North Korea

[oldrider]

You guys will realise one day soon that you should have gone to Spec-Savers - none so blind as those who will not see!

[TheDemonLord]

True. Trump did play his part. Not sure the situation may had been the same if he was Bush or Obama. Obama... Maybe. Bush? Doubt it.

I just hate to see everyone giving Trump all the praise like he did all the work. Nobel prize... Get fucked.

I think Jasonu summed it up best:

If it's something that went badly - Everyone would be ridiculing Trump and directly blaming him
But here, it's something good, and everyone is doing their absolute best to not give Trump any credit for this.

And I happen to think this event is one of the most historic moments (in terms of world peace) - yet we're still seeing the sourest of sour grapes from the News Media in general.

[jasonu]

I think Jasonu summed it up best:

If it's something that went badly - Everyone would be ridiculing Trump and directly blaming him
But here, it's something good, and everyone is doing their absolute best to not give Trump any credit for this.

And I happen to think this event is one of the most historic moments (in terms of world peace) - yet we're still seeing the sourest of sour grapes from the News Media in general.

The dems and their media still haven’t got over the fact that their Hillary couldn’t beat what was likely the most unpopular candidate for potus ever.


As it turned out Trump was the second most unpopular candidate.

[Katman]

And I happen to think this event is one of the most historic moments (in terms of world peace)

I think it's far too early to leap to that conclusion.

[TheDemonLord]

I think it's far too early to leap to that conclusion.

I've thought quite a bit about that and on the one hand - you're right, there's a shit load of progress to be made. But on the other hand - the journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step - I consider the first step to be (perhaps) the most pivotal moment.

[husaberg]

You should hear the USA Lib media. Pick pick pick..... totally unexpected though.
Doesn't matter what he might do, if it is good they will say it was already in the works before he got in, if it is bad, well you know.....
A lot like the Labour supporters blaming National for the tooth fairy's ineptitude.

[Katman]

I've thought quite a bit about that and on the one hand - you're right, there's a shit load of progress to be made. But on the other hand - the journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step - I consider the first step to be (perhaps) the most pivotal moment.

And if, like we saw in Libya, North Korea gives up it's nuclear capability, and we then see America inciting and funding a coup in NK to change the government to one that can be controlled by the West, will you still call that World Peace?

[TheDemonLord]

And if, like we saw in Libya, North Korea gives up it's nuclear capability, and we then see America inciting and funding a coup in NK to change the government to one that can be controlled by the West, will you still call that World Peace?

Well, given the totalitarian nature of the Kim regime, it's not as absurd as you are trying to make it out to be...

[Katman]

Well, given the totalitarian nature of the Kim regime, it's not as absurd as you are trying to make it out to be...

Really?

You think replacing a strong leader that keeps his people under control, with a Western puppet, guarantees peace?

Have you forgotten about Iraq already?

And before you jump to the conclusion that I believe Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un deserve sainthoods, I'm merely commenting on your view that regime change will be for the good of the citizens of that country.

Quite frankly, I don't think America gives a fuck about the people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran etc., etc., ad infinitum.

[TheDemonLord]

Really?

You think replacing a strong leader that keeps his people under control, with a Western puppet, guarantees peace?

Have you forgotten about Iraq already?

And before you jump to the conclusion that I believe Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un deserve sainthoods, I'm merely commenting on your view that regime change will be for the good of the citizens of that country.

Quite frankly, I don't think America gives a fuck about the people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran etc., etc., ad infinitum.

That is definitely a question for the Philosophers...

But to answer your question - I believe that in the short term, it will be worse for the Citizens, but in the long term - it will pay off.

And I happen to think that Freedom is something worth short term suffering.

[Katman]

And I happen to think that Freedom is something worth short term suffering.

Especially if it's not you that has to suffer.

And clearly you're not content with KJU making concessions to the West. You want him gone.

And that's what's so wrong with so much of Western policy.

[TheDemonLord]

Especially if it's not you that has to suffer.

And clearly you're not content with KJU making concessions to the West. You want him gone.

And that's what's so wrong with so much of Western policy.

It's not that I want KJU gone per se, it's that I want the oppressive, totalitarian regime gone, in fact - I want any oppressive, totalitarian regime gone. Now, I'll grant you that I don't think that it's possible whilst KJU is in power, but anyways.

In regards to suffering, whilst it's true that I don't have to suffer the short term, I also don't have to suffer the long term effects of the totalitarian regime. The question becomes which one is worse, and my value judgement (based on both the philosophical arguments and the testimony from people who have lived under such regimes) is that the long term suffering is far greater.

[Viking01]

I think it's far too early to leap to that conclusion.

Agreed.

The recent US - NK summit was interesting. In that it actually occurred. And that they did
sign a piece of paper (a statement of intent).

But the more important questions surely are: Why did the summit occur? And why now ?

[ I've nominally ignored US mid-term elections and a potential Nobel Peace prize, even though
they may be "short term considerations". I've also ignored "pursuit of peace" as a long term
US objective as well. They do make "lovely talking points", though ]


In the past, the US has been able to rely on South Korean military and conservative factions
to keep any ideas of "establishment of good relations" between NK and SK in check.

Even if the dynamic between the two Koreas has shifted recently, it will shift only as far as
TPTB would allow it to shift. The US has been able to implement new radar and missile systems
in SK recently, despite local public out-cry. So the internal reins of power have not changed
visibly.


Maybe the US has finally sensed it could be a loser (both geo-stratgeically and economically)
if it didn't engage with NK at this point in time. And try to shoulder other major players aside.

Maybe the possibility of NK acting as a conduit for Russian gas supply to SK, plus SK trade
with Europe via rail north through NK.

More likely (to me) is that once some such "facts on the ground" had been established, then NK
mineral resources (significant) then become open for their exploitation. But more importantly, for
foreign control.

Not just minerals like gold, iron and copper, but less common ones such as molydenum, tungsten
and some rare earths (used for mobile phones). Even the NY Post has noticed :

https://nypost.com/2017/07/03/north-...ral-resources/

The extraction of which might well be contracted out to NK's long term (and more trusted) partners,
China and Russia.


You can be sure that the US is not taking any such "positive" action based on either the threat of
NK nuclear missiles or on humanitarian grounds.

The US has lived with a "nuclear threat" since the 1950's. Its actions since 2000 to withdraw from
international weapons arms treaties (and its recent comments on the development and usage of
tactical nuclear weapons) puts a lie to that item.

And US politicians couldn't care less about starving (or dying) civilians in other countries around the
world. Analysis of the composition of US "foreign aid" budgets should deal to that item as well.

But their masters do care about mineral resources. And they do care about "locking up" future access
to those resources.

So I would think any future political agreement - and importantly the relaxation of sanctions on NK -
is very likely to involve agreement on not only certain US mining companies getting entry to NK and
their participation in mineral extraction, but importantly future access rights to such resources.

If we were to look just at gold:

1. Who could go past major US mining companies such as Barrick Gold and Newmont Mining to do
"extraction". Both with world class mining credentials (and solid past history of association with
the CIA, and experience of operation under authoritarian regimes).

2. More importantly, we wouldn't want this gold becoming available to US economic competitors.
They might use it to bolster their own financial reserves. But more importantly they might use it to
underpin financial contracts (e.g. purchase of oil). And where would the USD be if that happened ?

I'm sure there are similar compelling narratives about the other less common minerals listed above.


So, like many others, I'm interested to see just how far future US-NK "negotiations" proceed - and
whether they do reach a "positive" conclusion (and the "price paid", of course).

Or whether the US decides to "toss its toys out of the cot", claiming that "NK was not really serious
about de-nuclearisation" .... 8-)

Time will tell.

[Katman]

It's not that I want KJU gone per se, it's that I want the oppressive, totalitarian regime gone, in fact - I want any oppressive, totalitarian regime gone. Now, I'll grant you that I don't think that it's possible whilst KJU is in power, but anyways.

Let's go back to the Middle East for a second.

In countries like Iraq you have many factions that appear to hate each other. Saddam Hussein (for all his faults) kept Iraq stable. And he did so via a totalitarian regime.

The place is now a clusterfuck.

So much for your idealistic dream of the West saving the world.

[Katman]

....and my value judgement.....

What the fuck does your 'value judgement' have to do with the people who have to suffer through being the playthings of the West?

Do you think they gain some sort of solace in the thought that you're sitting there on your fat arse happy to watch them suffer - even for a short term?