The Korean Summit thread - The post-summit NK nuclear expansion edition.
BCC said:
bub said:They haven't even met yet and you call it a failure without knowing what will be agreed upon should it succeed.
An open failure like this (so far) is better for our country than a phony window dressing agreement that allows Trump to crow about his diplomacy while leaving NK's nukes untouched.
An open failure would have been to walk away from the deal and be left with no negotiated settlement achieved by diplomacy.
The MOL Mirror Image is alive and well.
Sorry BCC, you can't pin that "mirror" BS on me. I dislike Trump but I'm far outside of the hard line progressive echo chamber you mock all of the time. Getting NK to denuclearize is more important than Trump looking bad. But right now we're back to square one on the diplomacy front. Who knows what tomorrow will bring but as of today, Trump' charm offensive failed.
Smedley said:
tjohn said:OK...
Smedley said:Oh, that is bad. A political cartoon where the likenesses are exaggerated.
dave23 said:Uh...yes.
Smedley said:The exaggerated Asian features? Perhaps. Also, that looks nothing like Kim.
Is it me or is the Charlie Brown - Lucy style cartoon from early in this thread a bit, er, distasteful and offensive?
I wonder where the cartoon came from? I'd be honestly surprised if it came from a mainstream media outlet. Seems to me in this day and age, if a mainstream outlet did publish it, there would be a big brouhaha that would require an apology from the cartoonist and the publisher. But maybe I'm wrong.
I'm also surprised MOLers, who I consider generally a pretty PC bunch, don't seem to mind it.
I guess I need to sign up for a hypersensitivity course. Seems to me that outrage over this is akin to the outrage over the girl in Utah who wore a cheongsam to her prom.
I'm trying to find the thing NK backed down on. Can someone post a link here to that?
The news indicates that Trump cancelled the summit so Kim wouldn't make him "look bad" by cancelling first.
Best explained as like the behavior of Rufus T. Firefly in "Duck Soup", when he becomes outraged as he imagines he'll be snubbed.
"I'd be only too happy to meet Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit in which it is offered.
"But suppose he doesn’t. A fine thing that’ll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept it. That’ll add a lot to my prestige, won’t it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap out of me in front of all my people?
"Think of it – I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept it. Why, the cheap four flushing swine, he’ll never get away with it I tell you, he’ll never get away with it!"
Trentino enters.
"So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?"
I think we can all agree that the racist face made by that awful woman in the road rage incident was offensive?
So how is the cartoon not offensive?
are you personally offended by it? Or just offended that the other people here didn't say that they found it offensive?
BCC said:
dave23 said:What do you suggest we do about that ?
BCC said:Is NK destroying evidence interesting, backing down or both?
I said it would be interesting and it was.The North immediately backed down and yet all the bu****it that followed my original comment seems to have disappeared.
Avoiding the question is one strategy, I suppose.
ml1 said:
are you personally offended by it? Or just offended that the other people here didn't say that they found it offensive?
I outraged at the outrage over the lack of outrage.
OK I'll leave it be. If everyone else is fine with it, so am I.
I will say that if the same caricatures appeared in a Fox News cartoon that depicted Trump getting the better of Kim somehow, I believe MOL pitchforks would be out.
Smedley said:
OK I'll leave it be. If everyone else is fine with it, so am I.
I will say that if the same caricatures appeared in a Fox News cartoon that depicted Trump getting the better of Kim somehow, I believe MOL pitchforks would be out.
That's a bit different. I think we all could benefit from having less of a double-standard.
But I like your post - very Fox Newsian - pose a hypothetical and then react to it.
political cartoons draw people in caricature. Does it look like a realistic, flattering illustration of Trump next to an Asian caricature? It's a caricature of Kim, not a denigrating caricature of a stereotypical Asian man. There must be 1000 political cartoons that caricature Kim and 10 times more that do so to Trump. You're really barking up the wrong tree here.
ridski said:
I'm trying to find the thing NK backed down on. Can someone post a link here to that?
still looking
ml1 said:
ridski said:still looking
I'm trying to find the thing NK backed down on. Can someone post a link here to that?
Assuming that warmonger Bolton didn't scuttle the meeting because he wants war, the one problem is that "denuclearize" or the path to that end means something different to North Korea than it does to the United States.
This is a very confusing thread.
Smedley suggests that "The Left" has reacted with glee to the cancellation of the meeting. BCC seems to suggest that it's just a temporary postponement to the advantage of the US and detriment of Trump.
I do not know who is meant by "The Left". The happiest folks are John Bolton and the hard-right Neo-Cons.
Of course since I believe Trump is on a mission to seriously damage this country I am happy whenever things go wrong for him. But that's just me.
And if we are still making bets my money is on the meeting never happening.
I think the meeting will happen. We probably won’t get what we want out of it, but it will happen before the midterms.
LOST said:
This is a very confusing thread.
Smedley suggests that "The Left" has reacted with glee to the cancellation of the meeting. BCC seems to suggest that it's just a temporary postponement to the advantage of the US and detriment of Trump.
I do not know who is meant by "The Left". The happiest folks are John Bolton and the hard-right Neo-Cons.
Of course since I believe Trump is on a mission to seriously damage this country I am happy whenever things go wrong for him. But that's just me.
And if we are still making bets my money is on the meeting never happening.
"The Left" is a hypothetical counter-position to the position you support - straight out of Fox News - present a hypothetical extreme left position and then freak out.
Trump wants Noko to de-nuclearize. Does he understand what this entails? Is there a plan in place explaining what compliance to this means? From what we see, it appears the this administration doesn't have a clue - and/or isn't on the same page with what needs to be done throughout the administration.
It's all too bizarre and Trump hasn't even touched on the human rights aspect of Noko. But he believes it has potential to be a GREAT country.
Noko will never allow full access around the country to any kind of inspector. Kim will not give up any control.
At this point - anything can happen.
Trump needs to call in the big guns for this one - Dennis Rodman,
bub said:
political cartoons draw people in caricature. Does it look like a realistic, flattering illustration of Trump next to an Asian caricature? It's a caricature of Kim, not a denigrating caricature of a stereotypical Asian man. There must be 1000 political cartoons that caricature Kim and 10 times more that do so to Trump. You're really barking up the wrong tree here.
I know political cartoons draw people in caricature, but generally racial stereotyping is off-limits, at least in the modern mainstream press.
Of the ~1,000 political cartoons that caricature Kim, can you find 1 where Kim's eyes are slanted (like they are in the cartoon posted on this thread)? I'd count the cartoon on this thread, if someone can point me to its origin. I can't seem to find it anywhere. @nohero?
ridski said:
I think the meeting will happen. We probably won’t get what we want out of it, but it will happen before the midterms.
I'll take that bet, if it's a bet.
ml1 said:
ridski said:still looking
I'm trying to find the thing NK backed down on. Can someone post a link here to that?
You don't know what it's about?
Trump called their bluff , left the door open and they immediately returned ready to be 'flexible' as to where and when.- and no more threats of war.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/24/trump-warns-nkorea-us-military-ready-if-necessary/
'After days of stinging rhetoric, Pyongyang’s first reaction to the news was unexpectedly mild, a reflection either of alarm on the part of North Korea or an effort to position Kim Jong-un in the public relations battle over the summit. In a statement carried on the state-owned wire service, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan said the North still wanted a Kim-Trump summit and was flexible on where and when.'
,The whole incident was a bargaining ploy, and Trump was the winner.
dave23 said:
BCC said:Avoiding the question is one strategy, I suppose.
dave23 said:What do you suggest we do about that ?
BCC said:Is NK destroying evidence interesting, backing down or both?
I said it would be interesting and it was.The North immediately backed down and yet all the bu****it that followed my original comment seems to have disappeared.
You can't answer it because there is no answer. The site was blown up, any evidence, if there was any, is long gone'
The backing down has been answered several times.
NK has always wanted direct talks with the US. They see it as legitimizing their regime.
And we've always refused, insisting instead on multilateral talks. We don't want to give them that level of prestige, at least without concessions right up front.
So can NK offering to have direct talks be construed as them backing down?
If you buy into that line of reasoning, you're assuming that direct talks are something that they've always been entitled to. NK has already won the first round.
bub said:
BCC said:Sorry BCC, you can't pin that "mirror" BS on me. I dislike Trump but I'm far outside of the hard line progressive echo chamber you mock all of the time. Getting NK to denuclearize is more important than Trump looking bad. But right now we're back to square one on the diplomacy front. Who knows what tomorrow will bring but as of today, Trump' charm offensive failed.
bub said:They haven't even met yet and you call it a failure without knowing what will be agreed upon should it succeed.
An open failure like this (so far) is better for our country than a phony window dressing agreement that allows Trump to crow about his diplomacy while leaving NK's nukes untouched.
An open failure would have been to walk away from the deal and be left with no negotiated settlement achieved by diplomacy.
The MOL Mirror Image is alive and well.
They haven't even met yet but Trump has already failed - except NOKO ended their aggressive attack and came running back, willing to be 'flexible' about where ad when and no talk of war.
NK offered to have talks. The US agreed. Together they set a date. The US canceled that date, while saying they could still meet. NK agreed. Who backed down?
tom said:
NK has always wanted direct talks with the US. They see it as legitimizing their regime.
And we've always refused, insisting instead on multilateral talks. We don't want to give them that level of prestige, at least without concessions right up front.
So can NK offering to have direct talks be construed as them backing down?
If you buy into that line of reasoning, you're assuming that direct talks are something that they've always been entitled to. NK has already won the first round.
I don't buy into that line of reasoning, it was buried quite a while back.
What exactly did the last 3 Presidents achieve, a nuclear NK and no road left down which to kick the can
So far, Trumps approach seems to be working better. As so many people have already said 'It remains to be seen"
ridski said:
NK offered to have talks. The US agreed. Together they set a date. The US canceled that date, while saying they could still meet. NK agreed. Who backed down?
You didn't read the article I posted, did you ?
tom said:
NK has always wanted direct talks with the US. They see it as legitimizing their regime.
And we've always refused, insisting instead on multilateral talks. We don't want to give them that level of prestige, at least without concessions right up front.
So can NK offering to have direct talks be construed as them backing down?
If you buy into that line of reasoning, you're assuming that direct talks are something that they've always been entitled to. NK has already won the first round.
It sounds like you supported George W. Bush's position of only agreeing to talk with those who agreed to our conditions in advance?
ridski said:
NK offered to have talks. The US agreed. Together they set a date. The US canceled that date, while saying they could still meet. NK agreed. Who backed down?
if you write for the Washington Times, that's known as backing down. For the rest of us, it means stating the same position they've had all along.
BCC said:
ridski said:You didn't read the article I posted, did you ?
NK offered to have talks. The US agreed. Together they set a date. The US canceled that date, while saying they could still meet. NK agreed. Who backed down?
Not a big fan of the Washington Times, so no. I'm trying to figure out what NK had fronted in order to be seen as backing down. Every expert I've read so far says that by agreeing to meet with Kim Jong-un, NK has won. All NK has to do is continue to agree to meet while Trump picks dates and then cancels them, and they look like the adults in the room.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
What do you suggest we do about that ?