in return.

You turned 12 way too long ago to still believe this nonsense.

The US accounts for less than five percent of the world's population, but we consume somewhere between one third and one half of the world's resources. This is why we "bleed," it's not for the benefit of the rest of the world.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

And why not? Why are we expected to continue to put our soldiers in harm's way for a conflict that ultimately doesn't concern us? The Korean War is, at it's heart, a civil war. And isn't the US always criticized for sticking its nose in other countries' business when it has no right to? Yet now we are also being criticized for finally deciding to pull our nose out of someone's business for once? We owe South Korea nothing.

I agree with the idea that we should be less of a global police force. But in the case of South Korea, we do owe them something right now because we made a treaty with them, promising to protect them from North Korea. So we cannot or should not just pull out and leave them hanging. At the very least, we would need to renegotiate our treaty with them where we basically them that we are not interested in protecting them anymore and they need to deal with North Korea on their own. But simply leaving South Korea unilaterally would be breaking our treaty with them. I believe the right way to pull out would be to help South and North Korea to make peace. Then the war between them will officially be over and we can make a new treaty with South Korea where we do pull our troops out since they are not needed anymore.

 

[Commodore]

So we cannot or should not just pull out and leave them hanging

Actually we can just leave them hanging as long as North Korea doesn't outright invade them according to our treaty with South Korea. Here is the relevant text from the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea:

It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article III of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.

That means we are free to halt all of our training exercises with them and even pull our forces out of the region entirely if we so desire as long as North Korea or any other nation does not directly attack South Korea.

At the very least, we would need to renegotiate our treaty

Nope. Article VI of that same treaty says either party has the right to unilaterally pull out of the treaty as long as the party pulling out of the treaty gives the other party a year's notice of their intention to do so. Again, the relevant text:

This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.

EDIT: There's also the possibility that treaty may not even be valid at all. At least under US law. I can't seem to find anything that says whether or not the Senate ratified the treaty. If the Senate did not ratify the treaty, then said treaty is not seen as valid under US law. That's how the US gets out of living up to the obligations of various agreements that presidents have committed to but never ran past the Senate for approval.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Actually we can just leave them hanging as long as North Korea doesn't outright invade them according to our treaty with South Korea. Here is the relevant text from the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea:

That means we are free to halt all of our training exercises with them and even pull our forces out of the region entirely if we so desire as long as North Korea or any other nation does not directly attack South Korea.

Nope. Article VI of that same treaty says either party has the right to unilaterally pull out of the treaty as long as the party pulling out of the treaty gives the other party a year's notice of their intention to do so. Again, the relevant text:

Ok so technically we would be allowed to do it. But it would still look bad if we did.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the US needs to start applying that philosophy globally as well. I'm tired of seeing the US bleed for a world that shows its gratitude by spitting on us in return. Our foreign policy should be centered around telling the world "you better learn to protect yourselves, because we aren't going to protect you anymore." Let's see how long the world likes living under Chinese and Russian boots.

So, the fact that people are irked? It's an emotional response? Don't get me wrong, I think that there should be a gradual draw-up of defensive spending by the various developed economies, so that we're not so beholden to Pax Americana. But I also think that the USA really does benefit from it, and that it's been of net profit overall for the US, despite being disliked elsewhere.

When I look at its success overall, it seems like a win as an investment. I can understand the emotional response, but I am surprised you weight it so heavily in your analysis.

 

[Commodore]

Ok so technically we would be allowed to do it. But it would still look bad if we did.

Perhaps. But this has been a long time coming. Not just with South Korea, but with all of our allies. The world is changing and that change is forcing us to really start reevaluating who our friends really are and who we should be trying to get closer with in the future. Personally, I think the US should abandon Western Europe since it is becoming ever more apparent that we are drifting apart culturally and ideologically. Right now, the US and its objectives are more closely aligned with those of Russia and China. I would like to see a new power bloc form in which the big three (the US, Russia, and China) and their allies (excluding Western Europe for the US) ally themselves politically against the EU.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Personally, I think the US should abandon Western Europe since it is becoming ever more apparent that we are drifting apart culturally and ideologically. Right now, the US and its objectives are more closely aligned with those of Russia and China. I would like to see a new power bloc form in which the big three (the US, Russia, and China) and their allies (excluding Western Europe for the US) ally themselves politically against the EU.

I disagree with you there. For one, I doubt that the US and China will find much in common considering that China is a political and economic rival of the US. And Russia is still a political rival of the US. So I doubt a US-Russia bloc would ever form, certainly not with Putin. Second, If the US retreats as it is doing under Trump's America First foreign policy, we will only leave a power vacuum that is being filled by Russia and China. Abandoning Europe is surrendering our role as leader of the Free World. We are already seeing signs that China will most likely supplant the US soon as the new World Superpower. For example, China has announced a massive investment in trade infrastructure around the world to the tune of $1 trillion. And I don't think that is in the US's best interest. I am not suggesting that the US confront China militarily but the US needs to be a global leader and abandoning our long time allies, closing ourselves off to global trade as trump is doing with these tariffs, does the exact opposite.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Perhaps. But this has been a long time coming. Not just with South Korea, but with all of our allies. The world is changing and that change is forcing us to really start reevaluating who our friends really are and who we should be trying to get closer with in the future. Personally, I think the US should abandon Western Europe since it is becoming ever more apparent that we are drifting apart culturally and ideologically. Right now, the US and its objectives are more closely aligned with those of Russia and China. I would like to see a new power bloc form in which the big three (the US, Russia, and China) and their allies (excluding Western Europe for the US) ally themselves politically against the EU.

So you think we are more culturally and ideologically aligned with Russia and China than the EU? Trump may want to be king, but nobody else in the US thinks that is a good idea. Russia in not our friend. China could be because we have strong trading ties. Your US-Russia-China block idea is stupid.

 

[Lexicus]

So you think we are more culturally and ideologically aligned with Russia and China than the EU? Trump may want to be king, but nobody else in the US thinks that is a good idea. Russia in not our friend. China could be because we have strong trading ties. Your US-Russia-China block idea is stupid.

It's weird though, becuase it parallels a thought I had, which is that the kleptocracies of China and Russia actually do represent the future and that the US is actually moving toward that future, rather than the largely nonsensical idea that liberal democracy represents the "end of history" and every country in the world is slowly but inexorably moving toward it.

Of course, this thought depressed me rather than pleasing me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's weird though, becuase it parallels a thought I had, which is that the kleptocracies of China and Russia actually do represent the future and that the US is actually moving toward that future, rather than the largely nonsensical idea that liberal democracy represents the "end of history" and every country in the world is slowly but inexorably moving toward it.

Of course, this thought depressed me rather than pleasing me.

China might be closer to representing some version of the future, but we have yet to see what happens when they hit an economic crisis. Russia is a pathetic mess held together by Putin. What comes next is anyone's guess. Liberal democracies may not be the future, but they are the economic powerhouses on a global scale.