Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[D Fuller]

A couple of years ago we were almost at war with NK.  Since then, we're smiling at each other.  NK has stopped nuclear explosions and long range missile testing.  They've released American "hostages".   But we still have sanctions on. However, we're talking again. That's a lot better than previous presidents have done.  No, it's not resolved, maybe won't be.  But you got to give credit where it's due.  Otherwise it just appears you just hate the president and that's it.  Regular people know what's going on.  When they see both leaders step over the DMZ, you have to get a good feeling and hope.  What's your plan to resolve the issues?

It is good that Trump is talking with Kim. But NK is a nuclear power, and I suspect that will not change. Meanwhile, in Iran, I imagine them looking at the NK meeting and saying, “Hmm look what you get if you go ahead and build the nukes! We should never have agreed to that deal, all we got is sanctions.”

[Alan Klein]

It is good that Trump is talking with Kim. But NK is a nuclear power, and I suspect that will not change. Meanwhile, in Iran, I imagine them looking at the NK meeting and saying, “Hmm look what you get if you go ahead and build the nukes! We should never have agreed to that deal, all we got is sanctions.”

Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate.  So it wasn;t a treaty that Iran could expect to hold.  They took a chance.  Although they've begin violating again, the sanctions still hold, at least by America. Also, sanctions hurt Iran more than NK.  NK is so isolated with little international trade.  Iran has huge oil reserves that are lying idle and other trade and sales not being done that hurt more than in NK.  I don;t think they're going to build nukes in any case.  Then they'll lose the support of the other signatories as well. 

PS.  Trump has already suggested to Iran, as he has to NK,  that if they give up any nuclear bombs forever, he would gladly remove the sanctions and start doing regular business with them.  The ball is in their court.

[Martin Kristiansen]

According to everything I've read and seen, Trump has made life harder for these guys. You're going to have to explain why you think they've benefited. Maybe you can bring out some of your charts.

Most of this is above my pay grade Russ and I don’t really know enough to have an opinion on relations with Kim and clan nor with Putin, time will tell I suppose.

But I don’t get the thing with MBS and the murder of a United States Citizen and by that I mean Kashogi. There seems little doubt the man was murdered and there seems little doubt MBS played a hand in it. I realize Kashogi was a Saudi citizen but he was also a naturalized US citizen. Surely there should have been some consequences to this? Turkey seems far more interested in the affair that the US.  Why is that? Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug and has done what appears to be a slightly dodgy arms deal with MBS despite him casually killing one of your citizens.

I realize politics is a dirty game but this leaves a very bad taste. It seems disrespectful to the USA from my standpoint.


The rest of the cartoon I realized had references I just didn’t get. I had no idea what the weird pirate guy was supposed to be.

I think Trump is going to win a second term. I think the Democrats are going to score an own goal as they attack each other for the party nomination. If the Republicans can hold their nerve and not attack the sitting president I think he will take it again.

[jeremyrh]

Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate. 

Yeah - and I think Obama actually had his fingers crossed when he agreed to it, so more fool those Iranians for believing in the US. Jeeseus - what are we, 11 years old?

[Jeremy Roussak]

You understand the Nixon reference, I assume?

Yes, I understood it. I'm old enough to remember Nixon.

Intellectual opposition is wasted on his electorate. He will be re-elected!

That kind of staggering, smug arrogance is the reason the US has Trump and we have Brexit. Reasonable disagreement has become impossible: if you don't accept my views, you are not merely wrong, you are too stupid to be worth bothering with.

I assumed he didn't.

Did you really? On what grounds? Do, pray, set out your reasons.

Give it a rest, it's a cartoon.

It is. And it's infantile. And, sadly, it's representative. We have them here too: Brookes in The Times is an egregious example (and had something vaguely similar about Johnson and Iranians in the last few weeks).

Jeremy

[Rob C]

The acronym for Nixon re-election committee was C.R.E.E.P. The character at the right is Fearless Leader from the 1960's satirical animated Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, a tongue in cheek reference to the USSR.

Thanks for the ray of sunshine!

Never in a mlliion years could I have figured that out! Clearly a good way of spotting spies: they can't have the old pop cultural connections.

Thanks!

[Alan Klein]

Most of this is above my pay grade Russ and I don’t really know enough to have an opinion on relations with Kim and clan nor with Putin, time will tell I suppose.

But I don’t get the thing with MBS and the murder of a United States Citizen and by that I mean Kashogi. There seems little doubt the man was murdered and there seems little doubt MBS played a hand in it. I realize Kashogi was a Saudi citizen but he was also a naturalized US citizen. Surely there should have been some consequences to this? Turkey seems far more interested in the affair that the US.  Why is that? Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug and has done what appears to be a slightly dodgy arms deal with MBS despite him casually killing one of your citizens.

I realize politics is a dirty game but this leaves a very bad taste. It seems disrespectful to the USA from my standpoint.


The rest of the cartoon I realized had references I just didn’t get. I had no idea what the weird pirate guy was supposed to be.

I think Trump is going to win a second term. I think the Democrats are going to score an own goal as they attack each other for the party nomination. If the Republicans can hold their nerve and not attack the sitting president I think he will take it again.

I agreed MBS is a thug, but he's our thug unfortunately.  So is Erdoğan, even a member of NATO which makes him one of your thug's too.  Unfortunately we have to deal with bastards all the time.  It's the way the world works.  Xi who we do the most trade with in the world runs a country out of 1984.  Kim killed our own citizens, never mind one who was a Saudi.  Castro is just like these guys.  Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia.  You can't win.  Anyway, it's all politics to attack Trump. 

[Martin Kristiansen]

I agreed MBS is a thug, but he's our thug unfortunately.  So is Erdoğan, even a member of NATO which makes him one of your thug's too.  Unfortunately we have to deal with bastards all the time.  It's the way the world works.  Xi who we do the most trade with in the world runs a country out of 1984.  Kim killed our own citizens, never mind one who was a Saudi.  Castro is just like these guys.  Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia.  You can't win.  Anyway, it's all politics to attack Trump.

I am a long way from NATO so Erdogan is not my thug. We have plenty of home grown thugs and are willing to trade if you would like but in the interests of openness I have to tell you best you don’t.

[Rob C]

I am a long way from NATO so Erdogan is not my thug. We have plenty of home grown thugs and are willing to trade if you would like but in the interests of openness I have to tell you best you don’t.

Those gun makers get everywhere.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No crap! And you know this... how? Did you have a chat with Kim? Fact is, neither you, I, or anybody else knows what's going to happen with North Korea.

Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);

Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.

These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."

And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas  too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...

The article has many more observations (about China, and  Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.

Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."

Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.

And the rest of those cretins? Trump has helped them how?

In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.

The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That kind of staggering, smug arrogance is the reason the US has Trump and we have Brexit.

Jeremy, perhaps you misread what I intended to say. It was an observation, namely, that reason is a relatively unimportant factor when gut feelings are at play. As long as that is not understood by the Democrats, Trump will win again.

When, after more than 10,000 lies by their idol, people still believe his promises, the attempt to persuade with facts has failed and will fail.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);

Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.

These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."

And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas  too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...

The article has many more observations (about China, and  Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.

Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."

Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.

In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.

The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.

Cheers,
Bart

We made deals with the Soviet Union regarding regulation of nukes and missiles even though their human rights regimen was certainly not stellar.  When you're a little country like your Netherlands, you can afford to stay out of the fray and stay "pure".  But when you're the USA who everyone wants to save the world, you have to make deals with criminals.  Didn't Obama make a deal with Iran which is considered a terrorist nation?  You're being inconsistent Bart because you don;t like Trump.  It's distorting your thinking and consistency. 

[D Fuller]

Iran agreed to a deal that wasn't ratified by the US Senate.  So it wasn;t a treaty that Iran could expect to hold.  They took a chance.  Although they've begin violating again, the sanctions still hold, at least by America. Also, sanctions hurt Iran more than NK.  NK is so isolated with little international trade.  Iran has huge oil reserves that are lying idle and other trade and sales not being done that hurt more than in NK.  I don;t think they're going to build nukes in any case.  Then they'll lose the support of the other signatories as well. 

PS.  Trump has already suggested to Iran, as he has to NK,  that if they give up any nuclear bombs forever, he would gladly remove the sanctions and start doing regular business with them.  The ball is in their court.

And yet, it was Trump, not Kim, who called for their meeting.

Most of what you say here is conjecture. The facts are:  before the US pulled out of the deal, Iran was abiding by it, now it is not. And NK is a nuclear power, with there is no evidence that is going to change.

I have to believe there is a strong faction in Iran saying, “We’ll get better treatment once we have developed nuclear weapons.” I’m not saying that faction will prevail, I can’t possibly know that, but I imagine they will complicate any negotiation with the US.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can now sleep well, knowing that our armchair anti-crimes against humanity fighters are so active.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Meanwhile your president is very chummy with a man that appears to be a hereditary thug...

We have a long tradition of deep-bowing to these thugs we do business and have aligning geopolitical interests with:

[Alan Klein]

And yet, it was Trump, not Kim, who called for their meeting.

Most of what you say here is conjecture. The facts are:  before the US pulled out of the deal, Iran was abiding by it, now it is not. And NK is a nuclear power, with there is no evidence that is going to change.

I have to believe there is a strong faction in Iran saying, “We’ll get better treatment once we have developed nuclear weapons.” I’m not saying that faction will prevail, I can’t possibly know that, but I imagine they will complicate any negotiation with the US.

Trump is playing Good Cop, Bad Cop.  First he bangs you on the head threatening you with "utter destruction, fire and fury".  Then when he stops and your head starts feeling better, he makes you an offer even the Don can't refuse.

Of course, Iran is going to wait (as China is regarding tariffs) until the 2012 presidential election hoping Trump loses.  The Democrat nominees have already showed their hand stupidly undermining the President by saying they'll go back to the Iran deal and tariffs are bad.  But they and China and NK might be very disappointed anyway even if the Democrats win.  After the election, the democrats would change their mind and keep Trump's policies when they realize changing them will only hurt America more.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... When you're a little country like your Netherlands, you can afford to stay out of the fray and stay "pure"...

Like chickening out of Srebrenica they were supposed to protect.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  Yet, we are criticized for not having relations with Cuba by the same people who criticize us for having relations with Saudi Arabia... 

Brilliant, Alan!

[RSL]

Not with 100% certainty, but I get some of my info from the comments of a Dutch professor in Korea studies. He has a pretty decent track-record of unraveling the playbook that's being followed (it is helpful that he can read Korean). He already in 2017 predicted that this was roughly the direction it was going; "first Nuclear capability, then Diplomacy". To be fair, he didn't predict that Trump would fall for it, but then he is neither a Professor in Western Cultures nor in Psychology (in particular on NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

Prior to the second meeting between Kim and Trump, he wrote an opinion piece where he expressed his expectations for the outcome (possibly hidden behind a geofence/paywall: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/02/26/top-trump-en-kim-jong-un-misdaad-tegen-menselijkheid-a3655442);

Translated (with www.DeepL.com/Translator) the part of the article relevant for this discussion said:
"The Kim regime can't afford to give up its nuclear arsenal. After all, it is thanks to its nuclear weapons possession that it is now being talked about on an equal footing with America.

These will then be short negotiations. However, both leaders need a positive outcome, so it is obvious that an apparently attractive agreement will be reached. An agreement that promises sanction relief in exchange for vaguely worded quid pro quos to be acceptable to North Korea, and buzzing enough for Trump. The end result: no movement at all in the human rights situation, cosmetic progress in the field of nuclear weapons, and the acceptance in the international world of North Korea as it is."

And again, his "These will then be short negotiations" was right on the money, and as it turned was tooas  too optimistic about the results, but here you already have them as the outcome of the next talks ...

The article has many more observations (about China, and  Human Rights Issues, and international trade) and his opinion-piece ends with;
"So we are looking at a structural human rights holocaust that is economically beneficial for the Koreans and for China. The EU is failing in all areas. Never again' can be thrown in the bin, along with our economic independence.

Anyone who, without this awareness and without taking human rights into account, supports negotiations with a North Korea as a regular state is complicit in crimes against humanity, in large-scale exploitation, and in an unavoidable economic failure in Europe. I am sorry to say that the current South Korean Government also falls into this category."

Were he mentions the EU, Rotterdam, and Europe (which is his home audience) one could also fill in 'the USA'.

In various ways. By legitimizing them as 'important' players on the world stage (which also reinforced their importance at home and made it easier to suppress human rights). By showing that human rights issues come second to doing business he (the USA) becomes complicit in crimes against Humanity. By alienating (previous) allies he opens opportunities for them to be tested by these creeps. For example, Turkey, a NATO partner, has agreed to purchase Russian defense systems in reaction to the way they feel they were treated by Trump (and no doubt helped by an attractive offer from Putin). By aiding and abetting Saudia Arabia in waging a war on Jemen, and by unilaterally pulling out of the IRAN deal, which it followed according to international inspectors, to appease MBS so he will not disrupt oil prices too much and keeps buying weapons. And North Korea assists the Syrian dictator with military training and advisors, while Russia gained a Seaport to the Mediterranian Seas, and still occupied Crimea.

The list goes on, but I'm afraid this is all wasted effort and will fall on deaf (Republican) ears, so I'll leave it at that for now. People seem willingly blind to the trail of destruction that Trump is leaving behind.

Cheers,
Bart

I’m going to respond and then leave this behind. Life’s too short for this kind of thing.

Frankly I’m not too impressed by what comes from university professors. They tend to take positions and stick with them in spite of changing conditions. Your professor may be right, but I think you have to be on the ground to understand really what’s going on. It would be interesting to know what your professor thinks about the effectiveness of Trump’s economic constraints on NK. If that’s “falling for it,” then I’d be in favor of Trump “falling for it” more often.

Bottom line: these “negotiations” will limp along with no end in sight. Kim’s not going to give up his weapons, which make him appear a lot bigger than he is. I hope NK never, never, never moves toward a nuclear attack on the U.S. or any of its interests. I’d hate to see that many people in the north and in China die in the nuclear obliteration of North Korea. I developed a lot of respect for the Korean people during my year there. I’d hate to see them back in a war.

Oh yes, “legitimizing” the other cretins in that cartoon really is a nasty thing for Trump to do. Golly. He’s made them look really big. (What crap.)

Bottom line, Bart, Trump’s been putting the economic squeeze on these “leaders.” It’s having an effect. It beats war, and in the end, may bring about the desired result. Iran in particular has an increasingly serious problem. Most of its people aren’t with the leadership. Obama had an opportunity, when Iranians in effect revolted, to push back against the leadership, perhaps even bring on new leadership. But he wussed out and didn’t have the guts to try. It was a tragedy, and a mistake for which we continue to pay.

[Alan Klein]

Like chickening out of Srebrenica they were supposed to protect.

I didn't know the Dutch were found criminally guilty by the Hague in letting 300 people get killed.  It's not so easy to make the right call when you're actually involved.  Much easier pointing fingers at America while you sit on your butt. 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/dutch-soldiers-let-300-muslims-die-in-bosnian-war-court-rules