@SkinsGoldPants

All Things North Korea Thread

Recommended Posts

If at first you dont succeed, fool me twice, wont get fooled again!  MAGA!!!!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

Can't expect any more than hate from the Hateacrats I enjoy their misery.

 

I think it is doubtful that this effort ends in the denuclearization of NK but I would rather Trump tries this approach than a military operation to incapacitate NK's nuclear program.  We'll see where this goes but it is hard for me to imagine Kim could maintain power and give up his nukes, I think there would be a coup.  Maybe he feels secure enough or is just playing a game his military has approved.

Yesterday that damn demmycrat Lindsey Graham beat the drums for a military intervention if this meeting produced nothing. So among Democrats like Lindsey Graham, seems that they don't want to give Trump's negotiation much rope with which to lead itself anywhere. Get a deal today or start shooting again. Those damn libs.

 

You may enjoy misery,, but somehow i don't think you are steered in the right direction when you start throwing these things around.

And, as usual "I enjoy seeing your misery" is all too often a "reason" for many of you to go along with whatever you see. If enough libs are hollering, then by default whatever is happening must be right. 

Liberals and conservatives alike are denouncing how he's gone about this. The notion of "if they aren't with us they are against us" is incredibly restrictive, leads to unbalanced thinking (in that only one view weighs anything.), and willful blindness.

 

Personally, I agree with Zoony's sentiment, in that talking can't hurt, and we should be willing to. But be wary.  Un has given us no reason to trust him, and neither did his father, or his grandfather. It would certainly not be a good idea to give Un whatever he wants because it makes all them danged lib'rul heads explode.

In fact, that would be pretty ****ing stupid.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a priority among the rabble all too often. As i've said, at some point you have to look at who is standing next to you.

say,, is that Dennis Rodman? 

 

~Bang

 

 

 

Edited by Bang
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

One of Harry Trumans biggest criticisms of Eisenhower was his lack of engagement with Catro and cuba early on.  Eisenhowers `moral stand` led the world to the brink of destruction, and 70 years of absolute foolishness.  He spends an entire chapter on it in his memoir.  Trman was, of course, 100% correct

 

By the way, do we want to talk about Obama legitimizing cuba?  Thats right, all of the same chicken littles in this thread were cheering that on.  Yah that makes sense.

 

For the record i am and was for obamas opening of cuba.

 

Yes, cause Cuba and North Korea are the same. It’s not engagement that is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, if we think disarmament is not going to happen or at least very unlikely, what's the point of POTUS meeting with KJU?  

 

At some point, once it becomes clear that NK will not disarm, US has to decide do we scrap and go back to sanctions approach or do we gloss over it and continue the path of normalization.  It may also be difficult to get China or Russia to sign onto strigent sanctions if NK dials down the program without irreversible dismantling.

 

So, what did US exactly get out of the meeting?  Doesn't the meeting only make sense if there is hope for disarmament?  And if there is hope, isn't it better to have some concrete steps as preconditions?

 

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The Trump GOP has lost it's damn mind. Make friends with North Korea and Russia. Push away Canada, Mexico, and most of Europe.

 

We're the Axis now.

 

 

 

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as US doesn't pull military support from SK this is all just a big PR exercise. Nobody really cares how Kim treats his own people.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, bearrock said:

The major concern would be will NK actually give up their nukes or will US eventually normalize relations with NK without requiring disarmament.  Cotton's statement can be taken as, if you are a two bit dictator and want to be legitimized, develop nukes.  If NK gets to keep their nukes and still have normalized relations and financial access with the rest of the world, you probably open a Pandora's box with respect to non-proliferation.

 

Not only that, but it is also a misrepresentation of most of the meetings between Soviet premiers and American Presidents.  After Eisenhower (after the clean up of WWII), those meetings almost are always to wrap up negotiations and sign a deal or to discuss some specific issue that was happening that might cause a wider war (eg. the ME and the Six day war, Bay of Pigs, etc. and to re-affirm every intent to avoid direct conflict)) or something like that.  Those meetings were carried out for specific reasons.

 

That's not the case here.  This appears to be the start of (new) negotiations.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

During much of the Cold War, direct negotiations/meetings between leaders were avoided to avoid confusion.  During the post-WWII clean up, there were issues where American Presidents (Eisenhower) would make statements that Soviet Premiers (Khrushchev) would take as "promises", but weren't things that the President could actually do/promise or had meant to promise.

 

Which then down the line causes problems.

 

So before meetings between the Soviet Premiere and the US President, significant negotiations happened to put limits on what would or could be done.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just so I'm clear.

 

NK/Kim got world recognition and a promise of no more US exercises in SK.

 

Trump got press.

 

US got butkis.

 

Is that right?

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So, if we think disarmament is not going to happen or at least very unlikely, what's the point of POTUS meeting with KJU?  

 

At some point, once it becomes clear that NK will not disarm, US has to decide do we scrap and go back to sanctions approach or do we gloss over it and continue the path of normalization.  It may also be difficult to get China or Russia to sign onto strigent sanctions if NK dials down the program without irreversible dismantling.

 

So, what did US exactly get out of the meeting?  Doesn't the meeting only make sense if there is hope for disarmament?  And if there is hope, isn't it better to have some concrete steps as preconditions?

 

 

I'm not sure what Trump wanted out of it.

 

NK, almost certainly, was hoping to sow some discord between the US and our Asian allies, which appears to have worked with Trump going off again on the cost of military exercises in the region and saying they wouldn't be carried out again.


(Which, as has been pointed out, aren't just directed at NK, but also China so if Trump follows through with that promise, this is a win for NK and China.)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bright side is that it didn't end with the discussion of which tyrant has the bigger red button on their desk or whatever. So there's that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Just so I'm clear.

 

NK/Kim got world recognition and a promise of no more US exercises in SK.

 

Trump got press.

 

US got butkis.

 

Is that right?

 

NK said their nukes are aimed at us, not SK, that shouldn't be lost in all this. 

 

End the Korean War and don't give up our defense pact with SK, otherwise, I don't think we're in a position to really force them to get rid of their nukes outside of war.  I can see us not winning the battle on this peace treaty but winning the war in regards to preventing a reflame of the one that technically hasn't ended yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Rubio can't be this dense, right? I can't believe he can send this out without seeing the parallels with Trump.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny part about all this is the moron in chief tightened back restrictions on Cuba bcos of guess.... Their human right record...Called Fidel Castro a brutal dictator back in 2017 but here he is LICKING Kim's nuts..... Good guy who loves his people....... ****ing morons.... And screw the people who support this idiot

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to feel good about today's news, but I can't quite figure out what we got.

 

We gave up our war games which has been a major thorn in North Korea's side and something they've wanted done with for a long, long time.

We got... a promise to denuclearize? If so, that's excellent, but my understand is it's a promise without inspection, verification, or any kind of proof nor does it promise that they won't restart the program.

 

So, I'm back to asking what we got? I know we gave up something. I know we gave North Korea something. What did we get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

Im suggesting that the vast majority of media and liberals are hoping for a disaster, and looking for anything negative they possibly can.  Because they are all hysterical *******.

 

All of us should be weary of NKs intentions, and I personally do not trust them a bit.  But reading some of these chicken **** comments about the summit are disgusting.  Especially when they dont want to credit basic negotiating skills and diplomacy.  Any comment about legitimizing the regime should have been shared prior to the summit.  Otherwise, drink a tall glass of stfu

 

I mean, I guess everyone was hoping trump would throw a baby fit during the meeting acting like a straight up little girl and make things worse?  We wouldnt want to `legitimize` illegal regimes of course

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/05/barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-hold-blunt-meeting-at-g20/

 

 

Im not sure how we move forward in good faith

 

But, communication is never a bad thing

 

Considering how the media runs a "pivot" story every time the man strings together two complete sentences, I think its nonsense to suggest that people are hoping for a disaster.  Jeff Zucker isn't exactly pining for Trump to go away.  Trump is amazing for ratings.

 

Disaster means we step closer to a nuclear war.  No one wants that, not even the liberals you dislike.

 

Strip away all the pomp and circumstance, what have we achieved?  What has Trump managed through his negotiating skills besides an empty set of promises?  How does that differ than before?

 

Why should we treat it as different than before?

 

Also literally everyone talked about how a meeting like this would lend legitimacy, so no one will be drinking any glasses of stfu.

 

 

 

I also want to mention that thinking about it more, promising to end war games was and is a TERRIBLE idea.

 

Like seriously, tying in no war games despite it not being in the promises basically sets this up for failure.

 

Look at the four "promises."

 

Nothing about ICBMs or missile tech, which is just about as concerning as the nukes themselves, delivery capability is vital.

 

Also no hard dates for denuclearization.

 

So now we've promised to be endlessly underprepared for war on the peninsula while Kim can slow roll any denuclearization and continue missile development and still technicially be within the confines of the promises.

 

What happens if Kim announces a 10 year denuclearization plan that, in year two, is delayed from 2028 to 2030?  And all the while he starts up missile tests again.

 

He could argue he was within the confines of the agreement.  Or he could start more conventional aggression against other nations, and one of our usual responses, war games to demonstrate readiness to engage, are off the table, lest it lead to NK scrapping whatever denuclearization path they set out for themselves.

 

Trump tying war games into this was so damn stupid.  It wasn't even required and yet now, he's given NK not only a victory by saying they'll stop them, he's given them a pretext for bailing on the promises if we walk back our "no war games" promise.

 

 

The possibility of the results of this series of events being positive is 100% dependent on Kim giving up everything while being under no compulsion to do so.

 

 

And more importantly why would they?

 

If NK believes the world is shifting from Western democracy centric to China-centric, then why would you ever give up anything to the US?  If you think the world's center of power is shifting your job as NK is to run out the clock until the US is no longer capable of attacking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I want to feel good about today's news, but I can't quite figure out what we got.

 

We gave up our war games which has been a major thorn in North Korea's side and something they've wanted done with for a long, long time.

We got... a promise to denuclearize? If so, that's excellent, but my understand is it's a promise without inspection, verification, or any kind of proof nor does it promise that they won't restart the program.

 

So, I'm back to asking what we got? I know we gave up something. I know we gave North Korea something. What did we get?

 

Probably a place to sell all those kids lost in the ICE system.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zoony said:

Media playing right into the hands of those who claim unfair bias and fake news, etc.  As per usual

Pretty much the opposite in fact.  Much of the media was embarrassingly congratulatory of the photo op and sycophantic behavior going on, as pointed out by some of the actual experts on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

 

 

So, I'm back to asking what we got? I know we gave up something. I know we gave North Korea something. What did we get?

 

For sure a promise that Trump Tower North Korea is coming and Ivankas trademarks will be approved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So, I'm back to asking what we got? I know we gave up something. I know we gave North Korea something. What did we get?


Worked.  Kim even got three scoops of ice cream at lunch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.