Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Meets Kim
President Donald Trump has met Kim Jong-Un in Singapore. Share your thoughts about this historic meeting in the comments below.
Published in General
I have no idea what Kim knows or thinks and neither do you.
Weren’t there already Red Army forces occupying those countries? Are you saying move troops in anyway and dare them to start something? What if they started shooting at our troops? Or what if they responded by rolling Red Army tanks into Western Europe?
There is no chance Kim could ever successfully invade South Korea. Look up the Republic of Korea’s military. Look at the outdated NK equipment. It is not 1950. Just look at the nighttime photos from space. No nukes, no coercive reunification. So no need to talk about it.
You should also understand Kim is in peril, the top warlord among ambitious warlords styling themselves general. What, beyond nukes, does Kim have to justify remaining atop the regime? Hence, the symbolic and rhetorical support. North Korea’s great enemy has accorded the grandson of the “Great Leader” respect. He will have lots of gravy to ladle out to the warlords, similar to China, Vietnam, and Russia.
we put our flags on equal height because Westphalian sovereignty is a thing. All countries are equal in that way.
Kind of like how we are all equal before the law, but some of us are just richer, better looking with a hot wife and well behaved children.
a nice house
a fancy car
a warm dinner tonight
and so forth.
Love it. Can’t wait to see a Trump Resort (with golf course) on the beaches of North Korea.
President Trump is anything but modest, AND not likely really impressed by a “prize” given to his predecessor for breathing. Of course, he loves getting a rise out of the media.
I agree with this, but let’s do a thought experiment: What if the same press confidence, with the same words, were given by Obama? What would people’s reactions be then? I’d suggest that we do that from now on, regarding North Korea: Forget the people involved. Listen to the words that are used, and read them, and then try and come to a sensible and thoughtful conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAIE9TbGyk
If Barack Obama had said this, word for word, you’d have been calling for his impeachment.
Edit: Tense fix.
One more way Trump is moving conservative sensibilities to the left. Blame America first isn’t just for lefties anymore! How dare we actually get involved with the ashheap countries of the world and commit all them “war crimes”.
And, this is what makes me reflect on Reagan. That moral leadership that is an anathema to Trumpism at every level.
Remember when praising our enemies while simultaneously antagonizing our allies was a bad thing?
How does this type of thought experiment make sense? Why would anyone wanting to reach a sensible and thoughtful conclusion forget the people involved?
I have four adult children. Write a speech and have all four of them read it aloud, word for word.
My takeaway is going to be different for all four.
It’s good to know the unreasonable proclamations are still coming from both sides of me on the conservative side.
Not true. Obama acted as though America was as bad or worse than other countries, past and present. Trump believes as I do, that America is the best country by far in the world – although still not in a position to lecture others ( especially when that’s clearly counterproductive).
The reason a dictator oppresses ‘his people’ ( his opposition and avowed enemies) is because they threaten his regime, his life and his family’s lives plus his friends and allies. So your brilliant strategy seems to boil down to telling him he has to go soft on his enemies before we will deign to deal. This is a losing formula. It’s proven so.
There were real reasons Obama could have been impeached ( and not for what he said) but that would’ve been monumentally stupid since his supporters and all black folks would have had a conniption and there’d be blood in the streets.
The point is, you guys’ insistence on having our leaders morally preen and posture as though he is superior and that the American people are better people. This is actually quite chauvinistic. It’s off-putting and it yields negative results. But, judging from the style of your comments across threads here, it looks like you are really most interested in looking good.
I had the same reaction. Also, the Fat Little Boy is taller than I thought he was.
Point.
Once again.
South Korea has 51 million people. Norks 26 million.
South Korean GDP is 1.4 Trillion, Norks 12.3 billion.
I think South Korea is more then able to defend itself.
or do we keep US troops there in perpetuity ?
China has 1.4 Billion people and a GDP of 11.2 Trillion.
If you needed to draw attention to the person who started it, there’s a flagging system for that. I’d hate for you to have to go through the trouble of re-discovering the wheel when it already exists.
I’m suggesting joint occupation, like what happened in Germany and Austria. Technically Romania and Poland had independent governments though I think the Soviets had excessive influence over them. But, you had the exiled Polish government in England that should have been brought back and at least for a brief period Romania still had its King and constitutional government which were restored when he overthrew the German backed dictator. The time to have pushed in would have been before German surrender, on the pretexts of aid and support. The Russians should not have been trusted to honor anything after the war, and so once Anglo-American forces were again on the Continent all plans should have been taken to not allow the USSR to have complete control of anything outside their original broders (ie. not in Poland, Hungry, Romania, and Czechoslovakia). Once the war with Germany ended I agree that moving in would have sparked a whole new war, but during the war they had good pretext and justification that I don’t think Stalin could have easily refused. Plus by the end of the war we had a rather large Army on the continent too it would have been a bad time for the Russians to pick a fight. We had the most leverage, but we trusted the Russians too much.
I believe he also said that our troop presence in South Korea is not on the table in this negotiation.
You think China really wants to destroy their economy over Korea? Seriously?
If the US has backed out of protecting the south, it would need do no such thing. It is important that Trump not give away the US protection of South Korea.
We have treaty obligations to defend the South. China is well aware of that.
For Heaven’s sake, just being contrary is not going to work. We are not talking about speeches. We are talking about agreements about peace. Involving an evil regime: NK. I am asking that we forget who the president is, and read the text, and then decide, by those words, and any others words, written or said, if they make sense. If we thought the same treaty is bad under Obama, we should think it bad under Trump.
We had treaty obligations to protect South Vietnam after our troops left as well.
China is well aware of that.
I thought I’d try self help before bothering you. I’d do it again.
Well in that case, what does any of this matter? If the South won’t protect itself, and we won’t honor our treaty obligations, why leave 30k US troops as sitting ducks for the Chicoms?
This is so overwrought now as to be ludicrous.
China hasn’t rolled tanks on anyone except their own people since an inconclusive spat with Vietnam. Why not American garrisons in every other Asian ally’s country?
We also have a free trade agreement with Canada. It’s not doing them a whole lot of good right now.
First, I am not being contrary.
Second, you mentioned “press confidence” (I assume you meant “press conference) in the comment I responded to
In your response to me, now you’re talking about agreements and treaties.
Regardless, my reaction to any statement, written or apoken, is going change depending on the person.
Which I don’t find extraordinary or unreasonable