Resounding YES!

As long as he does not start a war before the ceremony.

:rofl:

Would you say yes or no to a prize for Trump? — frank

I think it is way too soon to be calling a "prize" before you even mount your steed.
Distrust and verify has got to be the wickedly strong MO as we move forward.
Never underestimate a liar, on either side.
Bolton understands more about Iran, China and the Korean peninsula than the entire last administration and is now in a very influential position.
If you have been a Fox viewer of opinion shows like The Five, Outnumbered, Hannity, Carlson and The Greg Gutfeld show, you know everything about the great Mustached one. He never holds back his opinion, he trusts few and he cannot be bullshitted. The man is always listening and always thinking.
Could he be a loose cannon like many thought Cheney was? Maybe but that might not be a bad thing right now.

He never holds back his opinion, he trusts few and he cannot be bullshitted. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Isn't there a contradiction in there? How can one who only trusts a few, never hold back his opinion? If you were prone to distrust, wouldn't you actually hold back your true opinion, revealing only a false presentation of your opinion? I think Bolton's past speaks loud and clear for what he is not: he is not one to be trusted. His real intentions are unclear, but appear to be along the lines of US world dominance.

He's a hawk. That's all I know.

Would you say yes or no to a prize for Trump? — frank

Why Trump? This whole Korean "rapprochement," for whatever it is worth, has been Kim's show from the beginning to the end. Trump just let it happen.

If you have been a Fox viewer of opinion shows like The Five, Outnumbered, Hannity, Carlson and The Greg Gutfeld show — ArguingWAristotleTiff

...then you are beyond all hope.

Of course Trump took all the credit but Nigel Farage is the Nobel trouble maker.

Isn't there a contradiction in there? How can one who only trusts a few, never hold back his opinion? If you were prone to distrust, wouldn't you actually hold back your true opinion, revealing only a false presentation of your opinion? I think Bolton's past speaks loud and clear for what he is not: he is not one to be trusted. His real intentions are unclear, but appear to be along the lines of US world dominance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe..

Distrust is easily earned and trust, when earned is rarely respected which is why Donald Trump has such a small administration. I understand it seems like an absurd concept but it keeps people guessing and allows movement of his position. He doesn't write emails because of that inherent need to protect his thoughts as they evolve. Donald Trump was not groomed to be a politician but rather a business man, both share the skill of hustle, they just display it in a different manner.

Politicians believe that they are the smartest person in the room because they are when representing those who elected them to a political position.
Successful businessmen surround themselves with people they trust AND that are smarter than them, in known areas of personal deficit.

In other words, successful CEO's are Master Delegators and lead as a "We" not as an "I". Hence the well thought out choice of bringing Giuliani on board and the power of Bolton's intimate knowledge, of the very chaos he has been put in the position to manage and to that degree, I can see that as Peninsula dominance until we leave. We have been heavily invested in blood and toil for the past 60 years so we need to distrust but verify and that could take a decade or more. Together, as a United Front, there is no world issue that cannot be entertained AND understood by the Executive branch of our current government common as well as the common man. And that is appreciated.

Fake news.

Moving on.

...and he has done so much for peace in Gaza...

His scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal would have ruled him out anyway.

At the moment it would be premature, perhaps a shared reward with the leaders of china, north korea and south korea after reunification of north and south korea.

In other words, successful CEO's are Master Delegators and lead as a "We" not as an "I". Hence the well thought out choice of bringing Giuliani on board and the power of Bolton's intimate knowledge, of the very chaos he has been put in the position to manage and to that degree, I can see that as Peninsula dominance until we leave. We have been heavily invested in blood and toil for the past 60 years so we need to distrust but verify and that could take a decade or more. Together, as a United Front, there is no world issue that cannot be entertained AND understood by the Executive branch of our current government common as well as the common man. And that is appreciated. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This attitude of "we" is the deceptive attitude. "We" is ambiguous, as no individual is necessarily in or out. The "we" is synonymous with "us", and the us is always against them.

Further, these people have no understanding of "equality" in the sense of states or countries co-existing in a fair and equal relationship. The underlying attitude now is that America has already done what is necessary (the 60 years of blood and toil you refer to) to demonstrate that it deserves privileged status. This is the real meaning of "make America great again" for this sort, to produce that privileged status, which twisted minds believe was the reason for that blood and toil. The blood and toil was for the purpose of giving "us" privileged status. It is a twisted belief because privilege is given to you out of respect, which is derived from a demonstration of equality, and there is no demonstration of equality in the attitude of entitlement. So if the others, "them", don't see that the privileged status is deserved, then deception is the means by which one gets what one honestly believes oneself to be entitled to. I don't think that the attitude of entitlement is a good one for international politics.

This attitude of "we" is the deceptive attitude. "We" is ambiguous, as no individual is necessarily in or out. The "we" is synonymous with "us", and the us is always against them. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I used the word "we" specifically, even though I know of the word "us", there is no need to replace any word of mine with a word you "twisted" to find more fitting. We will never get anywhere if it is always as you suggest "us against them". But if we can find a place of common ground "we" can go forward.

Personally, I think President Moon Jae-in said this to placate Trump's infamous tantrums. China probably had more to do with this than Trump. But I guess we'll know when we know.

I wouldn't even have given it to Obomber.

Prizes Trump deserves include:
Ugliest American
Dumbest Tweets
Most Lies in a Single Speech
Most Hate Promoted

there is no need to replace any word of mine with a word you "twisted" to find more fitting. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The problem I see is this. "Communism" was presented to the American people by the government and media, many years ago, as a threat to the freedom and rights of the people of any country which might fall to communist revolution. In reality, communist revolution was a threat to American capitalists who had investments in those regions. The pinko commie hippies of America saw through the fake news so they demonstrated against the war on communism. They claimed that that the war against communism was a war against the people of those regions, aimed at oppression for capitalist purposes, rather than a fight for the freedom of those people.

Now we have the fallout from this anti-communist propaganda, this fake news of the communist threat. We have millions of Americans, including some in high military positions, and probably in positions of political power as well, foolishly believing that those people in those regions, owe America for its war against communism. But these people with this opinion, misunderstand the situation. By your own words, America has been "heavily invested" in blood and toil for the past 60 years. But this investment was not for the sake of those people, in those regions, it was for the sake of the capitalists of this region. That's the intent behind investment, profit. So the people of those regions owe America nothing, the blood and toil was for the profit of Americans. I'm sure you know what invest means, as that's the word which you used.

You use "we" as if you've fallen for the deception, that "we" signifies a unity of everyone, "us and them"; "we will all profit from the war against communism". But it's really nothing more than a thinly disguised separation of "these people" from "those people". And what is that but an "us" and "them"?

EL-O-EL

The problem I see is this. "Communism" was presented to the American people by the government and media, many years ago, as a threat to the freedom and rights of the people of any country which might fall to communist revolution. In reality, communist revolution was a threat to American capitalists who had investments in those regions. The pinko commie hippies of America saw through the fake news so they demonstrated against the war on communism. They claimed that that the war against communism was a war against the people of those regions, aimed at oppression for capitalist purposes, rather than a fight for the freedom of those people.

Now we have the fallout from this anti-communist propaganda, this fake news of the communist threat.
We have millions of Americans, including some in high military positions, and probably in positions of political power as well, foolishly believing that those people in those regions, owe America for its war against communism. — Metaphysician Undercover

You may be right, I cannot speak for "some in high military positions" and "probably in positions of political power as well" who might/do foolishly believe America is "owed" for any action that is carried out in the name of eradicating [insert evil actors here]. But that is not the prevailing thought that guides the average American, as I consider myself to be, nor the average soldier of which I have family. My feeling is that we are not "owed" anything, when we willingly offer help to whomever around the world needs help in fighting for their freedom. We are not perfect and we do fuck up but as a whole? We try to gracefully walk that fine line between help and interference.

But these people with this opinion, misunderstand the situation. By your own words, America has been "heavily invested" in blood and toil for the past 60 years. But this investment was not for the sake of those people, in those regions, it was for the sake of the capitalists of this region. That's the intent behind investment, profit. So the people of those regions owe America nothing, the blood and toil was for the profit of Americans. I'm sure you know what invest means, as that's the word which you used. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not agree with you that the only reason we "invest" our own blood and toil, is for a financial profit. For the last 22 years I have heavily invested blood and toil into raising my children but it was certainly not for a financial profit. I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty.

On a personal note, my Uncle willingly served the United States Army for 33 years beginning with enlisting for Vietnam and ending with Desert Storm. He certainly didn't choose to devote his life to fight for the capitalists of any region. No. He served for one reason and one reason only and that is his dedication to help those fighting for liberty.

You use "we" as if you've fallen for the deception, that "we" signifies a unity of everyone, "us and them"; "we will all profit from the war against communism". But it's really nothing more than a thinly disguised separation of "these people" from "those people". And what is that but an "us" and "them"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of "we" as a meeting point between "us" and "them", or "you" and "I" where we can agree or disagree with one another on some points but "we" agree to go forward.

I think @SophistiCat had it right. It's Kim's show. A combination of "Divide and conquer" and "Delay". All Trump wants is glory and that's the easiest thing in the world to take advantage of.

I tend to believe he actually did play a part in the recent de-escalation of tension involving North Korea, but not in a way that enhances the standing of the US in the world. I think China dealt with it and left the US irrelevant. — frank

Well, going off from the Iran deal sent a clear message that Americans in general, but especially the Trump administration cannot be trusted. If his totally ignorant base doesn't like something, Trump's going to change his views to woo his supporters... totally irrelevant of the foreign policy impact on the issue at hand.

And what on Earth is this "de-escalation" here? That first Trump talks tough (or talks about little rocket man) and then whants to meet the guy? That North Korea hasn't made a nuclear experiment or launched a missile for some time? Historically true "escalation" in the Korean peninsula has been quite deadly: North Koreans attacking and killing US personnel on the DMZ, sinking a South Korean naval vessel, bombarding a small town on an island.

Well, going off from the Iran deal sent a clear message that Americans in general, but especially the Trump administration cannot be trusted. — ssu

Let me tell you something about trust. :D

I don't think the Iranians were complying with the agreement, were they?

And what on Earth is this "de-escalation" here? — ssu

As an untrustworthy American, I say de-escalation is having NK stop threatening the US mainland. That kind of talk is bad joo joo for everybody. Trust me.

I think the idea that North/South Korea peace in the bag is questionable. North Korea has a very long history of negotiating with the SK and Washington, and it has never gone far, except to embarrass SK & Washington.

After the US and South Korea started joint military drills last week, North Korea canceled a planned meeting with South Korean officials on Tuesday and even threatened to back out of the historic summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un scheduled for June 12 in Singapore.

It remains to be seen if the summit will occur, and exactly what if anything will come out of it.

Think of "we" as a meeting point between "us" and "them", or "you" and "I" where we can agree or disagree with one another on some points but "we" agree to go forward. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I agree that you and are "we". I just don't like it when "we" becomes us, as opposed to them, when others do not agree with what we agree to.

But that is not the prevailing thought that guides the average American, as I consider myself to be, nor the average soldier of which I have family. My feeling is that we are not "owed" anything, when we willingly offer help to whomever around the world needs help in fighting for their freedom. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's hard to say how prevalent this attitude actually is. I've heard it expressed as if it were common place, especially amongst soldiers. And president Trump seems to express this attitude, that America gives more than its fair share militarily. But what is the fair share is dependent on whether America is fighting to protect its own interests, or whether it is fighting for the freedom and liberties of others.

I do not agree with you that the only reason we "invest" our own blood and toil, is for a financial profit. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I guess you have a different understanding of "invest" than I do. We ought not use that word then.

I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I do not find this hard to believe at all. The problem I referred to though, is the problem of Americans who are duped into believing that they are helping others, fighting for their freedom, when really the fight is for some other reason. When this happens, the others who are supposedly being helped, may prove to be ungrateful, and those who are believing that they are helping the others cannot the ungratefulness.

On a personal note, my Uncle willingly served the United States Army for 33 years beginning with enlisting for Vietnam and ending with Desert Storm. He certainly didn't choose to devote his life to fight for the capitalists of any region. No. He served for one reason and one reason only and that is his dedication to help those fighting for liberty. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Do you think that the average soldier in the US military knows the reasons why those who make the decisions to send them into battle in some distant land make that decision? Sure, an instance like Afghanistan after 9/11 is somewhat obvious, but after WWII "to help those fighting for liberty" was more like a catch phrase carried over from that earlier war, than a real reason. What if there's a difference in reason for being there, between those calling the shots (to protect our interests), and those firing the shots (to help those fighting for liberty)?

[Delete] @Baden

As an untrustworthy American, I say de-escalation is having NK stop threatening the US mainland. That kind of talk is bad joo joo for everybody. Trust me. — frank

So, deescalation means tampering down belligerent rhetoric for a while? That's a pretty low bar you are setting, but then chances are, based on past experience and other considerations, that that will indeed be the scope of achievement in the present iteration.

The pattern has been that NK ratchets up the threat level, then at the height of the confrontation it suddenly appears to back down and offers talks. Lots of pomp and ceremony follows; NK extracts temporary relief from its opponents in the form of lifted sanctions, aid and investment, in exchange for a temporary change of rhetoric, vague promises, and concessions that later turn out to be hollow or that it simply refuses to deliver.

NK is a survivor. It doesn't play a long game - it executes these political maneuvers in order to prolong its existence for a few more years. And I don't see anything in the present iteration that would seem to be any different from the past ones. There is no reason at all for NK to give up its highly successful nuclear program (successful politically, that is) and every reason for it to keep it up. As for the unification of Korea, that would entail a suicide for the present NK regime. If a unification ever happens, it obviously won't come about as a result of high-level negotiations with NK in its present state. Before a unification can happen, the regime will either have to be toppled or weakened to a great extent, or it will have to undergo extensive reforms.

You may be right, but I think the world scene is changing. As China takes more of a leadership role than it has in the past, maybe its relationship to NK will change. We'll see.

The peace prize no longer has the same value than it used to with people like MLK. — René Descartes

Why do you say that?

It's hard to say how prevalent this attitude actually is. I've heard it expressed as if it were common place, especially amongst soldiers. And president Trump seems to express this attitude, that America gives more than its fair share militarily. But what is the fair share is dependent on whether America is fighting to protect its own interests, or whether it is fighting for the freedom and liberties of others. — Metaphysician Undercover

To me? There is no "fair share" in helping others and maybe that is a fault of mine, that keeps me from seeing what you are seeing. I am not saying that America does not assess the upside of standing alongside those who are fighting for their own liberty but we also accept the downside risk of our actions, which many times has been expressed as America not being able to keep it's nose out of other peoples business.

I know that some find it hard to believe but Americans actually do believe in helping others fighting for their own freedom, for their own liberty. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not find this hard to believe at all. The problem I referred to though, is the problem of Americans who are duped into believing that they are helping others, fighting for their freedom, when really the fight is for some other reason. When this happens, the others who are supposedly being helped, may prove to be ungrateful, and those who are believing that they are helping the others cannot the ungratefulness.

This as I noted is one of the downside risks of helping others but I don't know that it is a result of being duped so much as it is that expectations are set up for others. The expectations are based on our own beliefs mixed with those who are fighting to be free and often times the two do not survive without the other there. Which is why I believe the USA should maintain the DMZ long after the two nations peacefully become one.

Do you think that the average soldier in the US military knows the reasons why those who make the decisions to send them into battle in some distant land make that decision? Sure, an instance like Afghanistan after 9/11 is somewhat obvious, but after WWII "to help those fighting for liberty" was more like a catch phrase carried over from that earlier war, than a real reason. What if there's a difference in reason for being there, between those calling the shots (to protect our interests), and those firing the shots (to help those fighting for liberty)? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I do believe the 1% of our population who willingly serve our nations military, know the reasons why they are being sent to a "distant land". Next week our God Daughter who is 25 and a Navy Officer serving on the USS Iwo Jima in the sea of Japan, will be pinned for her next officer rank, in command of her amphibious assault ship. She clearly understands why she is positioned where she is and it is likely a mix of protecting those that are already there, along with helping those whose liberty we have been protecting for the last 60 years. I will ask her your question and report back to you the honest answer I receive.

May she safely return home to her family after she returns a home to another family in that "distant land". :heart:

To me? There is no "fair share" in helping others and maybe that is a fault of mine, that keeps me from seeing what you are seeing. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's exactly what I think. That's why when people are talking about the fair share, in respect to military expenditure, they are not talking about helping others, they are talking about a joint venture.

This as I noted is one of the downside risks of helping others but I don't know that it is a result of being duped so much as it is that expectations are set up for others. The expectations are based on our own beliefs mixed with those who are fighting to be free and often times the two do not survive without the other there. Which is why I believe the USA should maintain the DMZ long after the two nations peacefully become one. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I know what you mean, It's actually a very complicated issue which I presented in a sort of simplistic, one-sided way. In reality, different cultures have very different structures of beliefs, so if we base our judgements of what others need, on our own beliefs, we're bound to get some things wrong. Ungratefulness is hard to swallow, but for anyone intent on helping others, it has to be an expectation.

I will ask her your question and report back to you the honest answer I receive. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'd appreciate that, I honestly believe opinions are valuable. If we don't share our opinions they reach in separate ways, and "we" is divided into us and them. There's two directions, toward division and toward unity. If we don't share opinions there is no hope of unity. But even when opinions are discussed sometimes division is required. Why?

May she safely return home to her family after she returns a home to another family in that "distant land". — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, I hope that's the way it works out.