Donald Trump

[BobKowalski]

...and a Trump hotel. He’s already talking beach front condo’s.

 

[Tanzeylee]

Which of his policies were lefty?

Pol Pots or Obama’s ?

 

[worsleyweb]

Incredible from Trump. Nobel Peace Prize if this pans out the way we all hope, although I do get the feeling sometimes from some sections of society they would rather see a nuclear war or a financial Brexit meltdown, just to say I told you so?

Exactly this. He is a proper leader.

 

[grunge]

Incredible from Trump. Nobel Peace Prize if this pans out the way we all hope, although I do get the feeling sometimes from some sections of society they would rather see a nuclear war or a financial Brexit meltdown, just to say I told you so?

Well they gave one to Mugabe ( for a while ) so anything is possible. but for me, even if this does pan out in the most positive way possible, he's done the opposite in the middle east so it pretty much gets undone.

Im more than happy giving the guy credit where its due, and for this one I do think it is due. but 1 victory doesn't undo the rest.

 

[Tbilisi]

Exactly this. He is a proper leader.

Dead right, wish we had him here instead of weak as piss May and work shy weak as piss Corbyn

 

[The perfect fumble]

Well they gave one to Mugabe ( for a while ) so anything is possible. but for me, even if this does pan out in the most positive way possible, he's done the opposite in the middle east so it pretty much gets undone.

Im more than happy giving the guy credit where its due, and for this one I do think it is due. but 1 victory doesn't undo the rest.

Lyndon Johnson was a bully and all round arsehole.

Yet he was one of the most progressive Presidents the USA has ever had, many of his reforms last to this day and changed the life of millions for the better, yet he is mostly remembered for what he did in Vietnam.

We all fall in to the trap of thinking that good things can only be done by good people or, at the very least, that they are done with good intentions.

 

[buckshot]

Anyone noticed the irony that Trump has discarded a detailed agreement with Iran which involves verifiable decommissioning of their nuclear weapons capability, because it doesn't address its ballistic missile capability. Apparently that was the worst deal in the world. Then a month later he's signed up to an agreement where NK have only committed to "work towards" denuclearisation and also doesn't mention their ballistic missile capability, and in return they have practically become a US ally.

Trump has now managed to build up cordial relations with the leaders of Russia, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines whilst at the same time pissing off Canada, Mexico, Australia, and most EU countries.

Strange times.

So they say they will work toward denuclearization (vague) and we pledge to stop military exercises w/ S Korea. No mention of human rights or fair elections and we give in on their demands.

A real deal would include a firm date that all nuclear weapons will be out of their hands, UN nuclear inspectors on site in the coming days, UN human rights inspectors on site in the coming days and a date where fair elections are to be held and inspected by (you guessed it) UN inspectors.

America used to be the country who would stand up against this kind of shit. We are sending a horrible message when we talk of Canada and England as security threats and compliment murderous dictators.

Oh and now the AP is reporting that Dumb Donald is talking up NK real estate and some beachfront property.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I don't understand. Are you saying that because the US economy is so big that the military-industrial complex is economically irrelevant? (Armaments is about 10% of American factory output.)

Or that ISIS (which may not exist but for US policy in the region) is why you need the military industrial complex (with its tentacles in government)?

The US backed Iraq in the war against Iran then went to war to defend Kuwait (to defend boundaries partly set up to carve up the area for US and British oil interests) then invaded Iraq using 9/11 as a pretext when it was more the Saudis to blame for 9/11 (and ISIS).

You don't think the 1980s were the height of the cold war. In Europe we were getting cruise missiles as part of an American strategy of "limited nuclear war" (limited to Europe) while the US was supporting Pinochet in Chile and other dictators in Central America against popular revolutions. "We're on the side that's murdering nuns." Tensions were pretty high on our side of your cold war, and Reagan's evil empire talk was just turned back on itself.

http://collections.museumca.org/?q=collection-item/2010541560

I'm saying that 1% -- not 10% -- of GNP does not make America a "tool of the arms industry" as you suggested.

Should the US have not defended Kuwait? Do you remember the Hitlerian comparisons the world made about Hussein? It's really not fair to imply the reasons for the Gulf War come solely from protection of US oil interests without acknowledging that there were humanitarian reasons to defend the weak from tyrants. The next invasion, I grant you, cynically levered that and was waged under monstrously false pretenses -- which is why the objection to it here was so vociferous. And there's no doubt that mishandling and excessive fretting about the spread of leftism in the 50s and 60s led to overcompensation and support for Pinochet and others, except that there's a rock-and-hard-place issue there too (cf. Nicaragua). Again -- it's not as if all Americans blindly went along with these policies in full support of the government.

No, the mid-80s were NOT the height of the Cold War -- the Cuban Missile Crisis clearly was, as any student of history here knows. Europe may not have cared, but America sure as hell did.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Exactly this. He is a proper leader.

LOL. This summit is like paying top dollar for an evening with a beautiful prostitute, then bragging the next day about the hot chick you picked up in a bar due to your incredible charm and manliness.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

There would be more trust in the deal if it was anyone else because we would have had more confidence that the groundwork prior to the summit would have been thorough and extensive. Given the haste this was arranged it smacks more of a photo op than anything substantial.

Secondly Trump has shown that he cannot be trusted to keep a deal and no one has any idea if Kim can be trusted or what steps will be implemented to ensure he is keeping his word.

Thirdly Kim’s objective with his ICBM program (irrespective of how real it actually is) and nuclear capability was to a) ensure NK and his safety and b) parlay them into a sit down as equals with the US. This he has now achieved. The likihood that he will totally destroy his main bargaining chips is not in my opinion high.

Fourthly we wouldn’t be having reacharounds if it was a different US President because no other President would have agreed to the sit down without securing concrete concessions from NK first. The sit down was the prize for NK and they got it without too much effort.

Finally I haven’t been disparaging of this summit on the grounds talking is better than not talking and the South Koreans have put a lot of effort into this so props to them. But the fact it is Trump who cannot be trusted to go 5 minutes without lying and the fact that it happened quickly will always raise red flags.

In a sea of opinion, with periodic garbage gyres of cluelessness, it is nice to find this island of rationality. Exactly this.