Would you support a face-to-face meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un?

Would you support a face-to-face meeting between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un?

  • Only if it involves carnitas tacos

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Only if kimchi burritos are on the lunch menu

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't do it Donald, just don't….

    Votes: 1 5.0%
  • Yes! With Dennis Rodman acting as moderator-referee

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Only if Donald gives away The Midget as a gift for Kim to take home

    Votes: 11 55.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
Would it solve anything?

Is it in the realm of possibility that Kim Jong Un will slap his forehead, and say "Gosh, Donnie, you're right! I will put an end to my nuclear and missile programs tomorrow. And schedule free and open elections next year!"

Does that seem even remotely possible? Does anything positive come out of that sort of meeting?

It does not. All that such a meeting would do would be to serve as a propaganda opportunity to shore up North Korea's regime. Which is desperate for attention and prestige. Like they were so desperate for when former President Bill Clinton flew there to secure the release of two American journalists.

A face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States gives prestige and credibility to whoever is in attendance. And Kim Jong Un is a murderous tyrant, one who has flouted international law at every opportunity.

So: No. There is nothing to be gained, and a tremendous amount to be lost. Never play a game where there is no chance of winning.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,597
24,494
Texas
I support it in general, but at very strict conditions, and not in the US or North Korea.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
Yes. Why wouldn't you?
Because Trump folds like a lawn chair every time he is face to face with a world leader. Nieto, Jinping, Netanyahu, Merkel, Putin. He hasn't stood up to any of them; he's never been able to repeat his tough talk on twitter to their face. He's too weak of a negotiator.

If anyone was to negotiate with KJU, and I'm not joking here, the government should deputize a special ambassador to go in and negotiate on the US's behalf. Someone who is not a political appointment, has no interest in ever being a political appointment, someone not from the military, and who is known to be a very good negotiator. Likely it would be a business leader or an academic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
Because Trump folds like a lawn chair every time he is face to face with a world leader. Nieto, Jinping, Netanyahu, Merkel, Putin. He hasn't stood up to any of them; he's never been able to repeat his tough talk on twitter to their face. He's too weak of a negotiator.

If anyone was to negotiate with KJU, and I'm not joking here, the government should deputize a special ambassador to go in and negotiate on the US's behalf. Someone who is not a political appointment, has no interest in ever being a political appointment, someone not from the military, and who is known to be a very good negotiator. Likely it would be a business leader or an academic.
When has Trump been face to face with Putin? Has that happened as President, or at all? And in what way does Trump need to "stand up" to Netanyahu? How did he "fold" to these people.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,597
24,494
Texas
Because Trump folds like a lawn chair every time he is face to face with a world leader. Nieto, Jinping, Netanyahu, Merkel, Putin. He hasn't stood up to any of them; he's never been able to repeat his tough talk on twitter to their face. He's too weak of a negotiator.

If anyone was to negotiate with KJU, and I'm not joking here, the government should deputize a special ambassador to go in and negotiate on the US's behalf. Someone who is not a political appointment, has no interest in ever being a political appointment, someone not from the military, and who is known to be a very good negotiator. Likely it would be a business leader or an academic.
It's a neat idea but it wouldn't work. North Korea won't talk seriously to anyone who's not seen as a high profile member of the government that can actually make some basic decisions. Anything less wil be perceived as a propaganda cookie.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
It's a neat idea but it wouldn't work. North Korea won't talk seriously to anyone who's not seen as a high profile member of the government that can actually make some basic decisions. Anything less wil be perceived as a propaganda cookie.
It's been done before, at a smaller level. Remember in 2009 when we sent in ol' Bill Clinton to negotiate the release of US hostages in North Korea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_imprisonment_of_American_journalists_by_North_Korea#Bill_Clinton.27s_visit_to_Pyongyang

At this time, it had been nearly a decade since he had been President, and he had no real power. He could be described as a former president, academic, non-profit business leader, at that moment in time.

I agree that the "optics" of whoever we send would have to be addressed. They would have to receive some deputized-power, as I said, and a fancy-sounding title. Likewise, that person would have to on their own merit have a mile-long resume of accomplishments and honors.

I'm just concerned that Trump, nor anyone in his cabinet, is at all qualified to handle such a sensitive negotiation. This isn't negotiating with a carpenter subcontractor to install doors in a hotel. This is serious stuff with long-term geopolitical ramifications, and a lengthy history of dealings to consider. If such a hypothetical meeting were to occur, we would need to bring out our biggest ace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I wouldn't be opposed to it, but normally you'd want a whole lot of normal diplomatic meetings between the lower rungs of government before such a meeting would occur.
Exactly. You build up to a summit, after you've built a foundation of mutually agreed upon goals and some degree of trust.
[doublepost=1493821238][/doublepost]
It's a neat idea but it wouldn't work. North Korea won't talk seriously to anyone who's not seen as a high profile member of the government that can actually make some basic decisions. Anything less wil be perceived as a propaganda cookie.
And you know this because ...?
 

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,811
As long as human rights aren't on the table for discussion. I don't think Trump would be prepared to answer for how the US government screws the average American.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEK

throAU

macrumors 603
Feb 13, 2012
5,284
2,276
Perth, Western Australia
Would it solve anything?

Is it in the realm of possibility that Kim Jong Un will slap his forehead, and say "Gosh, Donnie, you're right! I will put an end to my nuclear and missile programs tomorrow. And schedule free and open elections next year!"

Does that seem even remotely possible? Does anything positive come out of that sort of meeting?

It does not. All that such a meeting would do would be to serve as a propaganda opportunity to shore up North Korea's regime. Which is desperate for attention and prestige. Like they were so desperate for when former President Bill Clinton flew there to secure the release of two American journalists.

A face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States gives prestige and credibility to whoever is in attendance. And Kim Jong Un is a murderous tyrant, one who has flouted international law at every opportunity.

So: No. There is nothing to be gained, and a tremendous amount to be lost. Never play a game where there is no chance of winning.

Its far more likely to happen via diplomacy than the continued sabre rattling between the two sides, especially given that the USA dropped more bombs on north korea during the korean war than they did throughout the entirety of World War 2, and caused more destruction to North Korea than they did to Japan during WW2 as well. Including huge numbers of civilian targets.

You guys constantly seem to wonder why so many countries hate you. Well, this is the sort of reason why.

But it will never happen anyway as the people running the USA are bankers and defence contractors, and war is good for business.
 
Last edited:

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,092
Only if Trump plays him in a round of golf for nukes. Otherwise I'm sure the left would be happy to just give the little ****er a boatload of money to "not build nukes" like Clinton and Carter did.
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,092
because trump and his mouth could never make it better.
[doublepost=1493823407][/doublepost]
that brush again huh?
In the history of our dealings with NK, yeah. You might not like to talk about it, but it was a colossal failure.
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,739
11,030
New England
Its far more likely to happen via diplomacy than the continued sabre rattling between the two sides, especially given that the USA dropped more bombs on north korea during the korean war than they did throughout the entirety of World War 2, and caused more disruption to North Korea than they did to Japan during WW2 as well.
This is the part nobody in the US seems to realize.

Yes NK commits human atrocities every day with their hard-labor camps, extra-judicial executions, underfeeding the population, etc.

But, as an exercise, look at it from their perspective.
NK: There is a world-power half a planet away which bombed the living poop out of us a few decades ago, dropped two nukes on our neighbors before that, continues to exert themselves as bullies all over the place, bombs the hell out of the middle east nearly every week, bribes our closest ally with tons of money, and just build a very sophisticated and scary missile system on our southern border.​

If I was in their shoes, I would be scrambling to assemble weapons and bombs for protection and deterrence as well. (I would also close down the hard-labor camps, release political prisoners, work harder to feed the population, but that's beside this particular point).

I think if you start with view that what NK is doing militarily is a perfectly reasonable response to what the U.S. has been doing, it makes understanding this conflict a lot easier.

I think the easiest way for the US to get rid of KJU and that whole family is to offer peace. KJU is in power because they're terrified of the US killing them all. If we assure the entire NK population, somehow, that we are not going to kill them, and rather working with us will make them wealthy and well-fed, I think they would overthrow KJU themselves.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
The old ways have not worked, maybe an in your face would work.
Still I am in favor of meeting. Bring DR as the straight man.
I guess that depends on your definition of what "worked" means. We haven't had an actual incident with NK in 30+ years...can't really say that's a failure.

Unless of course, like the military testified to last week, the "ultimate solution to this is regime change" in your eyes. I for one don't want to trigger yet another major humanitarian disaster on the planet, but that's just me.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
This is the part nobody in the US seems to realize.

Yes NK commits human atrocities every day with their hard-labor camps, extra-judicial executions, underfeeding the population, etc.

But, as an exercise, look at it from their perspective.
NK: There is a world-power half a planet away which bombed the living poop out of us a few decades ago, dropped two nukes on our neighbors before that, continues to exert themselves as bullies all over the place, bombs the hell out of the middle east nearly every week, bribes our closest ally with tons of money, and just build a very sophisticated and scary missile system on our southern border.​

If I was in their shoes, I would be scrambling to assemble weapons and bombs for protection and deterrence as well. (I would also close down the hard-labor camps, release political prisoners, work harder to feed the population, but that's beside this particular point).

I think if you start with view that what NK is doing militarily is a perfectly reasonable response to what the U.S. has been doing, it makes understanding this conflict a lot easier.

I think the easiest way for the US to get rid of KJU and that whole family is to offer peace. KJU is in power because they're terrified of the US killing them all. If we assure the entire NK population, somehow, that we are not going to kill them, and rather working with us will make them wealthy and well-fed, I think they would overthrow KJU themselves.
They've been asking for disarmament of their borders for decades, while we continue to pile on. NK itself said it would abandon their nuclear program and allow verification to attest to that IF the US/South Korea/Japan actually agreed in good faith.

Good faith negotiations with the USA, however, continues to be a fools errand....so here we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEK and jkcerda

Rhonindk

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2014
3,762
7,345
watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
Have we attempted the "old ways" with this or the previous regime?
Ad hoc quasi diplomatic interaction: Yes
Back door diplomatic interaction: Yes
Low level diplomatic interaction: Yes
Mid level diplomatic interaction: Yes
Top level diplomatic interaction: Yes
Presidential visitation: Yes

and here we are ....
[doublepost=1493825447][/doublepost]
I guess that depends on your definition of what "worked" means. We haven't had an actual incident with NK in 30+ years...can't really say that's a failure.

Unless of course, like the military testified to last week, the "ultimate solution to this is regime change" in your eyes. I for one don't want to trigger yet another major humanitarian disaster on the planet, but that's just me.
North Korea is a cyclic sebaceous cyst just wanting to erupt to cause maximum "discomfort" to the world and the US in particular. We keep "treating" it. When are we going to correct the issue?

Note: I am unclear on what "correct" entails at this point.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
Its far more likely to happen via diplomacy than the continued sabre rattling between the two sides
That certainly is true.

But there is a difference between diplomatic engagement, and a personal meeting involving the United States President.

Contrary to what many people might think, Donald Trump is not the person to broker a solution to the many problems concerning North Korea. He is clearly unfamiliar with most of the historical, military, political, social, and economic issues. He has precisely zero experience conducting high-level negotiations in the minutiae of Asian geopolitics. He lacks any coherent understanding of the nuances of diplomatic language. It seems more than likely that Trump would blurt out some statement that the North Koreans might use to justify all sorts of dangerous behavior.

Lastly, a personal, face-to-face meeting with the United States President is a prize of immense value. It is not the sort of thing to be carelessly given away to any tinpot dictator with a ramshackle nuclear program. It needs to be held back, as a potential reward for good behavior. It needs to be earned, by adhering to the values espoused by the United States.