As an aside, I get the impression some of Trump's defenders here may not realize that even having this summit was a concession to the DPRK regime. It wasn't an achievement to have the meeting. North Korea have been wanting this level of respect in the form of bilateral face-to-face negotiations from other US presidents for decades, but didn't get it because they never gave anything substantial away to deserve it. Just continued with the vague promises that turned out to be lies. So, all I see is that on top of giving them the meeting, Trump gave the most repressive country in the world an excessive amount of respect and the cherry of calling off military exercises. Again, for nothing, zilch, nada. Yet. Maybe things will change but nobody in their right mind would say that concrete progress has been made. And the optics are terrible. Trump, after sending his minions out to castigate Trudeau, who there is apparently a special place in hell for, then kissing the ring of one of the most vicious and cruel dictators in the world. Again, if it all works out, great, but the emperor is even more naked than usual today.

The Iran deal is a 110 page document with a detailed process for verification in place. Are you seriously comparing that to the two page piece of pixie dust Trump got from the DPRK? That's insane.

@fishfry

This is what Trump got :

1) The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity. [Fluff]
2) The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. [Fluff]
3) Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.[Repeated fluff]
4) The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.[Minor humanitarian concession]

That's it. Roughly zilch. And then afterwards he gives away military exercises for nothing without even telling the South Koreans, reportedly. Because they are "too expensive". (Not to mention all those impending sanctions he just canceled).

Now go read the 110 page Iran deal.

Holy shit you have no clue what you're talking about do you.

Holy shit you have no clue what you're talking about do you. — Maw

It's amazing how this is what passes for argumentation on a philosophy forum. Trump derangement syndrome. You can't see past your violent emotions. Compare with Obama's Iran deal, which the liberal media celebrated like crazy.

There is no comparison. One is a comprehensive deal, the other is a joint statement of zero substance. Have you even read what's written above? Are you willing to engage in even a basic level of analysis?

There is a lot of talk about this man. Think about it. This single man is the center of so much attention. A world leader has probably not garnered so much fame and infamy in a very long time. Regardless of your political stance, it is hard to say nothing has changed since he became president.

The fact that anyone even cares about the office of president has dumbfounded me since I was young. This man only holds 1/3 of the power of governance, a bit too much for my tastes, but he doesn't run the country or anything. There are due processes, the rule of law, all strategically positioned to make sure this man stays within his boundaries, and for the most part it seems to work. Even the big man himself, Donald J. Trump, can't just do anything he wants.

I suppose that was a bit of an introduction to my view on the topic. I don't like to be seen as a liberal or conservative. I believe that the only way to improve is to view the world objectively, to address fallacy, and adjust accordingly. However, do not mistake me as a centrist. Doing nothing is worse than being wrong.

America claims to be a democracy, but it is actually more of an oligarchic-republic hybrid. The people hold no real power. You can elect a representative, but politicians are infamous for their ability to lie. The power of the government does not come from the consent of the governed, it comes from the pacification of the governed. No one consented to increased tariffs on canadian goods, but no one is going to stand up and actually do something about it, so why should Mr. Trump care?

I believe we are in an era of a sort of "messing with the bull" politics. A modern war would cause major devastation, likely across multiple continents and cause a few billion deaths. Small countries would be obliterated. The balance of power would shift. That is undesirable because stability is predictable. Mr. Trump likes predictability, he is a businessman after all. So, the question is, how do you get what you want, without seeking trades that hurt you in the long run, or starting a war you might not make it out of? The answer is simple - if the enemy gives you an inch, take a foot. You took more than was offered, but it isn't so big a deal that your enemy will care. Kim Jong-un is a perfect example of this diplomacy. He fires off a few test nukes, the west gets scared, he opens up negotiations, gets some western wealth in return for promises to stop, rinse and repeat. The evils that take place behind Kim's borders are funded by the west's weakness and short sightedness. Kim will never nuke the west, or the east, because he would never survive that war. Trump, and Putin for that matter, engage in this kind of diplomacy often. Its a sort of "put the money in the bag and no one gets hurt" sort of scenario.

A lot of liberal articles I see like to mock Trump as incompetent or stupid, but I don't see it that way. Recently he has been mocked for being rather difficult at the G7 summit, but I believe they are missing the point. Before I make this next claim, let it be known that Mr. Trump is a businessman. Even if you truly believe he is incompetent, he does have a plan, and I believe that plan is to "switch sides" per say. One wouldn't need to stretch to claim that since the 50's, the world has had two sides, the west, and the east. The west is republican, relatively liberal, and likes to stress equality. The east is authoritarian, relatively conservative, and likes to brush the treatment of their people under the rug most of the time. Mr. Trump sees the G7 summit as a congregation of "losers" as he would say. These countries can not defend themselves, rely heavily on the US for economic help, and tend to be the pioneers of policies the US may eventually take, (such as banning firearms, universal healthcare, etc.). Trump wants to be with winners. Countries that can take care of themselves. It is no coincidence that he has warmed up to Russia and China. He wants business partners, not liabilities, which is understandable.

The above is not to say that abandoning the west is a good thing. It may not be sustainable, but all people have unalienable rights, yes? And what about Trumps other policies, his anti environmental views? All of this is to appeal to those who elected him. Trump chose the Republican party because it was stable. The democratic party was in shambles long before the election. Obama was an ok president, but he sure didn't sell the democratic party on anyone who didn't already support it. The Clintons (among others) were essentially using it as a cash cow. Politics had become business. Trump saw potential to run his competition out of business. Trump has never actually cared about the issues. Most politicians don't really. They just want the money and power.

The stage is set for the defining moment in human history. Democracy has been betrayed, its flaws have been revealed, the people lied to, the system rigged, and the nations of the world are almost done choosing sides. The next 50 years are going to be the most important in all of human history, if it doesn't end before then. Two sides are gearing up for war, and america seems to be the missing piece for both once again. The only hope for the individuals, the philosophers, the artists, and the scientists, is to ban together. We must value reason and let our children be free. Knowledge is the key to our salvation my friends, and no matter how you feel about Mr. Trump, let it be known that we can lead humanity down a path of salvation and truth. We just have to take action.

@fishfry
https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Sorry not 110 pages, 160 pages. That's what an actual deal looks like. Again comparing that to a vague joint statement like the one above is ridiculous. Really.

(Make no mistake, if Trump can get a deal as comprehensive and secure as that out of the DPRK, I'll absolutely applaud him and so should we all.)

Last thing, is Ben Shapiro a liberal with "Trump derangement syndrome"?

Ben Shapiro:""If Obama had done this, I would be crushing him today."

It's amazing how this is what passes for argumentation on a philosophy forum. Trump derangement syndrome. You can't see past your violent emotions. Compare with Obama's Iran deal, which the liberal media celebrated like crazy. — fishfry

Because the comparisons are beyond ludicrous, and if you can't comprehend that then you are clearly talking out of your ass. Trump and Kim's joint-statement is, as Baden noted, merely two-pages of vague, and therefore hollow "guarantees", created by two parties which are notoriously known for capriciously walking back on deals. We have nearly three decades of past statements from North Korea, using similarly vague language, which they've unsurprisingly reneged and ignored repeatedly. North Korea has not formally declared that they will begin nuclear disarmament, and they likely never well. It's their strongest leverage they have for any negotiations.

The irony of your accusation, by the way, is that you charge me of poor arguing, yet you've provided no justification for the Iran/Korea comparison, and have repeatedly ignored Baden's posts.

Matter of fact, apart from a short contribution by Hanover, there's been no analysis at all from the opposing side to suggest this meeting was a success. Just some vague assertions. Kind of like the joint statement itself, fittingly enough.

Anyway, waiting for something substantial...

To my mind, a likely scenario will be that the joint-statement "agreement" will collapse because it was nothing more than for short-term show. Bolton the War Hawk will then leverage this to argue that any diplomacy and negotiations are worthless, and press for stronger military action.

you are clearly talking out of your ass — Maw

I'm continually impressed by your ability to frame a logical argument. Not.

I'm continually impressed by your inability to justify anything you say.

I don't know (and don't much care) what effect it will have on the Democrats though I doubt that alone would cost them an election. Anyway, you agree with my analysis or not? — Baden

I can't speak to your concerns, but there is a tremendous amount of political clout riding on this. If Trump denuclearizes North Korea, Trump moves from just being plain crazy to being crazy like a fox, something that will be crushing to the left. Considering the President is arguably the most powerful man in the world, that matters, even if it's off your radar. It can decide who gets the reigns to the world next election.

Regarding the final outcome of this deal, it's Day 1 in a very fluid world, so it's a bit early to say anything about it. Is the world a worse or more dangerous place than it was last week? No, I don't think so, but I do think there's is some hope for a better tomorrow at least to the extent the issue is being addressed. The absurdity I see is that the left is arguing against giving peace a chance, calling the right naïve negotiators, and claiming righteous indignation at negotiating with the forces of evil. It's all so very partisan. I won't pretend to have any objectivity left, largely because I have so little trust in either side, but much less so in the left.

Forgive me, I haven't read any of the preceding posts, this is like an impulsive 'drive by posting':

I find Trump amusing. I love the way that he can so casually offend people. His North Korean counterpart too gives the impression of being a parody of sorts. That this summit has created such a 'stir' is hilarious, no? A bit of mummery and some filthy lucre changing hands in the shadows and everybody lives happily after, eh? Life as we know it...

Where's the harm in this agreement. If N. Korea builds up its nuclear arsenal and tests rockets, we can go back to sanctions and worrying, which is all we did before. And what do sanctions do other than starve the average citizen, which is what Jong-un liked doing anyway? Worst case, we go back to the worst case scenario we already were in.

The serious domestic problem we have is that the parties are actually short sighted enough to root for the other's failure, as if we're not all ultimately aligned.

Trump is helping to promote what is called a "carbon bubble", artificially propping up the rapidly-devaluing assets of Republican fossil fuel friends and allies. One would expect a rapid lift in the economy when stripped environmental protections result in an upsurge of exploiting what is effectively "low hanging fruit" - but without regard to sustainability.

It's akin to a CEO raising the value of a company in the short term by slashing future-based programs for profits today. Then, based on the good figures, the lauded CEO finds a better paying job and leaves his successor to be blamed for the subsequent problems by a board in need of a scapegoat. Trump is helping to accelerate and worsen a crash that was probably coming anyway.

The Singapore summit looks like a sideshow to distract from Trump's recent claim of absolute power and legal impunity. I still want him to produce his tax records for audit and separate his business interests from office to a degree expected by CEOs.

Logically, NK aren't going to bomb anyone because their strength lies in the threat. Kim and co know well that if they actually nuke another nation, then their country as they know it will be destroyed. While they dangle the threat they can "punch above their weight" on the world stage, which is what they are doing.

The suggestion that Trump is using the summit to distract from his environmental stance assumes his supporters don't support his environmental stance and that's not a correct assumption.

I'm being critical but not unfair. This has nothing to do with not giving peace a chance, it has to do with the realities of the situation, what could reasonably have been expected and what actually occurred. You can gloss over the failure here by saying it might turn out to be a success in the end, but it's still a failure now. I don't know if it will be a success in the end. Obviously, I hope it will be. And I don't speak for the left as a whole but the idea that it wants failure, which ultimately suggests that it would prefer a nuclear war, which would result in millions of dead, rather then see Trump get a foreign policy victory is hardly fair. The left are not made up of foaming-at-the-mouth sociopaths. And it's the right, when Obama actually succeeded in reigning in Iran's nuclear program, that sabotaged what was actually a solid deal, with Trump the ultimate culprit. That may yet lead to an unwanted nuclear war. So, his record as stands is ambiguous at the very best.

Where's the harm in this agreement — Hanover

It's more of a missed opportunity than an active harm. If it works out, all's well, but right now, as things stand, what Trump got (i.e. nothing), with all his bluster about being a great deal maker is an embarrassment.

(Of course if Kim is being completely disengenuous, which is a significant possibility given past behaviour, the active harm is as I've specified before: that his position is strengthened having made no concrete concessions while avoiding new sanctions, seeing important military maneuvres on the other side stopped, having his personal cult elevated, his regime strengthened, and getting China back on side.)

@fishfry

It's disappointing that you can't defend your position despite being repeatedly invited to do so. It's a philosophy forum. Drive-by one liners aren't going to cut it here.

It's disappointing that you can't defend your position despite being repeatedly invited to do so. It's a philosophy forum. Drive-by one liners aren't going to cut it here. — Baden

I've written many lengthy posts explaining my position. It's a waste of fucking time. I really dislike the insult culture on this forum.

I really dislike the insult culture on this forum. — fishfry

Yeah, I've noticed it too, though I've learned to ignore it and not address such posts. People don't like having their ideas, beliefs, and assumptions challenged, so the easy way out are ad hominems and straw manning. But, that's inevitable in some sense, given the imperfect nature hereabouts.

Link your lengthy posts explaining your position re: comparing Obama's Iran deal and Trump's N. Korea deal.

I've written many lengthy posts explaining my position. It's a waste of fucking time. I really dislike the insult culture on this forum. — fishfry

Not on this issue you haven't. And you haven't responded to the substance of even one thing I said. Notice in my conversation with Hanover there were no insults btw. Because he actually replied in good faith. All you've done is write a few combative one-liners and run away. Your concerns for the forum and for philosophical argumentation ring very hollow here.

No, he is distracting from his seemingly illegal interference with the Russian investigation - which he says is not illegal because he is POTUS and thus above the law.

If you agree with Trump's recklessly destructive approach to the environment then we have no common ground and I wish you a good life.

Bernie likes the North Korea deal. Isn't that interesting? The checkbox liberals are marching in lockstep against the concept of peace. It takes an independent voice to speak up for Trump's deal.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/12/bernie-sanders-tulsi-gabbard-break-with-pelosi-on-trump-kim-summit-important-first-step-towards-peace/

Again no analysis from you. Anyway, if we're going to look at outside commentary, here's another conservative voice that says it's a total failure (the idea that this is a partisan liberal attack is nonsense and itself just a partisan attack...on liberals) :

"Kim Jong Un got it all for actually doing nothing. Plus, he got a promise for a regime...that tortures and murders its own citizens...and a leader that commits crimes against humanity."

How dare you link breitbart here, you utter [mod censor]. (There's your insult culture)

According to Trump, Kim is very talented. And he is at two things:

1) Mass murder and torture
2) Humiliating his adversaries

Republicans are typically much more prone than Democrats to advocating for American global economic and military hegemony - especially neoconservatives like Max Boot - so it's really not surprising that many don't agree with Trump's conciliatory overtures to North Korea. Without enemies to keep us on our toes the ignorant and shiftless masses will slip even further into decadence.

Richard Nixon opened up diplomatic relationships with China and the Soviet Union in the early 1970's, both ideological foes and human rights violators, and in hindsight I don't think many people would deny that detente was a much better strategy than overt aggression.

Is the argument against the easing of hostilities based on the fact that Kim is a brutal dictator? Is it more about protecting the interests of the USA in the region? Perhaps some combination of these along with additional things? For me the initial goal should be the modest one of lessening hostilities by opening up dialogue. It's a positive first step; nothing more and nothing less.

But I'm trying to inform myself of the history and specific details right now, and this being so I'm very much receptive to more-informed opinions.