Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Kim Jong Un v Trump 06:51 - Jun 13 with 6700 viewsaleanddale

WOW

Bloody fascinating to watch.

Who would have thought that the UN-STER would be the one running rings around trump!.

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:34 - Jun 13 with 1475 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:25 - Jun 13 by D_Alien

The "schtick" you refer to was simply spelling out the reality which your points regarding human rights blithely ignore

I'm really not interested in your opinion of Trump, all that matters to me is whether NK is finally being dragged into the 21st century and stops terrorising it's citizens. That will only happen when they cease feeling threatened by the outside world and the meeting with Trump, following on from those with the SK and Chinese leaders, is the first real positive step since the Korean War ended. Trump has engineered that by taking on KJU on terms which he understands, instead of the usual mealy-mouthed diplomacy which has got precisely nowhere for the last 70 years

So i've answered your simple question. The problem lies in seeing progress on human rights in simplistic terms, when it's actually far more complex than one leader trying to lay the law down to another in return for the lifting of sanctions


You're not interested in my opinion of Trump, yet it was enough to disqualify my opinion but two posts ago? Which is it?

I'm happy to let the proof be in the pudding; let's give it a few months and see if Trump meeting a murderous regime on "terms which he understands" yields successful results. I noticed Trump's administration has lasted less than 48 hours before managing to cock up their messaging about concessions and war exercises with South Korea. I'll keep holding onto my "credit" if that's OK with you.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 22:06 - Jun 13 with 1438 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:34 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

You're not interested in my opinion of Trump, yet it was enough to disqualify my opinion but two posts ago? Which is it?

I'm happy to let the proof be in the pudding; let's give it a few months and see if Trump meeting a murderous regime on "terms which he understands" yields successful results. I noticed Trump's administration has lasted less than 48 hours before managing to cock up their messaging about concessions and war exercises with South Korea. I'll keep holding onto my "credit" if that's OK with you.


Neither. It doesn't disqualify your opinion but makes it less rational, and your responses to my rational points exemplify that, as if i'm in some way a defender of Trump when all i'm looking at is the potential for results in his willingness to engage in a direct way with the NK leadership

This matter of giving him credit is one which isn't dependent on the outcome in years to come. He deserves credit for doing what he's done so far - full stop. There are plenty of reasons why his efforts might be confounded, not least the ill-will of those who dislike him among his own party, not to mention the Democrats

I suspect, however, there will be no going back from the meeting with Trump for KJU. He's let a genie out of a bottle which can't be put back and his own future depends on his ability to ease his country into the modern world, little by little. He felt he could only do so from a position of strength, and while Trump called him out on it on the nuclear issue, he's shown he's willing to allow him to save face which is vital to the NK leadership. This is wildly misinterpreted by the media as somehow allowing KJU a victory when it's nothing of the sort

Poll: What are you planning to do v Newport

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 22:31 - Jun 13 with 1419 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 22:06 - Jun 13 by D_Alien

Neither. It doesn't disqualify your opinion but makes it less rational, and your responses to my rational points exemplify that, as if i'm in some way a defender of Trump when all i'm looking at is the potential for results in his willingness to engage in a direct way with the NK leadership

This matter of giving him credit is one which isn't dependent on the outcome in years to come. He deserves credit for doing what he's done so far - full stop. There are plenty of reasons why his efforts might be confounded, not least the ill-will of those who dislike him among his own party, not to mention the Democrats

I suspect, however, there will be no going back from the meeting with Trump for KJU. He's let a genie out of a bottle which can't be put back and his own future depends on his ability to ease his country into the modern world, little by little. He felt he could only do so from a position of strength, and while Trump called him out on it on the nuclear issue, he's shown he's willing to allow him to save face which is vital to the NK leadership. This is wildly misinterpreted by the media as somehow allowing KJU a victory when it's nothing of the sort


Again, this repetitive insistence that your own arguments are perfectly rational, and everyone else's are a form of mild hysteria, which clearly must be based on hormones and liberal media frenzy (as opposed to the fact-based discussion that was occurring). As well as being incredibly dull, it renders the entire exercise of debate a waste of time. Dislike and disapproval will nine times out of ten not be mutually exclusive in a polarized political climate, so you leave yourself a get-out-clause whenever your argument lacks substance and blame innate bias (not too many steps removed from the "fake news" cry). Not to mention that denying the importance of results (and I'm not talking about years - I'll allow for months, weeks, days) gives you the perfect "out" to blame others for an outcome that you're warned about from the get-go. So have at it old chum, you've clearly bested me and I'll leave you with your boundless optimism to return to my irrational liberal bleating. Good evening.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 23:08 - Jun 13 with 1398 viewsrochdale_ranger

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 22:31 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Again, this repetitive insistence that your own arguments are perfectly rational, and everyone else's are a form of mild hysteria, which clearly must be based on hormones and liberal media frenzy (as opposed to the fact-based discussion that was occurring). As well as being incredibly dull, it renders the entire exercise of debate a waste of time. Dislike and disapproval will nine times out of ten not be mutually exclusive in a polarized political climate, so you leave yourself a get-out-clause whenever your argument lacks substance and blame innate bias (not too many steps removed from the "fake news" cry). Not to mention that denying the importance of results (and I'm not talking about years - I'll allow for months, weeks, days) gives you the perfect "out" to blame others for an outcome that you're warned about from the get-go. So have at it old chum, you've clearly bested me and I'll leave you with your boundless optimism to return to my irrational liberal bleating. Good evening.


To be fair your arguments are only repeats of what the negative main stream media are saying. He hasn’t got assurances on human rights and this legitimises Kim’s government. We trade arms and oil with plenty of despotic countries that treat their own citizens like shit so it’s a bit of red herring in terms of using it as a stick to beat trump with. If the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula happens it will be an achievement. Give peace a chance it’s only day one. We think of nuclear holocaust as an abstract thing but a quick google image search of the poor fookers at Hiroshima puts things in perspective. Peoples eyes literally melted in their head as they looked up at the flash. Horrific.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 23:21 - Jun 13 with 1388 viewsSuddenLad

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 23:08 - Jun 13 by rochdale_ranger

To be fair your arguments are only repeats of what the negative main stream media are saying. He hasn’t got assurances on human rights and this legitimises Kim’s government. We trade arms and oil with plenty of despotic countries that treat their own citizens like shit so it’s a bit of red herring in terms of using it as a stick to beat trump with. If the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula happens it will be an achievement. Give peace a chance it’s only day one. We think of nuclear holocaust as an abstract thing but a quick google image search of the poor fookers at Hiroshima puts things in perspective. Peoples eyes literally melted in their head as they looked up at the flash. Horrific.


And the weapons of today are 100 times more potent than those used at Hiroshima. Food for thought, if ever it were needed.

“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled”

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 01:00 - Jun 14 with 1371 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:42 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Appreciate the well-thought-out response and the clarification on your points. In general, I have to disagree that we weren't talking predominantly about the media (so again, I think the Nobel thing is irrelevant), and I also can't reconcile your point that we should ignore Trump's previous actions in assessing his current ones (particularly the Iran deal, which was an actual deal), yet we should at the same time compare his actions and treatment against those of his predecessors. You either consider historical precedent or you don't.

If you don't think the visit has legitimized (apologies for the "z" in these words, American spellcheck) the DPRK regime, again I have to disagree. The two flags intertwined, the general pomp surrounding the ceremony and the mere existence of a meeting between arguably the most powerful man in the world and the leader of a dictatorial state does exactly that. DPRK state media will present this meeting as evidence of a rising in the country's position on the world stage. I (and many others) don't feel that this gift is worthy of Kim's "government". I'd even put aside the war games as these can fairly easily be resumed if they renege on their promise. For better or worse, the reputational impact is done - that toothpaste can't be put back in the tube now. And I don't feel like the US got anything in return that it hasn't had multiple times before. To not even get formal commitments on human rights for example is IMO reprehensible. So again - I couldn't in any sound mind give credit for anything that has been done. If you'd made me president in Nov'16 and I'd offered a USA/NK summit to Kim, he would have said yes.

Those points aside, again I appreciate your side of it and for stating your case. I don't think we will agree but the fact that discourse on a League 1 messageboard in England is better than anything occuring at the highest levels in US government is fairly admirable.
[Post edited 13 Jun 2018 18:44]


I, too appreciate your response(s) on this thread but the main point (that there's been a change in tactics since Trump entered office) is one that you haven't really addressed.

As I say, Trump is the first U.S President to not bend over for any NK head of state and that has resulted in an unprecedented meeting between the two parties. Is it a coincidence that the change of tact from appeasement to "we're not scared of you, we'll blow you off the face of the earth" has resulted in this? I personally don't think so.

In essence, I think KJU has been out-maniaced (if I'm allowed to make up words for a second) and whilst I concede that this is a dangerous way to go about things when dealing with a tyrant, it was a gamble that looks to have paid off, at least in the short term. Where we go from here, who knows? However, I honestly think that Trump deserves some sort of credit for at least temporarily rehumanising KJU and attempting to build bridges face to face. Of course, you're well within your rights to disagree and that's fine - I just think that the fact that it's Trump at the helm is having a massive impact on the way the situation is being viewed.

I'm not saying we should ignore his previous actions either because I don't think that's possible when it comes to the human cognition but every situation is different and so is the approach. Of course, I understand that this also applies to the situation with NK but what has happened is a landmark event and therefore deserves special treatment to some extent. As I say, if anyone else was in office, they'd be getting praised to the high heavens for "manufacturing" this summit - that's the unfortunate truth
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 01:30 - Jun 14 with 1360 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 22:31 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Again, this repetitive insistence that your own arguments are perfectly rational, and everyone else's are a form of mild hysteria, which clearly must be based on hormones and liberal media frenzy (as opposed to the fact-based discussion that was occurring). As well as being incredibly dull, it renders the entire exercise of debate a waste of time. Dislike and disapproval will nine times out of ten not be mutually exclusive in a polarized political climate, so you leave yourself a get-out-clause whenever your argument lacks substance and blame innate bias (not too many steps removed from the "fake news" cry). Not to mention that denying the importance of results (and I'm not talking about years - I'll allow for months, weeks, days) gives you the perfect "out" to blame others for an outcome that you're warned about from the get-go. So have at it old chum, you've clearly bested me and I'll leave you with your boundless optimism to return to my irrational liberal bleating. Good evening.


After watching the cricket highlights, I thought I'd just pop on and see if you're still ranting away

Yep

And i didn't "best" you, you simply failed to bring anything other than anti-Trump bias to the debate

Poll: What are you planning to do v Newport

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:45 - Jun 14 with 1212 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 01:00 - Jun 14 by JimmyRustler

I, too appreciate your response(s) on this thread but the main point (that there's been a change in tactics since Trump entered office) is one that you haven't really addressed.

As I say, Trump is the first U.S President to not bend over for any NK head of state and that has resulted in an unprecedented meeting between the two parties. Is it a coincidence that the change of tact from appeasement to "we're not scared of you, we'll blow you off the face of the earth" has resulted in this? I personally don't think so.

In essence, I think KJU has been out-maniaced (if I'm allowed to make up words for a second) and whilst I concede that this is a dangerous way to go about things when dealing with a tyrant, it was a gamble that looks to have paid off, at least in the short term. Where we go from here, who knows? However, I honestly think that Trump deserves some sort of credit for at least temporarily rehumanising KJU and attempting to build bridges face to face. Of course, you're well within your rights to disagree and that's fine - I just think that the fact that it's Trump at the helm is having a massive impact on the way the situation is being viewed.

I'm not saying we should ignore his previous actions either because I don't think that's possible when it comes to the human cognition but every situation is different and so is the approach. Of course, I understand that this also applies to the situation with NK but what has happened is a landmark event and therefore deserves special treatment to some extent. As I say, if anyone else was in office, they'd be getting praised to the high heavens for "manufacturing" this summit - that's the unfortunate truth


I can't see how I haven't addressed the change in tactics - my entire point is that I disagree with that change, as I think it amounts to taking an incredibly easy win (in his supporters' eyes) with little-to-no benefit. Ultimately I believe the costs will outweigh the benefits in the long-term, and again I'm happy to let the proof of the pudding be in the eating.

Also again - yes, the fact it is Trump *is* having an impact on the way the situation is being viewed. I'm not disagreeing that point. My argument however is that it is his actions to date, rather than the personal dislike (which again, I admit exists) that are driving that disapproval. It is an important distinction and you're dismissing it.
0
Login to get fewer ads

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:47 - Jun 14 with 1210 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 01:30 - Jun 14 by D_Alien

After watching the cricket highlights, I thought I'd just pop on and see if you're still ranting away

Yep

And i didn't "best" you, you simply failed to bring anything other than anti-Trump bias to the debate


Other than fact-based debate, sure.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 06:39 - Jun 15 with 1148 viewsaleanddale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 07:46 - Jun 13 by KenBoon

In what way did he run rings around him? I don't particularly like the west normalising Kim Wrong-Um. He and his family starve and murder their people. However fake smiles is probably the only way to improve things and save countless lives in North Korea. Huge credit to South Korea, Japan, China, the United States and yes that includes Trump.


If its a move towards change in NK then its a good thing.

A month ago KJU was "little rocket man" amongst other child like jibes.

This week he was on par / an equal to a person who should be the most powerful in the world. That's some turnaround.

Trump looks under instruction to me. through gritted teeth he has gone through this process I am sure he would have played a heavier hand had he had a choice.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:31 - Jun 15 with 1108 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:45 - Jun 14 by JumeirahDale

I can't see how I haven't addressed the change in tactics - my entire point is that I disagree with that change, as I think it amounts to taking an incredibly easy win (in his supporters' eyes) with little-to-no benefit. Ultimately I believe the costs will outweigh the benefits in the long-term, and again I'm happy to let the proof of the pudding be in the eating.

Also again - yes, the fact it is Trump *is* having an impact on the way the situation is being viewed. I'm not disagreeing that point. My argument however is that it is his actions to date, rather than the personal dislike (which again, I admit exists) that are driving that disapproval. It is an important distinction and you're dismissing it.


Just to be clear - I'm not really what you'd call a Trump supporter.It's not really a case of disagreeing with the change or agreeing it either but if you can acknowledge that it's worked then surely that's where he deserves the credit? (which was my initial point in all of this).

As I've already said, whilst I'm mature (for want of a better word tbh) enough to realise that some of the things he's done/said up to this point have been quite ridiculous and bordering on unaccpetable, I can also recognise when he's had some sort of positive influence on a situation and duly give him the credit he deserves. I quite like that he goes against the grain more often but the fact that I see this as perhaps his biggest strength is a pretty good indicator of where U.S politics is at the moment!
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 12:44 - Jun 15 with 1073 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:31 - Jun 15 by JimmyRustler

Just to be clear - I'm not really what you'd call a Trump supporter.It's not really a case of disagreeing with the change or agreeing it either but if you can acknowledge that it's worked then surely that's where he deserves the credit? (which was my initial point in all of this).

As I've already said, whilst I'm mature (for want of a better word tbh) enough to realise that some of the things he's done/said up to this point have been quite ridiculous and bordering on unaccpetable, I can also recognise when he's had some sort of positive influence on a situation and duly give him the credit he deserves. I quite like that he goes against the grain more often but the fact that I see this as perhaps his biggest strength is a pretty good indicator of where U.S politics is at the moment!


If it's a truism that countries get the leaders they deserve, then Trump would exemplify that imo

It is just a truism though (i.e. far from true universally) since the NK people would have to be uniquely evil to deserve the Kim dynasty

Any initiative which helps free them from their yoke is to be applauded, although tbf Trump's main concern in all of this is protecting his own population from potential attack

Whatever the reason, he's carrying out the duty of a US president. This "leader of the free world" business irritates the hell out of me, and other NATO members should take much greater practical and financial responsibility for their own protection and freedom. The US has indeed given many a free ride, and in that respect Trump is also right. Or does anyone think we should continue feeling obligated to the US, above and beyond what is strictly necessary?

Poll: What are you planning to do v Newport

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024