North Korea, Sanctions, and Kim Jong-un

Thousands and thousands of parents of Korean war dead asked Trump on the campaign trail to bring the remains of the fallen back home..



Given they would be at least 100 years old, that's a hefty percentage of the approx 70,000 people over that age in the US. However given that approx 700 people are claimed to be over 110 in the US (and the age range they would need to be in closer to 110 to 120) I think this may be a bit of a fib.
 
Thousands and thousands of parents of Korean war dead asked Trump on the campaign trail to bring the remains of the fallen back home..



Given they would be at least 100 years old, that's a hefty percentage of the approx 70,000 people over that age in the US. However given that approx 700 people are claimed to be over 110 in the US (and the age range they would need to be in closer to 110 to 120) I think this may be a bit of a fib.


Oh ****, this is the moment when everybody realises that Trump thinks he's solved Vietnam.
 
I think this may be a bit of a fib.
200.gif
 
@Scaff provided you with other sources, which makes it more than a "single opinion" at this point. I suppose you can just keep ignoring that if you wish, but don't expect the rest of us to play along.
My comment was related to his original post, painting a few Twits from a single person as represented of the general opinion of Koreans. As I said, if the tables were turned you'd be rallying behind Scaff objecting to me, posting a single twitter user's comments as representative of anything other than his own opinion.
Why is expert in quotes here? The man is a trained political analyst, lives and works in Korea, and is a widely-respected analyst of Korean affairs. He has a much better handle on the current situation than your or I do.
Doesn't matter who he has, he isn't without bias. Especially in the Trump era, it seems like there is no one left that is impartial and the first thing I would look at with any "opinion" is someone's politics because they usually line up. In the end, as I said many times, it's a single opinion.
You've been invited to provide alternate analysis that counters his, and have failed to do so. As such, I see no reason why you should be doubting him, other than you don't like what he has to say.
Failed to counter what? That a single person's opinion is not representative of an entire country? On it's face it's defeated, nothing to counter.
Never crossed my mind that you would stop, and I certainly didn't ask you to.
Mocking and ridiculing often has that effect. Doesn't work on me unfortunately.
 
My comment was related to his original post, painting a few Twits from a single person as represented of the general opinion of Koreans. As I said, if the tables were turned you'd be rallying behind Scaff objecting to me, posting a single twitter user's comments as representative of anything other than his own opinion.
Doesn't matter who he has, he isn't without bias. Especially in the Trump era, it seems like there is no one left that is impartial and the first thing I would look at with any "opinion" is someone's politics because they usually line up. In the end, as I said many times, it's a single opinion.
Failed to counter what? That a single person's opinion is not representative of an entire country? On it's face it's defeated, nothing to counter.
Mocking and ridiculing often has that effect. Doesn't work on me unfortunately.
Its stunning how a single person can continue to ignore the deluge of additional supporting information provided.

Oh and the counter part, well that would be everything he said in those tweets and was supported by the additional information you continue to ignore.

That's without the irony of complaining about bias while continuing as if it were a lone voice I quoted and ignoring the list of other Korea analysts. You complained about a single individual being used and so I supplied more, yet you continue to focus on one person as if the rest were never posted. Why?

Once more for the record as well, I did not say it was all Koreans, you know that so stop repeating what is to be blunt an utter lie.
 
Last edited:
the general opinion of Koreans
When was it ever presented as that by anyone other than you?

"Live, work and analyze Korea." You even addressed that wording early in your picking at it, but it's now devolved into "Koreans"?

Moreover, while the initial statement was admittedly a bit of a reach due to its ambiguity, he provided some clarification and, because you still didn't like the opinion cited, you refused to accept the amendment, sticking with the initial statement, and continually having to assert that you're responding to the initial statement when everyone else has moved on to a point after the amendment.

I say this, aware that you know full well the events that led to this point, because I think it needs to be said.
 
When was it ever presented as that by anyone other than you?

"Live, work and analyze Korea." You even addressed that wording early in your picking at it, but it's now devolved into "Koreans"?

Moreover, while the initial statement was admittedly a bit of a reach due to its ambiguity, he provided some clarification and, because you still didn't like the opinion cited, you refused to accept the amendment, sticking with the initial statement, and continually having to assert that you're responding to the initial statement when everyone else has moved on to a point after the amendment.

I say this, aware that you know full well the events that led to this point, because I think it needs to be said.
The sad thing is that I can be reasonably sure that the additional sources I cited haven't actually been read, as had they been it would have shown that one of the eleven Brookings analysts, while still with concerns, was more optimistic than the other ten (I personally thought a day would be enough to read it and spot it - but I guess not).

Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow in the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and Director of Research for Foreign Policy: I am a little happier than some of my colleagues with the outcome in Singapore—perhaps because I am still recovering from the anxiety I felt in 2017 over an all-too-real risk of war, and would take even a flawed diplomatic process over that mutual brinkmanship any day. Also, I have written for a year now, sometimes with Bob Einhorn, that the large-scale U.S.-South Korean exercises President Trump has just decided to suspend are not crucial to alliance preparedness (not sure I’d have called them “provocative,” however!). And I don’t see a photo op with an American president as such a huge concession or gift on our part, either. (I’d even be willing to support signing a peace treaty fairly soon.)

Of course, this hopeful viewpoint is only sustainable if North Korea’s behavior improves. The DPRK’s moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is a start. But they are still enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium and building bombs, as well as longer-range rockets, as best we can tell. So I share my colleagues’ view that it’s too early to do victory dances in the end-zone over a vague promise of denuclearization. Thus, it is also too early to ease up on sanctions enforcement (and it is way too early to ease up on alliance military capabilities).

As such rather than crying bias whenever people don't agree, actually reading sources (as @Johnnypenso doesn't seem to have done) would have shown that claim to not be as robust as he seems to think (still putting aside the rather sizable irony of such a claim).
 
Indeed it is, as the article says it will need independent verification of the complete shuttering of the test site.

The skeptic in me does note that a test site for a missile that's already finished, while a potential step, is not a big one.

Edited to add, seem's skeptical might be the required mood. The test site in question was used for the 12 and 14 variants of the Hwasong missile. NK's most recent Missile (the 15 varient - which has a larger payload and longer range) used a new launch site just outside Pyongyang.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/

So they have agreed to decommission a test/launch site used for a past generation of missiles, and not the one that's been used for the current generation (and the ones that could actually reach the US).

Its a smaller step that it seems, but its a step, not one I would argue that was worth throwing SK under the bus for.

Does seem Trump really likes NK however...

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...v-airs-footage-of-trump-saluting-north-korean

...I'm not sure what the reaction from many quarters would have been had Obama done the same, but I'm going to guess that Fox news may have a positive spin for this one.
 
Last edited:
Indeed it is, as the article says it will need independent verification of the complete shuttering of the test site.

The skeptic in me does note that a test site for a missile that's already finished, while a potential step, is not a big one.

Edited to add, seem's skeptical might be the required mood. The test site in question was used for the 12 and 14 variants of the Hwasong missile. NK's most recent Missile (the 15 varient - which has a larger payload and longer range) used a new launch site just outside Pyongyang.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/12/the-hwasong-15-the-anatomy-of-north-koreas-new-icbm/

So they have agreed to decommission a test/launch site used for a past generation of missiles, and not the one that's been used for the current generation (and the ones that could actually reach the US).

Its a smaller step that it seems, but its a step, not one I would argue that was worth throwing SK under the bus for.

Does seem Trump really likes NK however...

http://thehill.com/policy/internati...v-airs-footage-of-trump-saluting-north-korean

...I'm not sure what the reaction from many quarters would have been had Obama done the same, but I'm going to guess that Fox news may have a positive spin for this one.

The salute is consistent with the whole tone... which was one of respect. Does NK deserve respect? Absolutely not. If a little puffery takes the rhetoric from who can launch nukes the fastest to how can we do each other favors, I'm fine with a little puffery. I'm not even worried about other nations pursuing nukes out of a misguided notion that American suddenly respects you once you have nukes. Because no other nation wants to be NK, what they went through to get nukes, only to be told to dismantle (nicely) in exchange for a temporary pause of military drills is pretty horrible. I doubt even NK would want to follow their own footsteps if they knew from the beginning what it would look like.

I still don't see how we threw SC under the bus.

Edit:

I commented on here (GTPlanet) earlier about how Putin (and Jinping eventually) has an advantage of decades of foreign policy experience over whoever the sitting US president is, who has AT MOST 7 years of foreign policy experience as president. Trump was super green on the world stage at first, and he seems slightly less green (though still very green) now.

....but one advantage the US has by replacing the president every 4-8 years, is that one president can go make nice with NK, and the next one can come down hard, and it's not even really considered all that inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
The salute is consistent with the whole tone... which was one of respect. Does NK deserve respect? Absolutely not. If a little puffery takes the rhetoric from who can launch nukes the fastest to how can we do each other favors, I'm fine with a little puffery. I'm not even worried about other nations pursuing nukes out of a misguided notion that American suddenly respects you once you have nukes. Because no other nation wants to be NK, what they went through to get nukes, only to be told to dismantle (nicely) in exchange for a temporary pause of military drills is pretty horrible. I doubt even NK would want to follow their own footsteps if they knew from the beginning what it would look like.

I still don't see how we threw SC under the bus.

Edit:

I commented on here (GTPlanet) earlier about how Putin (and Jinping eventually) has an advantage of decades of foreign policy experience over whoever the sitting US president is, who has AT MOST 7 years of foreign policy experience as president. Trump was super green on the world stage at first, and he seems slightly less green (though still very green) now.

....but one advantage the US has by replacing the president every 4-8 years, is that one president can go make nice with NK, and the next one can come down hard, and it's not even really considered all that inconsistent.
I think the people who run NK would do it again in a heartbeat, the population at large is a different matter.

How we threw SK under the bus?

Let's be honest a large amount of what has happened in terms of NK agreement has come from SK, the reward for which was the end of military exercises and a threat to remove US forces, none of which had been discussed it agreed with SK before being thrown into the mix. Topped off with a nice trade threat as well.
 
Let's be honest a large amount of what has happened in terms of NK agreement has come from SK, the reward for which was the end of military exercises and a threat to remove US forces, none of which had been discussed it agreed with SK before being thrown into the mix. Topped off with a nice trade threat as well.

What's the trade and removal of forces "threat"?

The end of military exercises (for now), seems like something that is certainly within the US's control, and I'm not so sure why SK cares.

Edit:

Ok, I found the "threat to remove US forces" which was trump saying that forces will absolutely stay, and it wasn't discussed or negotiated with NK. But he commented that at some point in the future he would like to see it draw down, not as part of negotiations with NK. So, I'm not sure what the issue there is either.

Lemme see if i can find the trade thing...
 
Last edited:
What's the trade and removal of forces "threat"?

The end of military exercises (for now), seems like something that is certainly within the US's control, and I'm not so sure why SK cares.

Edit:

Ok, I found the "threat to remove US forces" which was trump saying that forces will absolutely stay, and it wasn't discussed or negotiated with NK. But he commented that at some point in the future he would like to see it draw down, not as part of negotiations with NK. So, I'm not sure what the issue there is either.

Lemme see if i can find the trade thing...
You're not sure why SK would care about the principal deterrent against NK aggression and potential invasion being removed or reduced?
 
You're not sure why SK would care about the principal deterrent against NK aggression and potential invasion being removed or reduced?

No, I'm not sure why SK cares about stopping military exercises.
 
No, I'm not sure why SK cares about stopping military exercises.
Because they have acted as a visible sign of the backing they have from the US and the state of readiness should NK ever invade.

They act as a sign of the long standing partnership between the two countries and that the US stands with SK against NK aggression.

It's been NK policy to unite the peninsula since day one, and they have never given any indication of wanting to do that via puppies and kittens.

It's odd but SK for some reason worries about an overtly aggressive nuclear state with one of the largest standing armies in earth and artillery in range of it capital.

Can't think for a second why being able to show a joint force on a regular basis with the US would be useful at all.

Possiably for the same reason NK has wanted an end to them and US forces gone. Ditto from China.

Call me cynical, but I don't see NK playing fairly on the peninsula should that happen, particularly if disarmament has not been carried out fully.

I honestly of late feel like I've slipped into some parallel dimension in which NK is actually some misunderstood victim, rather than the most dictatorial country on the planet, with a human rights record that is on track to be one of the worse the planet has ever seen.
 
Because they have acted as a visible sign of the backing they have from the US and the state of readiness should NK ever invade.

They act as a sign of the long standing partnership between the two countries and that the US stands with SK against NK aggression.

It's been NK policy to unite the peninsula since day one, and they have never given any indication of wanting to do that via puppies and kittens.

It's odd but SK for some reason worries about an overtly aggressive nuclear state with one of the largest standing armies in earth and artillery in range of it capital.

Can't think for a second why being able to show a joint force on a regular basis with the US would be useful at all.

Possiably for the same reason NK has wanted an end to them and US forces gone. Ditto from China.

Call me cynical, but I don't see NK playing fairly on the peninsula should that happen, particularly if disarmament has not been carried out fully.

I honestly of late feel like I've slipped into some parallel dimension in which NK is actually some misunderstood victim, rather than the most dictatorial country on the planet, with a human rights record that is on track to be one of the worse the planet has ever seen.


I don't think anyone likes NK all of the sudden (even trump). But stopping military exercises temporarily until we have an excuse to start them again is just sending signals to NK. Starting them again is suddenly a bargaining chip, instead of business as usual. We're not pulling troops out, we're not pulling technology or firepower out, we're just not conducting drills... for as long as NK plays ball. I don't get the outrage.
 
I don't think anyone likes NK all of the sudden (even trump). But stopping military exercises temporarily until we have an excuse to start them again is just sending signals to NK. Starting them again is suddenly a bargaining chip, instead of business as usual. We're not pulling troops out, we're not pulling technology or firepower out, we're just not conducting drills... for as long as NK plays ball. I don't get the outrage.
It tends not to if you bother to discuss and agree it beforehand with your allies and own military.
 
I don't think anyone likes NK all of the sudden (even trump). But stopping military exercises temporarily until we have an excuse to start them again is just sending signals to NK. Starting them again is suddenly a bargaining chip, instead of business as usual. We're not pulling troops out, we're not pulling technology or firepower out, we're just not conducting drills... for as long as NK plays ball. I don't get the outrage.

For me, the issue isn't really that we stopped the exercises (as you point out, we'll still have troops and infrastructure there) so much as he apparently didn't let South Korea, or even our own military know ahead of time. Trump's continued refusal to ever consult anybody, to ask for advice, to take advantage of the vast amount of knowledge, expertise, and experience available to him, or to inform allies of things they need to know is childish and irresponsible.
 
Trump's continued refusal to ever consult anybody, to ask for advice, to take advantage of the vast amount of knowledge, expertise, and experience available to him, or to inform allies of things they need to know is childish and irresponsible.

I think that's a very fair criticism. I think Kim Kardashian was unavailable for the meeting though.
 
Its quite interesting that after all that happened with the singapore conference, Donald Trump will be in my town (duluth) doing a rally Wednesday. Asking price i imagine is not cheap, i think ill bike around and check out the secret service detail. Hopefully they dont shoot. :sly:He's trying to get the iron range worker's union people to vote Republican (most counties in mn are gop held at the moment) just my city and the minneapolis/st. Paul metro keep mn voting on the democrat presidential ticket.

To be honest the union guys (and gals) are your prototypical gop types: hardish workers, rural and home/ property owners, they hate gays, lesbians trans, etc, and they hate a bad deal hence being paid the maximum for their effort and the local labor unions have had dfl(democrat) support for generations. Trump gives the kind of ticket they want though as hes a competitive socialist and with all the social conservative positions they like too. Surely trump wont win minnesota in 2020 but hey, stranger things have happened. :sly:
 
Trump's continued refusal to ever consult anybody, to ask for advice, to take advantage of the vast amount of knowledge, expertise, and experience available to him, or to inform allies of things they need to know is childish and irresponsible.

He took the advice of foreign policy expert, Dennis Rodman.

For me, the issue isn't really that we stopped the exercises (as you point out, we'll still have troops and infrastructure there) so much as he apparently didn't let South Korea, or even our own military know ahead of time.

That really didn't bug me. They found it. They'll adjust. It's not like it will hurt relations at all; I think Moon loves the Trump administration and will continue to love the Trump administration barring something catastrophic.
 
You're not sure why SK would care about the principal deterrent against NK aggression and potential invasion being removed or reduced?
Not to sound like an alt right isolationist Trump supporter, but I would think the principal deterrent against North Korea's aggression and potential invasion would be the theoretically seventh most powerful military in the world that would remain on the peninsula camped primarily around the border even if The Donald had pledged the US would remove all forces entirely literally tomorrow without bothering to tell South Korea or Pentagon advance.



Just like it was before North Korea managed to make a ICBM that did something other than fly into its own cities.
 
Last edited:
Not to sound like an alt right isolationist Trump supporter, but I would think the principal deterrent against North Korea's aggression and potential invasion would be the seventh most powerful military in the world that would remain on the peninsula camped primarily around the border even if The Donald had pledged the US would remove all forces entirely literally tomorrow.
Which one of those has the nukes again? How many times has NATO/UN/US intervened directly when a nuclear state has chosen to annex a neighbor? The USSR/Russia has done so a number of times and no direct military assistance has ever been given, only covert support after the fact. However no NATO member or country with NATO/US forces based on them has suffered the same fate.

It makes for a bug difference having those weapons or being part of the club that has them combined with mutual assistance.

Don't underestimate how much such a shift plays into China's ambitions in the region, they would love US forces gone, and I'm sure it's only for cuddly benign reasons.

Quite a difference exists in numbers between the two forces, and the north has Seoul within artillery range. Now if NK made a play and China backed it, then it's a totally different game.
 
Which one of those has the nukes again? How many times has NATO/UN/US intervened directly when a nuclear state has chosen to annex a neighbor? The USSR/Russia has done so a number of times and no direct military assistance has ever been given, only covert support after the fact.
South Korea isn't Afghanistan. South Korea isn't Chechnya. South Korea isn't Crimea.
North Korea is also a far cry even from Russia, nevermind the Soviet Union.



Though it's an odd point to raise anyway. The US would only support South Korea from. North Korean invasion if they had bases there?

However no NATO member or country with NATO/US forces based on them has suffered the same fate.
America, **** yeah!


Good thing we invaded all of those Middle Eastern countries and set up shop, too.

It makes for a bug difference having those weapons or being part of the club that has them combined with mutual assistance.
South Korea would have mutual assistance even if there were no US forces stationed there.

Don't underestimate how much such a shift plays into China's ambitions in the region, they would love US forces gone, and I'm sure it's only for cuddly benign reasons.
And I'm sure it would be trivial for a country with dozens of aircraft carriers and physical military presence in multiple surrounding areas to go into the peninsula to provide direct support to South Korea, if North Korea actually invaded, even if Trump had promised to pull out entirely. Which he didn't do, since all he did was say that joint exercises are suspended.

Quite a difference exists in numbers between the two forces,
As much as Starcraft is loved in the region, I'm skeptical Zerg Rush is a particularly viable military tactic.

and the north has Seoul within artillery range.
That has pretty much always been true. Including before North Korea got a missile that could hit something other than their own cities, when the US wasn't terribly bothered.


Now if NK made a play and China backed it, then it's a totally different game.
Fantastic. I'd love a Team America sequel.
 
Last edited:
Back