c933103 wrote:

It was mot exactly the US blindsiding South Korea. South Korea have been far more active in facilitating the talk than the US

South Korea's president had to call an emergency cabinet meeting in the middle of the night, and their government's initial comment to the news Trump was cancelling the summit was "we're reviewing the statement to try and figure out what he means". No, they were completely and utterly blindsided by this decision.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Never going to happen.

Its going to be interesting to see if the talks resume. Its still very early.

North and South are already talking. Bolton and tRump both want war. Typical to right wing fashion, the only thing Bolton and tRump understand is black-or-white instead of the million shades of grey and compromise.

What geopolitical sources do you use to come to these conclusions? I'd like to expand my list.

What? That North and South are talking or that current American administration is full of war mongers?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... skepticism
https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-bolt ... gotiations

Not anymore.

And of course, North Korea came out on top.

Trump once again managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...
Did they give him that nobel prize yet?


Or at least I would laugh if the whole affair wasn't so damn pathetic and hopeless.

c933103 wrote:

I would personally give Trump the credit of acting responsibility and not to persuade for the talk when North Korea have already openly stated that they are not going to follow a denuclearization process that would be acceptable to the United States instead of entering the talk and accept any half assed agreement that might come out of it that could give them more breathing room

So, the US not being willing to denuclearize is fine. Despite the US having treaty obligations to do just that for decades? But North Korea, not having any such treaty obligation, making the US fulfilling its treaty requirements a precondition to voluntarily give up theirs, is bad. And that right after Trump made very publicly known that the US is perfectly willing to walk out of such agreement without cause.
Somewhat twisted logic...

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I would personally give Trump the credit of acting responsibility and not to persuade for the talk when North Korea have already openly stated that they are not going to follow a denuclearization process that would be acceptable to the United States instead of entering the talk and accept any half assed agreement that might come out of it that could give them more breathing room

So, the US not being willing to denuclearize is fine. Despite the US having treaty obligations to do just that for decades? But North Korea, not having any such treaty obligation, making the US fulfilling its treaty requirements a precondition to voluntarily give up theirs, is bad. And that right after Trump made very publicly known that the US is perfectly willing to walk out of such agreement without cause.
Somewhat twisted logic...

Best regards
Thomas

What you said sound reasonable on paper and in theory but with the nature of both countries being what they are I believe most people would not want to make this become reality

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I would personally give Trump the credit of acting responsibility and not to persuade for the talk when North Korea have already openly stated that they are not going to follow a denuclearization process that would be acceptable to the United States instead of entering the talk and accept any half assed agreement that might come out of it that could give them more breathing room

So, the US not being willing to denuclearize is fine. Despite the US having treaty obligations to do just that for decades? But North Korea, not having any such treaty obligation, making the US fulfilling its treaty requirements a precondition to voluntarily give up theirs, is bad. And that right after Trump made very publicly known that the US is perfectly willing to walk out of such agreement without cause.
Somewhat twisted logic...

Best regards
Thomas

The US has never signed a treaty to denuclearize, just a reduction of the number of weapons and allowance of other nations to keep tabs on it. The difference is the US/Russia/UK/et al all have laws in place on what their grounds is for a nuclear strike, not just one man in charge. It's like that one military official who is in deep with the USs arsenal said, he would tell the President (of they ever ordered one) that the strike would be illegal if it was indeed so.

I don't generally believe I things being foolproof, but i truly believe the US laws and systems on nuclear strikes are.

TWA772LR wrote:

The US has never signed a treaty to denuclearize,

The US has on 1 Jul 1968, and ratified it on March 5th 1970.

Best regards
Thomas

TWA772LR wrote:

It's like that one military official who is in deep with the USs arsenal said, he would tell the President (of they ever ordered one) that the strike would be illegal if it was indeed so.

One word: WOPR


That would worry rival countries.

tommy1808 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The US has never signed a treaty to denuclearize,

The US has on 1 Jul 1968, and ratified it on March 5th 1970.

Best regards
Thomas

Per armscontrol.org:

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
July 1, 1968
This treaty is the basis of international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons by promoting disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The main point is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You can promote disarmament all you want but what matters is if you actually do it, besides South Africa and Libya and the former USSR not including Russia, what country has actually disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons?

TWA772LR wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The US has never signed a treaty to denuclearize,

The US has on 1 Jul 1968, and ratified it on March 5th 1970.

Best regards
Thomas

Per armscontrol.org:

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
July 1, 1968
This treaty is the basis of international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons by promoting disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The main point is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You can promote disarmament all you want but what matters is if you actually do it, besides South Africa and Libya and the former USSR not including Russia, what country has actually disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons?

You need to read further, like to article 4. The US is required to disarm. And as you have pointed out, other countries have fulfilled their treaty requirements. Since NK has executed its right to leave the NPT, they have no such requirement, and requiring NK to get rid of its nukes is in itself a NPT violation, because it explicitly affirms the right to have nukes for all sovereign nations.
The NPT wants to stop proliferation or nuclear weapons, but not proliferation of nuklear technology, in fact it wants to promote it, sharing that technology is what countries get as pay for signing. That includes delivery of nuclear weapons at self cost for civilian use. Countries signing are explicitly NOT giving up their right to nukes for good, and they get rights in return. Rights actually violated freely by, amongst others, the US.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The US has on 1 Jul 1968, and ratified it on March 5th 1970.

Best regards
Thomas

Per armscontrol.org:

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
July 1, 1968
This treaty is the basis of international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons by promoting disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The main point is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You can promote disarmament all you want but what matters is if you actually do it, besides South Africa and Libya and the former USSR not including Russia, what country has actually disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons?

You need to read further, like to article 4. The US is required to disarm. And as you have pointed out, other countries have fulfilled their treaty requirements. Since NK has executed its right to leave the NPT, they have no such requirement, and requiring NK to get rid of its nukes is in itself a NPT violation, because it explicitly affirms the right to have nukes for all sovereign nations.
The NPT wants to stop proliferation or nuclear weapons, but not proliferation of nuklear technology, in fact it wants to promote it, sharing that technology is what countries get as pay for signing. That includes delivery of nuclear weapons at self cost for civilian use. Countries signing are explicitly NOT giving up their right to nukes for good, and they get rights in return. Rights actually violated freely by, amongst others, the US.

Best regards
Thomas

Peaceful use of nuclear technology as described in article 4 refer to nuclear reactors and such

c933103 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Per armscontrol.org:

The main point is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You can promote disarmament all you want but what matters is if you actually do it, besides South Africa and Libya and the former USSR not including Russia, what country has actually disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons?

You need to read further, like to article 4. The US is required to disarm. And as you have pointed out, other countries have fulfilled their treaty requirements. Since NK has executed its right to leave the NPT, they have no such requirement, and requiring NK to get rid of its nukes is in itself a NPT violation, because it explicitly affirms the right to have nukes for all sovereign nations.
The NPT wants to stop proliferation or nuclear weapons, but not proliferation of nuklear technology, in fact it wants to promote it, sharing that technology is what countries get as pay for signing. That includes delivery of nuclear weapons at self cost for civilian use. Countries signing are explicitly NOT giving up their right to nukes for good, and they get rights in return. Rights actually violated freely by, amongst others, the US.

Best regards
Thomas

Peaceful use of nuclear technology as described in article 4 refer to nuclear reactors and such

Ups, my mistake. Article 6. The US has to get rid of its nukes, just as anybody else has to or never get them in the first place, but the countries not party to the NPT.
Decades have passed, no good faith effort to fulfil that treaty obligations is being undertaken, Obama was laughed at for wanting to even try.

But of course the US is violating no 4 too.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You need to read further, like to article 4. The US is required to disarm. And as you have pointed out, other countries have fulfilled their treaty requirements. Since NK has executed its right to leave the NPT, they have no such requirement, and requiring NK to get rid of its nukes is in itself a NPT violation, because it explicitly affirms the right to have nukes for all sovereign nations.
The NPT wants to stop proliferation or nuclear weapons, but not proliferation of nuklear technology, in fact it wants to promote it, sharing that technology is what countries get as pay for signing. That includes delivery of nuclear weapons at self cost for civilian use. Countries signing are explicitly NOT giving up their right to nukes for good, and they get rights in return. Rights actually violated freely by, amongst others, the US.

Best regards
Thomas

Peaceful use of nuclear technology as described in article 4 refer to nuclear reactors and such

Ups, my mistake. Article 6. The US has to get rid of its nukes, just as anybody else has to or never get them in the first place, but the countries not party to the NPT.
Decades have passed, no good faith effort to fulfil that treaty obligations is being undertaken, Obama was laughed at for wanting to even try.

But of course the US is violating no 4 too.

Best regards
Thomas

Article 6 is about that all countries should start making policy to stop the nuclear arm race and to male treaties that would result in disarmament not that they would do that.
And the US did not stop countries from building non-proliferating reactors

c933103 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Peaceful use of nuclear technology as described in article 4 refer to nuclear reactors and such

Ups, my mistake. Article 6. The US has to get rid of its nukes, just as anybody else has to or never get them in the first place, but the countries not party to the NPT.
Decades have passed, no good faith effort to fulfil that treaty obligations is being undertaken, Obama was laughed at for wanting to even try.

But of course the US is violating no 4 too.

Best regards
Thomas

Article 6 is about that all countries should start making policy to stop the nuclear arm race and to male treaties that would result in disarmament not that they would do that.

If you are required to make a treaty regarding nuclear disarmament, you are required to get rid of your nukes. Just the specifics are done via separate treaty.

And the US did not stop countries from building non-proliferating reactors

Iran and North Korea probably don't feel very supported in their civilian use of nuclear power.
Funny, considering the the US sold Iran weapons grade material just before they signed the NPT.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Ups, my mistake. Article 6. The US has to get rid of its nukes, just as anybody else has to or never get them in the first place, but the countries not party to the NPT.
Decades have passed, no good faith effort to fulfil that treaty obligations is being undertaken, Obama was laughed at for wanting to even try.

But of course the US is violating no 4 too.

Best regards
Thomas

Article 6 is about that all countries should start making policy to stop the nuclear arm race and to male treaties that would result in disarmament not that they would do that.

If you are required to make a treaty regarding nuclear disarmament, you are required to get rid of your nukes. Just the specifics are done via separate treaty.

Not really. Which is why NPT is worded this way.

And the US did not stop countries from building non-proliferating reactors

Iran and North Korea probably don't feel very supported in their civilian use of nuclear power.
Funny, considering the the US sold Iran weapons grade material just before they signed the NPT.

Best regards
Thomas

Iran have always been vocal about it and then conflicts have always been whether what they are doing is just for nuclear power generation or if they have any possibility for dual use as weapon
As for North Korea, remember that last time the agreement was to make the US build a reactor in North Korea for power generation. Although US internal politics prevented it from happening

c933103 wrote:

And the US did not stop countries from building non-proliferating reactors

You might want to look up the word proliferation as you don't seem to know what it means.

aviationaware wrote:

c933103 wrote:

And the US did not stop countries from building non-proliferating reactors

You might want to look up the word proliferation as you don't seem to know what it means.

*non-breeder reactor
Sorry for typo

c933103 wrote:

Get a room you two

Kim is already in Singapore, waiting for the day.
In one interview, he warns Trump not to play him out.



































No, that's actually an impersonator called Howard X.
Goggle the videos for some laughs.

The meeting was cancelled over a week ago.

And then its on again after about a day later.
Please keep yourself updated in this fast-changing world.

Edit to add: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/top-aide-to-north-korean-leader-lands-in-singapore-as-summit-10285756

Quote, "A top aide to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un arrived in Singapore on Monday night, Japanese public broadcaster NHK said Tuesday, the latest indication that the on-again-off-again summit with US President Donald Trump is going ahead"

Trump verified it further today.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/politics ... index.html

I'm imagining a hell ton of planespotters in Singapore next week. XD

Don't worry. Donny boy will make some stupid tweet outraged over something stupid and blame China, Russia, Mueller, Obama, Brazil, BMW, the 1962 Red Sox, Ambien and it will be off again....

But I thought it was a all over?

What happened there?

I remember when Obama first suggested he would meet with leaders like Kim Jong-un and everyone on the right said he shouldn't be meeting with our enemies and how stupid he was to even suggest meeting them. Now Trump is going to meet with Kim Jong-un and everyone one the right is saying he should get the Nobel Peace prize. How quickly those on the right have changed their tune on this.

dragon-wings wrote:

I remember when Obama first suggested he would meet with leaders like Kim Jong-un and everyone on the right said he shouldn't be meeting with our enemies and how stupid he was to even suggest meeting them. Now Trump is going to meet with Kim Jong-un and everyone one the right is saying he should get the Nobel Peace prize. How quickly those on the right have changed their tune on this.

To be fair everyone on the left was cheering the "failure" of the talks last week showing Trump's tactics ruined everything.

Wonder if this meeting will be like Reagan and Gorbachev in Geneva 1985?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gorbachev_and_Reagan_1985-2.jpg

seb146 wrote:

Don't worry. Donny boy will make some stupid tweet outraged over something stupid and blame China, Russia, Mueller, Obama, Brazil, BMW, the 1962 Red Sox, Ambien and it will be off again....

I heard you made the list too.

mham001 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Don't worry. Donny boy will make some stupid tweet outraged over something stupid and blame China, Russia, Mueller, Obama, Brazil, BMW, the 1962 Red Sox, Ambien and it will be off again....

I heard you made the list too.

YAY!!!! I can get a lucrative book deal and endless guest appearances on talking head shows!!!!

seb146 wrote:

Don't worry. Donny boy will make some stupid tweet outraged over something stupid and blame China, Russia, Mueller, Obama, Brazil, BMW, the 1962 Red Sox, Ambien and it will be off again....

Oh the manchild speaks again. Do you ever say anything relevant?

Never understood why Singapore.

Trump should go straight to Pyongyang. He will get a military parade he always wanted and together have a burger at a random place.

Someone should tell him CNN,ABC,NBC are completely banned, so does all internet and print media. He will be so proud of Kim and may even call North Korea is the best in the world.

Which route will Air Force One fly? Can it do DC - SIN non stop? Will it go through LAX or ANC? It will be interesting to see what they do.

danj555 wrote:

Which route will Air Force One fly? Can it do DC - SIN non stop? Will it go through LAX or ANC? It will be interesting to see what they do.

Air Force One is capable of mid-air refueling but a ANC or HNL stop is possible.

Just realized South Korea will hold a local election 1 day after the meeting. Wonder if the timing of the meeting is intentional or not.

bmacleod wrote:

danj555 wrote:

Which route will Air Force One fly? Can it do DC - SIN non stop? Will it go through LAX or ANC? It will be interesting to see what they do.

Air Force One is capable of mid-air refueling but a ANC or HNL stop is possible.

Which is closer to a tRump golf course?

seb146 wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

danj555 wrote:

Which route will Air Force One fly? Can it do DC - SIN non stop? Will it go through LAX or ANC? It will be interesting to see what they do.

Air Force One is capable of mid-air refueling but a ANC or HNL stop is possible.

Which is closer to a tRump golf course?

HNL

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Air Force One is capable of mid-air refueling but a ANC or HNL stop is possible.

Which is closer to a tRump golf course?

HNL

Aaaaand... We have a winner....

I wish I was joking, but I would bet my eye-teeth that he will stay a few days there. Golf, after all....

notaxonrotax wrote:

How about that?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/poli ... index.html

It rendered me speechless.....

notaxonrotax wrote:

Whaaat?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44134910

Call me gobsmacked!

notaxonrotax wrote:

Will never happen. There are 10.000 reasons I can think of why either of the two will get cheesed off by the other side and therefore retaliates by canceling this charade meeting.

No Tax On Rotax

Yes, what a surprise!
I mean, who could see these threats of cancellation coming?


No Tax On Rotax

And it was the more childish of the two that threw his toys out of the pram, again; the shock!


No Tax On Rotax

Well looks like you were 100% wrong when you said that it "will never happen". We'll find out very soon.

Well...our Tremendous Leader says he'll know within the first minute if the Marshall is serious about denuclearization.

Why do I get the feeling that Trump will stand up and leave the meeting early, if only to make a spectacle?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Never understood why Singapore.

Singapore is one of the few governments that have diplomatic relations with both NK and the USA. It offers a high and sufficient levels of security and facilities. Protests are banned pretty much there. The City-State is putting up = $15 Million USD for security and related needs.

I have serious issues as to this summit but someday, the sooner the better, we need to end the stalemate status there. I am not happy that gives official recognition of Kim, a sick and brutal dictator that like an extremist cult leader, as the leader of the NK and their respect for their nuke abilities to the world from the USA. That is very important to Kim. Kim is likely to give phony promises again to get money for him and his top minions for more nuke and weapon development while starving his people. (But then again, the USA recognizes inhumane countries and their leaders like Saudi Arabia). I think China is pushing it to hopefully get the USA's military presence and activities in the region reduced or largely eliminated so can carry out its expansionist polices in the region. I don't trust Trump with any deals, he may give away way too much, he just likes the attention, that he did something Pres. Obama wouldn't or couldn't do (for domestic political reasons) will give him a false bravado. My best hope is that Trump doesn't make things worse.

ltbewr wrote:

I don't trust Trump with any deals, he may give away way too much, he just likes the attention, that he did something Pres. Obama wouldn't or couldn't do (for domestic political reasons) will give him a false bravado. My best hope is that Trump doesn't make things worse.

This is my fear about this. I think Trump needs this more than Kim. Kim clearly doesn't care about his starving population or his failing economy, otherwise these talks would have happened long ago. This is all speculation of course, I think Kim feels like he has the nukes and the ICBMs now, so he is finally in a strong position to negotiate. Meanwhile, the Korea issue is one of the areas Trump polls very well on. After all, who doesn't want world peace. So he may just fold like a cheap suit, agree to substantially weaken the US position in the area (aka, hand over full influence of the region to China) jus to keep the 'Nobel!' chants going at his rally, long term consequences be damned.

I'm also sure any deal NK would agree is going to look a lot like the Iran deal. Wouldn't that be something if Trump basically agreed to the Iran deal with NK right after ripping up the Iran deal with Iran?

2122M wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I don't trust Trump with any deals, he may give away way too much, he just likes the attention, that he did something Pres. Obama wouldn't or couldn't do (for domestic political reasons) will give him a false bravado. My best hope is that Trump doesn't make things worse.

This is my fear about this. I think Trump needs this more than Kim. Kim clearly doesn't care about his starving population or his failing economy, otherwise these talks would have happened long ago. This is all speculation of course, I think Kim feels like he has the nukes and the ICBMs now, so he is finally in a strong position to negotiate. Meanwhile, the Korea issue is one of the areas Trump polls very well on. After all, who doesn't want world peace. So he may just fold like a cheap suit, agree to substantially weaken the US position in the area (aka, hand over full influence of the region to China) jus to keep the 'Nobel!' chants going at his rally, long term consequences be damned.

I'm also sure any deal NK would agree is going to look a lot like the Iran deal. Wouldn't that be something if Trump basically agreed to the Iran deal with NK right after ripping up the Iran deal with Iran?

Well, I think he will make this deal: Kim: "I will get rid of my nukes, promised (fingers crossed behind his back of course), if you get rid of yours". Trump: "sure, such a big victory, it was the biggest victory in history".

2122M wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I don't trust Trump with any deals, he may give away way too much, he just likes the attention, that he did something Pres. Obama wouldn't or couldn't do (for domestic political reasons) will give him a false bravado. My best hope is that Trump doesn't make things worse.

This is my fear about this. I think Trump needs this more than Kim.

I agree. He needs it... for his own ego trip. When the possibility first arose, someone (jokingly? I hope nobody was serious) said Trump should get a Nobel Peace Prize if things worked out. Maybe nobody else took that seriously, but he obviously did; he made mention of it in speeches... hinting and winking like a little boy who just learned what a hard-on feels like.

Seeing how fascinated he is with his own bragging rights... how determined he is to out-Obama anything that his predecessor accomplished... and how fragile his ego is... I have no doubt that the most important thing driving towards this meeting is the belief that he could actually receive such a nomination. Of course, considering what he is doing to the environment, to human rights, and to world trade, the idea of a Nobel Peace prize is laughable - at best.

But the man-child in the White House doesn't consider that; facts are meaningless to him, and he seems to have no capacity to absorb them. Instead, he believes in his own instincts (and, I might add, it appears John Bolton has found a way to stroke his ego and direct those instincts - a dangerous man to be doing so) and ignores anyone with experience and reason. To be so young, Kim is amazingly conniving and cunning; it will be interesting to see just how long Trump's hard-on lasts when confronted with reality.

Dennis Rodman having a meltdown on CNN. LOL

Did Fox News call Trump a dictator? A rather unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your viewpoint) Freudian slip now is it?

https://youtu.be/vI3DoQsshWQ?t=16s

So they signed something. We will see what will happen now.

Dutchy wrote:

So they signed something. We will see what will happen now.

I'm picturing trump scribbling a sketch of himself slapping Trudeau with his huge hands with a caption saying "thats what you get for burning down the white house!"