I’m with The Donald on this. You ignore a threat too long and eventually it’s going to bite you in the ass:
"Trump also blamed his predecessors for discord in the Korean peninsula, saying that the current rhetoric is an extension of past failures and he has no choice but to respond to the rogue nation.
“We want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many, many years, decades actually, through numerous administrations and they didn’t want to take on the issue,” he said. “I have no choice to take it on – and I am taking it on – and we will either be very, very successfully quickly or we are going to be very, very successful in a different way, quickly.”
And while I’m here I want to thank Barry for giving Iran a nuclear capability they should never have. If I was Israel I would release hell on Iran while I still could and deal with the consequences later. Because we all know that Iran is going to nuke Israel just as soon as they can, right? Allah Akbar.
He’s not wrong, but it’s kinda stupid to whine about that now. He (should have, and any normal candidate would have) knew the deal going in.
That doesn’t mean he has a freaking clue what to do now, either. One of the glaring failures of his presidency is the humiliating exposure of his inability to negotiate successfully.
Typical Trump. Makes an ass out of himself on the international stage with his empty threats and then blames Obama for it. Its done before and will be done again.
Current administration should do nothing. Tell NK to pound sand.
Done and done.
So you’re a fan of the Obama Administration position. I think the last White House concession to NK was Bush taking NK off the terror watch list in October, 2008. Obama pretty much ignored NK except throwing down some sanctions.
Current administration should do nothing. Tell NK to pound sand.
Done and done.
So you’re a fan of the Obama Administration position. I think the last White House concession to NK was Bush taking NK off the terror watch list in October, 2008. Obama pretty much ignored NK except throwing down some sanctions.
Be careful. That’s a lot of words. Everyone knows foreign policy has to be simple enough for 140 characters.
“We want to talk about a country that has misbehaved for many, many years, decades actually, through numerous administrations and they didn’t want to take on the issue,” he said. "I have no choice to take it on – and I am taking it on – and we will either be very, very successfully quickly or we are going to be very, very successful in a different way, quickly."
What the bloody fuck is that supposed to mean? No doubt his sure-fire NK plan is on the shelf right next to his plan to defeat ISIS. Ye gods what a moron.
Except for that time when he tried to buy their cooperation with a quarter million tons of food, I guess.
So, I’m just trying to frame what you think we should have done over the past decade or two. Basically, let them build their nuclear capability, maybe enact sanctions, but not offer any carrot, just stick. Is that a good general summary?
Except for that time when he tried to buy their cooperation with a quarter million tons of food, I guess.
Except it didn’t happen. But you have to admit that Obama because by far the closest of the last 4-5 Presidents.
But I think you thought that you could end ICBM development for a little food, you have to take that deal. If you believed it would be honored. But the Obama Administration clearly didn’t think it would be honored, so didn’t take the deal.
But I think you thought that you could end ICBM development for a little food, you have to take that deal.
If.
But I’m not a complete rube, so I wouldn’t be anywhere near naive enough to think that NK was going to change its ways and abandon its nuclear program in exchange for some food.
But yeah, the deal didn’t go through, because NK violated it almost immediately. Shocking!
Got it. I think that’s a kind of unrealistic foreign policy plan though. If we want another sovereign nation to not do something they have every right to do, and that they think is in their interest, we can either threaten and beat them into it, or we can offer them something in return for not doing it, or a mix of the two. Seems to me that most of the world acknowledges that foreign policy and diplomacy typically involves both stick and carrot. It’s an unfortunate by product of our superpower status, in my mind, that so many Americans seem to think it’s perfectly fine, and that we have every right to expect success, by just using stick all the time. Then they don’t understand why many parts of the world view as us bullies instead of virtuous bringers of freedom.
(Not saying that you, Vitus, see it that way, just a general observation)
If we want another sovereign nation to not do something they have every right to do, and that they think is in their interest, we can either threaten and beat them into it, or we can offer them something in return for not doing it, or a mix of the two.
Or we can recognize that ultimately, we can’t control what they do, and given that what they do poses no real threat to us one way or the other, let go. We don’t need to control every sovereign country that wants to do something we don’t want them to do. The insistence on exercising that control is their primary source of influence.
There is a time to negotiate with the carrot, there’s a time to negotiate with the stick, and there’s a time to recognize that there’s no deal to be made, and no compelling reason to chase the deal like an idiot.
If we want another sovereign nation to not do something they have every right to do, and that they think is in their interest, we can either threaten and beat them into it, or we can offer them something in return for not doing it, or a mix of the two.
Or we can recognize that ultimately, we can’t control what they do, and given that what they do poses no real threat to us one way or the other, let go. We don’t need to control every sovereign country that wants to do something we don’t want them to do. The insistence on exercising that control is their primary source of influence.
There is a time to negotiate with the carrot, there’s a time to negotiate with the stick, and there’s a time to recognize that there’s no deal to be made, and no compelling reason to chase the deal like an idiot.
Yeah, I agree. I’d prefer that we tried a lot less to force or cajole everyone into doing what we want.
given that what they do poses no real threat to us one way or the other, let go.
I don’t totally disagree with you, but you’re overplaying that hand a bit. Yes, NK poses a real threat. We have around 30,000 soldiers any many thousands of other Americans in South Korea. Guam. Japan. They have nuclear weapons. A nuclear ICBM would net them hundreds of millions (billions?) on the black market. We have enormous economic interests in the area, and a vested interested in preventing China from taking de facto ownership of those waters.
It doesn’t take a deep investigation of history to find examples of when the let’s-ignore-them-because-they’re-not-a-direct-threat-and-really-someone-else’s-problem theory backfired badly on the U.S.
So while I might end up with the same decision, I wouldn’t take it so breezily, as if it’s the obvious decision. Hand-waving away little things like nuclear ICBMS. Might keep me up at night, on occasion.
As nuclear ICBM capability becomes a commodity amongst unstable governments, the odds of it ending very poorly for the U.S. or her allies increases dramatically. A President should play the long game, not just the short game. And isolationism is generally playing the short game.
They have nuclear weapons. A nuclear ICBM would net them hundreds of millions (billions?) on the black market.
A) Who’s going to buy it
B) Assuming someone could scrape together that cash and not get a box of pinball machine parts they aren’t going to launch it at us
C) The warhead, yes I realize that is an issue, but again who’s going to buy it?
I think the last White House concession to NK was Bush taking NK off the terror watch list in October, 2008. Obama pretty much ignored NK except throwing down some sanctions.