Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To Think That If Hiliary Clinton Had Been President.....

96 replies

A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 11:07

......we now wouldn't be looking at all out peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Very well done, Mr Trump, very well done indeed.

OP posts:
Mightymucks · 27/04/2018 11:09

And the US (and probably UK) would probably be in an all out war in Syria.

Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 11:10

You're totally correct, Mighty, she was itching to get more deeply involved in Syria.

OP posts:
Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 11:26

I wonder how people in the UK who pathologically hate the man will deal with his nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize?

OP posts:
Tp4mybung · 27/04/2018 11:32

Here here!

Tp4mybung · 27/04/2018 11:33

Or rather hear hear!

CherryChasingDotMuncher · 27/04/2018 11:34

YANBU. Credit where credit is due.

He's still a vile sexual predator though, so I haven't warmed to him in the least as a result

MyotherUsernameisaPun · 27/04/2018 11:45

I'd be interested in hearing why you credit Trump with this when the US has imposed 9 rounds of sanctions on North Korea since 2006 (with only the most recent led by Trump) to no effect?

It seems pretty clear that what has made the difference is China's new policy of enforcing UN sanctions. China accounts for 90% of North Korea's trade, so they are the only international party who really have the clout to affect North Korea's foreign policy decisions.

South Korean engagement has also played a large role. The current president of South Korea has made peace on the peninsula a priority (unlike the two prior presidents, who favoured a hard-line approach). This has involved meeting the North Korean leadership and allowing the inclusion of North Korea in the Olympics. They deserve credit for the success of this policy.

South Korea are crediting Trump because positive and constructive dialogue with the most significant world power (and power with which they have a historically uneasy relationship) is an essential strategic policy.

Trump's fiery rhetoric in respect of North Korea is little different to that used by Obama, who threatened the use of the US's military might should it be required. The sanctions he imposed are no different to those of Obama or Bush. I see no evidence of innovation on his part and no link between his actions and this change.

So please... make the argument for why this is Trump's victory?!

RedDwarves · 27/04/2018 11:49

YANBU. But I suspect most are incapable of giving credit where it is due.

PerfectlyDone · 27/04/2018 11:51

Sorry, genuine question, what has Trump done wrt to this peace deal?

I thought China were more instrumental.

Rufustheconstantreindeer · 27/04/2018 11:52

So please... make the argument for why this is Trump's victory?!

I havent been paying much attention to this so i would also be grateful for the information

Like cherry i agree credit where it is due....he has git to get one thing right surely

But what did he do

Boopear · 27/04/2018 11:52

Yes. Why exactly are you crediting Trump with this rather than China?

Aeroflotgirl · 27/04/2018 11:53

No way, you think HC is good, she is corrupt, they are both as bad as each other.

PerfectlyDone · 27/04/2018 11:54

Oh, and yes, the more conciliatory approach from South Korea, of course.

I would be delighted to give Trump credit for something... but what?!

Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 11:54

Myother

Textbook reply, well done. The Guardian would be proud of you.

I'll leave you to pretending Trump had nothing to do with it.

OP posts:
Boopear · 27/04/2018 11:55

But what did he do? We’re all ears.

RedDwarves · 27/04/2018 11:56

Surely you aren’t so wilfully obtuse to see that the US and China’s relationship recently has aligned with greater peacekeeping efforts in Korea/DPRK. There’s a reason Trump is being mentioned in relation to these negotiations, and it’s not because he’s paying for press coverage.

MyotherUsernameisaPun · 27/04/2018 12:03

@A4710Rider you can make a snarky remark or you can defend your original position. Why are you crediting Trump with a policy change that seems, on the facts, to have little to do with him?

PerfectlyDone · 27/04/2018 12:05

Come on, A4, please present your argument as you don't agree with Myother, fair enuff.
But I am struggling to find Trump's contribution to this agreement.

Rufustheconstantreindeer · 27/04/2018 12:07

What boo said

What did he do

Ive literally got no idea whether he has done something or not...not a clue

But A4710 obviously does have a clue and I'm interested to hear it

Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 12:08

Myother,

Look, you're obviously a front row student at the Guardian School of Political Awareness but you must be able to understand the impact of Trump declaring, outright, that he wanted to meet Kim and all the international validation it would have given the latter? That's just one very small example.

But yeah, let's stay in our lefty facebook feed bubble and put our fingers in our ears and shout lallalalalalala

OP posts:
Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 12:09

Another example would be of Trump's realism. Risky, yes, but it'w worked and worked far better than a long list of predecessors.

OP posts:
Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 12:10

Four months ago we looked like we may go to war on the Korean Peninusla, now we're planting trees.

Nah, nothing to do with Trump, at all.

OP posts:
Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 12:11

For 70 years North and South have been at a stalemate - 70 years!

Now they aren't and are moving forward at a ridiculously fast pace, especially for Asian diplomacy standards....and it's nothing to do with Trump.

Right.

OP posts:
PerfectlyDone · 27/04/2018 12:13

So Trump's seeking to meet with Kim and the international kudos that comes with that, led to South Korea being less hard line?

I don't really follow Confused

Original poster
A4710Rider · 27/04/2018 12:14

South Korea being less hard line

You mean North Korea?

OP posts: