FanboyOf91 Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Better than ****ing Jared. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 They're so transparent. Trump's going to try to say Dems tanked the North Korea deal if they don't confirm Pompeo. I hope no one changes their vote because of this dumb ploy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said: They're so transparent. Trump's going to try to say Dems tanked the North Korea deal if they don't confirm Pompeo. I hope no one changes their vote because of this dumb ploy. How many Dems you figure were going to vote for him, before this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 7 hours ago, Larry said: How many Dems you figure were going to vote for him, before this? I could see red state Dems up for reelection voting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 (edited) Is this is a good thing? I mean I guess it’s good that the meeting didn’t end in war, but this kind of makes me worry even more about Pompeo if he and Un got along so well. Edited April 18, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 17 hours ago, Larry said: How many Dems you figure were going to vote for him, before this? His problem was even getting out of committee since Rand Paul is a no. This whole thing is weird. North Korea has lied in all talks for 70 years. Trump desperately wants a deal. South Korea doesn't want a war. I feel like I'm watching a drama where everyone is on different scripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 18, 2018 Share Posted April 18, 2018 How long after denuclearization before South Korea ceases to exist? i bet Kim can’t hold it for more than 6 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, tshile said: How long after denuclearization before South Korea ceases to exist? i bet Kim can’t hold it for more than 6 months Why so cynical? We'd still have a defense agreement with SK, him getting rid of his nukes would make it even harder to defend NK from getting wiped out itself (though it would happen anyway, which is big reason why they've finally come to the table, they know that, not enough nukes and ICMBs to stop that). What ever they'd drop we'd drop more, everybody knows it. Edited April 19, 2018 by Renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Kim will never give up his nukes. He would be stupid to do so. If the meeting happens, it will just be for show. Nothing will come out of it. I really doubt it happens. My guess, Trump pulls out at the last minute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Renegade7 said: Why so cynical? We'd still have a defense agreement with SK, him getting rid of his nukes would make it even harder to defend NK from getting wiped out itself (though it would happen anyway, which is big reason why they've finally come to the table, they know that, not enough nukes and ICMBs to stop that). What ever they'd drop we'd drop more, everybody knows it. Why would NK give up their nukes for anything less than full US withdrawal from SK? And if those are the conditions, how confident are we that they actually get rid of ALL of them? Noteworthy that even our best intelligence only has a guess at the quantity of bombs they’ve produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Why would NK give up their nukes for anything less than full US withdrawal from SK? This is pretty much the way I see it too, and I really can't see Trump doing that, although in some ways it would fit his "America first" campaign rhetoric. Edited April 19, 2018 by RedskinsFan44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 Do we really want to even attempt to negotiate with a despot who fed his uncle to starving dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Why would NK give up their nukes for anything less than full US withdrawal from SK? And if those are the conditions, how confident are we that they actually get rid of ALL of them? Noteworthy that even our best intelligence only has a guess at the quantity of bombs they’ve produced. I think we're underestimating this situation and/or overthinking it. In regards to US withdrawing from SK, we have more aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined and the most powerful air force. There's no doubt in my mind this conversation is being had because NK knows that no matter what, if they get into a war with us, no matter how much damage they do, they're going to lose (especially since China is damn near done with them). I can't promise we'd find all the nukes any more then what's going on after the Iran Deal to stop them from getting them, but that's what this is starting to sound like. I didn't believe it when I heard it, either, but stepping back from it, it does make sense why they would. This is a chance to possibly deescalate the situation, we have to take it and see what happens, because any other course makes a second Korean War almost inevitable. I hate Trump, but will give him credit if he gets this right. Its in all our best interests that he does. 1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said: This is pretty much the way I see it too, and I really can't see Trump doing that, although in some ways it would fit his "America first" campaign rhetoric. NK said their nukes are aimed at us, not SK. That speaks volumes to me. Edited April 19, 2018 by Renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) lol NK giving up nukes is a joke. They have spent untold amounts of money and decades trying to develop the technology.. trying like hell to smuggle in everything they need. They have dealt with humiliating setback after setback, endured sanctions and blockades, been the butt of the world's jokes. And now they have it. They have it on a missile capable of striking us. They FINALLY have a weapon with which they can threaten their enemies and possibly win a war they have been involved in for 65 YEARS. Finally they have a weapon that they can use to maybe leverege us off the peninsula.. they have a weapon that puts them on equal footing with world superpowers. And all of a sudden, right after they get it.. they want to give it up. You'd really have to be one seriously stupid individual to believe even a single letter of any syllable in any words they use to say so. What is more likely is they have leverage on Donald Trump thanks to their pals in Russia, and beyond that they realize how utterly out of his depth he is, he has lost nearly all of his diplomatic corps, and he tends to not listen to people who advise him, particularly his military. They know he's an egotistical self absorbed narcissist whose vanity can used against him. "Deal-maker" ~Bang Edited April 19, 2018 by Bang 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 4 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Why would NK give up their nukes for anything less than full US withdrawal from SK? If I'm NK, I wouldn't even consider that proposal. If I'm NK, then what those nukes represent is complete and total immunity from the US military. There's nothing the US can offer me that would make me voluntarily make myself vulnerable to that threat, again. If Trump can make NK give up their nukes, then he absolutely is the best negotiator in the history of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, Bang said: You'd really have to be one seriously stupid individual to believe even a single letter of any syllable in any words they use to say so. I know, I didn't believe it either. I'm thinking more about ending the Korean War officially and getting them to stop aiming them at us. I've said before that forcing them to get rid of the nukes isn't going to work because they don't trust us based on our history of forcing others to disarm and coming after them anyway. Whatever the motive, NK is trying to de-escalate the situation, and I'm glad somebody is. 2 minutes ago, Larry said: If I'm NK, then what those nukes represent is complete and total immunity from the US military. As long as we have a defense pact with SK and more nukes then NK, I don't believe war will ever be off the table. Our credibility would be on the line if we turned a blind to a NK invasion on the pretense that we don't want to get nuked. Russia and China have nukes, too, they have to be watching this to see where our line is on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 NK isn't trying to de-escalate. I'll eat my hat if that is their motive. Un and his chosen few can survive an exchange. He already has shown that the people of NK don't much matter to him. There is no humanitarian reason for it.. I don't believe for a second Un will do anything to try to help ease the burden on his country.. he lives like a king, and his slave population is completely under control. Re-unification is also not something I believe Un wants, unless it is to plunder the South and enslave the people. Un's version of de-escalation will be the same as everything else they have ever done towards the west... empty promises that mean nothing, concessions that are not reciprocated no matter the assurances. Like i said above. in a matter of months they went from shooting off wildly inaccurate missiles that not only were failures, but often failed on the launch pads. And all of a sudden they have a missile that has none of those flaws, and miraculously, they immediately figured out miniaturizing their warheads to fit on it.Russia is currently putting the screws to the entire world, and he has a patsy in the White House who is an utter fool. Going WAY out on a limb here... Russia provided NK with the technology they needed to threaten the US, and their timing is right along with their installation of their White House stooge,and the draining of the state department. Trump has proven beyond any doubt that he will jump when Putin tells him to, he will listen to Putin over his congress, he will listen to Putin over his generals. None of this is what they say. NK has absolutely NO reason to want to end anything that they are positioning to win. There is only one thing that can be trusted about NK. Like Trump, everything they say is a lie. ~Bang 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said: As long as we have a defense pact with SK and more nukes then NK, I don't believe war will ever be off the table. Our credibility would be on the line if we turned a blind to a NK invasion on the pretense that we don't want to get nuked. Russia and China have nukes, too, they have to be watching this to see where our line is on that. I probably wasn't clear enough. Nukes make NK immune to US bullying or aggression. Yeah, if NK tries invading SK, then maybe I could see us deciding that striking NK is worth the risk. (I certainly assume that we have plans, constantly updated, to try to take out his nukes. I have no clue how many he has, or how hardened.) (Yeah, I also could see us deciding to just write off SK. Especially Trump.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 @Larry I understand, and to me, your last line would more disastrous then us going to war with them. Taiwan would be next, less then a week, bet on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted April 19, 2018 Share Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Renegade7 said: Why so cynical? We'd still have a defense agreement with SK, him getting rid of his nukes would make it even harder to defend NK from getting wiped out itself (though it would happen anyway, which is big reason why they've finally come to the table, they know that, not enough nukes and ICMBs to stop that). What ever they'd drop we'd drop more, everybody knows it. Everything read says what nk wants is for us to leave the area - Troops and everything. We we also know the kim’s mission statement is a unified Korea (under the kim’s rule) I view The Kim’s the same way I view trump - I do not trust that they’ve suddenly abandoned traits they’ve spent a life showing us they have. To me it is more likely this is an attempt to move towards getting what they’ve always wanted, than a sudden desire for peaceful standing in the world. Edited April 19, 2018 by tshile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 10 hours ago, tshile said: Everything read says what nk wants is for us to leave the area - Troops and everything. We we also know the kim’s mission statement is a unified Korea (under the kim’s rule) I view The Kim’s the same way I view trump - I do not trust that they’ve suddenly abandoned traits they’ve spent a life showing us they have. To me it is more likely this is an attempt to move towards getting what they’ve always wanted, than a sudden desire for peaceful standing in the world. Regardless if that's what he wants, he has to get through us if he wants to do that as long as we have a defense pact with SK. This is where I wish we could more a perspective from someone in the military. From what I've read, DoD has said we have the technology to be where we need to be when we need to be there without having military installations in over 100 different countries. We don't do it because we have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Edited April 20, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) Color me skeptical but I simply do not believe this will be as simple as they are all pretending. I don’t buy that NK denuclearizes, and I don’t buy that Kim Jung Un gives away his ONLY international bargaining chip. Edited April 21, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan Dimple = simple 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now