Trump: It is a waste of time to negotiate with North Korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Oct 1, 2017.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #26
    I literally laughed when I read that.

    Keeping quiet and thinking carefully are two things that trump is not capable of doing.
     
  2. throAU macrumors 603

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #27
    if this is to end without a nuclear exchange both trump and kim need an “out”.

    slinging mud via the media at each other and waving their military around is simply never going to achieve that.

    And neither trump nor kim can back down without looking weak.


    This crisis will either be solved by Russia, China or catastrophe.

    Hopefully some third parties step in to defuse the situation.
     
  3. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #28
    While NATO needs some reform, I strongly suggest that you check more its strategical impact. Yeah there’s some corruption, but that would not change without NATO.

    I am cooking a brunch and NK is a complex problem.
    In short, NK’s politics is unique as its not simply ruled by a dictator and his family, but a mafia style family. This family worked on 50 years of war rethoric, mainly for the unification of the Koreas and the destruction of the US. Kids in kindergarten learn about this stuff. And the military is well known for its fanaticism. Now (or pretty soon) Kim Jong Un will have the tools to carry the messianic mission that his family promised. If he backs down, he’s gone and fanatic military rulers will reign. Kim knows that.
     
  4. throAU macrumors 603

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #29

    Sounds much like the way the USA is run...

    Fanaticism, brainwashing at a young age, destruction of the commies, nuclear weapons developed for said purpose.

    SAME


    NATO needs reform, sure. They need to stop being a bunch of thugs with the job of shaking down anyone who refuses to prop up the US dollar.
     
  5. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #30
    So Tillerson was talking with NK directly and Trump found out about it through the media? Can’t you pick up the phone and call Tillerson directly?
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #31
    Please. I'm not the one making the comparison. I'm reminding you to be open to it being a tool to examine two situations.

    A comparison doesn't require the situations be exactly the same because then there'd be no reason to compare. You'd simply say they are the exact same situation. A comparison between situations normally contains differences. The point is to find similar aspects within the difference.

    By denying that no aspect of the Korean conflict can be compared to WWI, means that you are incapable of identifying common human mistakes that often lead up to war. And that inability to identify those mistake makes it more likely to repeat them.
     
  7. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #32
    I think the odds are very high that Un will make a mistake first. Your comparisons are strange, "dancing near the edge"? bankruptcy? Those things have little to do with the chain of command and military power. Trump doesn't have absolute power like Un does, also NK is desperate.
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #33

    First, the US has a token presence in SK if one goes by numbers of troops. Second, sanctions were not only supported by the US by most of the international community, and much of the international community have lost their patience with the fat dictator. Third, 'cold war' is better than a shooting war, and to the extent that the US supports SK miltarily it has acted as deterrent allowing SK to develop in peace. Fourth, the Korean conflict begin when NK invaded SK, and there has been no permanent peace since, and not for wont of trying on the US's part. Fifth, there might be a humanitarian cost of doing nothing - namely, emboldened by having a nuclear deterrent, NK might try to reduce Seoul into rubble and then invade under the protection of its nuclear umbrella. Sixth, if war is inevitable, do we want to conduct it now, when NK's nuclear technology is largely untried and untested, or do we want to wait until their missiles are perfected?

    I don't want war, but the only way peace (or something like it) can be preserved is if NK backs down and agrees to disarm its nukes, perhaps with the PRC guaranteeing the integrity of its borders and the US/SK engaging in talks about generally disarming the Korean peninsula. The US has no interest in invading NK anyway, so I don't see this as an issue. However, if fatso decides to charge ahead with his country's nuclear programme, I do not see that we have much of a choice other than to end it (and him).
     
  9. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #34
    Trump likes to push his opponents as hard as he can. The deals he makes tend not to be sound, and have to be bailed out by somebody else; thus, the times that his father has stepped in to cover his debts, or the court system has.

    Trump's whole modus operandi is to push any situation right up to the very edge of failure, and if it does end up blowing up in his face, well, that's for somebody else to clean up.

    And absolute power? Trump simply has to give the word, and five minutes later American nuclear missiles will be in the air. And nobody can stop him. The whole system is designed to get American nukes airborne immediately, before incoming nukes can take the president out...
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #35
    I highly doubt that Mattis would comply unless there's a specific threat.
     
  11. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #36
    So, how long would Mattis retain his position? Days? Hours? Minutes?
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #37
    In case of Trump trying to launch nukes on a whim? I think that Trump would be the loser in such war, especially since also the Chief of Staff is quite a serious general.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #38
    I don't agree with this.

    Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes. If possessing The Bomb is the one thing North Korea needs in order to feel like a significant player in the world, then so be it. It appears to be inevitable.

    In the face of this inevitability, it's the attitude that NK must back down that becomes the dangerous one.
     
  14. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #39
    Pakistan and India are not NK. NK is messianic to say the least.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #40
    Wow. That qualifies for a No **** Sherlock.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #41
    Part you left out is important.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #42
    No, I mean how long before Trump would fire him and get somebody else. ;) I don't have any problem with Mattis; from what I know, he seems a decent guy. His biggest problem is that he is being employed by an imbecile, and therefore his ability to restrain the president from making a mistake only exists to the extent that the president chooses to allow himself to be restrained.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #43
    I see what you mean.
    I am not sure that Trump will fire Mattis, he would piss off the military big time.
     
  19. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #44
    Trump says he won’t fail. So that’s what he needs to be held to.

     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #45
    If "time for talk" is indeed over, then that all-but inevitably suggests that action is necessary. And since the US already has extremely rigid sanctions on North Korea, it doesn't actually leave you many courses of action other than a military strike.

    Do you really think it's a good idea to get into a military confrontation with a nuclear-armed adversary? Do you think that is going to end well?

    Tip O' the Day for Amateur Statesmen: Cornball cliches do not make for effective statecraft. They aren't actually terribly useful for dealing with ill-behaved teenagers.
     
  21. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #46
    So then you are ready for war?

    Quite possibly with China, even if only a 'proxy' war?

    And recognizing that regardless of the circumstances, the death and destruction in Seoul alone will be devasting?

    What do you mean by 'the time for talk is over?'
     
  22. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #47
    I really don't want a war. The reason is that a lot of famine inflicted people who are suffering in terrible poverty will be subject to a terrible fate.

    Even if we destroy the regime, look how that has turned out in other countries?

    You'll just end up with more war and death. This isn't a simple solution. No matter what, people are going to lose here. I used to think that we should wage war against them but the reality is that all we will do is open a door for someone else to destroy that country over and over again.

    I really wish that somehow North Korea would stop seeing us as the enemy and we can just leave them be. Sure, I want the citizens to live better lives but I just don't know how we can do that without the DPRK working with the UN on it.

    If they attack us, we'll have to fight. That's just unavoidable. I just wonder how much damage will be done and what the outcome will ultimately be.
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #48
    Not sure I understand. Given that NK's attitudes have remained remarkably consistent over the years, expecting them to change anything without the threat of force seems unrealistic. I don't care about their attitudes. I care about what they can do with their weapons and how this expands with nukes. And I don't think accepting NK's nukes is inevitable, I'd class it as more like intolerable.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 1, 2017 ---
    Well, as it turns out, none of those countries we invaded were in the process of acquiring functional nuclear weapons capable of hitting US bases, cities, and allied countries. Thus, those countries posed a much lower threat than NK (as my ex said insightfully of the US's ME invasion of Iraq 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time'). If you think that NK will sit back once they have nuclear weapons, taking a defensive stance, you're dreaming. They'll start encroaching on SK and while holding Seoul, US bases in the Pacific, and some US cities to ransom, rather like the way Russia has used nukes to prevent a response to its wholly illegal annexation of Crimea (and its support of the dictatorial Syrian regime). We can't do anything about Russians having nukes. We can do something about NK, and there might be more death and destruction if we don't than if we do.
     
  24. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #49
    Ready? No. We’re late already. Much will depend on China, hopefully they’ll do about something about this however they know they messed up.
    Time for talk is over is simple. As of now NK seems uncapable to deliver nukes and has a very limited stockpile if any at all.
    Once they have five or ten, and once they can deliver them with precision and without risk, God help us all.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 1, 2017 ---
    It’s not a good idea, but I think - and hopefully I will be proven wrong - we’re in a phase of damage containment now. I fear - and truly fear - that the prevention phase is over.
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #50
    NK is confused and China is shutting them out slowly. Trump has made more progress on this than his predecessors.
     

Share This Page