U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Well, this seems to based on the attitudes (and party ID) of future presidents, which I don't think is really worth speculating about right now.  If a president takes similar hostile stances and actions will that be a problem?  Of course.  But as long as Trump's successor(s) returns to the status quo/world order of the west, the rest of the west will be eager to re-normalize relations.

True, but only in the short term. Trump has demonstrated the risks of long term agreements with the U.S., and as Kal described before, the underlying causes of that will likely never change, so the U.S. will have to prove through consecutive normal administrations that it’s trustworthy again to engage in long term agreements.

27 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

not participating in war games costs what?

Trump shaking hands with Kim costs what?

It brought Kim to the table. He feels good about Trump and where this is headed. Nothing has been granted, lets just see where this plays out. 

Anything is better than nuclear posturing. 

Kim was already at the table, and he brought Trump to it without giving any concessions while getting Trump to give multiple ones to him. Kim rolled Trump hard.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, S John said:

We all know the score.  We know that North Korea is a piss poor excuse for a country, but one that is still dangerous enough to do some serious damage on their way to a fiery oblivion if they ever actually started anything.  Everyone knows this, including NK's leadership.  Unless they are suicidal, they are not going to attack SK, Japan, or any US forces and the last several decades of saber rattling have shown that they are not suicidal. 

Putting a hold on joint exercises with SK doesn't change any of this.  It's not like its difficult to start them up again.  It doesn't hurt anything to give Un a minor concession and see what he does with it.  Don't see the harm in building some trust with them after 60 years of the opposite.  

I agree that DPRK is a rationale regime, but you're continuing to ignore the fact any expert or even student of diplomacy will tell you - conceding a card like the military exercises without extracting any type of credible commitment is objectively an incompetent move.  Sure, conceding something minor as a show of good faith to build trust is good idea, but simply agreeing to a presidential meeting already is a considerable concession considering the regime has been seeking this for decades.  Plus, building trust is a two-way street, and the history of relations with the DPRK demonstrates there's absolutely no reason to take their empty promises on faith.  Plus, it strains our relationship with the RoK, which further undermines our negotiating position.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, S John said:

Putting a hold on joint exercises with SK doesn't change any of this.  It's not like its difficult to start them up again.  It doesn't hurt anything to give Un a minor concession and see what he does with it.  Don't see the harm in building some trust with them after 60 years of the opposite.  

Let's go into this a bit. 

The primary reason we do exercises with our allies is that joint commands are almost always the primary place that joint ventures fail. You are working with a different military with different doctrines, ROE, weapons, tactics and strategies, and all of this requires a huge amount of coordination and actual practice. This is something that can easily go away after time - it's a skill, not a simple show of force, and it requires consistent work. (This is one of the reasons that the US can't simply 'work' with Russia to go after ISIS). 

Now, the reason that this is important in particular is that in a war with North Korea US and SK forces have to act in a common way towards a common goal and do so within something like 5-30 minutes. Every analysis I've read indicates that the first hour would be the most crucial, because that's when NK's artillery goes to town and starts obliterating Seoul. Minutes really matter at that point, and their cost can be measured in thousands of lives. 

As to the trust thing, the US isn't the country (until recently, that is) which has broken promises to NK. 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but only in the short term. Trump has demonstrated the risks of long term agreements with the U.S., and as Kal described before, the underlying causes of that will likely never change, so the U.S. will have to prove through consecutive normal administrations that it’s trustworthy again to engage in long term agreements.

Other than blowing up the TPP deal - which took a shitload of work to arrange - there are no long term agreements that can't be fairly immediately rectified.  And, as for the TPP deal, the long term damage there is many of those countries will turn to China instead - which echoes Kuttner's point in the article I cited.  Our (usual) allies aren't stupid, they're not going to hold Trump against his successors when they understand 60% of the country disagrees with him.  If for no other reason than it's in their interest to trust us again.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Aemon Stark said:

We'll just have to recall our players then. 

Our new comrade friends from Mother Russia will be happy to fill their vacancies.

Also, if we’re recalling players, consider the CFL dead.

You can’t defeat us Canada. We’re America, B****!

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Psh! The Noble Peace Prize goes to The Worm and The Worm alone. And he needs to be wearing that PotCoin.com shirt when he accepts the award!

Dear God we live in F’d up times!

And shed tears as 45 rages about how unfair it all is and shows the Worm that 45's loyalties only go one way.   Good Times!  

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Other than blowing up the TPP deal - which took a shitload of work to arrange - there are no long term agreements that can't be fairly immediately rectified.  And, as for the TPP deal, the long term damage there is many of those countries will turn to China instead - which echoes Kuttner's point in the article I cited.  Our (usual) allies aren't stupid, they're not going to hold Trump against his successors when they understand 60% of the country disagrees with him.  If for no other reason than it's in their interest to trust us again.

The problem is that they can't trust us for long-term arrangements that aren't ratified by law. And even that's sketchy. I think that if we negotiate some congressional deals and make them law - like NAFTA - we might be okay, but I doubt anything else will be accepted or welcome all that much. 

[S John]

1 minute ago, كالدب said:

Let's go into this a bit. 

The primary reason we do exercises with our allies is that joint commands are almost always the primary place that joint ventures fail. You are working with a different military with different doctrines, ROE, weapons, tactics and strategies, and all of this requires a huge amount of coordination and actual practice. This is something that can easily go away after time - it's a skill, not a simple show of force, and it requires consistent work. (This is one of the reasons that the US can't simply 'work' with Russia to go after ISIS). 

Now, the reason that this is important in particular is that in a war with North Korea US and SK forces have to act in a common way towards a common goal and do so within something like 5-30 minutes. Every analysis I've read indicates that the first hour would be the most crucial, because that's when NK's artillery goes to town and starts obliterating Seoul. Minutes really matter at that point, and their cost can be measured in thousands of lives. 

As to the trust thing, the US isn't the country (until recently, that is) which has broken promises to NK. 

I get all of this - but do you know who else will be among the thousands of lives lost?  Kim and his whole regime.  That's the entire point, it isn't mutually assured destruction - it is only North Korea's assured destruction if they were to launch an attack and I do believe everyone knows this and has known it for a long time. 

Now, whether or not Kim believes that getting an extra hour of shelling time in on Seoul due to poor coordination between the South and the US is worth extinguishing his own life and the regime that his grandfather and father built - it's hard to say for sure, but I suspect not.  

I will readily concede that if Obama (or Clinton in an alternate universe) had made the same 'deal' with Kim, Conservatives nationwide would collectively shit their pants at the weak liberal leadership - but I'm not going to poo poo a potential breakthrough just because Trump did it.  Most of these longstanding conflicts are growing asinine in their old age and if we can break the cycle we should.  If there's a chance for peace and to end the stalemate I don't think Trump promised or conceded too much at all.  Very little to lose, and much potential to gain.  Lets see what happens.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, S John said:

I will readily concede that if Obama (or Clinton in an alternate universe) had made the same 'deal' with Kim, Conservatives nationwide would collectively shit their pants at the weak liberal leadership - but I'm not going to poo poo a potential breakthrough just because Trump did it.  Most of these longstanding conflicts are growing asinine in their old age and if we can break the cycle we should.  If there's a chance for peace and to end the stalemate I don't think Trump promised or conceded too much at all.  Very little to lose, and much potential to gain.  Lets see what happens.  

I'm not poo-pooing it because Trump did it. I said before that I will give Trump credit if he can somehow make the Korean region safer, because he'd deserve it (no matter how it happened). But giving up small things for peace is what Chamberlain did. History is riddled with people who just gave a few concessions here and there in the face of massive rights violations and issues in exchange for a chance at peace. 

Right now, the cycle to be broken is that every 8-10 years NK threatens and is belligerent, gets talks to happen, gets some concessions and economic favors, and then doesn't do shit. I'd like to break that cycle too. 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Aemon Stark said:

I don't know why my last paragraph is appearing as part of the quote. 

I am becoming thoroughly sick and tired of certain Americans. All weekend I’ve been thinking of what American goods I am going to boycott.

And I’m feeling better and better about not attending Worldcon this year.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, كالدب said:

The problem is that they can't trust us for long-term arrangements that aren't ratified by law. And even that's sketchy. I think that if we negotiate some congressional deals and make them law - like NAFTA - we might be okay, but I doubt anything else will be accepted or welcome all that much.

As we've discussed before, the vast (as in >90%) majority of arrangements we've made since WWII are executive agreements.  I don't think our allies are going to expect that to change post-Trump, but yeah this is pretty much a fundamental disagreement.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, S John said:

I'm not going to poo poo a potential breakthrough just because Trump did it. 

But that's just it.  We traded actual (but small, admittedly) concessions for potential.  IF that potential is realized and actual meaningful concessions are made by NK, then we should celebrate.  Until that happens, I'm not going to call this a victory or even a step in the right direction.  At best it's "wait and see" and at worst we just gave Kim a PR coup and pissed off our ROK allies for nothing. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Psh! The Noble Peace Prize goes to The Worm and The Worm alone. And he needs to be wearing that PotCoin.com shirt when he accepts the award!

Dear God we live in F’d up times!

That will be one of the greatest Trolling moves ever. 

There was a tweet to paraphase "Somewhere a Jordan fan is saying "None of Lebron teammates ever facilitated a diplomatic breakthrough, that why Jordan the GOAT." I believe it is not just Kim Jung-Un is a big basketball fan but of the '90s Jordan Bull teams.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

As we've discussed before, the vast (as in >90%) majority of arrangements we've made since WWII are executive agreements.  I don't think our allies are going to expect that to change post-Trump, but yeah this is pretty much a fundamental disagreement.

The difference is that this is the first time in a long time that the US policy has been to rescind those agreements when a POTUS changes. One of our norms was that we didn't change those. Trump has changed that viewpoint. 

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump wants more money put into the military. It isn't clear what what he will do with it yet, but it is quite clear he is a friend of the  military industrial complex.

And if he can harm some poor or sick people to pay for it, he would be even happier.

 

Agree, he ran on that shit and has talked about it since the election.   His yapping about all the $$ the US will be saving by pulling out of South Korea is just incoherent bs. 

[Frog Eater]

We haven't given them anything.

You all are acting like something concrete was going to come from an initial meeting. Its just a first step in a long process. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, كالدب said:

The difference is that this is the first time in a long time that the US policy has been to rescind those agreements when a POTUS changes. One of our norms was that we didn't change those. Trump has changed that viewpoint. 

I'd be more amenable to this argument if (when?) Trump actually pulls out of agreement like NAFTA/TAFTA/CAFTA.  Imposing tariffs and refusing to join the Paris accords - which is non-binding anyway - doesn't really constitute rescinding long term agreements.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Frog Eater said:

We haven't given them anything.

So stopping joint exercises is nothing? If so, why is South Korea pissed about that?

1 minute ago, Frog Eater said:

You all are acting like something concrete was going to come from an initial meeting. Its just a first step in a long process. 

I'm acting like we gave up two of the four things that NK wanted in exchange for magic beans and then applauding that we did so, clapping ourselves on the back as if this was good. 

 

Just now, DMBouazizi said:

I'd be more amenable if (when?) Trump actually pulls out of agreement like NAFTA/TAFTA/CAFTA.  Imposing tariffs and refusing to join the Paris accords - which is non-binding anyway - doesn't really constitute rescinding long term agreements.

I kind of think pulling out of the Iran deal was exactly this sort of thing. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, كالدب said:

I kind of think pulling out of the Iran deal was exactly this sort of thing.

Fair, but that doesn't really hurt are allies.  In fact an argument can be made it helps them as they're the ones that still have relaxed sanctions (and thus increased trade, which is ultimately what they care about). 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Fair, but that doesn't really hurt are allies.  In fact an argument can be made it helps them as they're the ones that still have relaxed sanctions (and thus increased trade, which is ultimately what they care about). 

Depends a lot on what the US does to punish people dealing with Iran - if the US carries out their threats, those increased trade rates disappear entirely. 

The US policy on asylum seekers currently is another example, though perhaps not quite so important. 

In any case, countries are going to be very much distrusting the US to make and hold the kinds of deals that the Iran deal was, and are likely looking at NAFTA (which despite negotiations failing is still in existence) as the way to go forward. That's probably the right thing for congress to do anyways - they should always have been the ones front and center for these longer-term deals, and they need to claw back that power so that they're a bit more relevant and balancing.