Look first at what Kim got from the encounter. Once ostracised as a pariah, Kim was treated as a world statesman on a par with the president of the United States, the two meeting on equal terms, right down to the equal numbers of flags behind them as they shook hands.
Here's the thing: with the idiotic election of Drumpf, Kim is a world statesman on par with the president of the United States. The main difference here isn't Kim, it's how low the office of President has sunk as a concept.
Excellent point. Abby Huntsman made a Freudian slip on Fox and Friends when she referred to Trump and Kim as "the two dictators". Even some of the hosts at Fox News know how insane this Trump presidency is.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
I'll put it up there with his election as something I don't know how he did.
It's simple. Trump is a winner. We've been losing for so long that we've forgotten what it's like to win again.
Trump is a winner at what? An election he never even wanted to win? His intention was to lose, but he couldn't even do that right. His win says everything about America's stupidity and nothing about Trump's "winning" quality.
He is a winner, which is why he invented a Time Magazine Cover photo of himself?
Is that why Trump Steaks, Trump magazine, Trump airlines etc etc etc all went under? He's failed at virtually everything he's tried but didn't inherit from his Daddy. He's probably the only billionaire on the planet who has to buy porn stars for sex. It is obvious his latest trophy wife stopped giving it to him a long time ago.
Executive summary: From everybody's point of view except the brutal and ruthless group around Kim himself, there is nothing new or useful in this agreement. For Kim, it is a win all the way. Not only that, but Trump has been exposed as a foolish and naïve 'negotiator', unfit to represent the world's greatest military power.
God help us all.
Thanks for the article, Chap. Also, it is good to see you.
Ditto.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Most of us are old enough to know that nuclear disarmament was once a required part of any Democratic party member plarform seeking any kind of nomination. Obama decimated the US nuclear arsenal under the erroneous belief that doing so would encourage nations like Iran, Russia, and North Korea to follow
So what changed? It's just predictable partisan politics. If the Democrats had this deal two years ago by anyone but Trump they'd be ecstatic. The right was angry with Obama because the Iran deal led to arming Iran with nuclear weapons rather than disarming them.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
ajax18 wrote:Most of us are old enough to know that nuclear disarmament was once a required part of any Democratic party member plarform seeking any kind of nomination.
Oh?
The 1960 Democrat Party Platform criticized the Eisenhower Administration for letting the Soviets and China catch up and outpace the US in delivery capabilities.
When the Democratic Administration left office in 1953, the United States was the pre-eminent power in the world. Most free nations had confidence in our will and our ability to carry out our commitments to the common defense.
Even those who wished us ill respected our power and influence.
The Republican Administration has lost that position of pre-eminence. Over the past 7 1/2 years, our military power has steadily declined relative to that of the Russians and the Chinese and their satellites.
This is not a partisan election-year charge. It has been persistently made by high officials of the Republican Administration itself. Before Congressional committees they have testified that the Communists will have a dangerous lead in intercontinental missiles through 1963—and that the Republican Administration has no plans to catch up.
They have admitted that the Soviet Union leads in the space race—and that they have no plans to catch up.
While it also considers global disarmament as necessary for peace it hardly calls for unilateral US disarmament.
Of course we all know you meant the Carter years, right?
The size and structure of our military forces must be carefully related to the demands of our foreign policies in this new era. These should be based on a careful assessment of what will be needed in the long-run to deter our potential adversaries; to fight successfully, if necessary, conventional wars in areas in which our national security is threatened; and to reassure our allies and friends—notably in Western Europe, Japan and the Near East. To this end, our strategic nuclear forces must provide a strong and credible deterrent to nuclear attack and nuclear blackmail. Our conventional forces must be strong enough to deter aggression in areas whose security is vital to our own. In a manner consistent with these objectives, we should seek those disarmament and arms control agreements which will contribute to mutual reductions in both nuclear and conventional arms.
Hmm. Not 1976. What about when Clinton the silver tongued Satan took office '92? I mean, it was the end of the Cold War so this must be when the Democrats made disarmament a central pillar of the platform...
America is the world's strongest military power and we must remain so. A post-Cold War restructuring of American forces will produce substantial savings beyond those promised by the Bush Administration, but that restructuring must be achieved without undermining our ability to meet future threats to our security. A military structure for the 1990's and beyond must be built on four pillars: First, a survivable nuclear force to deter any conceivable threat, as we reduce our nuclear arsenals through arms control negotiations and other reciprocal action.
Hmmm.
Obama?
America will seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. We face the growing threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or the materials to make them, as more countries seek nuclear weapons and nuclear materials remain unsecured in too many places. As George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn have warned, current measures are not adequate to address these dangers. We will maintain a strong and reliable deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist, but America will be safer in a world that is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminates all of them. We will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.
Hillary?
Democrats want to reduce the number of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons around the world, as well as their means of delivery, while retaining a strong deterrent as long as others maintain nuclear strike capabilities. We will strengthen the NPT, push for the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and stop the spread of loose nuclear material. Democrats will be informed by a new Nuclear Posture Review in determining continued ways to appropriately shape our nuclear deterrent, with the aim of reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons while meeting our national security obligations. Democrats will also seek new opportunities for further arms control and avoid taking steps that create incentives for the expansion of existing nuclear weapons programs. To this end, we will work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years.
I think you are confusing a desire to see the world made more safe by global nuclear weapon reduction with some propaganda BS being spread by Fox News and the like.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
ajax18 wrote:If the Democrats had this deal two years ago by anyone but Trump they'd be ecstatic. The right was angry with Obama because the Iran deal led to arming Iran with nuclear weapons rather than disarming them.
There doesn't seem to be anything in this that is in touch with reality.
North Korea has always wanted a meeting with the US President to legitimize their status on the world stage. We've long refused them precisely because legitimizing the Kim regimes only benefits the Kim's. But let's focus on the idea there is a deal that came out of the summit. Could you describe the terms of that deal, please? Because actual details being in any so-called deal would be news to me. Well, other than our joint military ops with South Korea being described by the President as provocative. That's a detail.
As for your claim Iran is armed with nukes as a result of the Iran negotiations, I'd love to see that evidence, too. I'm shocked the Israelis failed to use that in their propoganda campaign to get Trump to back out of the deal if it were true. So...
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
ajax18 wrote:Obama decimated the US nuclear arsenal under the erroneous belief that doing so would encourage nations like Iran, Russia, and North Korea to follow
Meanwhile, outside of the Fox News Fantasy Spin Machine ...
Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that's what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House.
