I think the chances of this meeting ever going ahead are infinitesimally small.

an ego thing, I think it will go ahead, a victory for NK.

Dutchy wrote:

an ego thing, I think it will go ahead, a victory for NK.

IMHO it's very unlikely because both sides will set pre-conditions they know the other side will not be willing to meet. Then they can say "Well, we were willing, but they weren't prepared to go that extra mile..."

Just noticed this trivial little detail... The deputy director general for North American affairs at North Korea’s foreign ministry, Choe Kang Il, who was photographed by Reuters at Beijing airport on his way to Finland for talks with South Korean and American officials had seat 53D visible on his boarding pass, i.e. the back of the plane near the toilets. Surprising he showed the boarding pass so openly, but it just goes to show that North Korea doesn't waste valuable foreign-exchange reserves for any additional comfort of their diplomats. It's exactly the seat which can accidentally get bumped by the cabin crew pushing their trolley.

One is probably not in the best mood for negotiations when the queue to the toilet goes right next to you with Chinese tourists almost sitting on your lap.

Nami wrote:

Just noticed this trivial little detail... The deputy director general for North American affairs at North Korea’s foreign ministry, Choe Kang Il, who was photographed by Reuters at Beijing airport on his way to Finland for talks with South Korean and American officials had seat 53D visible on his boarding pass, i.e. the back of the plane near the toilets. Surprising he showed the boarding pass so openly, but it just goes to show that North Korea doesn't waste valuable foreign-exchange reserves for any additional comfort of their diplomats. It's exactly the seat which can accidentally get bumped by the cabin crew pushing their trolley.

One is probably not in the best mood for negotiations when the queue to the toilet goes right next to you with Chinese tourists almost sitting on your lap.

So what? Many, if not most European politicians fly economy. Former Ukrainian PM Senya Yatsenyuk was also seen in economy regularly (on his trips to beg for money mostly). Trump's family (Ivanka and her kids) are also flying economy, and everything is alright.

This seems relevant: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/ ... 8714747906

LockheedBBD wrote:

This seems relevant: https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/ ... 8714747906

That is hilarious.

I see ZERO chance of this meeting happening. I doubt Jon Ping-Pong will meet in South Korea - a close US ally. He might agree to meet in China, but I think the Chinese will balk at that. There are too many ways for this meeting to be a flop, and China will not want to lose face. Ain't happening. There is no other ground on Earth for this meeting to happen.

Reading these threads in hindsight is really very amusing sometimes, if not so scary. it would appear that many or even most here would rather risk nuclear holocaust than have Trump succeed at something. Think about that.

In today's news however...

(TALLINN, Estonia) — Finland’s government said Wednesday that delegates from North Korea, South Korea and the United States concluded “constructive” unofficial diplomatic talks in the Nordic country that were widely believed to be laying the groundwork for an upcoming meeting between the Koreas and a planned U.S.-North Korea summit.

North Korea has yet to confirm talks with the U.S., but its official media on Tuesday carried a commentary saying there “has been a sign of change” in U.S.-North Korean relations.
http://time.com/5210247/us-south-north- ... s-finland/


Of side interest is that China is apparently shut out, Kim seeming to dislike the Chinese as much as, if not more than he does Americans.

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

Trump got played. Anyone surprised?

Not really.

Why would North Korea ever give up their nukes?
Lesson one of geopolitics - have nukes, don't get overthrown.

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 both sides threatened, and one just has. Trump has just cancelled it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44242558

So stupid of them both. The US and SK could have postponed the military exercise till maybe after the summit depending on the outcome. And on the other hand, N.Korea should be aware that the US will not get rid of its nuclear weapons, which made their demand impossible to meet.

787Driver wrote:

. And on the other hand, N.Korea should be aware that the US will not get rid of its nuclear weapons, which made their demand impossible to meet.

On the other hand, different from North Korea the US has signed treaties requiring them to get rid of their nukes though.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

. And on the other hand, N.Korea should be aware that the US will not get rid of its nuclear weapons, which made their demand impossible to meet.

On the other hand, different from North Korea the US has signed treaties requiring them to get rid of their nukes though.

Best regards
Thomas

Which the USA has followed and upheld it obligations.

The meeting withdrawal was actually, I think, appropriate and for a Trump designed document relatively well done. The NK bombast and whining was just increasing and it needed to either stop or the meeting called off. Since NK didn't stop...

Tugg

This is going to be fun to watch

Tugger wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

. And on the other hand, N.Korea should be aware that the US will not get rid of its nuclear weapons, which made their demand impossible to meet.

On the other hand, different from North Korea the US has signed treaties requiring them to get rid of their nukes though.

Best regards
Thomas

Which the USA has followed and upheld it obligations.

Article VI NPT wrote:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

When was the last meeting seriously discussing complete nuclear disarmament? The canx of the Iran deal doesn't exactly smell like good faith either.

Best regards
Thomas

So...Nobel Prize nominee, huh?

Saves Pyongyang from having to waste time negotiating with someone who clearly can't uphold his side of the bargain.

I refer you all back to my post 2 months ago(post 24).

I doubt that comments made by Pence/Bolton re Libya helped.

tommy1808 wrote:

Article VI NPT wrote:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

When was the last meeting seriously discussing complete nuclear disarmament? The canx of the Iran deal doesn't exactly smell like good faith either.

Best regards
Thomas

The various parties must be interested in reduction and negotiating "in good faith", it is not the USA burden to bear alone.

Tugg

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

I agree. This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics ... index.html

Or, maybe not.

There goes Trump's Peace Prize.

Now N & S Koreas can get together without Trump, talking directly to each other, China and Japan are far better supporting countries of those talks than Trump could ever be.

In terms of Bolton wanting to Bloody Their Nose, someone needs to make sure that the North can deliver a LOT of arterially shells to Seoul in the first hour - around 50,000 - and that is sufficient for a massive impact on the world economy.

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

No. Obama would have waited until he was on his way to meed with Kim. Obama would have held the meeting. TRump actually had coins minted. His followers demanded he be given a medal. It had not even happened and they were calling him all kinds of glowing names. TRump was in it for profit and glory for himself. THAT is the difference.

Guess who tweeted this gem on November 8, 2013:

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

Guess who is not taking responsibility for current leadership? Could it be the same author of said tweet?

Ken777 wrote:

There goes Trump's Peace Prize.

Now N & S Koreas can get together without Trump, talking directly to each other, China and Japan are far better supporting countries of those talks than Trump could ever be.

In terms of Bolton wanting to Bloody Their Nose, someone needs to make sure that the North can deliver a LOT of arterially shells to Seoul in the first hour - around 50,000 - and that is sufficient for a massive impact on the world economy.

Hardly a surprise when that imbecile Bolton is anywhere near this, you know, one of the superbrains behind the 2003 Iraq war, who even prior to that, caused all manner of problems with NK. He's just a blowhard idiot, shown by his inability to learn from mistakes, his own included.
So him blurting out a 'Libya solution' with just as dense Pence, no real surprise there, except that people so limited can rise to high office in the US, even those with a shitty track record.

So what happens to those coins Trump had minted to mark the great event?
There you have it, from his perspective, a chance for a 'win' and to feed that huge ego.
You can bet he paid far more attention to that that mere intelligence briefings, (one page with pictures now isn't it?), much less delving into this complex and challenging issue. He's never done anything like that in his life. That's for the Help (later to be thrown under the bus if needs be).
Gutting the State Dept and what positions are filled are hardly the best and brightest.

To those making a fool of themselves by comparing Obama negatively with Trump, if you can manage a little thought experiment? Imagine Trump is in the WH in late 2010, when he is briefed by the CIA that they may have a lead of Bin Laden's location, nothing certain but a long cold trail is warm again. Think he would can keep his big trap shut? He couldn't, if you are being at all honest with yourselves you know it too, he'd have blown that operation wide open, being the eternal spoiled brat that he is.

Previous Presidents, not just Obama, for the most part did the work, that only real slacker was George W Bush, and look what his admin gifted to the US and the world.
Though in his case he just let dangerous clowns like Cheney, Rumsfeld Bolton etc do their thing. All so very certain, all so very wrong.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

No. Obama would have waited until he was on his way to meed with Kim. Obama would have held the meeting. TRump actually had coins minted. His followers demanded he be given a medal. It had not even happened and they were calling him all kinds of glowing names. TRump was in it for profit and glory for himself. THAT is the difference.

That's quite the theory.

So long as peace can be reached with the world and NK, or just the Koreas; the US has withdrawn from the world as a leader. Who cares about us anymore when our leadership is a joke.

bgm wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

I agree. This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

That wasn't going to happen. Trump got played by North Korea, and cutting losses is the best of a bad set of solutions to the situation he put himself in (though it would have been better if he didn't blindside South Korea with his decision, but hey...who needs to treat allies with respect?).

Mir wrote:

bgm wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

I agree. This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

That wasn't going to happen. Trump got played by North Korea, and cutting losses is the best of a bad set of solutions to the situation he put himself in (though it would have been better if he didn't blindside South Korea with his decision, but hey...who needs to treat allies with respect?).

Like I said its a good thing the talks collapsed. He was a fool for even trying.

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.
Amazing.
Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.
The same would have been done under Obama, too.

CCGPV wrote:

Like I said its a good thing the talks collapsed. He was a fool for even trying.

bgm wrote:

This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

The whole thing was a farce from day one.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

bgm wrote:

This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

The whole thing was a farce from day one.

Why did the NK/SK leaders meet? Why did he cross the DMZ? Why the statements and actions of goodwill happen at all?

Just for fun?

My understanding is that Trump thought Kim would put his Nukes on the table. At the same time the Nukes deployed by the US 7th Fleet and the USAF 7th Air Force would be excluded.

Why would Kim sign up to that.

bennett123 wrote:

My understanding is that Trump thought Kim would put his Nukes on the table. At the same time the Nukes deployed by the US 7th Fleet and the USAF 7th Air Force would be excluded.

Why would Kim sign up to that.

He shouldn't. Any nation that gives up their nuclear capability doesn't deserve to exist. That's the best bargaining chip there is.

GDB wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

There goes Trump's Peace Prize.

Now N & S Koreas can get together without Trump, talking directly to each other, China and Japan are far better supporting countries of those talks than Trump could ever be.

In terms of Bolton wanting to Bloody Their Nose, someone needs to make sure that the North can deliver a LOT of arterially shells to Seoul in the first hour - around 50,000 - and that is sufficient for a massive impact on the world economy.

Hardly a surprise when that imbecile Bolton is anywhere near this, you know, one of the superbrains behind the 2003 Iraq war, who even prior to that, caused all manner of problems with NK. He's just a blowhard idiot, shown by his inability to learn from mistakes, his own included.
So him blurting out a 'Libya solution' with just as dense Pence, no real surprise there, except that people so limited can rise to high office in the US, even those with a shitty track record.

So what happens to those coins Trump had minted to mark the great event?
There you have it, from his perspective, a chance for a 'win' and to feed that huge ego.
You can bet he paid far more attention to that that mere intelligence briefings, (one page with pictures now isn't it?), much less delving into this complex and challenging issue. He's never done anything like that in his life. That's for the Help (later to be thrown under the bus if needs be).
Gutting the State Dept and what positions are filled are hardly the best and brightest.

To those making a fool of themselves by comparing Obama negatively with Trump, if you can manage a little thought experiment? Imagine Trump is in the WH in late 2010, when he is briefed by the CIA that they may have a lead of Bin Laden's location, nothing certain but a long cold trail is warm again. Think he would can keep his big trap shut? He couldn't, if you are being at all honest with yourselves you know it too, he'd have blown that operation wide open, being the eternal spoiled brat that he is.

Previous Presidents, not just Obama, for the most part did the work, that only real slacker was George W Bush, and look what his admin gifted to the US and the world.
Though in his case he just let dangerous clowns like Cheney, Rumsfeld Bolton etc do their thing. All so very certain, all so very wrong.

Melt those dubious doubloons down. They're only base metal. I agree with you GDB, but in all fairness Obama and Clinton gave us failed Libya.

Mir wrote:

bgm wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

People are celebrating and gloating about talks that had the potential to deescalate the Korean Peninsula just so they can gloat about Trump.

Amazing.

Threats of nuclear war and continued tyranny in NK is worth it if we can get a dig in on the Republicans.

The same would have been done under Obama, too.

I agree. This would definitely have been a 'win' if Trump had facilitated a deescalation between NK and SK.

That wasn't going to happen. Trump got played by North Korea, and cutting losses is the best of a bad set of solutions to the situation he put himself in (though it would have been better if he didn't blindside South Korea with his decision, but hey...who needs to treat allies with respect?).

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

seb146 wrote:

Guess who tweeted this gem on November 8, 2013:

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

Guess who is not taking responsibility for current leadership? Could it be the same author of said tweet?

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

Ken777 wrote:

There goes Trump's Peace Prize.

Now N & S Koreas can get together without Trump, talking directly to each other, China and Japan are far better supporting countries of those talks than Trump could ever be.

In terms of Bolton wanting to Bloody Their Nose, someone needs to make sure that the North can deliver a LOT of arterially shells to Seoul in the first hour - around 50,000 - and that is sufficient for a massive impact on the world economy.

Neither Japan nor China would be a positive contributor when it come to improving relationship between North Korea and South Korea. See for example how the two countries react to the issue in the recent months. Japan have been insisting on the issue of kidnapped citizens as well as conflicted territory when they talk about the relationship between Koreas, and while China have been vocally supportive to improvement of their relationship they are.also putting up the potential threat against their own national security and their own interest in North Korea at a much higher place than resolving the situation

Pellegrine wrote:

I agree with you GDB, but in all fairness Obama and Clinton gave us failed Libya.

Conservatives have to make up their minds about Libya. When Gaddafi was reported to have been killed by rebels, not a single conservative gave credit to Obama. It was all thanks to the Europeans because Obama was a weak leader with a "leading from behind" strategy (the same strategy that Trump is now advocating with NATO...do more on your own). Libya backfires and suddenly, it's Obama's fault. Never mind that it was mostly EU fighter jets enforcing the No-Fly Zone and allowed rebels cover to take down Gaddafi and his loyalists.

All the blame; no credit.

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Guess who tweeted this gem on November 8, 2013:

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

Guess who is not taking responsibility for current leadership? Could it be the same author of said tweet?

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, instead of actually talking and working out differences and getting a deal that both sides agree to, one leader decided nothing was acceptable and righties are praising him and apologizing for it. How the hell does this make him the greatest peace maker ever if he can not make peace? Why should he get a peace prize when he refuses to talk except to sling insults at people who disagree with him?

seb146 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Guess who tweeted this gem on November 8, 2013:

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

Guess who is not taking responsibility for current leadership? Could it be the same author of said tweet?

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, instead of actually talking and working out differences and getting a deal that both sides agree to, one leader decided nothing was acceptable and righties are praising him and apologizing for it. How the hell does this make him the greatest peace maker ever if he can not make peace? Why should he get a peace prize when he refuses to talk except to sling insults at people who disagree with him?

I mean, I don't trust Trump would have the ability to talk North Korea into accepting something that they have openly stated they won't accept, at least he know his place instead of drowning the entire world into a talk for some deal that would end up legitimating the nuclear capability of North Korea. That's what I once thought Trump might take the step. Perhaps fortunately, he is so ignorant that he unknowingly angered North Korea for his lack of understanding on the issue and refused further direct contact for it, otherwise Trump might actually meet them and announce a "victory" that would allow them to keep their nuclear weapons as long as United States still possess any nuclear weapon

CCGPV wrote:

Why did the NK/SK leaders meet? Why did he cross the DMZ? Why the statements and actions of goodwill happen at all?

Just for fun?

Kim and trump were both trying to make the other look like a chump. Kim succeeded.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Why did the NK/SK leaders meet? Why did he cross the DMZ? Why the statements and actions of goodwill happen at all?

Just for fun?

Kim and trump were both trying to make the other look like a chump. Kim succeeded.

So its all over now? There's not going to be any further developments?

Pellegrine wrote:

but in all fairness Obama and Clinton gave us failed Libya.

In all fairness, Obama and Clinton were driven by decisions made in Europe. If you want to be fair.

CCGPV wrote:

So its all over now? There's not going to be any further developments?

Not unless Trump is willing to take military action.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

So its all over now? There's not going to be any further developments?

Not unless Trump is willing to take military action.

Never going to happen.

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

There will be flapping of lips. Trump and Kim both excel at that.

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

So its all over now? There's not going to be any further developments?

Not unless Trump is willing to take military action.

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.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

I agree with you GDB, but in all fairness Obama and Clinton gave us failed Libya.

Conservatives have to make up their minds about Libya. When Gaddafi was reported to have been killed by rebels, not a single conservative gave credit to Obama. It was all thanks to the Europeans because Obama was a weak leader with a "leading from behind" strategy (the same strategy that Trump is now advocating with NATO...do more on your own). Libya backfires and suddenly, it's Obama's fault. Never mind that it was mostly EU fighter jets enforcing the No-Fly Zone and allowed rebels cover to take down Gaddafi and his loyalists.

All the blame; no credit.

I'm the biggest Obama fan. I also think the US should have never had anything to do with it.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

Not unless Trump is willing to take military action.

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.