Trump and Kim Jong-Un meet?

[CathyA]

I find this totally curious.........these 2 meeting in person. I'm sure there are ulterior motives with both of them.

And you know........Trump will buddy up with him while he's there, then come home and bash him again.
I wish it was Tillerson who was going. He's more presidential and isn't intimidated. As obnoxious as Trump can be, I don't think he can stand up to other leaders, in person.

To me, it's a little scary. If Mr. Kim had been a different kind of ruler, I would be encouraged.....but something is up.
Who knows what Trump's reasons are. Maybe only this: This morning on the news a reporter asked him about it, and Trump said something very similar to "Be sure to give ME credit for this." I couldn't believe it.
That's all he cares about is everything being about HIM. Unbelievable.

[LDAHL]

I assume in the President's case, it looks like a Nixon-Goes-To-China opportunity.

In the Dear Leader's case, I assume it's a highly aggressive form of begging.

[ToomuchStuff]

Comedians are drooling at this opportunity for the two toddlers to meet and compare genitalia. Both have ego's and are wanting to size each other up, and both want credit.
Who knows, maybe Melania is on the way out and Trump is country shopping for a same sex spouse.:laff:

[flowerseverywhere]

It could be a wonderful or terrible thing, given the unpredictable nature of both leaders.

During yesterday’s tariff signing I saw Trump have moments of presidential leadership and kindness towards the workers with him. Of course the outcome of that is iffy as well. If only he could de-twitter and have more moments like those when he acts like the leader of the greatest country of the world.

[Williamsmith]

It could be a wonderful or terrible thing, given the unpredictable nature of both leaders.

During yesterday’s tariff signing I saw Trump have moments of presidential leadership and kindness towards the workers with him. Of course the outcome of that is iffy as well. If only he could de-twitter and have more moments like those when he acts like the leader of the greatest country of the world.

That he is the leader of the greatest country in the world, is up for debate. That he is the leader of the most predatory country in the world is not in doubt. Our military budget is just under 700 billion, China 170 billion or so, and Russia 80 billion or so. Then all the rest. Why do we spend all that money on the military? Certainly not because Russia or a China or all the rest are a threat.....it’s to protect our iron grip on the rest of the worlds population. The Dear Leader is alive because we permit him to be because he is more valuable to us alive than dead. Does anyone really believe he cannot be reached by the US? That’s why he comes to the table. Is it coincidence that Trump and Xi JinPing have open communication?

The Democrats and the Republicans fight over who will have power within the United States. They could give two craps about the citizen. They disagree as to how to keep the people from revolution. The Dems want to give things away on borrowed money, the Republicans will sing the praises of predatory capitalism. Both will drop a nuke on any country that interferes. Kim is simply asking Trump what the terms are of permitting him to remain alive.

[iris lily]

I keep readint this title as these two guys “un meet” which is thenopposite of a meeting.

[CathyA]

It could be a wonderful or terrible thing, given the unpredictable nature of both leaders.

During yesterday’s tariff signing I saw Trump have moments of presidential leadership and kindness towards the workers with him. Of course the outcome of that is iffy as well. If only he could de-twitter and have more moments like those when he acts like the leader of the greatest country of the world.

I just can't see Trump changing his spots. He's too deep into self-love and "winning". If something he does turns out well for the country, then it's probably just an accident.

[razz]

WS, you are sounding very disheartened. Sorry to see that. I wonder how much of the US military expenditure is to meet the expectation of the world who fail to assume their share of the load vs being the bully trying to control things.

As for the two leaders, both are controlling but somehow, I think Kim Yong-Un has more of a rational strategy in mind that includes South Korea. I think Donald Trump is the more easily manipulated of the two.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Sounds to me like: Trump and Kim Jong-Un walk into a bar ...

[Williamsmith]

WS, you are sounding very disheartened. Sorry to see that. I wonder how much of the US military expenditure is to meet the expectation of the world who fail to assume their share of the load vs being the bully trying to control things.

As for the two leaders, both are controlling but somehow, I think Kim Yong-Un has more of a rational strategy in mind that includes South Korea. I think Donald Trump is the more easily manipulated of the two.

Question: How does the rest of the world manage to maintain their security without spending 700 billion. How does Russia and China do it? We are always hearing about cutting government spending on everything......except the military. That’s sacreligious.

[bae]

Question: How does the rest of the world manage to maintain their security without spending 700 billion. How does Russia and China do it? We are always hearing about cutting government spending on everything......except the military. That’s sacreligious.

I simply don't understand why it is necessary for the USA to spend as much, or more, on our military as most of the rest of the planet *combined* spends on theirs.

It seems foolish and wasteful. And we pass up on a lot of other opportunities by misinvesting this amount of capital.

As an example, I went to a firefighting seminar in Iceland recently. The Icelanders had gear that was science-fiction compared to the "state of the art" gear I am issued here in the USA. They had much much lighter and smaller air tanks, they had heads-up displays inside their facepieces that showed a huge amount of useful data including thermal imaging, they had a digital radio system that was usable and understandable while the firefighter is on-air - including the ability to connect to people all over the country, or just to your immediate partner, or team, without fiddling with stupid little buttons. (Our radios here are so crappy that I use a length of climbing line to communicate with my partner inside buildings...) The gear I am issued is about $10,000, the gear they are issued is only about $18,000. It is *vastly* superior, and much safer and efficient. We have one old thermal imaging camera on each of our trucks, each of their firefighters has one built-into their gear, which alone is a *huge* difference....

We can't have these nice things here because of "budget".

[Alan]

Question: How does the rest of the world manage to maintain their security without spending 700 billion. How does Russia and China do it? We are always hearing about cutting government spending on everything......except the military. That’s sacreligious.
If we're talking strictly of money, I think it's more accurate to look at percentage of GDP, or some other metric to measure by, associated with the military. The US still may come out on top but we took that burden upon ourselves to ensure that there would be no WWIII. I also think that providing security for the states is the primary responsibility of the federal government (most of the rest is simple redistribution schemes) and history has shown that the best way to do that is with an overwhelming military presence, so I don't begrudge the military for attempting to keep the rest of the world in check. I don't mind that we're the primary force within NATO, but I think we should charge those countries who benefit from our efforts in a proportional manner. If they're going to outsource their security, they should have to pay for it.

[Williamsmith]

I simply don't understand why it is necessary for the USA to spend as much, or more, on our military as most of the rest of the planet *combined* spends on theirs.

It seems foolish and wasteful. And we pass up on a lot of other opportunities by misinvesting this amount of capital.

As an example, I went to a firefighting seminar in Iceland recently. The Icelanders had gear that was science-fiction compared to the "state of the art" gear I am issued here in the USA. They had much much lighter and smaller air tanks, they had heads-up displays inside their facepieces that showed a huge amount of useful data including thermal imaging, they had a digital radio system that was usable and understandable while the firefighter is on-air - including the ability to connect to people all over the country, or just to your immediate partner, or team, without fiddling with stupid little buttons. (Our radios here are so crappy that I use a length of climbing line to communicate with my partner inside buildings...) The gear I am issued is about $10,000, the gear they are issued is only about $18,000. It is *vastly* superior, and much safer and efficient. We have one old thermal imaging camera on each of our trucks, each of their firefighters has one built-into their gear, which alone is a *huge* difference....

We can't have these nice things here because of "budget".

I believe Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address concisely answers your question and unfortunately portends our future:

”This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

[Williamsmith]

If we're talking strictly of money, I think it's more accurate to look at percentage of GDP, or some other metric to measure by, associated with the military. The US still may come out on top but we took that burden upon ourselves to ensure that there would be no WWIII. I also think that providing security for the states is the primary responsibility of the federal government (most of the rest is simple redistribution schemes) and history has shown that the best way to do that is with an overwhelming military presence, so I don't begrudge the military for attempting to keep the rest of the world in check. I don't mind that we're the primary force within NATO, but I think we should charge those countries who benefit from our efforts in a proportional manner. If they're going to outsource their security, they should have to pay for it.

If we make them pay for it Alan, our military budget should be reduced appropriately and that amount invested in firefighting equipment for Bae, school buildings with heat and leak proof ceilings, roads without sinkholes, airports with better than 60s air traffic control infrastructure, basic healthcare for all, security at our borders, a VA that takes care of its soldiers and nursing home care that doesn’t bankrupt families. What good is a 700 billion dollar security force for a rapidly growing third world country?

[Alan]

I'm not sure it's appropriate for local fire departments, schools and roads to depend upon the federal government which then demands obedience to their wishes. But that is the way we're headed.

[flowerseverywhere]

I'm not sure it's appropriate for local fire departments, schools and roads to depend upon the federal government which then demands obedience to their wishes. But that is the way we're headed.

and herein lies the problem. It is very difficult for poorer regions to pay for state of the art schools and fire equipment.

but you, Bae and WS have all made excellent points.

[bae]

I'm not sure it's appropriate for local fire departments, schools and roads to depend upon the federal government which then demands obedience to their wishes. But that is the way we're headed.

Firefighters are trained and evaluated to a national standard. Our gear is required to meet certain minimum national standards. Our command structures are required to conform to a national standard. And we often work with agencies from outside our immediate jurisdiction on larger scale events.

Yet our equipment is pieced together from whatever our local jurisdiction can manage to find. Many states don't even have state-wide purchasing agreements, so your gear isn't compatible with the gear of the town next-door. I was at a fire last summer where our hoses and couplings were different threadings, so none of the units from several state/federal/local agencies could easily cooperate with each other on the fire. (And of course, none of our radios really interoperated...)

We had a fellow from New Zealand out last year for training, he was flabbergasted. While each province/region/city has its own agencies, their equipment all is identical, from nation-wide specifications and budgets. He couldn't believe we manage things the way we do.

My point though isn't that the Federal government isn't paying for cool firefighting stuff. It's that we're wasting so much money at the Federal level on a bizarrely-oversized military that there isn't money, at any level, for more useful things, like firefighting, or keeping our highway bridges from falling into the Skagit River.

[Tammy]

The USA is still a conglomeration of fiercely independent libertarians who don’t want to cooperate with each other.

[flowerseverywhere]

Hold your horses. North Korea meeting set in stone. Put your flip flops on

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/03/09/white-house-press-briefing-sanders-north-korea-meeting-sot.cnn

[razz]

Snark warning! This is intended as dry humour.

Just curious how big the proposed military parade will need to be to be the biggest parade the world has ever seen, what budget will the millions of dollars come from - military or some other - and who is going to be in charge of doing it. I am extending to him my deepest sympathy now.

[iris lilies]

Snark warning! This is intended as dry humour.

Just curious how big the proposed military parade will need to be to be the biggest parade the world has ever seen, what budget will the millions of dollars come from - military or some other - and who is going to be in charge of doing it. I am extending to him my deepest sympathy now.

I dont know which leader you are referencing, which is a sad commentary on our sitch here in the
United States. Did one of them promise the biggest parade ever in the world? That sound like somethng either one of them would say.

[CathyA]

Can our parade be somehow limited as to expense? It's absurd to spend much money on it, when so much else is in need in this country.

[ToomuchStuff]

Snark warning! This is intended as dry humour.

Just curious how big the proposed military parade will need to be to be the biggest parade the world has ever seen, what budget will the millions of dollars come from - military or some other - and who is going to be in charge of doing it. I am extending to him my deepest sympathy now.


I dont know which leader you are referencing, which is a sad commentary on our sitch here in the
United States. Did one of them promise the biggest parade ever in the world? That sound like somethng either one of them would say.


I am surprised you don't just hope he gets to be the guest of honor at a NK military parade. Both get a parade, and then he can come back and claim how smart he was for not spending money on such a small, ineffective display of might.

[CathyA]

He will either find a way to not go there, or he will go and slather praise and adoration all over Kim, then come home and say how he whipped his butt and will nuke them anytime now. The man is just as insane as Kim.

[Rogar]

I suspect as part of his, "maximum pressure", that he will ask for too many conditions before the meeting and Kim will cancel. Or he will actually go and since he is reluctant in asking advice from scientists or other advisers he will agree to something he can't deliver on.