Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Talking is usually better than dropping bombs on each other. On the other hand making concessions unilaterally is a sign of weakness.
|
I think that is not fair, before even coming to the summit NK blew up testing facilities and made some concessions. Now it was our turn. Canceling war games seems like a very pleasant concession, we don't reduce our military strength and we can immediately resume them should things get worse, but if you are not on the verge of war why do you need these dress rehearsals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Legitimating a cruel dictator based on vague promises is a recipe for failure. Reagan pursued peace through strength. Trump is pursuing peace through flattery. But then Reagan was a man of principles and Trump is a man of deceit. A bad tree can't bear good fruit. [Matt. 7:18]
|
Again, this may or may not be true. No one came out and gave Kim the nobel peace prize, no one has claimed he hasn't committed human rights violations. But Saudi Arabia has, Kuwait has, Russia, China, etc. If you demand that we have a sinless leader before the US will talk to them that is an absurd position to take. Our biggest concern cannot be that he killed his brother, but rather that he might fire a nuclear missile. Signing an agreement to de nuclearize as a goal is obviously the first step.
We did not lift any sanctions, instead we said we would begin the process. This allows us to say "in exchange for lifting this we need you to do that".
There is a key principle in negotiating when you hit an impasse like we did with North Korea, it is not tit for tat, but rather give them two things for one thing. That will often get the reconciliation resumed.