Korean peace?

[khay]

43 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

He actually had very very little to do with it.  Like at all.  

 

Kim Jong met with Xi and a south korean delegation pre olympics.   After thatovertures of peace were made.  Post olympics there was a lot of back and forth on the "red phone" leading to this up to and including official visits to the "blue house" 

 

Trumps office sent Pompeo and by all measure he was a military delegate due to the fact that with peace the US is about to be kicked out of South Korea losing a HUGE power base in the South Pacific

 

In fact by and large the only word the US had in this was when South Korea called the US to let them know what they were doing while the US sat back and mumbled about nukes being the issue

 

So in all honesty it appears China and South Korea are/were the reasons behind peace.

 

Not Trump, no matter what twittler will try to force down people's throats

 

Pre Olympics

http://www.businessinsider.com/south-koreas-moon-tells-trump-hes-sending-diplomats-to-north-korea-2018-3

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/04/asia/koreas-seoul-delegation-pyongyang/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/world/asia/north-korea-south-treaty.html

 

Recent Announcements

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/world/asia/north-korea-south-treaty.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/17/report-north-and-south-korea-set-announce-official-end-war/523804002/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4149454/north-korea-south-korea-discussing-announce-end-of-war-summit-reports/

 

Now, let's ask the question nobody seems to want to.  With almost 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea along the DMZ and South Korea being the YUGE arms purchaser it has been, as well as South Korea's strategic benefit to America for checking Chinese expansions and aggression.

 

Do you honestly think that the US will simply allow this to happen while being told to leave?  My money is on them setting up shop in Taiwan 

 

 

 

By doing nothing and letting other smarter people do the job, he deserves some credit. He could have easily ruined it, especially when it was his turn to accept/reject the proposal for a summit, he gave a positive response. By my expectation of Trump, he did a lot by not ruining it. He could have just said "f*ck it! we dropping nuclear bombzzzz."

 

If Obama wins the Nobel peace prize for who knows what, Trump deserves one for at least not ruining peace negotiation. 

 

As for US troop leaving Korea, I don't think they are leaving. We will see how these negotiations go but that's something US should fight hard for. US could bring up to China that they will otherwise relocate the troop to Taiwan, China will use their influence on North Korea to not demand relocation of the troops. Relocating to Taiwan is really bad for China. That brings Taiwan back to the spotlight, which China does not want.

 

[Alflives]

6 hours ago, khay said:

I think it's huge.

 

When he got elected I was like this is a big joke. This guy has biggest ego in the world. He's going to make life difficult for everyone.

 

But it turns out that to benefit himself, he is willing to sacrifice the benefits of his country. And these are the easiest people to negotiate with. You give them something, they will give something back, only trick is that you have to make him believe that he is getting a better return. I mean, peace in that region is a great news for Koreans but for US? They aren't going to be able to make billions or even trillions of dollars through weapon sales no more. That will decline over time. Good news for the world, bad news for greedy and power hungry US corporates and government officials.

 

If peace is indeed achieved, Trump will get a lot of credit for achieving peace in a region where there has been so much volatility in the last 70 years. No US president even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the latter being a Nobel peace prize winner have not been able to achieve. And Trump will use this fact to get more votes and go for re-election.

 

It's getting very interesting.

 

 

Trump wins a Nobel Peace Prize?  Crazy, but it might actually happen, if there is a lasting peace in Korea.  

[Fateless]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Trump wins a Nobel Peace Prize?  Crazy, but it might actually happen, if there is a lasting peace in Korea.  

Why would Trump win it over the people who  actually made this happen such as the Chinese or South Korean leaders? 

Just because Trump didn't &^@# something up doesn't automatically mean that he was the most important factor. I know we have low standards for him, but give me a break. 

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, Fateless said:

Why would Trump win it over the actual people who made this happen such as the Chinese or South Korean leaders? 

Just because Trump didn't &^@# something up doesn't automatically mean that he was the most important factor. I know we have low standards for him, but give me a break. 

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (https://www.google.ca/search?q=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&oq=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.8175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on)

Is this not exactly what Trump is doing by pushing North Korea into negotiation for peace?  He's going to be the first President to meet face to face with the North's dictator.  Trump's methods are clearly unique, but there are certainly positive results in this matter, no?

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, Fateless said:

Why would Trump win it over the people who  actually made this happen such as the Chinese or South Korean leaders? 

Just because Trump didn't &^@# something up doesn't automatically mean that he was the most important factor. I know we have low standards for him, but give me a break. 

It's only the low standards set by his predecessor that make this remotely Prize-worthy.  If Obama can get nominated for (and then win) the prize, just for being elected to the office, since that was all he had accomplished by the time he was nominated, what does Trump really need to do to win one?

[6string]

10 hours ago, khay said:

I think it's huge.

 

When he got elected I was like this is a big joke. This guy has biggest ego in the world. He's going to make life difficult for everyone.

 

But it turns out that to benefit himself, he is willing to sacrifice the benefits of his country. And these are the easiest people to negotiate with. You give them something, they will give something back, only trick is that you have to make him believe that he is getting a better return. I mean, peace in that region is a great news for Koreans but for US? They aren't going to be able to make billions or even trillions of dollars through weapon sales no more. That will decline over time. Good news for the world, bad news for greedy and power hungry US corporates and government officials.

 

If peace is indeed achieved, Trump will get a lot of credit for achieving peace in a region where there has been so much volatility in the last 70 years. No US president even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the latter being a Nobel peace prize winner have not been able to achieve. And Trump will use this fact to get more votes and go for re-election.

 

It's getting very interesting.

 

 

Clinton and Obama were obstructionists to any unifying strategies or aspirations for the two Koreas, they both emphasized S.Korea as an important military ally and strong economic partner. There were no moves or international diplomacy initiated by the two that ever brought the two Koreas to the table. America's deep state hegemonic ambitions would never allow this to happen.

 

GW Bush called N. Korea a member of the axis of evil, America's foreign policy has been consistent there since after the Korean war in 1953 regardless of political stripes. Trump missed the boat on this oppurtunity - right before his eyes to claim any credit. But you know America if the Koreans unify - the history books will show America did it!

 

America has a lot to loose with this new geo-political alignment if it happens, or will they find a way to make sure it won't?

[6string]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Trump wins a Nobel Peace Prize?  Crazy, but it might actually happen, if there is a lasting peace in Korea.  

Well Obama received his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize just short of his one year anniversary in office.

 

He would later attack Libya, started the extensive air strikes on Syria, out droned GW Bush in Pakistan and Somalia, had boots on the ground and armed the Saudis in the cruelest of wars currently in Yemen and he did inherit Afgahnistan and Iraq from another war criminal in GW Bush.

 

Too early for Trump he has his orders coming in soon ( Iran possibly ) for more Bankster wars and a Peace Prize!

[Gnarcore]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (https://www.google.ca/search?q=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&oq=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.8175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on)

Is this not exactly what Trump is doing by pushing North Korea into negotiation for peace?  He's going to be the first President to meet face to face with the North's dictator.  Trump's methods are clearly unique, but there are certainly positive results in this matter, no?

No. You don't get that for throwing out insults over Twitter. 

[kloubek]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Trump wins a Nobel Peace Prize?  Crazy, but it might actually happen, if there is a lasting peace in Korea.  

Hey, as much as I hate the guy if he spearheaded an initiative to end a 67something year old war, I am glad to give him props for that.  Recognition where it is deserved.  Similar to the recognition of how he is setting the US public back some 3 decades sociologically.  

[Fateless]

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

It's only the low standards set by his predecessor that make this remotely Prize-worthy.  If Obama can get nominated for (and then win) the prize, just for being elected to the office, since that was all he had accomplished by the time he was nominated, what does Trump really need to do to win one?

So we should just completely throw away any semblance of credibility the award has and continue to give it to undeserving recipients?

Its irrelevant that Obama won it... that doesn't all the sudden qualify Trump. Particularly when he's causing more division in the United States than the Civil War.

[Kragar]

10 minutes ago, Fateless said:

So we should just completely throw away any semblance of credibility the award has and continue to give it to undeserving recipients?

Its irrelevant that Obama won it... that doesn't all the sudden qualify Trump. Particularly when he's causing more division in the United States than the Civil War.

The award lost some semblance of credibility when the Nobel committee tainted the award by giving to Obama solely for winning an election.  Had they at least waited a year, then they could have pointed to something that actually happened during his tenure (whether he deserves it or not).  But, no, they too had to ride the wave of celebrating Obama, nominating him a month after he took office.

 

FWIW, I'm not sold on Trump winning the award at this point.  If he is involved in a brokered deal for peace, bring it on, but it is still too early to tell.  They haven't even sat down to talk yet.  Who knows, maybe I have higher standards than the Nobel committee

[NewbieCanuckFan]

11 minutes ago, Kragar said:

But, no, they too had to ride the wave

It was clearly based on what he would be assumed to make happen in the future.  He got elected on "hope".  One can question whether actually accomplished anything of substance in that regard; but he clearly won based on that.  You're forgeting how people felt *at the time*.  There was alot of optimism at the beginning.  ALOT.

 

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

It was clearly based on what he would be assumed to make happen in the future.  He got elected on "hope".  One can question whether actually accomplished anything of substance in that regard; but he clearly won based on that.  You're forgeting how people felt *at the time*.  There was alot of optimism at the beginning.  ALOT.

 

Like I said, the award lost some semblance of credibility.

 

You don't give out a prestigious award, hoping it will be earned.  You give it to someone who earned it.

[King Heffy]

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (https://www.google.ca/search?q=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&oq=US+presidents+to+win+nobel+peace+prize&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.8175j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on)

Is this not exactly what Trump is doing by pushing North Korea into negotiation for peace?  He's going to be the first President to meet face to face with the North's dictator.  Trump's methods are clearly unique, but there are certainly positive results in this matter, no?

He's such a maniac he's making Kim look reasonable in comparison.  Not sure how that deserves any kind of award.

[Ryan Strome]

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

Like I said, the award lost some semblance of credibility.

 

You don't give out a prestigious award, hoping it will be earned.  You give it to someone who earned it.

Exactly.

 

In 1957, for his role in resolving the Suez Crisis through the United Nations, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The selection committee argued that Pearson had "saved the world", but critics accused him of betraying the motherland and Canada's ties with the UK. Pearson and UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld are considered the fathers of the modern concept of peacekeeping. Together, they were able to organize the United Nations Emergency Forceby way of a five-day fly-around in early November 1956. His Nobel medal is on permanent display in the front lobby of the Lester B. Pearson Building, the headquarters of Global Affairs Canada in Ottawa.

[Lancaster]

There were previous high level meetings between Kim and Xi within the last month.  

As far as we know, Xi could be have been tearing Kim a new one, since his antic are weakening the Chinese in the region.  Additional US military assets installed in South Korea, the Japan ramping up defense spending to as much as the United Kingdom (should they decide to match percentage of GDP spending as China, they would be 3rd in the world), etc. 

China could be potentially losing lots of money and clout if North Korea doesn't rein it in.  

 

From China's perspective, while they initially feared an unified Korea with Pro-US South Korean leadership, chances are the Koreans will be licking their chops to take a swing at Japan first than China (a third of traditional Korea is within China's borders).  Reconstruction is very expensive and time consuming, and using Germany as an example, almost 30 years since reunification and parity between East and West Germany is still far apart.  South Korea being less economically robust compared to the West Germans and with North Korea far stagnant than East Germany.... rebuilding and reintegration will probably take at least a century.... and a century is more than enough time for China to claim Korea into their sphere of influence away from the Americans.  

 

Since there were top level meetings between the US and North Korea, it's suffice to say that Trump did play a role.  If Trump is able bring back the majority of US troops back from the ROK, it will be great for him domestically.  He can claim that peace has officially been declared and that he's bringing the boys home, unlike the previous Obama regime that left Afghanistan and Iraq before the job was finished.  

Trump's detractors will adamantly claim that he's just a blind pig stumbling upon an acorn.... his supporters and most importantly, the swing voters, will view Trump as someone with a method to his perceived madness.  

 

[Alflives]

13 hours ago, King Heffy said:

He's such a maniac he's making Kim look reasonable in comparison.  Not sure how that deserves any kind of award.

"Desperate times call for desperate [unique] measures", no?

[RUPERTKBD]

15 hours ago, Kragar said:

The award lost some semblance of credibility when the Nobel committee tainted the award by giving to Obama solely for winning an election.  Had they at least waited a year, then they could have pointed to something that actually happened during his tenure (whether he deserves it or not).  But, no, they too had to ride the wave of celebrating Obama, nominating him a month after he took office.

 

FWIW, I'm not sold on Trump winning the award at this point.  If he is involved in a brokered deal for peace, bring it on, but it is still too early to tell.  They haven't even sat down to talk yet.  Who knows, maybe I have higher standards than the Nobel committee

Some would say that it was "tainted" years before, when the likes of Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, FW de Klerk and Yitzhak Rabin were all winners.

 

But yeah, Obama is a perfect example...

[Kragar]

4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Some would say that it was "tainted" years before, when the likes of Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, FW de Klerk and Yitzhak Rabin were all winners.

 

But yeah, Obama is a perfect example...

There's some "quality" people on your list, with some questionable (putting it lightly) history.  But they did accomplish something in their respective years to be recognized for the Prize.  I wouldn't disagree that their history could/should prevent them from winning.  One could further argue that those who reverted to being less than peaceful afterwards should lose their awards.

 

That still doesn't support Obama winning it in '09.  Sure, he had no prior history that might disqualify him, but Obama deserved the prize as much as the Oilers deserved the Cup this year (such an amazing preseason!).  There has to be more than hope as a qualifying factor.

 

That's why, in my original comment here, I feel the only possible reason for Trump being considered for a prize at this time is due to the criteria of hope.  Korean peace is in the early phases.  Over the coming months, Trump could screw it up.  The NK or SK, or both, could refuse to sign whatever gets put together.  NK and SK could sign, but without any significant involvement by the US (unlikely, but throwing it out there).  I"m sure other options are out there too.  If, however, the US is involved, and NK and SK sign a peace treaty and steps are taken to demilitarize, how can Trump not be considered (in a 3-way split, as in '94)?  And if that happens, he would be far more deserving than Obama was in '09.