Political pressure works!

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:12 pm

anon for this wrote:

That's an interesting analysis, but this is the first time I've heard Kim described as passive. Also I'm pretty sure that South Korean leaders praised his father publicly during earlier summits but those didn't work out too well.

Obviously, we don't know a lot about Kim, but we know that his two older brothers were passed over for leadership. One was murdered, possibly as a warning to Kim. If you look at pictures, particularly from early after succeeding his father, he is pretty obviously being frog-marched by his military escort.

The NK generals live in fairly isolated individual compounds, and there is even some speculation that the most intractable ones have been removed by covert SK/US teams. That veers a little close to conspiracy theory for me (despite accusations to the contrary!), but if you look at the maps, it's certainly plausible. It's the kind of thing that might come out in fifty years, and everybody would yawn.

So all that is definitely conjecture. What isn't conjecture is the body language. Kim is behaving as the young man who wants to earn the approval of the older men (President Moon and President Trump). None of this is going to make nuclear warheads disappear overnight, but it's promising.

And if it doesn't work, Trump will try something else.

SixOfWands

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:17 pm

anon for this wrote:

I agree that Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was rather puzzling (Obama thought so too); I think that the committee hoped that he would start fewer wars than George W. Bush and was rewarding him for that in advance.

That's an interesting analysis, but this is the first time I've heard Kim described as passive. Also I'm pretty sure that South Korean leaders praised his father publicly during earlier summits but those didn't work out too well.

I've never heard him referred to as "passive" either. Public executions, arbitrary detention, forced labor. He had the deputy premier for education killed by of a firing squad for showing “disrespectful posture” in a meeting. A general who fell asleep in a meeting (which I'll admit was a bad thing to do) was executed with an antiaircraft gun, as was one of his uncles. None of this reads "passive" to me.

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Have you really read much about the history and governance of NK? Because when you say "he had X done," it's usually unclear exactly who is giving what orders. Like I said, a lot of this is observation and informed speculation by people who've studied the country and region for years. They may be wrong, but they know a lot more than I do, and certainly more than the average reporter writing about NK.

I got interested a few years ago after reading Michael Malice's Dear Reader. I follow him on Twitter, and he interacts with a lot of Korean observers. Long story short, power has been in the hands of the generals, and it's unclear whether Kim is able or willing to wrest it away. But they all seem to agree that the real story would be if Trump/Moon could somehow get the generals out of the way. A lot of options might open up under those circumstances.

anon for this

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:49 pm

Michael Malice is a celebrity ghostwriter whose primary work on NK, Dear Reader, is described as a satirical biography of Kim Jong II. Personally, while I enjoy satirical political novels, I don't consider their authors a great source for political analysis on that basis alone. It has nothing to do with his political views either--I wouldn't consider Christopher Buckley an expert on the Middle East, China, or the Supreme Court, though he's written entertaining novels about these and many other topics.

I am concerned that Victor Cha, Bush's advisor on Korean affairs, was withdrawn as nominee for ambassador to South Korea because he expressed his opposition to "limited" nuclear strikes against NK. Here's what he had to say about NK:

“It’s not hard to get a deal with North Korea” Cha maintains, but “the real question for the president is: are we going to pretend that they got rid of [their nuclear capability], or are we going to make certain that whatever agreement is reached, this will not be a threat to the American people or to U.S. allies?”

Regarding this comment about the threat to US allies, I find it a bit concerning that the US appears to have suspended joint military exercises with South Korea.

Last edited by anon for this on Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 4:52 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Oh, gee, I'm just a stupid person who doesn't know nothin' bout no politicin'. You're the only one who knows anything, and the only one who reads. And when YOU say that Kim Jung Un is just some shy little ol' guy who is passive, and he's looking up to good ol' Uncle Donnie to teach him how to be great, just like he does on The Apprentice, I'm sure you must be right.

Oh, for goodness' sakes. Nobody is insulting you. I'm just asking you if you really follow this stuff, because the examples you gave were very typical of MSM reporting. I even mentioned that I wouldn't have followed or known anything about this if I hadn't stumbled onto a book a few years ago and then followed the author on Twitter.

In fact, don't listen to a word I write about the subject. Read Malice's book yourself; follow him on Twitter yourself; then follow all the East Asia political junkies who interact with him.

One of the things about me is that I'm usually pretty upfront about where I get my ideas, and it's not like I come up with this stuff on my own. So when you make fun of things I've written about and openly attributed to others, it doesn't really make sense.

If you don't agree with Michael Malice and a bunch of people on Twitter that know a lot more about this stuff than probably either of us do, it's not exactly and indictment of me. I'm not dying on the hill of their veracity or analysis -- I'm just passing along an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard elsewhere from people who seem to have some knowledge of the subject.

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:06 pm

anon for this wrote:

I think you might have skimmed Wikipedia a little quickly. Malice spent considerable time in NK (for a reporter, at least), and Dear Reader is satirical in the true sense of the word -- to reveal underlying truths about the subject. He is a regular commentator on NK. Like I said, you may disagree with his conclusions, but he's certainly more qualified than the vast majority of people discussing the topic.

anon for this wrote:

I am concerned that Victor Cha, Bush's advisor on Korean affairs, was withdrawn as nominee for ambassador to South Korea because he expressed his opposition to "limited" nuclear strikes against NK. Here's what he had to say about NK:

“It’s not hard to get a deal with North Korea” Cha maintains, but “the real question for the president is: are we going to pretend that they got rid of [their nuclear capability], or are we going to make certain that whatever agreement is reached, this will not be a threat to the American people or to U.S. allies?”

Regarding this comment about the threat to US allies, I find it a bit concerning that the US appears to have suspended joint military exercises with South Korea.

My guess is that he was perceived as wishy-washy and too comfortable with the status quo -- neither willing to commit militarily nor willing to make peace. But that's just a guess on my part.

On the contrary, suspending military exercises gives us great leverage. Should NK renege, we can now do something without really doing something. In other words, we don't really want to bomb NK, but we need to show we mean business. We've given away something that we can take back very easily.

SixOfWands

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:09 pm

Fox wrote:

I removed my post before you responded. But you really are extraordinarily condescending, pretending that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they're talking about.

anon for this

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:25 pm

Fox wrote:

I think you might have skimmed Wikipedia a little quickly. Malice spent considerable time in NK (for a reporter, at least), and Dear Reader is satirical in the true sense of the word -- to reveal underlying truths about the subject. He is a regular commentator on NK. Like said, you may disagree with his conclusions, but he's certainly more qualified than the vast majority of people discussing the topic.

Actually this is the impression I got from Michael Malice's website. I agree that he's likely had more experience in NK than most non-North Koreans, certainly more than I've had. So has Dennis Rodman. But many people with more experience than Malice disagree with his views.

Fox wrote:

My guess is that he was perceived as wishy-washy and too comfortable with the status quo -- neither willing to commit militarily nor willing to make peace. But that's just a guess on my part.

Sure, if by "wishy-washy" and "unwilling to commit militarily" you mean that he was unwilling to agree to "limited" nuclear strikes against NK. The NK News website, which is likely staffed by true NK experts, noted that his nomination was withdrawn shortly after his op-ed disagreeing with "bloody nose" strikes and concluded, "This bona fide hawk wasn’t hawkish enough for this administration".

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:37 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I removed my post before you responded. But you really are extraordinarily condescending, pretending that anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they're talking about.

See, that's the interesting thing. I didn't think we were disagreeing. How on earth would you be disagreeing with me? I was presenting some new information that most people might not be aware of. In fact, I'd even had a pleasant exchange with a poster about it, and I'd offered a ton of qualifiers about how much of it was speculation on the part of others.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out for being condescending, You're the one who snarkily responded to an idea by dismissing it simply because you'd never heard it before. So? That's why I gave the source of my information.

Fine. You win. Kim Jung Un is a ruthless tyrant who imposes his will capriciously on his people and that's all there is to it. There are no observers, journalists, or scholars who think there is anything more complex going on. Somebody ought to do something about it

Is that what you had in mind for discussion about the topic?

SixOfWands

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:42 pm

Fox wrote:

Allow me to paraphrase your post --

"Have you read all of these things that I have read? Because if you had, then you wouldn't have the same benighted ideas as most experts in America but, instead, would agree entirely with me. But I guess you just don't know as much or read as much as I do. That's why you're so stupid."

Its nasty and its condescending. And it makes it virtually impossible to have a discussion with you.

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 5:42 pm

anon for this wrote:

Sure, if by "wishy-washy" and "unwilling to commit militarily" you mean that he was unwilling to agree to "limited" nuclear strikess against NK. The NK News website, which is likely staffed by true NK experts, noted that his nomination was withdrawn shortly after his op-ed disagreeing with "bloody nose" strikes and concluded, "This bona fide hawk wasn’t hawkish enough for this administration".

I'm not disagreeing with you or offering Michael Malice up as the ultimate expert. I was simply explaining the source of my information. Like I said, even when I do come up with my own ideas (which is rarely), I think it's important to let people know what I've read or listened to that influenced me.

Hard to say the exact reasons for Cha's withdrawal; my guess it was a combination of what you mention as well as a desire, for both better and worse, to prune the neo-con old-boy network.

Fox

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:03 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Sorry, but I've read my post over repeatedly, and the only way I can possibly imagine you coming to that conclusion is if you only read the first sentence.

May I also point out that you didn't say, "That's interesting, Fox, because XYZ experts say ABC." You've apparently read into a single sentence that I am dismissing hordes of experts that you never referenced. You also didn't seem to have actually read my posts; you seem to think that I stand behind these theories even after a number of qualifiers as to their source and speculative nature.

Frankly, I can't imagine anyone having any reaction to the information I presented other than, "Wow! That sounds crazy! Wouldn't it be amazing if it turned out to be true?" or even "Wow! That's really hard to reconcile with our image of Kim as a brutal dictator." I mean, what more is there to say?

So I don't understand why you responded the way you did in the first place, let alone how one short sentence out of two paragraphs has been blown up out of proportion.

anon for this

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:05 pm

Fox wrote:

Pruning the neo-con old boy network? Really? Then how do you explain Mike Pompeo and John Bolton?

anon for this

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:18 pm

Fox wrote:

Lol! I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. Though Bolton was never much beloved by the neo-cons. I'm not sure if they thought he was too much of a loose cannon or they were just disturbed by his hair and mustache.

I'm confused. You claim that Victor Cha was rejected because he was too much of a neo-con. That claim makes no sense, since he was rejected because he opposed military strikes against NK, which isn't a very neo-con thing to do. Also, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who play much more significant roles in the administration than the ambassador to South Korea, are absolutely considered neo-cons.

LOL?

SixOfWands

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:28 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You are correct to be skeptical. This may well be a "brilliant" stopgap ploy to pacify the masses and claim victory. Until the children already snatched are returned and the policy is not taken up again once public outrage abates, we need to stay vigilant.

or ....

There are limits on the time that children can spend in immigration-related detention. Prior administrations have dealt with this by releasing parents with children, sometimes with an ankle bracelet. It may be that this was a ploy to allow children to be detained indefinitely with their parents.

I tend to give Trump lots of credit for Machiavellian machinations.

southernbubby

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:30 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Good luck with that one. Some of these kids are in NY, others are in MI and these agencies can't locate the parents.

Then, if they sit too long in detention as a family unit, the law is that they be separated, so they could end up back in the same situation.

Possibly nothing has changed. Log on to slate.com. I normally hate slate because I am a conservative but I like to know what is happening on both sides of the fence.

https://slate.com/news-and-pol......html

Jeanette

Wed, Jun 20 2018, 6:31 pm

Miri7 wrote:

I can't get behind anyone who uses forcibly removing babies, toddlers, children from the arms of their mothers (who have only committed a misdemeanor) as part of a "brilliant strategy".

That is cruel and immoral. We don't use helpless innocent children as political pawns. We don't inflict suffering on the most vulnerable to score political wins. To me, that is against Torah values.

Religious groups across the spectrum have denounced this policy, and it makes me sick to see how glibly some of my fellow frum Jews treat this sad chapter in American history.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Lying is lying. Corruption is corruption. Sadism is sadism. The fact that it serves some temporary political goal doesn't make it "brilliant" or any less abhorent.