Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ThisIsNotMe, Apr 27, 2018.
I wasn't sure why Obama got the peace prize (save for his potential), but should Trump get one for not showing up to peace talks?
Yeah. Call me skeptical.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that North Korea has signed "historic" peace agreements before. In 2000 and 2007. In 2012 it agreed to halt missile testing, and then launched one a few weeks later, calling it a "satellite" test.
North Korea will not give up its nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong Un saw what happened to Gadaffi, who gave up his, and to Saddam Hussein - who never had one. So, he's not going to sign away his nuclear stockpile. This was never very likely. It's even less plausible when he sees Donald Trump reneging on the Iran nuclear accord.
What he means by "denuclearization" is the United States withdrawing its troops from South Korea. Maybe that's not a totally bad thing. But in return, he's going to want China and South Korea to ease up on sanctions. Allowing North Korea to build up its economy to something resembling that of a functioning nation-state.
One that is a de facto nuclear power. Like Israel.
As I've noted elsewhere, North Korea literally can't do any more nuclear testing right now. They've physically collapsed the mountain where they did their blasts. So Kim Jong Un is giving up pretty much nothing by agreeing to a so-called "denuclearization". And, in exchange, he's going to get what - exactly - from Donald Trump? Most likely the effective ending of the US-S. Korea military alliance that has, for better or worse, kept the peace on the Korean peninsula for the past sixty years.
All that Trump's bellicose Tweeting has done is scare the South Korean Government into deciding it's bad enough to have an unstable military dictatorship as an enemy. It's worse to have one as an ally.
Let's hold off on our Trump-for-Nobel rhetoric. Because it seems to me he's more than likely headed for the Neville Chamberlain Prize in witless international realpolitik.
watch for Kim courtside at next season's Cavs games.
Kim Jong Un knows that if he goes further he and his legacy would be killed or brought to trial for crimes against humanity. This is really the only way out to ensure he stays in power. Although de-programming the NK populace from 50 years of propaganda will be a decades long endeavor.
I guess Trump is gonna get the next Nobel Peace Prize?
Obama got it for being Not George W Bush, so there is a precedence for getting it for not being/doing something.
About that. I'll take the same tack as the nickname for the state of Missouri: they are "The Show-Me State." IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.
They tried this in the 90s with Clinton. Kim Il-sung said No, and threatened more war.
They tried this in 2000 with Bush, and went into the Olympics as a unified Korea. Bush killed all reunification efforts for the next 18 years with 3 words: Axis Of Evil. Most certainly not the way to further reunification efforts that were already organically happening.
Trump threatening to bomb DPRK with "Fire and Fury" (what is it with Republican POTUSes of late with incendiary 3-word statements?) into peace is not peace; it is tyranny. They have to WANT piece organically to truly gain it. Peace under threat isn't peace at all.
I'll truly believe peace when a treaty is signed. Until then, I'll believe their progress when we see it.
A lot of us aren't George W. Bush. Where's my peace prize???
At the bottom of the cereal box?
But why do they have to give up their nuclear weapons? After all, it's a national security weapon for a country. In any case, nuclear weapons should be forbidden on every country, otherwise it's unfair and gives massive advantage to the countries with nuclear weapons. It's irrational. If a single country is "allowed" to have nuclear weapons then everyone else should be too.
It's kind of like the Second Amendment but applied to countries.
There's only one prize per year, and awarding the prize for being Not George Bush went out of style soon after. Especially when Obama became the first Nobel peace prize winner to bomb another past winner, Doctors Without Borders.
How? Who is going to overthrow its government and put him in the trail?
Just let the north and south Koreas get on with it without any external (as in non Korean peninsular) countries getting involved.
I suppose you can make that argument for every country that's trying to protect its citizens from external harm. But in North Korea's case, it is the government itself that is clearly causing its citizens harm. The government isn't protecting the people, they are protecting their own asses from the inevitable lynching that would occur the instant they lose power.
To use your analogy, it's like there's hostage situation with a crazy armed guy, and the police are asking him to put down his weapon. Then you say he should be able to keep it for self-defense purposes, because self-defense is a reasonable right that others enjoy.
North Korea is basically a country-sized hostage scenario.
IKR .... I can't even take this seriously.
I agree. Why do the superpowers of the world get to keep their nukes? Even if the superpowers don't keep their nukes, they would still be able to obliterate countries like NK. NK would be absolutely stupid to give nukes up.
No, Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for going on an "Apology Tour" for the United States, which made our enemies more emboldened.
Just one example, President Bush handed Obama a victory in Iraq and what did Obama do? Pull most of our troops out which in turn led to the creation of ISIS (the JV team, remember) which has caused so much death, destruction, and torture around the world. President Bush even famously predicted that pulling out of Iraq early would create a destabilizing effect and lead to the creation of something like ISIS and require the return of U.S. troops to "confront an enemy that is even more dangerous." Yeah...Obama really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
If you look past all that hype, the Nobel Peace Prize has long been a laughing stock, but it has now, to all intents and purposes, been reduced to a total political circus, with none of the gravitas still commanded by its sister awards for scientific and academic advancement.
What a damn joke!
We all deserve a prize for not being Dubya. Just sayin'.
You really call Bush’s Iraq war victory? There will be no ISIS if Bush not start that stupid war. It all comes down to Busb’s stupid judgement.
And no. Your U.S.A. is the best and we can bomb any country we want does not work. War never solve problem, talk will. This is exactly where Obama right.
Except Trump, he’s managed to make W look like a good president.
--- Post Merged, Apr 27, 2018 ---
Didn’t you see, Bush went on an aircraft carrier and said mission accomplished that means we won.
--- Post Merged, Apr 27, 2018 ---
The Iraq War had bipartisan support.
--- Post Merged, Apr 27, 2018 ---
You have to treat brutal people with brutality.
"Hugs and kisses" doesn't work with people like Osama or Kim.
Very nice analysis.
Yes, actually at the end of Bush's Presidency, Iraq was pretty stable due to "The Surge" and also because the Sunnis decided to work with the U.S. rather than fight against it.
There was a lot of talk before World War I and World War II, and look what happened...war came anyway. And how did those wars end, not by talk, but by war! So war does solve problems, if it did not the U.K., Europe, Russia, and at least North Africa (though probably all of Africa) definitely would have been controlled by Nazi-Germany. Now since we did go to war and defeated the Nazi's none of this happened but if we did not who is to say that those countries still to this day would not be Nazi controlled? Also, if we did not go to war with Japan in WWII, China, the Korean Peninsula and all of the countries in the South China sea would be controlled by Imperial-Japan and maybe/most likely Australia as well.
So without war, which is terrible and I wish we could always use diplomacy to avoid war, FOUR continents (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia) would be controlled by Fascist Nazi-Germany and Imperial Japan. Also, who knows what would have happened to the U.S. and Canada? Would our two countries have been able to hold off being invaded by Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan together since they were allies?! Thank God that war destroyed both Nazi-Germany and Imperial-Japan so we do not even have to think about what could have been today, relating to that issue.
Oh, also remember how the Japanese were doing TONS of talking with the U.S. and the League of Nations, but it was all deceptive to buy them time to prepare for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Yeah, talk worked amazing at stopping WWII.
Diplomacy works sometimes, and I am glad it does because war is the worst thing on earth, but sometimes war is a necessary evil.
Edit: You can also add that South America would be controlled by Nazi-Germany but more by choice than occupation since a lot of South American countries supported Nazi-Germany, mostly Argentina. Look at the Nazi's that used Ratlines to escape Europe after World War II to make it to Argentina. So FIVE continents would be controlled by Nazi-Germany and/or Imperial Japan.
We never treated Gorbachev with brutality, and look what happened to the Soviet Union, let alone the entire Communist bloc.
Treating brutal people with brutality is what got us Hitler. Treating brutal people with brutality is what got us DPRK and Kim Il-sung in the first place, let alone Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un.
You may want to read your history books and see what brutality truly does, because you definitely are in need of the refresher.