Sign in to follow this  
kent_island_sailor

Trump got rolled

Recommended Posts

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/trump-kim-meeting-press-conference-637544

Trump also expressed a desire to eventually remove the thousands of American stationed on the Korean peninsula, another point of contention for North Korea.

"I want to get our soldiers out," he said, but noted "that’s not part of the equation right now."

The remarks quickly incensed some military experts and foreign policy hawks who worried Trump was promoting Pyongyang talking points and moving too quickly to give up what they perceive as stabilizing forces in the region.

But Trump argued that the joint military exercises with South Korea were "very provocative" and cost "a tremendous amount of money," complaining that Seoul doesn't foot enough of the bill. And he mentioned that the exercises require U.S. bombers to fly in six-and-a-half hours from Guam, where they are stationed.

 

I knew this would happen. Trump is such an utter beta-cuck when dealing with what he perceives as dictators more dictatorish than he has managed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real progress will take place between NK and SK.  That is already underway.  This is all Kabuki to make things look good on stage while the real work is going on over time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Let's commit to US soldiers guarding the DMZ forever and don't ever discuss whether we can ever stop footing that bill. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yes. Let's commit to US soldiers guarding the DMZ forever and don't ever discuss whether we can ever stop footing that bill. 

 

Clarify, please - I'm not sure I'm getting your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Clarify, please - I'm not sure I'm getting your point. 

I got it. Trump's right. The Korean War should end at last, meaning our troops go home.

 

1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Trump also expressed a desire to eventually remove the thousands of American stationed on the Korean peninsula, another point of contention for North Korea.

"I want to get our soldiers out," he said, but noted "that’s not part of the equation right now."

The remarks quickly incensed some military experts and foreign policy hawks who worried Trump was promoting Pyongyang talking points and moving too quickly to give up what they perceive as stabilizing forces in the region.

Hawks always say shit like that, just as McCain said Ron Paul was doing Putin's work by opposing the Iraq war (before he recently admitted that Paul was right and McCain should have joined him in doing Putin's work.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least now, we can hand the Nobel prize to Kim Jong Un. One side got all the concessions, the other surrendered.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Clarify, please - I'm not sure I'm getting your point. 

I was sarcastically commenting on the OP. If he had his way apparently the berlin wall would still be standing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

At least now, we can hand the Nobel prize to Kim Jong Un. One side got all the concessions, the other surrendered.

Yeah the billions in cash on pallets and the illegal back door attempts to get NK access to the US banking system were major negotiating points that NK won,, and the President both conceded and tried to hide are embarrassments.

Dang autocorrect changed Iran to NK.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chinabald said:

I was sarcastically commenting on the OP. If he had his way apparently the berlin wall would still be standing.   

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

I agree, but SK is also in talks with NK. If it works for them, we can make it work for all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I agree, but SK is also in talks with NK. If it works for them, we can make it work for all. 

Peace in the region? Will be a sad day for Trump haters......

Share this post


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

Yeah the billions in cash on pallets and the illegal back door attempts to get NK access to the US banking system were major negotiating points that NK won,, and the President both conceded and tried to hide are embarrassments.

Dang autocorrect changed Iran to NK.  

That's okay, they ended up being the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, warbird said:

Peace in the region? Will be a sad day for Trump haters......

I see Chickenhawk is counting his brethren before they’ve hatched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

At any point in the future, could bringing our troops home be seen as telling SK they're all grown up now and can defend themselves instead of abandoning them?

Abandoning our expensive role as world cop is something I hope somebody in power seriously considers some day, not just because it's expensive. We're tragically bad at it to boot, and mostly before we elected the Crony in Chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

That's a war some want to finally end after a nearly 70 year debacle including SK!

I say it's time for you to leave and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be one less foreign entanglement.

SK can afford to build their economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
31 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yeah the billions in cash on pallets and the illegal back door attempts to get NK access to the US banking system were major negotiating points that NK won,, and the President both conceded and tried to hide are embarrassments.

Dang autocorrect changed Iran to NK.  

That's okay, they ended up being the same.

So you're finally admitting obama was an embarrassment over the Iran deal because he gave too much away for little in return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

So you're finally admitting obama was an embarrassment over the Iran deal because he gave too much away for little in return?

You really need to do something about your crossed eyes. It distorts everything you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

At any point in the future, could bringing our troops home be seen as telling SK they're all grown up now and can defend themselves instead of abandoning them?

Abandoning our expensive role as world cop is something I hope somebody in power seriously considers some day, not just because it's expensive. We're tragically bad at it to boot, and mostly before we elected the Crony in Chief.

There's  a significant difference in my mind between a planned, mutually agreed upon cessation of a military presence and the abandonment of an ally due to internal political pressures.   As to us being bad at being a world cop?  I don't really think we are - though I'd be more than happy if we weren't expected to maintain that responsibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

That's a war some want to finally end after a nearly 70 year debacle including SK!

I say it's time for you to leave and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

If regional stability can be expected and our allies concur?  Absolutely - let's close down TongDuChon and fill in the turtle traps in Yongsan.   Arbitrarily withdrawing absent consideration of those factors would be irresponsible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
35 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I was sarcastically commenting on the OP. If he had his way apparently the berlin wall would still be standing.   

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

I read Jhynabald's comments the same way as he stated above.  It was sarcasm in response to the notion that pulling our troops out of SK after 60 years was so reprehensible.  It should in fact BE THE GOAL!!!  If all US Troops leave the Peninsula and it doesn't result in war, then that is the measurement of ultimate success.  Of course we shouldn't be too rushed to get out.  But I honestly think SK can and should take care of their own house.  They are one of the best equipped and best trained modern militaries in the world.  Time to stand on their own two feet now after all these years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There's  a significant difference in my mind between a planned, mutually agreed upon cessation of a military presence and the abandonment of an ally due to internal political pressures.   As to us being bad at being a world cop?  I don't really think we are - though I'd be more than happy if we weren't expected to maintain that responsibility. 

 

2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

"I want to get our soldiers out," he said, but noted "that’s not part of the equation right now."

This sounds to me like an early step in what we both seem to think is the right direction, not a declaration that we're pulling them all out tomorrow without further discussion.

As to the world cop thing, remember Libya? Where our participation was requested and required because no one else had the air power? And where ridding the world of that terrible Moammar guy resulted in what the NY Times called a "failed state and terrorist haven?" I do and that's what I'm talking about. Among other examples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So you're finally admitting obama was an embarrassment over the Iran deal because he gave too much away for little in return?

You really need to do something about your crossed eyes. It distorts everything you read.

You don't read for comprehension very well, do you.  

Let's try this again, with the proper corrections this time:

39 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Yeah the billions in cash on pallets and the illegal back door attempts to get NK Iran access to the US banking system were major negotiating points that NK Iran won,, and the President (Obama) both conceded and tried to hide are embarrassments.

Dang autocorrect changed Iran NK to NK Iran.  

To which you said:

33 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That's okay, they ended up being the same.

Make more sense now, dumbass?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - i coulda read that a few different ways, and wanted to understand what you intended. If conditions improve in the region?  Shoot yeah - let's get out. Unilaterally abandoning a staunch ally like SK to save $$?  That's a precedent I hope nobody seriously considers.  

 

9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There's  a significant difference in my mind between a planned, mutually agreed upon cessation of a military presence and the abandonment of an ally due to internal political pressures.   As to us being bad at being a world cop?  I don't really think we are - though I'd be more than happy if we weren't expected to maintain that responsibility. 

 

 
Bill Neely
 

Bill Neely

@BillNeelyNBC
There is every indication from Seoul that the South Korean leadership and military did not know the US was about to cancel Joint Military exercises. "We need to find out" they say. Stunning if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You don't read for comprehension very well, do you.  

Let's try this again, with the proper corrections this time:

To which you said:

Make more sense now, dumbass?  

If you want to equate Trump and Obama, go ahead, but it has nothing to do with the current agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/trump-kim-meeting-press-conference-637544

Trump also expressed a desire to eventually remove the thousands of American stationed on the Korean peninsula, another point of contention for North Korea.

"I want to get our soldiers out," he said, but noted "that’s not part of the equation right now."

The remarks quickly incensed some military experts and foreign policy hawks who worried Trump was promoting Pyongyang talking points and moving too quickly to give up what they perceive as stabilizing forces in the region.

But Trump argued that the joint military exercises with South Korea were "very provocative" and cost "a tremendous amount of money," complaining that Seoul doesn't foot enough of the bill. And he mentioned that the exercises require U.S. bombers to fly in six-and-a-half hours from Guam, where they are stationed.

 

I knew this would happen. Trump is such an utter beta-cuck when dealing with what he perceives as dictators more dictatorish than he has managed to be.

I am not seeing where we got "rolled".  All the news reports coming out of fairly centrist to left leaning news sources (NPR, PBS) are relatively effusive about the outcome of the meeting.  While they concede the signed letter lacked specifics, their political analysts were all in pretty much agreement that this an historic first step of many steps.  And as long as we enter this with eyes wide open and make sure we don't give away anything before the Norkistanis fulfill their commitments, they all say this is further than we ever gotten before.  

I dunno but I am seeing a bit of TDS creeping into the narrative here.  I'm overall cautiously optimistic but I'm certainly not ready to do any cheerleading dance moves like NM2 and some others are doing.  OTOH, there are some here (BL and his elk for instance) that I strongly believe would cut their own fingers off before they conceded any potential "win" that the cheeto Jesus might get.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If you want to equate Trump and Obama, go ahead, but it has nothing to do with the current agreement.

I didn't equate them.  YOU did!  You cannot be this stupid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone here really so gullible that they think NORK will EVER give up its nukes?

The best that can be hoped for in the foreseeable future is a formal document ending the Korean war - that will be a good thing of course but the rest of the pipe dreams being floated here by the Trumpeters verge on delusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Is anyone here really so gullible that they think NORK will EVER give up its nukes?

The best that can be hoped for in the foreseeable future is a formal document ending the Korean war - that will be a good thing of course but the rest of the pipe dreams being floated here by the Trumpeters verge on delusion.

What I suspect, without the backing of empirical evidence beyond the recent demolition of the underground testing facility, is that DPRK has exhausted its ability to create fissible nuclear material, and that after destroying its test facility, doesn't have anyplace else TO do development and testing of nuclear material.  Launch vehicles?  Certainly. I wonder whether or not DPRK's sudden change of heart is a way to maximize public benefit of the rest of the world's fear of the unknown,  knowing that they've already shot their wad and won't get any additional benefit or relief once that becomes known.  

I could be full of hot air on this, I haven't been able to find any documentation that speaks to the DPRKs capabilities beyond what has been shown in their propaganda releases. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's probably the most accurate analysis. KJU has an greatly increased level of legitimacy at no cost to him.

I suspect his recent trips to Beijing were a case of him being called into the headmasters study and he has responded to that in a very successful way - for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did NK / Kim get?

- Legitimacy on the world stage.  'I'm not a small fish, look at me with the POTUS'

- US out of SK; take your nukes and soliders and go home.

- The promise of a better economy due to loosening sanctions.

And all this by trading away his broken nuke program  (I think Chessy is on target too). 

 

What did Trump get?

- A good photo op.  Dictators of a feather and all that. 

- Another 'promise' from NK.  Hope it works out better than their last promises.

- Worse relations with SK; blindside their military, abandon them.  'Son, you're on your own'

 

Plus worse relationships with Germany, France, England and especially Canada.   

Yup, quite a week for cheeto benito. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

 

 
Bill Neely
 

Bill Neely

@BillNeelyNBC
There is every indication from Seoul that the South Korean leadership and military did not know the US was about to cancel Joint Military exercises. "We need to find out" they say. Stunning if true.

That wouldn't surprise me. I liked what Trump had to say in the topic post and now he's going about it in the stupidest possible way. if true...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump had nothing to do with the face to face. Hillary would have done it or Rand Paul or Paul Ryan who ever was POTUS. KJU got on train to Beijing  a few weeks before this all started. He was called on the carpet and  told to play nice/nice by his overlords. The Chinese want a stable region so they can make some money and exercise their power. Little fuck head KJU got a spanking and was told to go and make up. Which is what he did.

You are fucking delusional if you think Trump had anything to do with this and then he blew it. KJU probably didn't even use Vaseline.    

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it!  The TDS machine is just getting started.......  have at it boyz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I love it!  The TDS machine is just getting started.......  have at it boyz.

Lets hear your analysis of the week that was.

Share this post


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

Peace in the region? Will be a sad day for Trump haters......

I'll still hate him, even if he fails to screw up peace between the Korea's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

 

 
Bill Neely
 

Bill Neely

@BillNeelyNBC
There is every indication from Seoul that the South Korean leadership and military did not know the US was about to cancel Joint Military exercises. "We need to find out" they say. Stunning if true.

South Korea is so far behind the times, for a modern technology nation.    Official pronouncements always come by tweet from a non secure phone.   Chain of command and hack proof communications are so yesterday.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SINGAPORE —  

President Donald Trump rocked the region with the stunning announcement Tuesday that he was halting annual U.S.-South Korean military drills — and wants to remove the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the South as a deterrent against North Korea. 

Trump's surprise, almost offhand comments, made during a news conference after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, seemingly upended decades of the U.S. defense posture on the Korean Peninsula. 

The remarks contradicted countless previous declarations by U.S. political and military officials over the years that the drills are routine, defensive and absolutely critical. 

Trump has now essentially adopted the standard North Korean line, calling the military exercises a "provocative" drain of money and announcing they would stop while he continues talks with Kim, whom he repeatedly praised as a solid negotiating partner. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chinabald said:

Yeah the billions in cash on pallets and the illegal back door attempts to get NK access to the US banking system were major negotiating points that NK won,, and the President both conceded and tried to hide are embarrassments.

Dang autocorrect changed Iran to NK.  

The "billions of cash on pallets" went to the Iraqis, under Bush.  No tracking required.

The "access to the Us Banking system" was a one-time, single transaction action to effect the release of Iranian funds that we had illegally sequestered.  The funds repatriation was public knowledge.  The technicalities of the transfer were managed in the way that avoided third-party (e.g. Egypt or other intermediary) way stops.  Of course it was spun as "access" by the Obama haters.

But go ahead and enjoy your blinkered world view.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RKoch said:

SINGAPORE —  

President Donald Trump rocked the region with the stunning announcement Tuesday that he was halting annual U.S.-South Korean military drills — and wants to remove the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the South as a deterrent against North Korea. 

Trump's surprise, almost offhand comments, made during a news conference after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, seemingly upended decades of the U.S. defense posture on the Korean Peninsula. 

The remarks contradicted countless previous declarations by U.S. political and military officials over the years that the drills are routine, defensive and absolutely critical. 

Trump has now essentially adopted the standard North Korean line, calling the military exercises a "provocative" drain of money and announcing they would stop while he continues talks with Kim, whom he repeatedly praised as a solid negotiating partner. 
 

He also said they would resume if progress is not swift and real.  As for removing troops, that has always been a long term goal. why does that bother you?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, warbird said:

Peace in the region? Will be a sad day for Trump haters......

You really are an idiot. Just in case you forgot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Lets hear your analysis of the week that was.

Ok, I agree with this pretty closely:

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=618830704

Quote

 

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

At a resort island just off Singapore, President Trump meets North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, alone except for interpreters. That will be the start of a summit Tuesday morning, Singapore time. It's the kind of dramatic one-on-one session where President Trump says he is in his element. He said he doesn't need to prepare much, that he will know within a minute if Kim Jong Un is serious about giving up nuclear weapons - quote, "it's my touch. It's my feel. It's what I do." Behind that personal interaction, though, are the intricate interests of a nuclear power, and a superpower, and their neighbors and allies. In Singapore, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he's watching to see if North Korea will do what it takes.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MIKE POMPEO: The United States has been fooled before. There's no doubt about it. Many presidents previously have signed off on pieces of paper only to find that the North Koreans either didn't promise what we thought they had or actually reneged on their promises.

INSKEEP: So are they serious? And is the United States? Joel Wit has been asking. He's a former U.S. diplomat deeply involved in North Korea issues.

Mr. Wit, welcome back to the program.

JOEL WIT: Morning, Steve.

INSKEEP: Does your experience tell you that North Korea really wants to give up its nuclear weapons?

WIT: Well, I think the North Koreans are probably conflicted because on the one hand, we've had 60 years of hostility between the United States and North Korea, and those weapons are their main source of security. On the other hand, they probably understand that if they want to actually modernize their economy, their nuclear weapons are going to have to be on the negotiating table.

INSKEEP: Have they made a serious offer in the past to give up their nuclear weapons?

WIT: Well, the agreement I participated in 1994 was a denuclearization agreement. Although they didn't have nuclear weapons then, they certainly could build them very quickly. And I believe it was a serious agreement. The problem was, we never got to the end of the implementation process.

INSKEEP: And then in 2013, there was another statement by North Korea, right?

WIT: Well, in 2013, in private talks that I and other former American officials had with the North Koreans, they laid out a specific road map that would lead to denuclearization. It wasn't overnight, but it was a specific plan, and I'm sure they have one.

INSKEEP: Well, that raises another question, then, Joel Wit. Looking back on that, did President Obama's administration miss an opportunity because, as you have written, the Obama administration heard what the North Koreans were offering, but they didn't think that they were really going to do it?

WIT: Well, you know, if I had to be pinned down, I would say that the Obama administration could've tried harder to pursue denuclearization through diplomatic channels. It was stuck in this mode of coercive diplomacy and never got out of it. The beauty of what President Trump has done - and, of course, we don't know where it's going to lead, exactly - is he's cut through all that. They are going to meet leader-to-leader, and that's where decisions can really be made. And once Kim Jong Un makes a decision, believe you me, all the North Koreans fall in line.

INSKEEP: Can you imagine, though, the United States offering enough - enough security for North Korea for Kim Jong Un to give up on that security blanket of nuclear weapons? Could a U.S. embassy in North Korea be enough? Could the lifting of economic sanctions really be enough?

WIT: Well, this is the point, that it can't happen overnight. The North Koreans aren't going to all of a sudden give up their weapons because of a promise from the United States. It has to be a process. It has to be confidence building. And those measures and others that you haven't mentioned have to be part of that process to end what the North Koreans call U.S. hostile policy.

INSKEEP: In 2013, you heard from the North Koreans about - I guess about a three-step process that I guess would take a number of years. They had a plan. They had a plan in mind about something that they would find acceptable. And we had on this program last week Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, former U.S. senators involved in nonproliferation efforts, and they said, it's really essential that the United States show up with its own plan. Looking at it from the outside, do you have the impression that the United States is showing up with a plan, that it does have a concrete idea to put on the table for the North Koreans?

WIT: Well, I think the U.S. does have concrete plans. They've studied it very closely. And, you know, having been in the U.S. government, I know there are cabinets filled with plans for denuclearization on North Korea inside the U.S. government. So I'm sure they have a plan. The point here is that while our ideal objective would be complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the program, we are going to have to make compromises. And so the issue is, where do we end up with our plan, which, essentially, has been overnight, and their plan, which is a process that takes time?

INSKEEP: Do you think you can trust the North Koreans with a process that takes time?

WIT: You know, I don't trust anyone to implement a deal - any other country, including our friends or our enemies. So, of course, there have to be verification provisions built into the plan. And everyone understands that, including the North Koreans.

INSKEEP: OK. Joel Wit, thanks very much, always a pleasure.

WIT: Thank you.

INSKEEP: He's a former U.S. diplomat, now the director of 38 North, a website focused on North Korea analysis.

 

Personally, what I think we will end up with is a verification regime where NK keeps some nukes as assurances against a "Libya" style solution, but they allow robust verification of their nuke program to keep them in check.  

In exchange for security guarantees for NK, I could see the the Norks reducing their stockpile over time and being under the thumb of US or UN inspectors.  That would allow the US to gradually withdraw troops from the Peninsula provided the norks withdraw the big arty tubes pointed at Seoul.  Over time, once both sides started seeing some trust - I could see some true "denuking" on the Norks part.  I think a huge step in this would be signing a true peace treaty and ending the war between Norkistan and Sorkistan.  

Its going to take time.  A Decade maybe.  I think we ought to let this play out as best as it can.  This is the best chance for true peace we've had in 60 years.  Its not a done deal and there is huge work to be done on both sides.  I'm not doing backflips like happy malarky two is.  But I think if we give the POTUS some space on this, some good things could maybe happen. 

From my vantage point, allz I see is the usual attempt to kill any attempt at success by the opposite party.  I don't discount any chance of trumples fucking this up on his own by saying something stupid.  But my take on this is give him that space to either succeed for fuck the goat on his own.  This is too big a thing to want either a partisan win or partisan failure.  This is one of those extremely rare bipartisan moments we should all be cheering to succeed while being cautiously skeptical.  

Let it play out for a bit and see what happens.  If the Jonger pulls a Lucy and yanks the football just as Charlie Brown tries to kick the field Goal - then you can point fingers and say Ha HA!  But until then, let it play out.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what everybody is saying, all the right wingers bullshit about lefties wanting it to fail notwithstanding.

Basically it's wishful thinking at this point.

T&P.

No question that Lil Kim was the winner here though - except in the minds of the Trumpeters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

He also said they would resume if progress is not swift and real.  As for removing troops, that has always been a long term goal. why does that bother you?

That has got to be one of the most stupiderer ways of policing them. 

“I’ll take everyone and everything keeping you from over-running SK as long as you promise to get rid of all that stuff you’ve developed. I know you see our mere presence as provocative, and we don’t want that. Now, if you don’t keep your promise, we’ll send all our troops and shit back. No way would you interpret THAT as provocative.”

Geez, Jack. I wish I could’ve played you in Risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

That has got to be one of the most stupiderer ways of policing them. 

“I’ll take everyone and everything keeping you from over-running SK as long as you promise to get rid of all that stuff you’ve developed. I know you see our mere presence as provocative, and we don’t want that. Now, if you don’t keep your promise, we’ll send all our troops and shit back. No way would you interpret THAT as provocative.”

Geez, Jack. I wish I could’ve played you in Risk. 

Jack's the kind of fuckwit that cheats at solitaire, Risk is far beyond him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

That's pretty much what everybody is saying, all the right wingers bullshit about lefties wanting it to fail notwithstanding.

Basically it's wishful thinking at this point.

T&P.

No question that Lil Kim was the winner here though - except in the minds of the Trumpeters.

Lil Kim will be a winner if and when he diverts nuclear research dollars to domestic improvement of industry, food production, infrastructure. Is that bad??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shootist Jeff I'm not sure where you are getting the "NPR is upbeat" about the agreement. 

What they have said is that the document that was signed and statements made are short on specifics.

After noting the failure of previous U.S. efforts to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Trump said, "honestly, I think he's going to do these things. I may be wrong. I mean, I may stand before you in six months and say, 'Hey, I was wrong.' " 

"I don't know that I'll ever admit that," Trump added, "but I'll find some kind of an excuse."

Was a bit of gold. Trump, in advance, notifying us that he's gonna weasel out of apologizing. THAT I believe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this weren't a left/right thing in this thread you would think we were talking about Hanoi Jane:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-trump-a-how-to-guide-1516303402

Around the same time, Mr. Trump had an idea about how to counter the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, which he got after speaking to Russian President Vladimir Putin : If the U.S. stopped joint military exercises with the South Koreans, it could help moderate Kim Jong Un’s behavior. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis used an approach that aides say can work: “He says, ‘Your instincts are absolutely correct,’ and then gets him [the president] to do the exact opposite of what his instincts say,” said one person close to the White House. Mr. Trump dropped the idea, although he has ordered aides to give the exercises a low profile, eliminating press releases and briefings about them.

Share this post


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

Lil Kim will be a winner if and when he diverts nuclear research dollars to domestic improvement of industry, food production, infrastructure. Is that bad??????

You never cease to amaze.

I've had more perspicacious discussions with 14 year olds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I am not seeing where we got "rolled".   ...    ...    ...

Giving up joint exercises

Giving prestige and legiitimacy to KJU

Giving promises..... which we would like to think the world pays some attention to..... which will be very difficult or impossible to fulfill, in exchange for promises which will be impossible to verify.

I'm sure there's more but those three ought to be a convincing start

12 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

...   ...   ...

I dunno but I am seeing a bit of TDS creeping into the narrative here. ...    ...    ...   ... 

Says the guy who continues to repeat how Obama gave Iran gazillions of dollars (or whatever the RWNJs are saying) when it was in fact Iran's own money to start with.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you 'mericans feel about your President inviting a mass murderer to the White House? Do you think that was planned or just another thought bubble that popped into his tiny mind? Like cancelling the  exercises with SK? 

He is like a child. And I don't just mean the size of his hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

say we wait and see, if, big if, any real comes of this simple  international photo op..........

your really putting the cart in front of the horse, at this stage of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the TDS posters here. These members of the house support the summit 

"We are encouraged by your efforts to pursue direct diplomacy with North Korea with the dual goals of resolving the nearly seven-decade-long conflict and achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," 15 House members wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. "Diplomacy is the only path to resolve the tensions between our countries

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

That has got to be one of the most stupiderer ways of policing them. 

“I’ll take everyone and everything keeping you from over-running SK as long as you promise to get rid of all that stuff you’ve developed. I know you see our mere presence as provocative, and we don’t want that. Now, if you don’t keep your promise, we’ll send all our troops and shit back. No way would you interpret THAT as provocative.”

Geez, Jack. I wish I could’ve played you in Risk. 

You really are not worth the effort. Trump said that would only happen after peace has been establishes and secured. Years away. Watch the damn interview with Stephanopoulos, The troops stay, the sanctions stay and the nuclear umbrella stays. Only AFTER NK denuclearized would any of it change and even then it was not said by how much or how fast.

Cancelling the tail end of a joint (Show of Force) exercise is hardly a concession. 

But you keep spinning and twisting what was said and done because that is the only way you can make an argument at this point. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Unlike the TDS posters here. These members of the house support the summit 

"We are encouraged by your efforts to pursue direct diplomacy with North Korea with the dual goals of resolving the nearly seven-decade-long conflict and achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," 15 House members wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. "Diplomacy is the only path to resolve the tensions between our countries

 

Motherhood statement.

15 out of how many?

Republicans or Dems or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just feeding the news cycle. Nailing Malarkey has to be getting paid to post this shit. No American would do it otherwise. He is a troll.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, He got played, wait till the next news cycle...  NK is gonna claim victory and he is gonna have to ether suck it up or start a war...  

 

The orange one is gonna be stuck in a corner and it is gonna be fun to watch..  Even Kim aint gonna resort to nukes, Scary part is the orange one might try in order to save face...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump got rolled

 

biggly .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kim was the tough one

 

Quote

 

KCNA reported that Kim had won support from Trump for “the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace”.

“Kim Jong-un clarified the stand that if the US side takes genuine measures for building trust in order to improve the DPRK-US relationship, the DPRK, too, can continue to take additional goodwill measures of the next stage commensurate with them,” said the KCNA report.

This means the US must offer concessions before it will see further steps from North Korea. The need for "simultaneous" action may be the reason nothing more concrete was signed at the summit, and why there was as yet no agreement for a peace treaty to end the Korean War, despite high expectations.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/kim-jong-un-the-tough-negotiator-with-trump-says-north-korean-media-20180613-p4zl8s.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIG DETAIL MISSING FROM REPORTS



The denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula was the main end goal for the United States in meeting with Kim Jong-un.

But the KCNA report made just two fleeting references to it — neither of which included a direct pledge to actually do so.

The first reference states: “Kim Jong Un said in order to achieve peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and realise its denuclearisation, the two countries should commit themselves to refraining from antagonising with each other out of mutual understanding, and take legal and institutional steps to guarantee it.”

The second states: “Kim Jong Un and Trump had the 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 denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.”

Neither of these statements suggests the two leaders reached a concrete agreement that will ensure North Korea gives up its nuclear weapons.



https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/how-north-koreas-state-media-covered-the-summit/news-story/57be40f4dbedbb42c7b73ba86500285c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



KCNA reported that Kim had won support from Trump for “the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace”.

“Kim Jong-un clarified the stand that if the US side takes genuine measures for building trust in order to improve the DPRK-US relationship, the DPRK, too, can continue to take additional goodwill measures of the next stage commensurate with them,” said the KCNA report.

This means the US must offer concessions before it will see further steps from North Korea. The need for "simultaneous" action may be the reason nothing more concrete was signed at the summit, and why there was as yet no agreement for a peace treaty to end the Korean War, despite high expectations.



https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/kim-jong-un-the-tough-negotiator-with-trump-says-north-korean-media-20180613-p4zl8s.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There have been good reasons for United States presidents not to meet North Korean leaders in the past, namely the regime's penchant for cheating, and the fact that talks like this validate a regime that imprisons, tortures and murders its own people.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-13/donald-trump-knows-north-korea-deal-far-from-touchdown/9862184

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Unlike the TDS posters here. These members of the house support the summit 

"We are encouraged by your efforts to pursue direct diplomacy with North Korea with the dual goals of resolving the nearly seven-decade-long conflict and achieving the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," 15 House members wrote in a letter to Trump on Monday. "Diplomacy is the only path to resolve the tensions between our countries

 

That's good, offer the monkey a banana

Did Trump and Kim even -discuss- formally ending the state of war between the US and North Korea? I haven't seen it mentioned. Maybe we surrendered? That's peace for ya.

As for "achieving denuclearization" that's just a toothy blowjob. They accomplished nothing of the sort, and without a framework for verification, even words claiming that as a goal amount to less than a sparrow fart.

"Efforts to pursue diplomacy" is good. Succeeding at actual diplomacy would be a lot better; or do you set the bar so incredibly low?

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's good, offer the monkey a banana

Did Trump and Kim even -discuss- formally ending the state of war between the US and North Korea? I haven't seen it mentioned. Maybe we surrendered? That's peace for ya.

As for "achieving denuclearization" that's just a toothy blowjob. They accomplished nothing of the sort, and without a framework for verification, even words claiming that as a goal amount to less than a sparrow fart.

"Efforts to pursue diplomacy" is good. Succeeding at actual diplomacy would be a lot better; or do you set the bar so incredibly low?

-DSK

Sure, but it was a terrific photo op. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sean said:

a terrific photo op.

mission accomplished .....................

Share this post


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

"Efforts to pursue diplomacy" is good. Succeeding at actual diplomacy would be a lot better; or do you set the bar so incredibly low?

-DSK

Trump sets the bar lower with each passing day.

And his supporters love him for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's a direct and blunt question for all the spear chuckers here.

You say that trump gave up too much by:

  • meeting with KJU in person and giving him legitimacy
  • canceling military exercises
  • Not insisting on complete NK De-nuking before the US gives any concessions

So my question is:  What did we get by NOT doing those things previously?  Sure Clinton and Bush and Obama talked tough and never met with the NK leader or gave an inch to them..... and it got us a NK with nuclear weapons and delivery systems that can reach the US.  How did that work out for us?  

Maybe its time to try something different.  How can it get any worse for us if this new approach doesn't work out?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Let’s threaten alliances, give in to demands, refuse to prepare for negotiations, get nothing in return and hope it turns out ok? 

Sounds like a dumb plan. But, it’s all the GOPs got these days. 

When you want solid prep work, hard negotiators and reliable allies, vote Democrat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Yup. Let’s threaten alliances, give in to demands, refuse to prepare for negotiations, get nothing in return and hope it turns out ok? 

 Sounds like a dumb plan. But, it’s all the GOPs got these days. 

 When you want solid prep work, hard negotiators and reliable allies, vote Democrat. 

You're funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
32 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Yup. Let’s threaten alliances, give in to demands, refuse to prepare for negotiations, get nothing in return and hope it turns out ok? 

 Sounds like a dumb plan. But, it’s all the GOPs got these days. 

 When you want solid prep work, hard negotiators and reliable allies, vote Democrat. 

You're funny. 

While I may not agree with that final comment by philly, I completely agree with what preceded it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

While I may not agree with that final comment by philly, I completely agree with what preceded it.

I think he's quite correct in most perspectives aside from the constant bashing of the right, and the mistaken belief that the recent crop of Ds have performed any better.  That's OK - everyone needs to have a hobby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think he's quite correct in most perspectives aside from the constant bashing of the right, and the mistaken belief that the recent crop of Ds have performed any better.  That's OK - everyone needs to have a hobby. 

recent? well recently the R's have held all the power and we now have Gorsuch  who is on his way to making Thomas seem brilliant instead of Garland who is pretty moderate.  We have the EPA and Education being gutted by morons and a gaggle of Congress critters who checked their balls at the door to kiss Trump's ass.  When Jeff says let's try something different I suggest we buy a bunch of typewriters give them to a room full of chimps and wait for Shakespeare to appear on paper.  At least that would be entertaining and less harmful.  Oh yeah, health care - good luck with anything happening there.  I will stop bashing the right when they stand up and do something worthwhile. 

There are signs that things may turn around, don't remember his name but one of the leaders of the Evangelical movement has now recanted and compares the actions to that of the Christians in Germany after 1928 - we are full bore nationalists parading as patriots.  The head of NASA has now changed to believe in climate change because (to parody NGS) he got to reading.  There is more but I have stuff to do.  out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has Gorsuch done (besides occupy the seat that you'd rather have had Garland sitting in) to draw your ire?  Constraining the EPA is a good thing, IMHO - I think that they had greatly over-reached their authority and a correction was in order.  The Dept of Education needs a course correction as well, though I don't think that Mrs DeVoss is the appropriate skipper for that.    So - please share everything you've got, maybe you'll find support for your outrage, maybe you'll hear a reason for something that you hadn't considered, either would be a good thing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time out for a history lesson:

 In 1971 Richard Nixon triggered a trade dispute with Canada. He called the Canadian PM an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch". The Canadian said "I have been called worse things by better men". 

That Canadian PM was Justin Trudeau's dad. - Matt Bevan tweet 


DfZ1XldUcAALvZY.jpg 
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, in a tan suit, carrying his son Justin. 

http://all-hat-no-cattle.blogspot.com/ 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What has Gorsuch done (besides occupy the seat that you'd rather have had Garland sitting in) to draw your ire?  Constraining the EPA is a good thing, IMHO - I think that they had greatly over-reached their authority and a correction was in order.  The Dept of Education needs a course correction as well, though I don't think that Mrs DeVoss is the appropriate skipper for that.    So - please share everything you've got, maybe you'll find support for your outrage, maybe you'll hear a reason for something that you hadn't considered, either would be a good thing. 

 

I personal like clean air and water, and seeing sight feeders in SF bay after missing since the gold rush, is pretty cool. Thank you EPA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

While I may not agree with that final comment by philly,

I dunno - I've been watching politics for over 50 years and I've never seen a Dem administration fuck things up and fuck people over like this bunch.

Of course I've never seen a Republican administration do it either but they usually fucked things up worse that the Dems ever have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Time out for a history lesson:

 In 1971 Richard Nixon triggered a trade dispute with Canada. He called the Canadian PM an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch". The Canadian said "I have been called worse things by better men". 

That Canadian PM was Justin Trudeau's dad. - Matt Bevan tweet 


DfZ1XldUcAALvZY.jpg 
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, in a tan suit, carrying his son Justin. 

http://all-hat-no-cattle.blogspot.com/ 
 

Nixon said it in the privacy of his office, not on the Internet.

Of course the stupid shit also said it on tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I base my partisan statement on the facts that in this century:

1. A Republican administration invaded Iraq after presenting America and the UN with falsified/exaggerated information. Their real reasons were personal animus and a desire for America to get Iraqi oil flowing through US firms. There were expectations of flowers and cash, and deemphasizing the State Department's role and disbanding the Iraqi army were major policy decisions made solely by GOP stalwarts.

2. The Republicans have been largely responsible for our massive deficit increases due to never requiring two wars be paid for by budgetary means, just emergency wartime spending bills. Combined with a refusal to bail out the car companies, and it should be clear that the GOP is not skilled in budgetary management.

3. Donald Trump became the GOP candidate in 2016, and has been supported/enabled by the GOP establishment and FOX News. None of the crap he commits on a daily basis, let alone his foreign policy "negotiations" with friends and enemies, would be tolerated by a Democrat in the oval office. Trump's incompetence is only dwarfed by his desire to be a demagogue.

There seems to be an enormous disconnect between the GOP and science and facts, and an embracing of the symbols of our country. In fact, worshipping those symbols has become more important than our ideals and traditions, each of which is routinely violated by this administration, with the tacit approval and assistance of almost all Republicans.

I don't want to be a partisan. But we should learn from history, else be destined to repeat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I don't want to be a partisan. But we should learn from history, else be destined to repeat it.

It has little or nothing to do with partisanship - I'm a foreigner so it's a bit of a reach to call me partisan in American politics.

It's about facts, truth, decency, science, competence, fiscal management skills - you know, all those things that people are elected to look after for society.

This current administration is completely lacking in all of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites