North Korea - how serious should we take them?
Discussion
t going down at home. 
MattCharlton91 said:
It doesn't look too promising this morning, official lunches and meetings cancelled, and a press conference moved forward by 12hours?
Looks like Kim only wanted to give up one facility where they enrich uranium, in return for the total lifting of sanctions. But the Yanks know of more sites, like they did when Iran was trying to pull the wool. Trump had to walk.So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Cobnapint said:
So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
LoonyTunes said:
Cobnapint said:
So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
Cobnapint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
LoonyTunes said:
Cobnapint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
LoonyTunes said:
Cobnapint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Yes, NK *then* invaded SK in the name of reunification, and "we" went in behind SK. But we weren't really fighting against reunification, we (the West) were fighting an ideological war against communism and, arguably, a proxy battle in the Cold War. Just as the USA got involved in Vietnam.
SK has turned into a prosperous economy, just like West Germany did - not just through its own people's efforts, but because of enormous amounts of foreign aid and under the umbrella of Western defence protection.
NK has been isolated as a deliberate strategy over decades. Peace has never been declared between NK and SK.
Kim is a child of the historical conflict, not an architect of it. Whether we like it or not, if we want to achieve something approaching normality of relations and peace then we need to negotiate with him, properly. Extend the same sort of support we've extended to other states that have "come in from the cold" as it were.
The nuclear stuff is a red herring. Unless we're going to isolate Israel, India and Pakistan on the same terms, it is inconceivably inconsistent to continue to penalise NK for harbouring nuclear ambitions. The primary NK "crime" is not to kow tow to the West, something that one would have hoped by now would not be a pre-requisite of international relations. NK have seen what happens when you allow the West to dictate stuff - leaders end up strung up, civil war breaks out, etc. "Nation building" is a myth.
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
skyrover said:
LoonyTunes said:
Cobnapint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Playing devils advocate, why would he give up his nukes? Nobody else who's had Nuclear Weapons has ever denuclearized.
Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
Kim OFFERED to give up his nukes, thats what triggered the talks. Any bridge building should be both ways - it was NK that invaded the South remember.Imagine you're North Korean and the USA - who fought a war in your country - was now demanding you abolish your only real ultimate-defence against that happening again. Would you?
The USA has to go a long way in these negotiations to achieve that and rightly so...declaring the war to be over would be a good first step but only the first. We (the west) can get them to dump their nukes but we have to first accept that we will have to do a lot of bridge building to get there.
A Vietnam-type situation is possible but they aren't still technically at war with anyone or being strangled economically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
And it was ideological in purpose. From that wiki link you posted above:
However, President Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting the invasion was essential to the U.S. goal of the global containment of communism as outlined in the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC 68) (declassified in 1975):
Communism was acting in Korea, just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier. I felt certain that if South Korea was allowed to fall, Communist leaders would be emboldened to override nations closer to our own shores. If the Communists were permitted to force their way into the Republic of Korea without opposition from the free world, no small nation would have the courage to resist threat and aggression by stronger Communist neighbors.
skwdenyer said:
To just blithely say "it was NK that invaded the South remember" is a bit of a sweeping simplification. Korea was only divided by the Cold War machinations of the great powers, just like Germany was divided and various other arbitrary divisions were created, and all of that only came about because of invasions during World War II.
Yes, NK *then* invaded SK in the name of reunification, and "we" went in behind SK. But we weren't really fighting against reunification, we (the West) were fighting an ideological war against communism and, arguably, a proxy battle in the Cold War. Just as the USA got involved in Vietnam.
SK has turned into a prosperous economy, just like West Germany did - not just through its own people's efforts, but because of enormous amounts of foreign aid and under the umbrella of Western defence protection.
NK has been isolated as a deliberate strategy over decades. Peace has never been declared between NK and SK.
Kim is a child of the historical conflict, not an architect of it. Whether we like it or not, if we want to achieve something approaching normality of relations and peace then we need to negotiate with him, properly. Extend the same sort of support we've extended to other states that have "come in from the cold" as it were.
The nuclear stuff is a red herring. Unless we're going to isolate Israel, India and Pakistan on the same terms, it is inconceivably inconsistent to continue to penalise NK for harbouring nuclear ambitions. The primary NK "crime" is not to kow tow to the West, something that one would have hoped by now would not be a pre-requisite of international relations. NK have seen what happens when you allow the West to dictate stuff - leaders end up strung up, civil war breaks out, etc. "Nation building" is a myth.
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
The nuke stuff is no red herring. NK prides itself on having a strong military, brainwashes it's school children and constantly brags on state media about how many missiles it has and how good they are.Yes, NK *then* invaded SK in the name of reunification, and "we" went in behind SK. But we weren't really fighting against reunification, we (the West) were fighting an ideological war against communism and, arguably, a proxy battle in the Cold War. Just as the USA got involved in Vietnam.
SK has turned into a prosperous economy, just like West Germany did - not just through its own people's efforts, but because of enormous amounts of foreign aid and under the umbrella of Western defence protection.
NK has been isolated as a deliberate strategy over decades. Peace has never been declared between NK and SK.
Kim is a child of the historical conflict, not an architect of it. Whether we like it or not, if we want to achieve something approaching normality of relations and peace then we need to negotiate with him, properly. Extend the same sort of support we've extended to other states that have "come in from the cold" as it were.
The nuclear stuff is a red herring. Unless we're going to isolate Israel, India and Pakistan on the same terms, it is inconceivably inconsistent to continue to penalise NK for harbouring nuclear ambitions. The primary NK "crime" is not to kow tow to the West, something that one would have hoped by now would not be a pre-requisite of international relations. NK have seen what happens when you allow the West to dictate stuff - leaders end up strung up, civil war breaks out, etc. "Nation building" is a myth.
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
In the press conference below Kim Jong Um looks considerably more relaxed and comfortable than Trump does.
He really is a big orange fish very much out of his depth when it comes to international diplomacy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47408696
He really is a big orange fish very much out of his depth when it comes to international diplomacy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47408696
Cobnapint said:
skwdenyer said:
To just blithely say "it was NK that invaded the South remember" is a bit of a sweeping simplification. Korea was only divided by the Cold War machinations of the great powers, just like Germany was divided and various other arbitrary divisions were created, and all of that only came about because of invasions during World War II.
Yes, NK *then* invaded SK in the name of reunification, and "we" went in behind SK. But we weren't really fighting against reunification, we (the West) were fighting an ideological war against communism and, arguably, a proxy battle in the Cold War. Just as the USA got involved in Vietnam.
SK has turned into a prosperous economy, just like West Germany did - not just through its own people's efforts, but because of enormous amounts of foreign aid and under the umbrella of Western defence protection.
NK has been isolated as a deliberate strategy over decades. Peace has never been declared between NK and SK.
Kim is a child of the historical conflict, not an architect of it. Whether we like it or not, if we want to achieve something approaching normality of relations and peace then we need to negotiate with him, properly. Extend the same sort of support we've extended to other states that have "come in from the cold" as it were.
The nuclear stuff is a red herring. Unless we're going to isolate Israel, India and Pakistan on the same terms, it is inconceivably inconsistent to continue to penalise NK for harbouring nuclear ambitions. The primary NK "crime" is not to kow tow to the West, something that one would have hoped by now would not be a pre-requisite of international relations. NK have seen what happens when you allow the West to dictate stuff - leaders end up strung up, civil war breaks out, etc. "Nation building" is a myth.
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
The nuke stuff is no red herring. NK prides itself on having a strong military, brainwashes it's school children and constantly brags on state media about how many missiles it has and how good they are.Yes, NK *then* invaded SK in the name of reunification, and "we" went in behind SK. But we weren't really fighting against reunification, we (the West) were fighting an ideological war against communism and, arguably, a proxy battle in the Cold War. Just as the USA got involved in Vietnam.
SK has turned into a prosperous economy, just like West Germany did - not just through its own people's efforts, but because of enormous amounts of foreign aid and under the umbrella of Western defence protection.
NK has been isolated as a deliberate strategy over decades. Peace has never been declared between NK and SK.
Kim is a child of the historical conflict, not an architect of it. Whether we like it or not, if we want to achieve something approaching normality of relations and peace then we need to negotiate with him, properly. Extend the same sort of support we've extended to other states that have "come in from the cold" as it were.
The nuclear stuff is a red herring. Unless we're going to isolate Israel, India and Pakistan on the same terms, it is inconceivably inconsistent to continue to penalise NK for harbouring nuclear ambitions. The primary NK "crime" is not to kow tow to the West, something that one would have hoped by now would not be a pre-requisite of international relations. NK have seen what happens when you allow the West to dictate stuff - leaders end up strung up, civil war breaks out, etc. "Nation building" is a myth.
Trump seems to be acting as if he thinks all negotiations can be sorted out in an afternoon - that there is a big ask and a big concession or "walk away." I do agree that Trump's approach to getting in to the negotiations in the first place was pretty good; but having opened the door perhaps he should have let some others get into the grinding work of inching things forward?
He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
You think it's ok for the USA to test their weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan do you
Cobnapint said:
The nuke stuff is no red herring. NK prides itself on having a strong military, brainwashes it's school children and constantly brags on state media about how many missiles it has and how good they are.
He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
I remember very well.He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
My position is that (even though I sit here in the West with some considerable self-interest in not having nuclear weapons in play) it is fine for us to ask for denuclearisation, but we need to do so in the context of offering something in return. Not just relief from sanctions (sanctions being a nice word for intentionally depriving a population), but something else: investment, support, defence, etc.
Otherwise why should they say yes? Because we're a bigger bully than anyone else, throwing our weight around?
Like most bullies, we won't pick on anyone "our own size" (India, say, or even Pakistan, or especially Israel) who have developed nuclear weapons outside of established international channels or pre-approvals; no, we go after North Korea.
NK have sacrificed a great deal to get their "seat at the table" - it is laughable to imagine they will give it up without concrete benefits.
Trump got the door open by saying "hey, I'm a guy who likes to do deals; let's sit down and deal" and then seems now to have retreated to "when I said deal, I meant dictate terms... oh, you're leaving already?" That seems ridiculous.
As for red herring? I don't think nukes per se are a red herring; I think a stance that says "NK with nukes is the worst possible outcome, we must under all circumstances get rid of them" is the red herring - because it is focussing on an outcome (one inconsistent with our stance elsewhere). Attitudes like this are a large part of the problem:
Cobnapint said:
Looks like Kim only wanted to give up one facility where they enrich uranium, in return for the total lifting of sanctions. But the Yanks know of more sites, like they did when Iran was trying to pull the wool. Trump had to walk.
So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Trump has said that NK wanted all sanctions lifted; NK have said that's not so. Which do you trust? 50:50 in my book... How is it clear that NK can't be trusted? Kim has made good on every promise so far, which is more than can be said for the Trump presidency So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Getting countries who don't agree with you to do things that are in your interests is called diplomacy, something that the hawks in Washington would do well to remember. Otherwise what's the alternative? Continue with sanctions that are in reality hitting only those least able to help themselves in the NK population? Might as well carpet-bomb the place; the effect would be similar, but at least bombing is a faster death for those people.
skwdenyer said:
Cobnapint said:
The nuke stuff is no red herring. NK prides itself on having a strong military, brainwashes it's school children and constantly brags on state media about how many missiles it has and how good they are.
He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
I remember very well.He was showing special effect videos of Washington being engulfed in flames remember, testing nuke warheads and lobbing missiles over Japan in the period before things settled down with the talks.
My position is that (even though I sit here in the West with some considerable self-interest in not having nuclear weapons in play) it is fine for us to ask for denuclearisation, but we need to do so in the context of offering something in return. Not just relief from sanctions (sanctions being a nice word for intentionally depriving a population), but something else: investment, support, defence, etc.
Otherwise why should they say yes? Because we're a bigger bully than anyone else, throwing our weight around?
Like most bullies, we won't pick on anyone "our own size" (India, say, or even Pakistan, or especially Israel) who have developed nuclear weapons outside of established international channels or pre-approvals; no, we go after North Korea.
NK have sacrificed a great deal to get their "seat at the table" - it is laughable to imagine they will give it up without concrete benefits.
Trump got the door open by saying "hey, I'm a guy who likes to do deals; let's sit down and deal" and then seems now to have retreated to "when I said deal, I meant dictate terms... oh, you're leaving already?" That seems ridiculous.
As for red herring? I don't think nukes per se are a red herring; I think a stance that says "NK with nukes is the worst possible outcome, we must under all circumstances get rid of them" is the red herring - because it is focussing on an outcome (one inconsistent with our stance elsewhere). Attitudes like this are a large part of the problem:
Cobnapint said:
Looks like Kim only wanted to give up one facility where they enrich uranium, in return for the total lifting of sanctions. But the Yanks know of more sites, like they did when Iran was trying to pull the wool. Trump had to walk.
So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Trump has said that NK wanted all sanctions lifted; NK have said that's not so. Which do you trust? 50:50 in my book... How is it clear that NK can't be trusted? Kim has made good on every promise so far, which is more than can be said for the Trump presidency So if this is true - Kim doesn't really want to denuclearise and is playing for time. And they haven't even spoken about international inspectors being given free access everywhere yet.
It's going nowhere, I know Trump is a bit of a dick, but it's clear now that you cannot trust a word the NKs say. He'll never give up his nukes.
Getting countries who don't agree with you to do things that are in your interests is called diplomacy, something that the hawks in Washington would do well to remember. Otherwise what's the alternative? Continue with sanctions that are in reality hitting only those least able to help themselves in the NK population? Might as well carpet-bomb the place; the effect would be similar, but at least bombing is a faster death for those people.
You say Kim said they didn't want all sanctions lifted - when did he say that? Via state TV when he got home to keep the locals happy? My guess is that they smell impeachment for Trump coming and DID play their hand early.
There's a process to follow. Blowing up a couple of garden sheds and an old entrance to a disused underground facility just doesn't wash. And it certainly doesn't count as keeping your promises when the promises themselves are meaningless.
Cobnapint said:
Trump has offered something in return right from the outset and it follows the usual pattern - sanctions will be lifted when you stop being an arse, get rid of your nukes and stop developing any more. He's also promised financial aid and a way out for those least able to help themselves (as long as Kim doesn't blow it on other stuff).
You say Kim said they didn't want all sanctions lifted - when did he say that? Via state TV when he got home to keep the locals happy? My guess is that they smell impeachment for Trump coming and DID play their hand early.
There's a process to follow. Blowing up a couple of garden sheds and an old entrance to a disused underground facility just doesn't wash. And it certainly doesn't count as keeping your promises when the promises themselves are meaningless.
Trump said something in public. Kim said something in public. Which do you believe? Honestly, I don't have a steer on which to pick - both are just as likely to be (in)credible.You say Kim said they didn't want all sanctions lifted - when did he say that? Via state TV when he got home to keep the locals happy? My guess is that they smell impeachment for Trump coming and DID play their hand early.
There's a process to follow. Blowing up a couple of garden sheds and an old entrance to a disused underground facility just doesn't wash. And it certainly doesn't count as keeping your promises when the promises themselves are meaningless.
There's a process, yes. Just as with Iran, except Kim will be very well aware that - from what we can see - Iran followed the process and still got screwed by Trump. Without nukes, Kim knows that - without other watertight guarantees from multiple overseas partners - that his days are numbered. Like it or not, we have to deal with the man as well as the regime.
What has been said by NK today - that they offered something in return for something - seems like the right approach. 1 step forward on each side. I can't see any way in which either side is going to offer "everything" up-front - there's just too big a trust gap right there.
As I've said previously, Trump has done well at getting this far, but it feels to me as though it is time to let the grown-ups back into the room...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff