S Korea President Moon: Trump deserves Nobel Peace Prize

[JDHURF]

[exploited]

I'll be honest, these sort of long-term hostilities are well beyond the cognitive abilities of your garden variety ideologue, which is exactly what you are. The fact that you even talk about "nuclear holocaust" in the same sentence as North Korea demonstrates a profound ignorance of the situation, and lets others know that your opinion does not warrant a serious response. What is worse is pretending that world leaders are interchangeable cogs, and that it doesn't matter who is doing the deal - this is just willfully stupid, not merely ignorant.

Still, as a special favour to you, I will respond in good faith this one time.

When Trump implodes whatever "progress" he makes via emotionally charged and unstable Tweets, after reneging on one or more "agreements in principle," what impact do you think this will have on future peace talks with North Korea? Will this increase or decrease the ability of actual adult leaders to take concrete steps to resolve this situation?

Pulling back a bit, and assuming a more historical perspective, there are a few important questions: (1) what is North Korea's track record when it comes to these types of agreements, even after receiving significant concessions? and (2) of all the nuclear armed states in history, how many have given up their arms, and what is there current security situation looking like?

From a negotiating and dealmaking perspective, should making a concession like this, in exchange for nothing, at least require the input of the Pentagon... or perhaps even South Korea? You know, your ally? What is the impact of doing this without that input?

Honestly, stick to making subpar comments about domestic wedge issues. You are far out of your element, Fallout Boy.

[Kane]

[Philly]

Between libs shrieking about "legitimizing" KJU and MAGA chuds celebrating a successful "deal" despite there quite factual detail that no deal has been made, American political discourse is having another banner week for reaching new levels of stupid.

[John Galt]

i don't think trump was wrong to put the joint military exercises on the table. it's clearly something that the DPRK wanted

i do think that he was wrong to do so without consultation with the military and without our allies

i do think he's wrong in talking about how it's gonna save so much money because it presupposes it was a worthless thing to do

and most importantly, i do think it was wrong to not get more firm assurances. trump is talking about the end of the nuclear threat, with nothing about how this is verified. it needs to be verified. it needed to be agreed to be verified

the best thing about the talks is they didn't end in horror, and they probably brought the two nations to a more amicable position. however, the US gave up a lot for little (if anything different from what SK already got)

the DPRK has, ever since spineless LBJ did nothing 50 years ago (the Pueblo, captured in international waters, is still in their possession), continuously spat in the eye of Goliath and had nothing happen to them. there is nothing in the talks to suggest the outcome will be any different

[Philly]

To be honest it's good that the meeting was civil and didn't become heated, but here's the reality: If we will not remove our troops from the Korean Peninsula then Kim is not going to denuclearize. As best I can tell, US troops being pulled out isn't gonna happen, so I can't see us getting to denuclearization.

[John Galt]

The first step to removing troops would be a peace treaty for America's longest ongoing war.

in the peace treaty, it would state that nuclear weapons are not going to be on the peninsula, and that american forces would not number above a thousand or something like that

it would also state that there would be drawdowns on both sides -- troops from america for verified denuclearization. we have 35k troops there. if they have 5 nukes, then 5k for each nuke verified destroyed, and then the rest once UN has unfettered access to any nuclear sites and it is verified by a third party to be meeting obligations. any attempt to stop this or by DPRK shown to be hide this negates any concessions by america. and you put something like that in a treaty

instead we just got the best deal and their nukes are no longer a problem

[Kane]

[Philly]

I agree that Kim is unlikely to actually give up his nukes, and as his interests are concerned, he's absolutely right not to. I think he wants to get sanctions lifted (that is unless Trump already agreed to do so right off the bat, as DPRK media is reporting), etc, and he's dangling denuclearization as incentive. However, I think he feels that he feels he can reasonably stand his ground on removal of US troops being the make or break condition that the we must agree to in exchange for denuclearize. It is, in fact, rather reasonable, to say "Ok, if I'm going to get rid of the only thing in my possession that acts a real deterrent for a military as strong as yours, would you mind removing that large military base with massive numbers of soldiers that you have right next to my border?" This request will not come off as the actions of an unreasonable or irrational leader who never took the negotiations seriously. However, he is probably -- correctly -- banking on troop removal being a poison pill on the US side and one that will create an impasse in which Kim said he would get rid of the nukes but America refused to withdraw their troops in order to reach an agreement. Kim looks pretty reasonable in the whole thing and still gets to keep his nukes.

[Kane]

That sounds right. As is par for the course, Trump's "strategery" will only show its true colors further down the line.

Might as well wrap ourselves in the flag and douse each other with praise for now.