TWA772LR wrote:

c933103 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

If they really did sign some kind of binding agreement, Kim would have to. They know they will be under a microscope.

And ceasing the war games is nothing. The US knows as well as NK that the regime would be powerless in a week if we actually invaded.

Kim said, and signed agreement with South Korean government, that they will work together toward the ultimate goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula a month and so ago when he meet with the South Korean president Moon too. And they said it since 1990s, just like what Kim Jong Un said it was his father Kim Jong Il's ideal to denuclearize the peninsula in the future. This is the sort if time scale we are talking about when we say North Korea signed an agreement to denuclearize in the future.

Did Kim Jong Il sign that deal with the president of SK at the time in person? Legitimately asking.

Nope, it was back in April when Moon held his first talk with Kim that for the first time put denuclearization into inter-Korea agreement.
However, Kim Il Sung signed the agreement with the US in 1994 that included terms to work toward denuclearization.

MikeDrop wrote:

Yes - The sad fact is that they have nukes. Not one of the last three presidents did a single thing to stop it, so stop with the partisan crap and stop blaming Trump for something that was in process for the last 20 years.

Right, so you're saying the the US' and Trump's stance on the matter has always been to resentfully accept that they have nukes now and let them be?
Interesting... May I know why the 1 page document that came out of this meeting mentions that the nations will work towards de-nuclearization of NK?
Is Trump working on de-nuclearization or not?

MikeDrop wrote:

So you believe that the negotiations started when they met face to face? Really? Have you read a single history book? Like a real one? Holy sh#t you really think that the negotiations started when they met face to face? HAHAHAHAHAHA thats funny.

You're cute when you think you understand the World. There have been on and off talks to NK for decades. Just tell me what the US has gotten out of this so far, other than vague promises of further talks, and why this is different than the previous times NK promised they would work with the West?

MikeDrop wrote:

Seems like there has been A LOT of escalation by the north over the past 8 years. Too bad President Obama was such a shi##y negotiator that he couldn't get the North Koreans to the negotiating table, like he said he would. Thank the Maker that he is not president any more. What a tool he was.

Right, so Trump just came in, gave Kim what he wanted for no concession at all. Kim keeps his nukes, gets showered in praise by the President of the United States, and gets him to drop the one thing that had been a thorn in the side of NK, China and Russia (hmmm, where have I heard that before?) for decades and was the explicit reason for NK making repeated threats and attacks in the last couple of decades: The joint US - South Korea annual military exercises.

What you're praising here, is Trump acknowledging NK's right to have nukes and be a brutal dictatorship, abandoning the US' strategic relevance in the region and give up on its historic strategic allies such as South Korea and Japan, very much in the favor of not just NK, but China and Russia who had been decrying US military presence and exercises in the region for years, all for a handful of hostages and a photo op that will help the only thing Trump really cares about: his image?

The art of the deal, indeed...

And while I understand your quasi physiological need to bash Obama/libs and everything associated to them, do you remember that Obama was absolutely destroyed by Republicans when he campaigned and said he would agree to talks with rogue leaders (including NK) without preconditions, which is what Trump just did?

MikeDrop wrote:

So you are admiting that there was an agreement to deescalate the situation. Thank god for President Trump.

What came out of the meeting, officially, was a 1 page agreement which does not say much at all other than vague promises that both signatories have proven to not be very faithful to generally speaking... Whether there will be de-escalation at all remains to be seen, but there's certainly nothing in there that would prevent Kim from doing what he has always done.

What I see here is nothing. NK is not bound by anything, and Trump, once again, shot the US' allies in the leg in favor of rogue leaders with whom he seems to have an uncanny attraction.

I didn't know that MAGA meant offering the World on a platter to the US' historical diplomatic adversaries.

MikeDrop wrote:

Too be sure, all negotiations are fraught with risk, and yes, this may not be successful if Un decides to restart his program. But any negotiation has to start somewhere. I think that it is worth the risk to take it at face value... for now.... don't you? Or does your hate for Trump require you to demand failure?

You should really look into the history of the negotiations between the US and North Korea. This isn't either country's first crack at this. They've both got track records. North Korea's track record is one of broken promises, even when they agree to much more concrete and restrictive measures than were agreed to at this meeting. So no, I don't take anything they do at face value, and neither should you. If a beggar you'd never seen before comes up to you asking for money so he can get a sandwich, you might be inclined to give him something. If you then saw him go into the convenience store and emerge with a pack of beer but no sandwich, would you think it was "worth the risk" to take him at face value the next time he asked for your help? What about the third or fourth time?

Negotiations have to start somewhere, but negotiations done properly also ensure that concessions aren't unilateral, and that the concessions that are made are specific and verifiable, particularly when one of the parties has a history of going back on their word. Even having the summit at all was a big concession to North Korea which was not matched by any verifiable concessions on their part, and then Trump glorified Kim Jong Un, agreed to some very weak and vague language, and threw him another bone by handcuffing our military cooperation with South Korea. That would be a diplomatic failure even if North Korea didn't have the history they do. I take no pleasure in that - it was evident that nothing groundbreaking was going to happen at this particular meeting, but I was hoping for Trump to come away with some specific commitments from North Korea, even small ones, in exchange for his show of trust. That didn't happen. Instead, we got vague concepts that North Korea will "work toward". One has to call things as they are: North Korea came away with a lot more legitimacy, Trump came away with a good story to sell to his base, and the US came away looking very weak. There's no other way to describe that but as a failure.

Francoflier wrote:

What I see here is nothing. NK is not bound by anything, and Trump, once again, shot the US' allies in the leg in favor of rogue leaders with whom he seems to have an uncanny attraction.

I didn't know that MAGA meant offering the World on a platter to the US' historical diplomatic adversaries.

We seem to have wound up right back where we started, all at the expense of an unsightly blowjob for a murderous despot by Trump.

At the end the big winner is Xi. His proxy in North Korea is getting international recognition and with a bit of luck South Korea will soon shoulder the burden of keeping the population there fed. In addition it might reduce the US military presence in the region and weaken other military partnerships. And imho it would be wrong to believe that it was not Xi who forced Kim to change his course, because Xi has the real power to remove Kim or not.

Is it over?

As expected

The KCNA report also said Trump would lift sanctions against the North — a claim that contradicted comments from the president Tuesday that the measures would “come off when we are sure that the nukes are no longer a factor.”

The brief mention did not include a timeline for the easing of sanctions, but Trump said earlier this month that he would no longer be using the term “maximum pressure” amid improving ties.

Highlighting the continued differences in the two countries’ views of the denuclearization process, the report also said that they had agreed on a “step-by-step” approach.

It said that Kim and Trump had “shared recognition to the effect that it is important to abide by the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace, stability and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

If confirmed, the reported deal could be seen as a concession by Trump since U.S. officials — and the president himself — had called for the North to take swift and clear disarmament measures before receiving any rewards.

c933103 wrote:

As expected

The KCNA report also said Trump would lift sanctions against the North — a claim that contradicted comments from the president Tuesday that the measures would “come off when we are sure that the nukes are no longer a factor.”

The brief mention did not include a timeline for the easing of sanctions, but Trump said earlier this month that he would no longer be using the term “maximum pressure” amid improving ties.

Highlighting the continued differences in the two countries’ views of the denuclearization process, the report also said that they had agreed on a “step-by-step” approach.

It said that Kim and Trump had “shared recognition to the effect that it is important to abide by the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace, stability and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

If confirmed, the reported deal could be seen as a concession by Trump since U.S. officials — and the president himself — had called for the North to take swift and clear disarmament measures before receiving any rewards.

The point of NK’s nuke program was almost entirely to gain legitimacy by threat, and Trump just handed legitimacy to them on a silver platter. Kim can now show his people—that he loves so much—that the nuclear program worked based on America’s effusive praise. It’s quite remarkable.

Well played Kim, well played.

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.

Case in point:
http://www.instagram.com/p/Bj8lnJOFse5/



What a joke the right wing media is.

2122M wrote:

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?

The irony is not lost on me.

cpd wrote:

They could, if they really wanted to, derail this and Trump completely.

The Republicans did all they could to derail the Iran deal on multiple occasions. Should be fun if the democrats do the same! I can just imagine the cries of rage from the hard right wingers if that happened.

Mir wrote:

blueflyer wrote:

I will call this summit and the Trump diplomacy a great triumph as soon as international observers certify the DPRK has dismantled and shipped out or destroyed 98% of its nuclear infrastructure, and we haven't given up an ounce of support for our regional allies.

Too late. We already threw South Korea under the bus by deciding to suspend joint exercises. But at least we got something from North Korea in exchange, so...oh who the hell am I kidding, we just gave that away too.

I predicted earlier on that Trump would offer a full withdrawal from the Korean Peninsular in return for nothing worthwhile. Looks like I wasn't far off the mark.

Ken777 wrote:

Trump's ignorance was also in full stride. He gave away joint exercises with the South and got NOTHING in return. Blind siding his own military and showing his ignorance on the importance of training for the military.

China will be very grateful for Mr Trump's tireless efforts on the matter.

787Driver wrote:

Even if you are a hardcore Trump critic, you gotta admit that it's worth trying a new approach now that the old approach didn't change anything. Similar to the Obama era Cuba politics.

Conservatives L O V E D the restoration of relations with Cuba.

texdravid wrote:

I have been sitting on my couch gloating over the lamestream media be so depressed this morning s f trying to grasp at straws on how these last two days were horrible and Trump “gave away the store”

Most of the rest of us are gainfully employed, so don't have the time to sit around on the couch all day gloating.

slider wrote:

The critics just can't come to grips with the fact that, yeah, the dude has gotten more right in the foreign policy sphere than he has wrong.

Are you serious? Or have you forgotten about the trade wars, pulling out of the Iran deal, making manlove to Saudi Arabia and pulling out of Paris Agreement.

Then again, you were the guy who was advocating a nuclear attack on Mecca in the Non Av forums a few years ago, so one really shouldn't be surprised by this.

slider wrote:

He's gained more on the issue of North Korea than any POTUS since the Korean War. That's admirable as hell. Whether that is sustainable, who knows.

But what does he actually gained? A very loosely worded "agreement" from the leader of NK to tear down a nuclear facility that already collapsed back in April. I've got no opposition to dialogue, but to claim this as a win and to give credibility to the Kim regime is a total joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... tion-china

bennett123 wrote:

Trxdravid

My recollection is that Obama released Iranian money which had been frozen.

It was not US money.

He knows this, but repeating the talking point that "Obama was giving Iran billions of our cash" scores you lots of points in right wing circles.

mham001 wrote:

First time Kim breaks a promise, then is the time to go back to waving guns around.

What a shame Un didn't promise to stop uranium nor plutonium production.

cledaybuck wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I guess when you're spewing so much bile it makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction, but Obama didn't give up billions, it was Iran's money all along.

And he actually got something in return for it.

And if congress had been cooperative, the money could have been some firm orders for Boeing aircraft. You know, supporting american jobs and all that!

LittleSprocket wrote:

De-escalation of the war of words is nothing?

You seem to forget that it was Trump who escalated the war of words, right? Calling Kim "Rocket Man" and tweeting about how big his nuclear button is.

MikeDrop wrote:

I'll leave you with this wonderful video of then candidate Obama describing how we need a new foriegn policy where we talk with our enemies

I'll give you a video of the right wing media getting their panties in a twist about Obama doing just that:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj8lnJOFse5/

salttee wrote:

Have you forgotten that NK is a dictatorship that allows its citizens no freedoms whatsoever?

It's weird. After the Iran Deal and the normalisation of relations with Cuba, the right wing media was filled with stories about how the West had no place doing business with evil regimes like that who don't allow their citizens political freedoms and who's governments torture prisoners. Weirdly the right wing media has been totally silent about North Korean concentration camps, torture and government repression. But it's probably just a coincidence, right?

Of course, all of this ignores the fact that the Iranians get to vote for their president. But facts have a liberal bias anyway, I suppose.

Credit where credit is due: the issue of the Trump-Un summit might just result in more members of the hard right being able to find the Korean Peninsula on a map.

salttee wrote:

You don't understand the significance of Trump calling the annual exercise by the US, SK and Japan "provocative" do you? Neither did Trump apparently.

Well, in fairness, "provocative" is quite a long word. Trump and Mike prefer shorter words. Ideally four letters maximum.

TWA772LR wrote:

salttee wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Please tell me of all the times the US staged active war games prior to overthrowing Hitler, Mussolini...............

It took George Marshall four years to get the US into a position to invade France. There were lots and lots of war games.

TWA772LR wrote:

Show me all of your wonderful evidence that you have on Trump not going into this without being advised by ANYONE in the United States Department of Defense.

Mattis's statements to the press the day before the "summit" he indicated there would be no changes and added that "Yes I would know" when he was asked if he was sure.

TWA772LR wrote:

If you don't like it, kiss the appropriate asses to climb the ranks in the US political structure to make a change.
Until then, don't doubt the prowess of the military that defends our country, because you know everything I have said is right. North Korea will be crushed. Kim will be out of power in a short time. The military knows exactly how to take down the regime.

You know nothing about military matters; as I said above you sound like an 11 year old.

1. Yes because Sherman and Renault tanks stormed the beaches of Maine in a mock invasion of Normandy. Wars take time to plan, but the point was (that you clearly missed) is that the US didnt do any large scale multinational war games in the lead up to World War 2 before Pearl Harbor. No one thought it was going to happen. Korea is different because we've been waiting for Korea 2 for 70 years now.

Wasn't your point that the war games were not important, because the US military already "knows" how to invade other countries and could forcefully end Kim's regime in no time? And didn't you use WWII as an example of how in the past it hasn't been necessary?

That example is false because
- While the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise, many people were expecting the US to eventually join the war that had been going on from 1939(or 1937 even).
- there WERE large military excercises prior to D-Day (Excercise Tiger, 1944)

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.

Obama should not have met with North Korea. He was seen as weak from the beginning which was confirmed by him not following through with his red line in the sand threat.

zkojq wrote:

You seem to forget that it was Trump who escalated the war of words, right? Calling Kim "Rocket Man" and tweeting about how big his nuclear button is.

If Trump hadn't escalated the war of words to the degree he did and if the mainstream media had not portrayed Trump as volatile and dangerous, and someone who should not be trusted with nuclear codes (which is likely exactly what Trump preferred after winning the election), it probaby wouldn't have been a good idea for Trump to meet with him either.

Besides the distrust of Trump those that argue that this summit was a failure assert that Trump gave up too muck and that NK is not to be trusted based on their past record.

Does anyone have any doubts that Trump will double down on war games if Kim doesn’t follow through?

And I say Kim as his desires not NK are what is important here.

Will he act the same as his Father and Grand Father? Nobody knows but if he does we are no worse off than we were before Trump .

I give Trump credit for trying to get a big win.

Planeflyer wrote:

Besides the distrust of Trump those that argue that this summit was a failure assert that Trump
gave up too muck and that NK is not to be trusted based on their past record.

Does anyone have any doubts that Trump will double down on war games if Kim doesn’t follow through?

And I say Kim as his desires not NK are what is important here.

Will he act the same as his Father and Grand Father? Nobody knows but if he does we are no worse off than we were before Trump .

I give Trump credit for trying to get a big win.

The question is rather if Trump can be trusted and if NK-Kim is trusting Trump (which I doubt he does).

A major + from Trump’s endeavor is we will soon know who can be trusted.

Yeah......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 4eGQBzLGtg

Summit coin is now $45 + shipping, pre-ordered it for $19.95 + $8.86 shipping.

zkojq wrote:

Well played Kim, well played.

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.

Case in point:
http://www.instagram.com/p/Bj8lnJOFse5/



What a joke the right wing media is.

That is very damaging if he indeed said that. I'm not going to watch videos of it, but it's a huge backflip.

Nothing damages those clowns, their base is oblivious.

cpd wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Well played Kim, well played.

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.

Case in point:
http://www.instagram.com/p/Bj8lnJOFse5/



What a joke the right wing media is.

That is very damaging if he indeed said that. I'm not going to watch videos of it, but it's a huge backflip.

Here are a couple of links

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/39202 ... -criticism
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/se ... fb826f0705
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... p-and-oba/

And, oh look... Civil War on Fox Infotainment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHyH57ICvY

Hannity is certainly no genius but then again you didn’t need much to know who Obama was way before policies such as lead from behind, Benghazi, multiple red lines, Cuba and finally Iran.

Go back to listen to any of his FP speeches in light of what happened.Nobody could make blah, blah, blah sound so eloquent.

Obama was our first Europeon President and so it followed that the world became far more dangerous.

cpd wrote:

That is very damaging if he indeed said that. I'm not going to watch videos of it, but it's a huge backflip.

Watch how Sean Hannity eviscerates Sean Hannity on this video.

This blowhard speaks and some people listen and believe. What does that say about their common sense, or basic intelligence? I guess outrageous lies are the new reality for those who do not watch MSM. Main Stream Media in case anyone in this country has not heard the term at least 1000 times in the last year. That maybe an underestimate also.

If the best rebuttal is a "See, that side has some double standards too!!", then you don't actually have one. This thread is gold.

Planeflyer wrote:

Hannity is certainly no genius but then again you didn’t need much to know who Obama was way before policies such as lead from behind, Benghazi, multiple red lines, Cuba and finally Iran.

Go back to listen to any of his FP speeches in light of what happened.Nobody could make blah, blah, blah sound so eloquent.

Obama was our first Europeon President and so it followed that the world became far more dangerous.

What exactly has all of that got to do with what Hannity says?

For the record, I'm totally opposed to any dealings with North Korea. I'm much more hawkish than any of the conservatives in that respect. I also think the NK forces are lacking morale and would probably abandon their regime at first chance.

cpd wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Hannity is certainly no genius but then again you didn’t need much to know who Obama was way before policies such as lead from behind, Benghazi, multiple red lines, Cuba and finally Iran.

Go back to listen to any of his FP speeches in light of what happened.Nobody could make blah, blah, blah sound so eloquent.

Obama was our first Europeon President and so it followed that the world became far more dangerous.

What exactly has all of that got to do with what Hannity says?



For the record, I'm totally opposed to any dealings with North Korea. I'm much more hawkish than any of the conservatives in that respect. I also think the NK forces are lacking morale and would probably abandon their regime at first chance.

It means that a guy as dull as Hannity knew exactly who Obama was. Really, a community organizer turned to be a weak President. No duh.

Planeflyer, I hope you're young it pleases me to know that you are going to hear for the rest of your life how Obama was one of the best presidents, and how Trump set a record for the worst that even made Bush II look good by comparison. And I hope you get the hear that for a long long time.

Planeflyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Hannity is certainly no genius but then again you didn’t need much to know who Obama was way before policies such as lead from behind, Benghazi, multiple red lines, Cuba and finally Iran.

Go back to listen to any of his FP speeches in light of what happened.Nobody could make blah, blah, blah sound so eloquent.

Obama was our first Europeon President and so it followed that the world became far more dangerous.

What exactly has all of that got to do with what Hannity says?



For the record, I'm totally opposed to any dealings with North Korea. I'm much more hawkish than any of the conservatives in that respect. I also think the NK forces are lacking morale and would probably abandon their regime at first chance.

It means that a guy as dull as Hannity knew exactly who Obama was. Really, a community organizer turned to be a weak President. No duh.

It means that Hannity is dumb. If you say that somebody is wrong to deal with NK, then it is wrong to deal with NK period! Dealing with NK isn't suddenly good because your favourite team is doing the dealing.

Trump should have kept the pressure on the NK side, they would have caved in soon. Deflecting isn't going to work. Your favourite lot have been caught out.

einsteinboricua wrote:

cpd wrote:

That is very damaging if he indeed said that. I'm not going to watch videos of it, but it's a huge backflip.

Watch how Sean Hannity eviscerates Sean Hannity on this video.

And that's not all! Here's Trump eviscerating Trump:



We seem to be showing a lot of weakness.

Planeflyer wrote:

Hannity is certainly no genius but then again you didn’t need much to know who Obama was way before policies such as lead from behind, Benghazi, multiple red lines, Cuba and finally Iran.

Go back to listen to any of his FP speeches in light of what happened.Nobody could make blah, blah, blah sound so eloquent.

Obama was our first Europeon President and so it followed that the world became far more dangerous.

The guy makes 35 million dollars a year with this. I'd say he's a genius. Who wouldn't be crazy on TV for that cash?

For all you trumpettes celebrating for "finally" getting DPRK to pledge denuclearization well....

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-ko ... ast-2018-6

They started making those pledges in 1985. Under... someone... I don't right off recall who the American president was.....

What should Hillary have done?

Please.

cpd wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

What exactly has all of that got to do with what Hannity says?



For the record, I'm totally opposed to any dealings with North Korea. I'm much more hawkish than any of the conservatives in that respect. I also think the NK forces are lacking morale and would probably abandon their regime at first chance.

It means that a guy as dull as Hannity knew exactly who Obama was. Really, a community organizer turned to be a weak President. No duh.

It means that Hannity is dumb. If you say that somebody is wrong to deal with NK, then it is wrong to deal with NK period! Dealing with NK isn't suddenly good because your favourite team is doing the dealing.

Trump should have kept the pressure on the NK side, they would have caved in soon. Deflecting isn't going to work. Your favourite lot have been caught out.

I’m sorry this is dull thinking. Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

Obama’s record of hand wringing and appeasement is as clear as Hannity predicted it would be.

Obama had is his shot and did nothing about NK.

Trump is trying and maybe it won’t work but if so we won’t be any worse off than we are now.

Planeflyer wrote:

Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

You're lying. Trump did nothing other than to continue Obama's policies in Syria or Iraq. After blathering about how he was going to change things and pull the US out of Syria.

Planeflyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

It means that a guy as dull as Hannity knew exactly who Obama was. Really, a community organizer turned to be a weak President. No duh.

It means that Hannity is dumb. If you say that somebody is wrong to deal with NK, then it is wrong to deal with NK period! Dealing with NK isn't suddenly good because your favourite team is doing the dealing.

Trump should have kept the pressure on the NK side, they would have caved in soon. Deflecting isn't going to work. Your favourite lot have been caught out.

I’m sorry this is dull thinking. Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

Obama’s record of hand wringing and appeasement is as clear as Hannity predicted it would be.

Obama had is his shot and did nothing about NK.

Trump is trying and maybe it won’t work but if so we won’t be any worse off than we are now.

Trying to work with the world is not the answer put pissing off all our friends and allies is the best thing to do. That is what you (and tRump) are saying.

Planeflyer wrote:

Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

Trump's plan: continue what Obama was doing, because it was working.

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump is trying and maybe it won’t work but if so we won’t be any worse off than we are now.

You don't think sending the message of "if you want the US to give you stuff and treat you as an equal, get nuclear weapons" hasn't made things worse? I'm sure Iran is considering that message at the moment (after suspending their nuclear program in accordance with the JCPOA - thanks, Obama). Gaddafi ended up dead. Kim ended up with a summit and praise.

afcjets wrote:

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.

Obama should not have met with North Korea. He was seen as weak from the beginning which was confirmed by him not following through with his red line in the sand threat.

zkojq wrote:

You seem to forget that it was Trump who escalated the war of words, right? Calling Kim "Rocket Man" and tweeting about how big his nuclear button is.

If Trump hadn't escalated the war of words to the degree he did and if the mainstream media had not portrayed Trump as volatile and dangerous, and someone who should not be trusted with nuclear codes (which is likely exactly what Trump preferred after winning the election), it probaby wouldn't have been a good idea for Trump to meet with him either.

Even if you think the former IS government was weak, that's still miles better than handing your opponent a victory due to your own ignorant

cpd wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

What exactly has all of that got to do with what Hannity says?



For the record, I'm totally opposed to any dealings with North Korea. I'm much more hawkish than any of the conservatives in that respect. I also think the NK forces are lacking morale and would probably abandon their regime at first chance.

It means that a guy as dull as Hannity knew exactly who Obama was. Really, a community organizer turned to be a weak President. No duh.

It means that Hannity is dumb. If you say that somebody is wrong to deal with NK, then it is wrong to deal with NK period! Dealing with NK isn't suddenly good because your favourite team is doing the dealing.

Trump should have kept the pressure on the NK side, they would have caved in soon. Deflecting isn't going to work. Your favourite lot have been caught out.

We also cannot deny that pressure wasn't working as much as earlier open atmosphere and dialogue wasn't working. To actually solve the problem it need another approach

Planeflyer wrote:

Besides the distrust of Trump those that argue that this summit was a failure assert that Trump gave up too muck and that NK is not to be trusted based on their past record.

Does anyone have any doubts that Trump will double down on war games if Kim doesn’t follow through?

And I say Kim as his desires not NK are what is important here.

Will he act the same as his Father and Grand Father? Nobody knows but if he does we are no worse off than we were before Trump .

I give Trump credit for trying to get a big win.

It is not just the action to stop the military exercise that's damaging but also officially describing them as war games and provocative, and that mean if in the future they need to restore the exercise out of needs, then it could give North Korea a lot of excuses on a lot of things

c933103 wrote:

It is not just the action to stop the military exercise that's damaging but also officially describing them as war games and provocative, and that mean if in the future they need to restore the exercise out of needs, then it could give North Korea a lot of excuses on a lot of things

Of course it is provocative, everybody knows it, that has always been part of its intent. He said it out loud. So what.
pro·voc·a·tive
prəˈväkədiv/Submit
adjective
causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.
"a provocative article"

We should be considering the consequences if Kim reneges on whatever words he whispered. Hell hath no fury like a Donald scorned...God help us all.

I think Kim thinks about that too.

salttee wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

You're lying. Trump did nothing other than to continue Obama's policies in Syria or Iraq. After blathering about how he was going to change things and pull the US out of Syria.

What most annoys me is the Trumpanzees claiming that it was Trump who got rid of ISIS. That is some of the finest horseshit ever conjured up. The Peshmerga were the ones doing the heavy lifting (not that the Trumpanzees know what that is ).

cpd wrote:

That is very damaging if he indeed said that. I'm not going to watch videos of it, but it's a huge backflip.

That represents the attitude of the majority of republicans, it's not the action which is important but whom it has been done by.

Trump is now friends with Un, Duterte, Putin, even trying to get Putin back into the G7. But he can't get along with another single leader of the free world. Hmmm...

The Peshmerga were the ones doing the heavy lifting

In Iraq, the Shiite militias had a lot to do with the defeat of ISIS. And in Syria, the Iranian Hezbollah have also been active in ousting ISIS.

Redd wrote:

Trump is now friends with Un, Duterte, Putin, even trying to get Putin back into the G7.

Trump trusts Kim
https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-tru ... d=55815265

mham001 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

It is not just the action to stop the military exercise that's damaging but also officially describing them as war games and provocative, and that mean if in the future they need to restore the exercise out of needs, then it could give North Korea a lot of excuses on a lot of things

Of course it is provocative, everybody knows it, that has always been part of its intent. He said it out loud. So what.
pro·voc·a·tive
prəˈväkədiv/Submit
adjective
causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.
"a provocative article"

We should be considering the consequences if Kim reneges on whatever words he whispered. Hell hath no fury like a Donald scorned...God help us all.

I think Kim thinks about that too.

Except that's not and you have fall for North Korean propaganda for thinking this wat

mham001 wrote:

What should Hillary have done?

Please.

Irrelevant. She's not president. But then again, Trump said she was too hawkish. So who knows? Maybe the meeting wouldn't have gone through BUT sanctions would have been tightened further WITHOUT caving to China or Russia.

salttee wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

You're lying. Trump did nothing other than to continue Obama's policies in Syria or Iraq. After blathering about how he was going to change things and pull the US out of Syria.

On top of that, ISIS was already structurally defeated even before Trump was even elected. Increasing "Human Resource" problems in the Caliphate are known since early 2016.

Same as with the North Korea Agreement, Trump is banking on his Base not knowing anything, so they don´t know that either and claim a "win".

It is no surprise that Trump got the Young Earth creationist vote.

best regards
Thomas

Kim is just doing what his father and grandfather did. Play the nice guy, do some importing and take the aid, then as soon as the bills come due (such as cutting up the nukes) up goes the barricade again.

It's the North Korea Show. Watch and enjoy as Kim or his silly newscasters start frothing over something or other and the lines of communication get cut. Meanwhile a nice few billions in imports have crossed the border, such as fertiliser that they desperately need as they only have so much human shit to go round their crops.

Kim's father and grandfather played the West. Anyone else in any doubt that the Trumperati got played like a ten cent fiddle?

Channex757 wrote:

Kim's father and grandfather played the West. Anyone else in any doubt that the Trumperati got played like a ten cent fiddle?

Trump probably has not realized yet that for North Korea "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" for Kim means: No nukes in SK, no nukes on US Navy Vessels in range, no nukes on Guam, Anderson and such for Bombers and no ICBM that can reach Korea.

Best regards
Thomas

salttee wrote:

Planeflyer, I hope you're young it pleases me to know that you are going to hear for the rest of your life how Obama was one of the best presidents, and how Trump set a record for the worst that even made Bush II look good by comparison. And I hope you get the hear that for a long long time.

Why wait? I always wondered what was meant by strategic patience and would love to better understand it. Please educate us.

You must have missed the post above:

salttee wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Look at ISIS. Obama had no idea what to do but Trump did.

You're lying. Trump did nothing other than to continue Obama's policies in Syria or Iraq. After blathering about how he was going to change things and pull the US out of Syria.

Do you know what "lying" means?