This morning, about an hour ago, Trump tweeted, cautiously:
After a furious year of missile launches and Nuclear testing, a historic meeting between North and South Korea is now taking place. Good things are happening, but only time will tell!14 minutes later, he came back, with Trumpian grandiosity:
KOREAN WAR TO END! The United States, and all of its GREAT people, should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!ADDED: Tis is really so cool, Kim Jong-Un stepping across the border and shaking hands with Moon Jae-in:
There are also stunning shots of the 2 men walking along a red carpet lined with guards in traditional Korean dress. It's impossible for me to imagine the impact of the traditional dress on Koreans, but I find it tremendously moving.
Posts
169 comments:
Winning. I'm not getting tired of it.
You can put an end to confrontation, but not the history of same.
Maybe now the Dems and Mueller will stop their jihad against Trump and concede he won the race.
Nah.
It will be 10 years before we know the truth behind this. But in the meantime, I prefer words over missiles.
Man, unlike AllenS I'm so damn tired of WINNING!
-sw
AllenS said...
Winning. I'm not getting tired of it.
4/27/18, 6:40 AM
Me neither!!!
President Hillary would have already caved to Little Rocket Man by now.
But what about Stormy?
The meeting is certainly historically important, and we should never discount future progress. But the obstacles remain enormous. And recall, part of North Korea's longer term strategy here is to try to create a wedge between the South and the USA. The Olympics were a part of that strategy. And the North's real prize, what they really mean by "denuclearization" of the peninsula is also the removal of US military forces, and our mutual defense treaty with the South.
This merits page 14 or maybe page 10 in the NYT, WAPO and the other MSM papers.
Removal of us military forces is a feature, not a problem. As to the end of a security treaty, only a democrat potus would do that I expect. But even that I see as a very, very improbable outcome.
This is not good. We need to undo the election. Install Hilary. Let her start a few more wars. This peace talk stuff cannot end well.
So Trump will get a Peace Prize now, right? Right?
All we are saying is: give peace a chance.
And it seems that Donald Trump has done that - given it a chance.
Imagine there's no border ... between North and South Korea.
This President of the United States of America should get the Nobel Peace Prize just for getting the Koreas this close. It's up to them to close the deal.
With the NORK history, every thing they say is in question.
Trust but verify doesn't come close to the needed level of skepticism level required.
This is Lucy and the football stuff
MAGA "Trust but verify"
And BH0 got a Nobel for what exactly?
Too soon to tell whether this is real or not. While I certainly hope this is real, my study of history taught me to be wary of dictators promises of peace.
Trump, next year's winner of the Nobel Prize for literature.
NK has a mountain leaking nuclear fallout.
The lefties on the news this morning are about to cry.
Cue the cheerleaders.
Meanwhile back at home starving North Koreans are less concerned with peace and more with where the next meal will come from.
And Xi thinks that went well.
As rhhardin stated above, they can't test anymore anyway. I'm sure China warned him that any further testing would not be acceptable with the danger of a total mountain collapse spreading fallout over the border. Having said that, previous US policy would have resulted in Un playing for time and bargaining for money and reduced sanctions while they set up a new test site, as happened with Clinton, Bush and Obama. Trump escalating sanctions and pressure took that option off the table. Un is now saving face by pretending he wants to denuclearize when he really was left with no choice, hence the pivot to peace as his legacy.
Are we really looking at Trump, Un, and Moon Jae I co winning a Nobel?
We still have the upper hand. Hope we use it better than O with Iran.
Even in NK, brutal repression and isolation are getting harder to maintain.
I wonder what else happened yesterday? Hmm, we did swear in a new Secretary of State, Hmmm
Of course, I'm not saying about NK what the lefties said after the USSR collapse: that everyone knew it couldn't last, that Gorby served the credit, that Reagan had nothing to do with it.
No. If the NK breakthrough is real, Trump forced it.
Peace between the Koreas??? Isn't Obama incredible!!!! What a man!!! He is my god, he should be yours too!!!
Kim got orders from Xi.
I think this is genuine, NK has been in "play ball" mode before, but it put on arrogant airs and was its usual point-shaving self in negotiations even when seeming a bit more friendly. All accounts from this however in Asian sources, including China, seem to indicate genuine humility.
History never ends and who knows what the next turn in the soap opera will be. But the further orders from China, per Xi's speech of March 28, is to open the NK economy, I presume in the Chinese manner. And that would require permitting large-scale foreign investment, the bulk presumably from SK and China.
As for credit for Trump - one of the finest foreign policy performances of any American administration was that of GHW Bush in winding up the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The mainly-peaceful end of the Eastern European commie puppets, Soviet forces disbandment, nuke removal, German unification, etc. and etc.
But he didn't get re-elected. The American people aren't usually inclined to reward achievement of that sort.
If North Korea becomes an open and free society, Kim will be an Incel.
Don't tell him that though.
Morning Joe is doing a deep dive into reading the true intent of the President's mind re the SDNY, aided by Donny Douche.
Nick Eberstadt is skeptical: "But it is not merely unrealistic to hope that Kim Jong-un, the leader of the North, will offer the South real and lasting peace; it is delusional . . . If the past is any guide, the North will offer the South unenforceable verbiage. And if the South accepts a phony peace ploy, it will expose itself to more manipulation by the government in Pyongyang — not only in its domestic politics, but potentially also in its alliance with the United States."
OK, yes. I understand. Normally, I'd agree. If the past is any guide. But even change short of "real and lasting peace" could be good.
On a related matter, a "bus crash" in North Korea this Sunday of a Chinese tour group affiliated with a Maoist institute and among the dead is Diao Weiming, a prominent Maoist ideologist, well connected with the Xi faction it seems.
Accident, or is there some NK faction pushing back against Chinese pressure? Is NK leadership all on board with all this?
History never ends.
The Nobel belongs to DJT.
Temperatures have dropped .56 C over the past two years.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a subjective award, given by a committee of people. I bet no one commenting here knows who they are or, really, anything about them. I certainly don't. The Nobel Peace Prize is massively over prestiged.
GHW Bush didn't get a Nobel prize. Gorbachev did. But compared to the lot that has gotten them, both Reagan and Bush deserved one.
Quite a few of the principals in actually making peace, achieving peaceful resolutions of bad situations, haven't either.
Both China and SK have been very worried about a flood of NK refugees starving and having to feed and clothe them.
The next step will tell the tale.
This is "winning" for Trump, in the same way that it would be "winning" for a player on your favorite team to send out on Twitter a very cleverly-phrased bit of trashtalk against the opposing team, two weeks before the big game.
Who had the "8:45 - 9:00" slot in the "How long will it take Chuck to try to turn this into a negative about President Trump" pool?
I bet the European elite give Kim Jung-Un a Nobel Peace Prize and not Trump. That’s about how smart those suckers are.
If Trump is able to tear up and throw away Obama's hideous appeasement of Iranian psychopaths on top of facilitating Peace between North and South Korea, he will have achieved more in 2 years than the two major Parties have achieved in decades.
Chuck can't accept the possibility that Trump's bellicose rhetoric (backed by a SecDef with balls) might've pressured China into jerking North Korea's chain. China could see several possible outcomes, most of them unfavorable to their interests.
exhelodrvr1 said...
Who had the "8:45 - 9:00" slot in the "How long will it take Chuck to try to turn this into a negative about President Trump" pool?
The time that it took commenters -- the first commenter -- to turn this into a pro-Trump "winning" narrative, appears to have been less than four minutes.
But that may not be entirely fair to the Althouse commentariat. Althouse was steering the post that way from the inception. There was no real effort required, to turn this into a pro-Trump bit of Nork-style propaganda.
Larry J said...
Chuck can't accept the possibility that Trump's bellicose rhetoric (backed by a SecDef with balls) might've pressured China into jerking North Korea's chain. China could see several possible outcomes, most of them unfavorable to their interests.
I could very easily accept that, if we had any more evidence to support it, apart from Trump's own Tweets and "Hannity!"
Trump did personally kick off the pressure-campaign vs NK even prior to taking office, including negotiations with Xi.
This whole thing was Trumps doing, however it turns out.
I do not consider it impossible that Kim Jung Un actually wants peace. This, after I thought peace in Korea in my lifetime wasn't possible.
Also, I couldn't care less about the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is moving for a people to reach back into their culture to find something of meaning at important times. But in the U.S., that would be criticized as white supremacy. No one ever says Korea needs more diversity.
I'm struck once again by Kim's fashionable hair cut. Did he start the fad or copy it?
Kim has very short arms. He would lose in an all-out arms race.
Kim Jong Un was born riding a tiger. His father and grandfather created that tiger, the Kim-cult and autocratic rule, to stay in power. Post-1991 when they lost the Soviet subsidies the Kim clan had a choice, to pursue a Chinese economic solution, risking their control, or to continue in their hostile hermit-kingdom role and make a go of it economically as a blackmailer.
They chose blackmail, and it escalated year after year.
Also, please just ignore Chuck. Let him howl into the wind.
Fun fact, Nicholas Eberstadt is the grandson of poet Ogden Nash. It may be useful to listen to him, but I'd be wary. He's like the expert Russian analysts who completely failed to anticipate or understand the end of the USSR.
I've got a feeling that most U.S. Presidents would have inserted themselves into the middle of that.
"So Trump will get a Peace Prize now, right? Right?"
Why do you assume this has anything to do with Trump?
Beautifully choreographed, the symbolic of a shared heritage that is a poke both at Japan and China was nicely done. A part of China is full of ethnic Koreans and was part of a Korean kingdom. Korean soap operas of their feudal period are very popular throughout Asia.
Re the uniforms, these are South Korean soldiers. Its a South Korean thing, the worship of the Joeson monarchy and its culture. Theres a huge historical nostalgia in South Korea, a lot of their media is into historical epics.
I recommend "The Admiral", Kim Han-min, 2014
Its a fine example.
I could very easily accept that, if we had any more evidence to support it, apart from Trump's own Tweets and "Hannity!"
Doubtful.
If you want, you can watch the Christian Amanpour (CNN) interview with the S. Korean foreign minister, in which she is explicit in giving Trump credit. Certainly there is a way to discredit that too.
"If Trump is able to tear up and throw away Obama's hideous appeasement of Iranian psychopaths on top of facilitating Peace between North and South Korea, he will have achieved more in 2 years than the two major Parties have achieved in decades."
Why are the leaders of Iran psychopaths? Judged by our comparative actions in the world, America's government is vastly more psychopathic than Iran. Is is certainly better that we have an agreement with Iran than not.
And, what makes you think Trump has done anything to facilitate the potential rapprochement of the two Koreas?
Blind with hatred Chuck said...“The time that it took commenters -- the first commenter -- to turn this into a pro-Trump "winning" narrative, appears to have been less than four minutes.”
This IS Trump winning.
Robert Cook, Trump has been facilitating this rapproachment since before his Inauguration. Carrot and stick were replaced by just stick, and voila!, it actually worked. Who'd have thought that cutting checks to despotic regimes wasn't a long term solution? As for the psychopathy of Obama's Iranian allies, I refer you to all of modern history.
Why isn't it because of Trump, Cookie?
Or Because 'lil Kims have always banged on their high chairs for US attention.
If on the North Korean people were in the shape of their leader.....they'd be better off.
I read an article recently that the young might not feel the need for this reunion as strongly as their elders. They paid attention to German reunification and don't want those mistakes to happen.
I think they should let their elders go home to visit.
Look at the map of the Korean Island at night. That's what people need to know. And the physical stats (height/weight) of the Korean people before the war and now. There's a huge difference.
Socialism kills, free markets feed.
Trump provoked NK into acting out in an extremity of saber-rattling, threatening everyone in the region as never before. This failed. The NK bluff was called, and it seems the Chinese especially had had enough.
If you followed the events of 2017 in the region it should seem clear. The problem in the US is the news has not really paid much attention to the world recently.
Cue up the Palestinian issue and Iran.
I guess it's time to watch Team America again!
The attempt in the thread to detail it with tds has become a joke, and I just roll my eye when I read those type comments. What sad is both commenters in this thread have shown they can do much better. This includes both a left and LLR commenter.
Reality is Trump is the reason this happened. He has applied multiple forms of pressure on NK and China. I would have never expected Trump to achieve this. Trump has an excellent foreign policy team that is resetting us foreign policy from the Obama and even prior Administrations.
Excellent article / background:
http://observer.com/2018/03/how-donald-trump-got-north-korea-open-to-giving-up-its-nuclear-weapons/
Is Dennis Rodman out of a job now?
No he is our next ambassador to North Korea.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is in S. Africa propping up the new "kill whitey" regime.
Paint me skeptical. Crazy Commies don't get sane in one day.
New presidents are tested by our various enemies. Or just expect every 4-8 years saber rattling.
Weren't the North Koreans getting the British or the Japanese involved by asking how do we deal with him?
Now they know, the Art of the Deal.
I think Macron got the P&C early in the week to help with Iran while Frauhaus gets ???? today and Trump has a lookie what I did while she's been scrabbling to put together a coalition back home and trying to meet with him here.
So basically, the NK strategy worked. Shoot off missiles, work on Nuclear weapons, then get a big pay day.
I assume the $$$ will be coming soon.
This is such good news. Trump was a factor, but so were the Winter Olympics in Seoul.
The world should step back and let the two Koreas do their thing. And Trump should stfu, this is not his victory to own.
The NKs have been offered great rewards before, almost from the day the Russians stopped their support. But that year they decided to starve instead.
The sticking point is they wanted money on their terms, to maintain their economy and regime as it was. The Chinese just told them they couldn't have their cake and eat it too.
I'm right with you, RCocean.
The South Korean president is salivating for this on his tombstone. Is he willing to sell his people down the river to China for peace or has he been paying attention to their tentacles?
The winter Olympics was PR over negotiations on surrender.
Effectively.
Do not mistake the bunting and flowers for the substance.
"Paint me skeptical. Crazy Commies don't get sane in one day."
That's really hash.
Robert Cook will figure it out someday.
It's not working out so well for Hong Kong anymore or that journalist who fell afoul of their social cohesion policy.
Blogger Chuck said...
This is "winning" for Trump, in the same way that it would be "winning" for a player on your favorite team to send out on Twitter a very cleverly-phrased bit of trashtalk against the opposing team, two weeks before the big game.
4/27/18, 8:47 AM
Chuck, I don't know how the Korean War affected you or your family, but it was a big deal in mine. If it is finally put to rest, it should be possible to be happy that a major threat to world peace is resolved. It seems important to you to believe that Trump has nothing to do with yesterday's events. Listen, I don't like the guy either. My posts during the election reflect that. But at some point, a man needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what the hell is wrong with you?"
The usual suspects will not give the God Emperor his due but the major players get it.
That is why the French homo brought his shine box and the wrinkled old German bitch is coming hat in hand. She was all tough when the God Emperor was elected and lectured and hectored him like a schoolboy. Now she has to Harvey Weinstein him to avoid 50% tariffs on her Nazi cars.
The haters are going to have to explain how Korean unification, the overthrow of the Mullahs in Iran and the destruction of ISIS has nothing to do with the policies of the God Emperor.
Buwaya aptly observes: The problem in the US is the news has not really paid much attention to the world recently.
You've noticed that, too? One reason I read [or at least scan] multiple foreign news sources is the dearth of world news in the US media.
Eventually the SK's will have to become a Chinese client-state, as Korea has been for most of its history.
Its only way to avoid this, long term, is for the US to guarantee its independence, a powerful but distant hegemon to counter the powerful but oppressively close hegemon.
But the US is not going to be able to guarantee the independence of its clients much longer.
"Now she has to Harvey Weinstein him to avoid 50% tariffs on her Nazi cars."
Thanks for the laugh.
Check out what the sanctions we just put on Iran is doing to the currency exchange. The Iranians can not get dollars so they can't do business. The explosion of the oil supply due to new pipelines, drilling and fracking are destroying their purchasing power and leverage.
The mullahs are going down just like Rocket Man. It is only a matter of time.
Chuck, I don't know how the Korean War affected you or your family, but it was a big deal in mine. If it is finally put to rest, it should be possible to be happy that a major threat to world peace is resolved. It seems important to you to believe that Trump has nothing to do with yesterday's events. Listen, I don't like the guy either. My posts during the election reflect that. But at some point, a man needs to look in the mirror and ask himself "what the hell is wrong with you?"
I never once suggested that substantively, it would not be a great thing to have hostilities resolved on the Korean Peninsula. Resolving a major threat to world peace would be very good indeed.
I didn't suggest that Trump has nothing to do with developments. But I also didn't suggest that we are as yet "winning" anything. The Trumpkins made that pronouncement.
Go back to my comment as you highlighted it. I like it even more, now that you have criticized it. When a guy on your team trashtalks the opposition on Twitter, it doesn't mean that your side is going to lose the game, or that the game shouldn't be played. Or that the game won't be played. It only means that trashtalk on Twitter represents nothing, and it doesn't predict the outcome. Trashtalk on Twitter is only "winning" for the hiveminded fans on that side. On the other side, and for non-partisans, the reaction is, "that guy is an asshole."
It will be a mystery to the Chucks and Robert Cooks of the world when all these good things happen and there is no one to credit for it.
Although I bet Chuck will credit Obama.
Unexpectedly.
I agree with Farmer when he says that there is still a ways to go, and that obstacles remain. I think anyone who doesn't credit Trump and his rhetoric for getting North Korea this far must have mixed fentanyl in with their weed. I'm looking at you, Cookie.
Chuck thinks he's being clever. Chuck likes to criticize us for defending Donald Trump. Well, I voted against Hillary much more than I voted for Trump, but I think he's well worth defending against the Chucks of the world and the DNC and the shadowy billionaire donors to the Democrat party and other extreme left-wing causes: he makes good things happen.
Funny how so many good things have taken place since President Trump took office: It's not just Korea, India and China are talking about resolving their differences: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-india/indias-modi-invites-chinas-xi-for-an-informal-summit-in-2019-idUSKBN1HY0LI
The deal is done. We will now see a carefully scripted Kabuki where Kim and the regime will be praised as saviors of humanity, good fellows all around. It's the booby prize.
”But I also didn't suggest that we are as yet "winning" anything.”
Gee, this all could come a cropper? Thanks for pointing that out, Chuck.
@Chuck - I don't have a "team". I don't like any of our political parties.
I remain skeptical but oh man, if this actually happens? Outstanding.
It only means that trashtalk on Twitter represents nothing, and it doesn't predict the outcome. Trashtalk on Twitter is only "winning" for the hiveminded fans on that side. On the other side, and for non-partisans, the reaction is, "that guy is an asshole."
To Americans.
Unless you're a confidant of Lil Kim, how do you know what that meant to him and his entourage?
It could partially be because of or in spite of.
But it could have thrown "the world" off their game.
And there they are. A snapshot of history in the making even if it's stepping over concrete from one side to the other.
Sometime assholism works.
The problem is sometimes clarity could be assholism for some.
And, right on cue:
"Why do you assume this has anything to do with Trump?"
If it all works out, that's what the left will be left with, a generation of whining like they did with Reagan.
I'm old enuf to have watched M*A*S*H. I remember an episode where there was news/movement on the Korean talks.
They had agreed to the height of the table or some such nonsense because if you give in to your negotiator, you've already lost.
Flash forward to Reagan/Gorbie summit.
My dad told me he would have up handled it this way. Let them set it up.
Once they presented their demands, read them, stand up, walk over to Gorbie, lead down and say, "No." Then walk out.
It's like call me when you're serious.
Different strokes and don't get me wrong I love all the strokes Trump's been giving, but being an asshole might have worked. It's got Iran banging on its high chair.
And it seems driving up the $ exchange rate because their citizens fear more sanctions.
I'll go even farther than my 10:33 comment. Anyone who thinks North Korea would have come this far if Hillary Clinton were president must have mixed fentanyl in their weed.
China's playing a century or more long game.
This could also be a trade issue bone.
Don't forget coming off of "leading from behind" and "resets"
Takes adjustment.
"It will be a mystery to the Chucks and Robert Cooks of the world when all these good things happen and there is no one to credit for it."
Only a mystery if one always assumes America is solely responsible for the good things that happen in the world. I'm not so childish as to believe that.
"As for the psychopathy of Obama's Iranian allies, I refer you to all of modern history."
Some details, please.
"Whatever you do, don't mention Donald J. Trump"--instructions to CNN reporters and writers covering this.
The Iranian government has maintained what one can only describe as counterproductive policies since 1980.
It has a highly controlled economy with little scope for entrepreneurial growth, and has concentrated all the capital it can in the clerical elite and the semi-independent IRGC.
Its not even bothered to upgrade its oil facilities or diversify.
And as for its foreign policy - this has been remarkably costly. They have taken a very great deal of pain (albeit borne mainly by the populace, not the masters) in order to stay hostile to pretty much all their neighbors, to some degree or other. There is a strong element of nuttiness in all this.
"Why isn't it because of Trump, Cookie?"
I didn't say it wasn't. I asked why anyone assumes it is?
Sorry, Robert, I a not going to spend my time giving you remedial lessons in History, Current Events or Geopolitics.
Buwaya,
Your description of Iran (@ 11:12 AM) does not reveal a psychopathic government.
And, are they hostile to their neighbors, or are their neighbors hostile to them? Or is it part of a transactional dynamic?
It describes a deeply paranoid government that is fine with keeping its people poor and suffering, if this helps keep their hold on power. This is not unique of course, but it is a matter of degree. If pressed they are not going to count the cost among their people.
As for whether the US can continue to guarantee the independence of South Korea -
Its the small signs that are the most telling. They are taking Stephen Fosters statue down in Pittsburgh. Its his city, and he was buried there. They would, however, like to forget him.
Your culture is dying, you hate yourselves, each other, your own identity, so much it is scary. North Korea never scared me as much as the US does now. This country is daily approaching some ultimate disaster.
Iran is in no way as great a danger to the world as is the US, in its current state.
There are also stunning shots of the 2 men walking along a red carpet lined with guards in traditional Korean dress. It's impossible for me to imagine the impact of the traditional dress on Koreans, but I find it tremendously moving.
I think there's been a resurgence in interest in and affection for Joseon traditions in the past decade or so. At Kyongbokgung (the main palace, in central Seoul), they do a kind of colour-guard ceremony for tourists, and there are statues of Sejong the Great and the Admiral Yi Soonshin along Sejong Boulevard. That said, I don't think this sort of dress was used past the late 19th century. If you look at portraits of late Joseon dynasty officials, they're all in Korean versions of the Windsor uniform, with the gold braid and the epaulets and all that.
The use of that for official purposes strikes me as a bit weird, sort of like when Erdogan decided to dress up some of his guards in Ottoman costumes. The bit I liked the best, actually, was where Kim sort of jokingly invites Moon to step over the threshold onto the North Korean side.
My expectations here are low. I think Moon is a fool, and North Korea is eager to "negotiate" with him because they know he's a pushover, and his starting position is already hugely sympathetic to the North. But the chances of a breakthrough here are not zero. The sanctions seem to be affecting the leadership as well as the peasantry, to some extent, and their nuclear test facility may have become unusable. I also wonder about their supplies of rocket fuel. It sounds like experts think they have the ability to manufacture it domestically (and that under Bush II and Obama we, uh, we just kind of . . didn't pay close attention to the problem of restricting the DPRK's supplies of rocket fuel? That's appalling, but not especially shocking given their track record). The chemical structure seems pretty simple, but manufacture is apparently quite dangerous, so maybe there is some equipment or technical element to the process that is subject to external pressure.
Anyhow, if this actually leads to verifiable denuclearisation in Korea, Trump will be, hands down, the greatest American President since Reagan. If.
Why do you assume this has anything to do with Trump?
Because the Koreans say so.
Balfegor -
I don't think the symbolic conscious reversion to pre-western styles of dress is odd. It may be a sign that the "international" (but really western) style of dress is waning, as others see the West declining. I think it is interesting to ponder.
"Iran is in no way as great a danger to the world as is the US, in its current state."
This is correct.
My Prediction
After the North/South Korea war ending triumph the Trump Administration will go on to solve the Israel - Palestinian problem and the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to former President Obama for the second time.
You will find this "traditional uniform" nostalgia in a lot of places.
Since the 1980s for instance it has been very common to see Philippine soldiers and others, dress in the Spanish-era "rayadillo" uniforms.
The male staff of Fort Santiago, now a museum, and various museums in the walled city are all dressed in "rayadillo", the University of the Philippines ROTC honor guard and flag bearers likewise, as also military honor guards during diplomatic receptions - these complete with pith helmets.
"Whatever you do, don't mention Donald J. Trump"--instructions to CNN reporters and writers covering this."
This morning on CNN it was Chris Cuomo who said that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for a lot less. There is a lot of delusion around here about what actually happens on CNN, as opposed to what Sean Hannity or whoever tells you happens on CNN.
I think I mentioned on here before that I visited the DMZ during a trip to Seoul in 2005. It was incredibly moving and sad. I remember two things most: a gate on a bridge between the two countries festooned on the South Korean side with letters and bits of cloth and ribbon etc. from people who have been separated from friends loved ones on the other side, and the sight of a deer bounding through the small strip of grassy land that is the DMZ. It highlighted the artificial, man made nature of the both literal and figurative divisions.
Snark
Right now, on the CNN website, the largest story, with 5 substories, are about Trump/Russia. There is one box (admittedly near the top, but much smaller) about what is historic news about Korea. No one here has any delusions about what actually happens on CNN. Everyone who flies is forced to watch it.
This is tearing the editorial boards of the NYT and WAPO apart. "Trump gets credit; what price peace." Meanwhile we imagine the headlines of the NYT if these tragic events occurred under Obama's watch. Something on the order of 'VE Day' comes to mind.
SDaly
The main story always has a few substories on the CNN web format, so there's nothing odd about that. The Korean story is the second most prominent on the site at the moment, which you more or less acknowledge. The main story was posted about an hour after the latest update on the Korean story, so the fact that it currently featured is not that surprising, unless you're deliberately looking for things to be annoyed about.
Back in late 2016 I prophetically wrote that if Trump created world peace, the Democrats would be complaining about all the soldiers out of work. Something like that is already going on.
The main story, as it is on every other site I looked at today, was and is Korea.
Quick check, just now:
Fox - "No collusion"
ABC - Golden State Killer
CBS - Cosby
MSNBC - Korea
NPR - Korea
NYT - Korea
Washington Post - Russia report from House Republicans
So, actually, Korea is being covered by the "liberal" media most of all.
Cnn.com top story is about the Russian lawyer who met young Trump.
Sidebar is Korea.
ABC news its on the lower level under the DNA capture of the California killer.
Korea shares emphasis with the name of the new royal baby.
CBS News does have as a top story - "Trump deserves credit for North-South Korea summit, experts say"
NBC top story - "Kim Jong Un offers denuclearization deal, but what's the catch?"
MSNBC - "North, South Korea vow to end war, but is it too early to celebrate?"
A couple of things. One, I think it is frighteningly early to start doing touchdown dances in the end zone or unfurling the Mission Accomplished banners. So far all we have are symbolic gestures. Optimism is called for, but cautious optimism at best.
Two, on the question of what "credit" Trump deserves for this, I think the answer at the moment is unknowable. We cannot possibly hope to know what strategic calculations are driving the North or what other variables they are considering. I think it is a perennial misstep in American foreign policy to always regard something another country has done either because of something we did or failed to do. It is a kind of view of the world in where only the US seems to have real agency, and everything else in the world is simply a reaction to what we are doing.
I've been arguing the North Korea issue with interventionist people for about a year now. It has always been my position that a nuclear North Korea is an undesirable but tolerable and deterrable risk. The typical reaction was that Kim Jong-un was some kind of irrational madman who could not be deterred by normal methods. But if that is true, then how could Trump's Twitter threats compel them to disarm. And if North Korea is that reactive to threats from the US, why would it respond by giving up its one insurance policy against invasion?
In other words, I think it's a complicated matter.
We're probably using different devices to check - not sidebar on CNN for me, doesn't say "but is it too early to celebrate on MSNBC for me, CBS in the time since I've checked in now featuring the Golden State Killer in the main position instead of Cosby, which is a video slot. When you're not looking to pathologize it, it seems to me this is a variety of news organizations doing normal news organization things and rolling stories in and out as the day unfolds. Korea is exciting and hopefully utterly historic as it unfolds in the coming months, but it's not the only thing happening today and not the only thing of interest to readers and viewers. There is not a liberal problem covering the Korea story today, except in the minds of people who for some reason need to find one.
"Back in late 2016 I prophetically wrote that if Trump created world peace, the Democrats would be complaining about all the soldiers out of work. Something like that is already going on."
I think we should put a great many of our soldiers out of work. Apply them and many billions upon billions of War Department Budget dollars to more productive purposes.
BTW, it's not "prophetically" yet.
Re: J. Farmer:
The typical reaction was that Kim Jong-un was some kind of irrational madman who could not be deterred by normal methods. But if that is true, then how could Trump's Twitter threats compel them to disarm.
I agree that if Jong-un were truly mad, then there'd be nothing for it. But he's obviously not. The difference is that Trump's threats are credible. Past presidents' threats simply haven't been.
And if North Korea is that reactive to threats from the US, why would it respond by giving up its one insurance policy against invasion?
That is a puzzle, particularly after what we did in Libya.
It may be that Trump has been able to signal, credibly, a decisive break from our prior foreign policy, i.e. that if you give up your nuclear weapons, we don't care what you do domestically. We won't turn around and start bombing you in support of a bunch of rebels as soon as you give up your nuclear weapons. But even if Trump himself generally shies away from the kind of bombastic moralizing that Obama and Bush II tended to employ, there's people in his administration (especially Haley) who speak in that mode all the time, and the US political establishment still seems to think in that stilted Manichean mode, so I don't know how the administration could credibly signal that.
Have they received security guarantees from China? Why would those be any more credible? The last time Chinese security guarantees actually protected Korea was the Imjin War back in the 16th century, and even then, it didn't keep them from getting invaded by Japan, just beat back the invasion for them.
"Whatever you do, don't mention Donald J. Trump"
I mentioned him once, but I think I got away with it alright.
"That is a puzzle, particularly after what we did in Libya. "
....
"Have they received security guarantees from China? Why would those be any more credible?'
China is I think the key. Trump provoked the NK's to go overboard in counter-signalling with an unprecedentedly manic program of missiles and nuke tests. The Chinese probably figured that enough's enough.
NK simply can't do without China. I suspect the Chinese have kept them on a subsidy teat for a long time now (not a terribly generous one).
Your culture is dying, you hate yourselves, each other, your own identity, so much it is scary. North Korea never scared me as much as the US does now. This country is daily approaching some ultimate disaster.
Buwaya, perhaps your living in California--San Francisco, no less--has allowed your otherwise brilliant mind to warp. Please don't attempt to speak for the US from such a distorted perspective.
BTW, it's not "prophetically" yet.
It’s getting there. It’s getting there.
California is huge, and hugely important.
Add in every major city anywhere - whats upset me today is about Pittsburgh PA, not CA. And you will see this sort of thing everywhere, in schools, community colleges, universities, in deepest "Red" zones.
@Balfegor:
The difference is that Trump's threats are credible. Past presidents' threats simply haven't been.
Bush labeled North Korea part of the "axis of evil" and then invaded and overthrew the first member on that list. That was the second war of his young presidency. Obama pursued a regime change operation in Libya. Between Bush and Obama, they waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
So this notion that past presidents are reluctant to use force to achieve foreign policy goals seems fanciful to me. What has prevented war on the peninsula is not because of any one president's reluctance to use force; it is because of the huge strategic liabilities that such a strike would involve. For one, it could easily pull in China (a fellow nuclear member state). Also, North Korea has enough conventional artillery to cause massive death and destruction to Seoul, which has a population of nearly ten million. Trump made numerous aggressive statements regarding North Korea all throughout August, including the infamous "fire and fury" remark, and the North responded by conducting its sixth (and largest) nuclear test in early September. They also carried out more ballistic missile testing launching over Japan and landing in the Sea of Japan.
It may be that Trump has been able to signal, credibly, a decisive break from our prior foreign policy, i.e. that if you give up your nuclear weapons, we don't care what you do domestically.
I do not consider that break, decisive or otherwise, "from our prior foreign policy." American strategic posture towards a regime has never been significantly related to what it does domestically. In fact, part of our foreign policy is designed around the explicit support for authoritarian regimes who keep the lid on political dissidents. See, for example, the Bahraini response to uprisings in 2011: gunning down protesters.
@mockturtle:
Quoting buwaya:"Your culture is dying, you hate yourselves, each other, your own identity, so much it is scary. North Korea never scared me as much as the US does now. This country is daily approaching some ultimate disaster."
Buwaya, perhaps your living in California--San Francisco, no less--has allowed your otherwise brilliant mind to warp. Please don't attempt to speak for the US from such a distorted perspective.
Though I think buwaya's statement is a bit overwrought, I largely agree with it. The American nation has been systematically dismantled for the last half century. The Anglo-Protestant cultural core that built the nation has been largely destroyed. Look at the amount of attention ethnic strife occupied in our culture. How do you think that will be when the country is even more ethnically diverse?
RE: J. Farmer:
So this notion that past presidents are reluctant to use force to achieve foreign policy goals seems fanciful to me. What has prevented war on the peninsula is not because of any one president's reluctance to use force; it is because of the huge strategic liabilities that such a strike would involve.
Yes, that's why their threats weren't credible -- leave out China entirely, and you still have a situation where the American President has to countenance about a million civilian deaths (artillery bombardment of Seoul, a city larger than New York, followed by humanitarian catastrophe) in the opening hours of a conflict where the risk of damage to American territory is unlikely, and highly uncertain at best. Bush and Obama could not credibly signal a willingness to do that. Trump can, thanks in part to an hysterial media that has built him up as an erratic monster.
Sorry, should have specified a million friendly civilian casualties where the risk to us is minute. I do think that makes a difference. There would probably be a lot more civilian casualties than that in the North, not least that all those people in prison camps would probably starve too.
Buwaya could use a little Texas.
Some cervesas and BBQ.
The rest of the country isn't California. get out and see some of the rest of it.
@Balfegor:
in the opening hours of a conflict where the risk of damage to American territory is unlikely, and highly uncertain at best.
American territory, yes. But 25,000 US service members are stationed on the Korean peninsula and would in immediate danger if hostilities broke out.
Bush and Obama could not credibly signal a willingness to do that. Trump can, thanks in part to an hysterial media that has built him up as an erratic monster.
I don't think it has much to do with an hysterical media. The administration was pretty self-consciously applying the madman strategy popularized under Nixon.
As I said, we will probably never know what combination of US pressure, signaling from the South and from China, and North Korea's domestic concerns resulted in this meeting. Let me put a scenario to you. Imagine if the North Korea offered permanent, verifiable denuclearization in exchange for the removal of US forces from the peninsula and the withdraw of our mutual defense treaty with the ROK. Would you take that deal?
@Rusty:
Buwaya could use a little Texas.
Some cervesas and BBQ.
The rest of the country isn't California. get out and see some of the rest of it.
Demographics are not looking so great for Texas, either. Stay near the Canadian border, where the demographic demise will have the smallest effect.
"Why do you assume this has anything to do with Trump?"
Planting three carriers off their coast and convincing Kim that he was willing to put them to use might have had something to do with it.
in schools, community colleges, universities, in deepest "Red" zones.
There's your answer and I'm glad I might be dead.
Unless someone gets too big for their britches.
Who is going to feed them, Farmer?
China can't.
@Seeing Red:
Who is going to feed them, Farmer?
China can't.
I am not sure what exactly you're asking or what you mean by "China can't," but the amount of grain that the North imported from China tripled in 2017.
@Rabel:
Planting three carriers off their coast and convincing Kim that he was willing to put them to use might have had something to do with it.
Recall that the North Koreans have yet to concede anything of real value. They remain a nuclear power state, and their leader is all over their domestic news being depicted as a major international player, one who will soon hold court with the President of the USA. Pro-regime forces in Pyongyang could be writing "winning" posts of their own. Time will tell.
"Only a mystery if one always assumes America is solely responsible for the good things that happen in the world."
No one here "always" assumes that America is "solely" responsible. We do, however, always recognize weasel words when used to deny the instances when America is primarily responsible for some good things that happen in the world.
At least Farmer says it's "complicated."
Per J. Farmer: Demographics are not looking so great for Texas, either. Stay near the Canadian border, where the demographic demise will have the smallest effect.
Demographics have little, if anything, to do with the moral decline of our country. AZ and TX have always had large Hispanic populations and there seems to be no political or moral divide in the populations at large. WA state, on the Canadian border, from where I moved a year ago, has a large Hispanic population and not only in agricultural areas. The effect is minimal on the long-leftist trends in ideological extremism stemming from the greater Seattle community.
No, the real issue is that the media and other arbiters of power have been leading the country into depravity and division. They do not represent the populace.
"Recall that the North Koreans have yet to concede anything of real value."
The first meeting was this morning. That meeting was in itself a concession of real value unless you chose you disregard the threats and rhetoric of the recent past.
@mockturtle:
Demographics have little, if anything, to do with the moral decline of our country,
I was not speaking of moral decline; I was speaking of cultural decline.
The effect is minimal on the long-leftist trends in ideological extremism stemming from the greater Seattle community.
You should not expect less. Hispanics are much more likely to support concepts such as social gospel and redistribute state policies.
No, the real issue is that the media and other arbiters of power have been leading the country into depravity and division. They do not represent the populace.
Compare the human development index of Latin America with North America. What do you think will happen when a large portion of North America is replaced with Latin Americans? How do you think discussions of inequality will progress when the extremes become even sharper, with whites and East Asians forming a technocratic elite and leaving blacks and Hispanics toiling. You're far more optimistic than I.
@Rabel:
That meeting was in itself a concession of real value..."
I agree that it's a positive first step, but to say it's valuable for any reason other than that it could lead to a second step does not make sense to me. What value does it have beyond that?
"...unless you chose you disregard the threats and rhetoric of the recent past.
I mostly do disregard the threats and rhetoric of the recent past. The so called threats were mostly declarations of the North of their right to pursue nuclear weapons and their promise to strike back if attacked. The North never threatened to unilaterally launch military strikes against the US. And, of course, why would they? North Korea would gain nothing by launching a first strike except total destruction.
@buwaya:
Your culture is dying, you hate yourselves, each other, your own identity, so much it is scary. North Korea never scared me as much as the US does now. This country is daily approaching some ultimate disaster.
The (overly)simple answer as to why the US is more divisive is because it is more diverse.
Point of information to both Balfegor and Farmer: Guam is a US territory and its citizens are US citizens. Kim Jong-Un explicitly threatened Guam with nuclear-armed missiles early during his sabre-rattling, and there is no doubt in my mind or any other unbiased viewer's that his Hwasong-10 and Hwasong-12 IRBM missiles had the range and accuracy to hit Guam.
(Also Taiwan and the Philippines.)
For most politicians, diplomacy is a zero-sum game. If I win, you have to lose, and vice versa. Trump, however, comes at things from a business perspective, in which deals can be made which benefit both sides. There may be differences that appear insoluble, and the Korea situation has long appeared that way, but perhaps that is changing. Given the history of the North Koreans, skepticism is certainly warranted, but perhaps some optimism as well. I hope for the sake of all involved that peace can be achieved, that the North Koreans would no longer be a threat to all of their neighbors and that the impoverished North can eventually become more prosperous and peaceful. I'm not sure if that is really possible for Kim, given the oppressive nature of his regime; can he remain in power if his regime liberalizes at all?
"The (overly)simple answer as to why the US is more divisive is because it is more diverse. "
I don't believe this is the case. Partly, maybe, but that just makes it, the kids, more vulnerable to the more fundamental problem.
And this is simply that your elite has been infected by a suite of cultural memes dating back to the Cold War, when the Soviet Union ran a campaign through "agents of influence". These things, pacifism, anti-nuclear activism, environmentalism, anti-Western Culture, Third-Worldism, and a bunch more were engineered messages deliberately inserted into the system.
The Soviet Union died, as much of its messaging - though interestingly the Russians have recently been backing environmentalists in anti-fracking and anti-pipeline activism.
But the rest of these war-memes remained, in zombie form, and poisoned the minds of generations of intellectuals and through the universities, your leadership class. And from them, back down again into new generations, especially K-12 teachers and new university instructors.
They are now programmed to hate, despise, abjure anything at all that is of the "West", of European civilization, of the culture of your volk. And they replace it with nothing. A truly diverse education would have something else - the Chinese would learn of their Chinese heritage, the Mexicans would learn proper Spanish and their own culture and literature (and yes there is such a thing). But there is nothing.
There is absolutely nothing left in standard K-12 but blank, ignorant hate of the nation and its people. Its really quite remarkable. They teach little Chinese kids that their ancestors were abused by white people - nothing about China, history, culture, philosophy - just hate.
My favorite bit in the treatment of World War II in the schools is that almost everywhere it is about just a few things - the Japanese Internment and Hiroshima.
This is agitprop, pure and simple, and absolutely nothing but agitprop. By people who assume that nothing exists but agitprop. They are remarkably ignorant. The blank teaching blank concepts to the blank. It is an unbreakable circle.
@Big Mike:
Point of information to both Balfegor and Farmer: Guam is a US territory and its citizens are US citizens. Kim Jong-Un explicitly threatened Guam with nuclear-armed missiles early during his sabre-rattling, and there is no doubt in my mind or any other unbiased viewer's that his Hwasong-10 and Hwasong-12 IRBM missiles had the range and accuracy to hit Guam.
I don't see how this statement contradicts anything I have said. A strike on Guam would be a feat for the North, but in a full scale conventional war with the US it would mean very little. And again, such an attack would only be feasible in the event that the US launched a military assault against the North. The North would have no reason, would gain little, and would lose a lot by unilaterally initiating a strike against a US territory.
@buwaya:
These things, pacifism, anti-nuclear activism, environmentalism, anti-Western Culture, Third-Worldism, and a bunch more were engineered messages deliberately inserted into the system.
Intellectual history can be a dicey game, and i think you are vastly overstating what these "agents of influence" were ever able to achieve. All of these things have intellectual antecedents (with the accretion of anti-nuclear activism obviously) that predate the start of the Cold War. Foe one thing, everything you have mentioned is broadly in line with a lot of the progressive vision of the early 20th century. See, for example, the book Philip Dru: Administrator published in 1912.
"Intellectual history can be a dicey game,"
Fine, leave the origins out of it then. Just consider the situation as it is.
What you have is just as I have put it.
The subtext that is being taught in your schools is simply, alternately, "die, die, die" and "kill, kill, kill".
If someone can point me to a successful long-term multi-ethnic democracy, please do so. You can have a multi-ethnic empire, but unless strictly governed by a dominant ethnic group, those don't last long either.
If the North struck Guam, Guam would tip over.
Lolololol
The subtext that is being taught in your schools is simply, alternately, "die, die, die" and "kill, kill, kill".
Buwaya, I certainly agree with your take on the 'educational' system. But just as my generation rejected the relatively conservative values of our culture pre-60's, so may the younger generation reject the agitprop being foisted on them today. What it will require, though, is some kind of exciting movement--maybe adopting medieval cultural values [quite popular in some circles] and applying them to today's world. Much as many businesses in the 70's studied samurai ideology to improve customer service and product quality. More fun being a samurai than just a technical service rep, no?
Buwaya, they’ve always hated the US.
France was our original enemy.
Then they ignored US, then we surpassed European living standards around 1900.
Feudalism is seductive when you think your the one of the noblesse oblige directing the bien peasant/serf.
I don't see how this statement contradicts anything I have said.
I believe that it contradicts your statement at 1:59. YMMV.
A strike on Guam would be a feat for the North,
Not much of a feat. 3200 km is well within the minimum range for a Hwasong-12. The closer one is to the minimum range, to more likely that the strike will be accurate. Remember that in nuclear attacks "close" = "good enough."
but in a full scale conventional war with the US it would mean very little.
No President of the United States can afford to let US citizens be killed without retaliating. Not even Obama the ditherer-in-chief.
And again, such an attack would only be feasible in the event that the US launched a military assault against the North.
Or in the event that the North Koreans initiated the fighting.
The North would have no reason, would gain little, and would lose a lot by unilaterally initiating a strike against a US territory.
Doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it.
I don't know what this means in the grand, historical scheme of things.
But, at minimum, it is certainly another damning example of the lack of imagination and willpower of our career politician class.
What a feckless, useless bunch of wimps.
While trust but verify is always a good rule in peace negotiations, it's hard to see this development as anything but a positive in that corner of the world. There are two things that stand out about this:
1 - Trump is helping by his physical absence from the event. Most previous US Presidents in the post-World War II era would be stepping all over things by being at these sorts of events in person for the cameras and the glory. Trump's absence makes it less likely that Kim looks bad at home by giving the visual of surrender to the Trump monster or being ganged up on 2 against 1. Visually this looks more like a meeting of equals, whatever the reality of the behind-the-scenes action.
2 - Professional diplomats are overrated. Regardless of whether this pans out or not, 3 previous administrations since the death of the first Kim more than 20 years ago haven't gotten this far, despite all being supposedly more refined, smart, and diplomatically sensitive than the current administration.
North Korea is a giant concentration camp. Because of malnutrition, the North Koreans exhibit stunted growth, walk around in a permanent brain fog, and search for grass to eat like dogs.
Althouse forgot that.
@Big Mike:
I believe that it contradicts your statement at 1:59. YMMV.
My statement at 1:59 was in regards to something another commenter said, that I agreed with: "Yes, that's why their threats weren't credible -- leave out China entirely, and you still have a situation where the American President has to countenance about a million civilian deaths (artillery bombardment of Seoul, a city larger than New York, followed by humanitarian catastrophe) in the opening hours of a conflict where the risk of damage to American territory is unlikely, and highly uncertain at best."
No President of the United States can afford to let US citizens be killed without retaliating. Not even Obama the ditherer-in-chief.
Again, the context of our conversation was in regards to the US initiating military action against the North Koreans.
Or in the event that the North Koreans initiated the fighting.
Why would the North Koreans initiate a fight? Let's assume that for some insane reason North Korea launched a missile against Guam. It would be horribly tragic for the 100,000+ people who live there, but it would not significantly weaken the US. And in response, the North would be completely destroyed.
Doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it.
Then you are back to claiming that the North is run by suicidal, madmen, and yet there is not a scintilla of evidence that the regime is irrational. Cold, brutal, and calculating don't often coexist with irrationality, which tends to produce a very disorganized personality. And, if North Korea was not deterrable, why hasn't it attacked US forces or the South with a conventional military assault?
Post a Comment