Kaios wrote:That discussion is taking place is always a good thing but let's not pretend Kim Jong Un isn't a horrible dictator holding an entire country captive. I don't think Trump has anything to do with bringing Kim Jong Un to the table, my understanding of it is that his nuclear test site was simply in such a state of decay that he decided to blow it up anyways and Trump is simply the benefactor of convenient timing.
I do think if some sort of agreement is to be made North Korea and Kim Jong Un have some serious concessions to make in order for that to happen but I just can't see him offering anything that would be of any real merit.
Yeah, I heard there were 2-3 nuclear test sites and that the one he closed down wasn't really in use anymore anyways because of a rockslide(?) that fucked it up beforehand.
It was a way for him to say "see?? I'm doing it!" without actually doing anything he wasn't already doing.
I agree with you about Trump not really having anything to do with the meeting. Sanctions must be hitting NK pretty hard right about now and by playing nice with SK and other former enemies he gets some wiggle-room for asking for aid. Even if the US meeting didn't go well, his talks with SK could've earned him some support in an attempt to keep their peace talks going.
One person in the comment section got mad because they called Kim a dictator which I thought was pretty funny. The reasoning was that they're negotiating and he didn't think it was right to put a bad label on him but like, you call a thief a thief and this is no different.
Another thing which Rick Santorum said which I actually agreed with (literally the only thing that he has ever said of value) was that this meeting told other smaller world leaders that all you need to do to get talks at the big boy table is to start creating nuclear weapons; a scary precedent to set
Last edited by jordancoles on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.