Sign in to follow this  
kent_island_sailor

Trump got rolled

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I didn't see DR's answer as trying to change the topic but I agree he did not directly answer your question.

I also didn't see your answer to my explanation of what President Trump gave away to NK with less than a promise of the same type they've broken many many times before.

You make a good point about not following conventional wisdom and doing the same thing over and over. There is a difference between doing something different just for the sake of saying that you're "doing something" and then actually accomplishing something.

Has Trump's "deal" with NK and/or KJU accomplished anything? The possibility is that it might lead to something, given follow-up. Has this Administration done any follow up on anything other than lining their own pockets? Not very promising IMHO.

-DSK

 

15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Exactly apropos. Nasty dictator wants certain things. Give them to him and see if he acts better in the future. Didn't work out, the nasty dictator did not see reasonableness on the other side, he saw stupidity and weakness.

Kim now has Trump lubed up and over a barrel. So what if he keeps his nukes? Once you prove you are willing to dismantle an alliance with no warning on a whim,, no one will ever trust you again. Trump is defanged. Military action or sanctions or both, who would stand with us now when the toddler-king will change his mind back again and leave you with your dick hanging out all alone while he runs off with his new best friend (again).

Wow the TDS is running strong.  

What did Trump give Kim?  Pausing a military exercise a year from now? 

That’s it.  

Sanctions are not lifted.

No alliances Have been dismantled.  

You compare that to Chamberland looking the other way when Hitler took back Sudentenland?   

UFB

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Jeff - if I get your post correctly - you think by being nice to North Korea and more or less unilaterally surrendering in the first hour of talks they will be so impressed they will disarm themselves in appreciation? The weapons that got them a seat at the table, the weapons that got Trump to unilaterally dismantle decades-old alliances, the weapons they can endlessly promise to get rid of in return for food, oil, and cash? They are going to give all this up because Trump folded like a house of cards in a wind tunnel?

You DO know this has been tried before, right?

007.jpg

 

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????  What alliances has he dismantled?  What has he surrendered?  What food oil and cash has trump promised them?  Trump folded like a house of cards?  How did he do that?  What are we "giving up"?  One military exercise as a show of good faith that can be turned back on in a heartbeat???  HO LEE FUK!

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  I often chuckle at the accusations of TDS, but I think there really is something to that now.  Nothing trump has said in any of this sounds like "Peace in Our Time".  All I've heard is "maybe it will work, maybe it won't.  We'll see"

Baby_2c76ff_530617.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Exactly apropos. Nasty dictator wants certain things. Give them to him and see if he acts better in the future. Didn't work out, the nasty dictator did not see reasonableness on the other side, he saw stupidity and weakness.

Kim now has Trump lubed up and over a barrel. So what if he keeps his nukes? Once you prove you are willing to dismantle an alliance with no warning on a whim,, no one will ever trust you again. Trump is defanged. Military action or sanctions or both, who would stand with us now when the toddler-king will change his mind back again and leave you with your dick hanging out all alone while he runs off with his new best friend (again).

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!  What fucking Alliance are we "dismantling"?????  

And good on Reagan and Clinton and Bush and Obama for being so fucking tough and not meeting with NK and showing our strength.  What did that get us?  It got a nuclear FUCKING armed NK with ballistic missiles.  That's what all that "intelligence and strength" got us!  

Yes, sorry kent - but you have been afflicted with the TDS something bad.  

Share this post


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

Oh the Hitler card.   That didn’t take to long   

Actually, that was the Chamberlain card.

I guess the distinction was a little too subtle for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this isn't obvious to you, but when you say the "We will be stopping the war games, which cost us a tremendous amount of money", no one is ever going to trust you again. Once you make it clear you are willing to end decades-old security alliances *without even warning your allies* and also make it clear your foreign policy is transnational, why woul anyone trust you to stand with them when you might get a better offer :rolleyes:

Also this list surely should trouble anyone with a brain:

Trump friends:

Russia

China

North Korea

Trump Enemies

Canada

France

Germany

Share this post


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

Maybe this isn't obvious to you, but when you say the "We will be stopping the war games, which cost us a tremendous amount of money", no one is ever going to trust you again. Once you make it clear you are willing to end decades-old security alliances *without even warning your allies* and also make it clear your foreign policy is transnational, why woul anyone trust you to stand with them when you might get a better offer :rolleyes:

How is stopping one military exercise, temporarily, "ending" decades old alliances????  

Yet BL demanded that he stop military exercises right before some lower level pre-summit meetings.  Where was your outrage at that?  

The bottom line is SK are big boys.  One exercise is not going to end a decades old alliance.  They could take care of themselves just fine.  But no US troops are going anywhere in the foreseeable future.  Nothing has changed.  Jesus KIS, you used to be one of the more reasonable level-headed posters here.  You've come unglued over this!  WTF has gotten into you?  Are you shooting up TDS directly into your femoral artery?  

Share this post


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

Actually, that was the Chamberlain card.

I guess the distinction was a little too subtle for you.

Except the chamberlin card is all wrong too.  When Kim has invaded SK and trump flies to Pyongyang and returns with a letter from Kim agreeing to restraint and says:  Peace for our time", then you'll have a point and we'll discuss.  

But this is a first meeting and nothing, NOTHING, was given away.  There was a gesture of good will given that cost us nothing.  

What's interesting is that all you fuckers that dogged on Bush for not working diplomacy hard enough before going to war are now taking exactly the opposite tack.  Why has "talking" suddenly become a dirty word?  Is it because you just simply don't like the guy doing the talking and that he might get something done?  I suspect the uncomfortable answer to that question is YES.  

Share this post


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

Except the chamberlin card is all wrong too.  When Kim has invaded SK and trump flies to Pyongyang and returns with a letter from Kim agreeing to restraint and says:  Peace for our time", then you'll have a point and we'll discuss.  

But this is a first meeting and nothing, NOTHING, was given away.  There was a gesture of good will given that cost us nothing.  

What's interesting is that all you fuckers that dogged on Bush for not working diplomacy hard enough before going to war are now taking exactly the opposite tack.  Why has "talking" suddenly become a dirty word?  Is it because you just simply don't like the guy doing the talking and that he might get something done?  I suspect the uncomfortable answer to that question is YES.  

That would be the fucking glaringly obvious answer.

But in fairness the right does it too, they were all over Obama for talking to dictators.

Share this post


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

Except the chamberlin card is all wrong too.  When Kim has invaded SK and trump flies to Pyongyang and returns with a letter from Kim agreeing to restraint and says:  Peace for our time", then you'll have a point and we'll discuss.  

But this is a first meeting and nothing, NOTHING, was given away.  There was a gesture of good will given that cost us nothing.  

What's interesting is that all you fuckers that dogged on Bush for not working diplomacy hard enough before going to war are now taking exactly the opposite tack.  Why has "talking" suddenly become a dirty word?  Is it because you just simply don't like the guy doing the talking and that he might get something done?  I suspect the uncomfortable answer to that question is YES.  

There is that aspect:

(National Journal): What’s the job?

Mitch McConnell:The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

 

Seriously - this is Trump doing an utter shit job of making a deal. He has given Kim win after win after win without getting ANYTHING in return. We have had vague promises from North Korea to give up nukes many times before. Perhaps the subtleties of diplomacy are lost on some of you, but the direct high level talks are ALREADY a huge win for NK even if they sit there and don't say a word. This recognition as a peer by the President of the USA is a reward far down the line, not an opening give-away. This is like selling new cars by offering "free extended warranty, free XM radio, free leather seats, 0% interest, and $5,000 off MSRP and 125% NADA value for your trade" right when the customer walks in the door. Only Mitsubishi does shit like that because they are desperate.
Flippantly deciding the US troop posture "is too expensive" is like offering a free second car to go along with it :rolleyes:

Promises made, promises broken

Here's what North Korea -- and the world -- have offered in the past:
-- 1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT -- "a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament," according to the United Nations.
-- 1992: North and South Korea sign a "joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. "The South and the North shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons" and they "shall use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes," it states.
-- 1994: North Korea pledges to the United States that it would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for international aid, including help building two power-producing nuclear reactors.
-- 2002: US President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," saying that "by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." The administration later reveals North Korea admitted to operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 deal.
-- 2003: The United States and other nations halt energy aid, and North Korea withdraws from the NPT. Later, the Six Party Talks begin over Pyongyang's nuclear program. The talks include the United States, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea.
-- 2005: North Korea tentatively agrees to give up its entire nuclear program, including weapons. In exchange, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea say they will provide energy assistance to North Korea, as well as promote economic cooperation.
-- 2006: North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. The test prompts the UN Security Council to impose a broad array of sanctions.
-- 2008: The Six Party Talks break down over North Korea's refusal to allow international inspectors unfettered access to suspected nuclear sites, according to the Arms Control Association. North Korea says the US side fails to follow through on its commitments, too.
-- 2010: State media in North Korea report that the government issued a memo saying the country "will be party to nonproliferation and disarmament agreements 'on an equal footing with other nuclear weapons states.'"
-- 2011: "After a meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Pyongyang says that it would be willing to observe a moratorium on the production and testing of nuclear weapons and missiles" in the context of resumption of Six Party Talks," according to the Arms Control Association.
-- 2012, North Korea agrees to suspend the operations of its Yongbyon uranium enrichment plant and begin moratoriums on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Washington promises food aid. Washington later says it suspended the food aid after North Korea said it would launch a satellite.
-- 2016: North Korea signals a willingness to resume negotiations on denuclearization, according to the Arms Control Association.

Share this post


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

Mao is a great comparison.  I was thinking how those that are melting down that Trump dated to meet with Kim didn’t Have any issues when Obama recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as legitimate rulers in Egypt. 

Oh, the Obama card.  That didn't take too long.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shootist Jeff I see little value in antagonizing our allies, tearing up multinational agreements and praising dictators. I also think we should hold fast against Russia's re-entering the G-7 because of their actions in Ukraine and shooting down a passenger airliner and then lying about it, especially given their interest in screwing with our elections.

But you aren't big on our national security being based on expert opinion, and would prefer sound bites and photo ops over true workhorse diplomacy. Since the GOP has decided to castrate the State Department this century, first by ignoring their calls for concern in Iraq and under Trump by thoroughly dismantling their operations, there is little else we can offer than an unprepared blowhard. 

Vote Democrat.

Share this post


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

@Shootist Jeff I see little value in antagonizing our allies, tearing up multinational agreements and praising dictators. I also think we should hold fast against Russia's re-entering the G-7 because of their actions in Ukraine and shooting down a passenger airliner and then lying about it, especially given their interest in screwing with our elections.

But you aren't big on our national security being based on expert opinion, and would prefer sound bites and photo ops over true workhorse diplomacy. Since the GOP has decided to castrate the State Department this century, first by ignoring their calls for concern in Iraq and under Trump by thoroughly dismantling their operations, there is little else we can offer than an unprepared blowhard. 

Vote Democrat.

Helpful link added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

There is that aspect:

(National Journal): What’s the job?

Mitch McConnell:The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

 

Seriously - this is Trump doing an utter shit job of making a deal. He has given Kim win after win after win without getting ANYTHING in return. We have had vague promises from North Korea to give up nukes many times before. Perhaps the subtleties of diplomacy are lost on some of you, but the direct high level talks are ALREADY a huge win for NK even if they sit there and don't say a word. This recognition as a peer by the President of the USA is a reward far down the line, not an opening give-away. This is like selling new cars by offering "free extended warranty, free XM radio, free leather seats, 0% interest, and $5,000 off MSRP and 125% NADA value for your trade" right when the customer walks in the door. Only Mitsubishi does shit like that because they are desperate.
Flippantly deciding the US troop posture "is too expensive" is like offering a free second car to go along with it :rolleyes:

Promises made, promises broken

Here's what North Korea -- and the world -- have offered in the past:
-- 1985: North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT -- "a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament," according to the United Nations.
-- 1992: North and South Korea sign a "joint declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. "The South and the North shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons" and they "shall use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes," it states.
-- 1994: North Korea pledges to the United States that it would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for international aid, including help building two power-producing nuclear reactors.
-- 2002: US President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," saying that "by seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." The administration later reveals North Korea admitted to operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 deal.
-- 2003: The United States and other nations halt energy aid, and North Korea withdraws from the NPT. Later, the Six Party Talks begin over Pyongyang's nuclear program. The talks include the United States, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea.
-- 2005: North Korea tentatively agrees to give up its entire nuclear program, including weapons. In exchange, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea say they will provide energy assistance to North Korea, as well as promote economic cooperation.
-- 2006: North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. The test prompts the UN Security Council to impose a broad array of sanctions.
-- 2008: The Six Party Talks break down over North Korea's refusal to allow international inspectors unfettered access to suspected nuclear sites, according to the Arms Control Association. North Korea says the US side fails to follow through on its commitments, too.
-- 2010: State media in North Korea report that the government issued a memo saying the country "will be party to nonproliferation and disarmament agreements 'on an equal footing with other nuclear weapons states.'"
-- 2011: "After a meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Pyongyang says that it would be willing to observe a moratorium on the production and testing of nuclear weapons and missiles" in the context of resumption of Six Party Talks," according to the Arms Control Association.
-- 2012, North Korea agrees to suspend the operations of its Yongbyon uranium enrichment plant and begin moratoriums on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Washington promises food aid. Washington later says it suspended the food aid after North Korea said it would launch a satellite.
-- 2016: North Korea signals a willingness to resume negotiations on denuclearization, according to the Arms Control Association.

 

None of that is relevant now that The Great Deal Artist is involved.

Peace In Our Time.

Share this post


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

@Shootist Jeff I see little value in antagonizing our allies, tearing up multinational agreements and praising dictators. I also think we should hold fast against Russia's re-entering the G-7 because of their actions in Ukraine and shooting down a passenger airliner and then lying about it, especially given their interest in screwing with our elections.

But you aren't big on our national security being based on expert opinion, and would prefer sound bites and photo ops over true workhorse diplomacy. Since the GOP has decided to castrate the State Department this century, first by ignoring their calls for concern in Iraq and under Trump by thoroughly dismantling their operations, there is little else we can offer than an unprepared blowhard. 

Vote Democrat.

What if it leads to agreements that are more fair and less global confrontation. Would you be a supporter then?

Share this post


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

Oh, the Obama card.  That didn't take too long.

Obama was president of the US just 2 years ago. Pointing out that many of those bitching about Trump and NK had no issues with that President engaging a group, with terrorist ties after they took power in Egypt is a lot more relevant than a British PM working with Hitler 80 years ago.  

Share this post


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

Actually, that was the Chamberlain card.

I guess the distinction was a little too subtle for you.

I guess you didn’t know who Chamberlain was accused of appeasing. Sorry I assumed you had basic history knowledge. 

Share this post


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

I guess you didn’t know who Chamberlain was accused of appeasing. Sorry I assumed you had basic history knowledge. 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


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

That would be the fucking glaringly obvious answer.

But in fairness the right does it too, they were all over Obama for talking to dictators.

“they”?

Share this post


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

Obama was president of the US just 2 years ago. Pointing out that many of those bitching about Trump and NK had no issues with that President engaging a group, with terrorist ties after they took power in Egypt is a lot more relevant than a British PM working with Hitler 80 years ago.  

I remember a time when invoking foibles of the previous Administration was a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except the chamberlin card is all wrong too.  When Kim has invaded SK and trump flies to Pyongyang and returns with a letter from Kim agreeing to restraint and says:  Peace for our time", then you'll have a point and we'll discuss.  

But this is a first meeting and nothing, NOTHING, was given away.  There was a gesture of good will given that cost us nothing.  

What's interesting is that all you fuckers that dogged on Bush for not working diplomacy hard enough before going to war are now taking exactly the opposite tack.  Why has "talking" suddenly become a dirty word?  Is it because you just simply don't like the guy doing the talking and that he might get something done?  I suspect the uncomfortable answer to that question is YES.  

That would be the fucking glaringly obvious answer.

But in fairness the right does it too, they were all over Obama for talking to dictators.

True.  And I hated when the right did it to Obama.  I hate this fucking snipping at every little thing.  Let this shit play out and if it turns out bad, then hurl all the deserved criticism his way.  Until then, be like little fonzies and chill the fuck out!

Share this post


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

True.  And I hated when the right did it to Obama.  I hate this fucking snipping at every little thing.  Let this shit play out and if it turns out bad, then hurl all the deserved criticism his way.  Until then, be like little fonzies and chill the fuck out!

Well that would mean 0 posts in PA for one thing :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

This recognition as a peer by the President of the USA is a reward far down the line, not an opening give-away.

Yeah, because withholding that recognition got us exactly where?  

It got us a nuclear armed NK with ballistic missiles that can now reach the US.  WFD!  Let's do some more of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 9:39 AM, badlatitude said:

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

Actually if you pay attention that's untrue.  Trump did what he always does - crows about bullshit that isn't true.  His diplomatic core (minus scientists - because we don't believe in science any more) has already stated that North Korea must totally and verifiably denuclearize or we will give them nothing at all.  Of course - Trump stayed for what - one day?  Just long enough to say hi, take credit for a negotiation that hasn't even started yet, and then leave again.  In the end his departure is a good thing.  His egomanical pompous ass is the furthest thing from a diplomat there is, and he would only do damage as he continued to spew half-trues and falsehoods.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Obama was president of the US just 2 years ago. Pointing out that many of those bitching about Trump and NK had no issues with that President engaging a group, with terrorist ties after they took power in Egypt is a lot more relevant than a British PM working with Hitler 80 years ago.  

No one is suggesting the USA not engage NK, we are suggesting the current orange menace is doing a shit job of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

True.  And I hated when the right did it to Obama.  I hate this fucking snipping at every little thing.  Let this shit play out and if it turns out bad, then hurl all the deserved criticism his way.  Until then, be like little fonzies and chill the fuck out!

Well that would mean 0 posts in PA for one thing :rolleyes:

Nah, there'd always be gunz.  :D

Share this post


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

No one is suggesting the USA not engage NK, we are suggesting the current orange menace is doing a shit job of it.

A "shit job" based on exactly 1 meeting that lasted for what..... 4-5 hours???  I would submit that the orangeman's madman rhetoric spiel is a large part of what got us to the table in the first place.  And a 4-5 hour meeting that got kim to agree to peace and a nuclear free peninsula, in principle is a "Shit job"?  

I'll ask you a very direct question..... what criteria would you consider it NOT a shit job after this one 5 hour meeting?  What outcome would have made you happy and conceded he was doing even a decent job?  I anxiously await your response.

Share this post


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

Image result for kim reaming trump meme

Haha!  Now that's a funny pic!  Brilliant.  :lol:

Share this post


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

Maybe this isn't obvious to you, but when you say the "We will be stopping the war games, which cost us a tremendous amount of money", no one is ever going to trust you again. Once you make it clear you are willing to end decades-old security alliances *without even warning your allies* and also make it clear your foreign policy is transnational, why woul anyone trust you to stand with them when you might get a better offer :rolleyes:

Also this list surely should trouble anyone with a brain:

Trump friends:

Russia

China

North Korea

Trump Enemies

Canada

France

Germany

Heck of a job, Comrade Trump.

image.jpeg

Share this post


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

A "shit job" based on exactly 1 meeting that lasted for what..... 4-5 hours???  I would submit that the orangeman's madman rhetoric spiel is a large part of what got us to the table in the first place.  And a 4-5 hour meeting that got kim to agree to peace and a nuclear free peninsula, in principle is a "Shit job"?  

I'll ask you a very direct question..... what criteria would you consider it NOT a shit job after this one 5 hour meeting?  What outcome would have made you happy and conceded he was doing even a decent job?  I anxiously await your response.

How about this:

1. Consult with allies - our friends - over what we want to gain and what we are willing to give up.

2. Do the usual - low level exchanges and "leaks" so you both have an idea of what will be on the table and a rough idea of what the other side is looking for.

3. You don't START OFF giving the store away for a promise akin to checks in the mail :rolleyes:

4. The kind of one-on-one recognition as a peer to a superpower is a REWARD after the process is working well, not an opening give-away.

5. The idea of a significant posture change on the Korean peninsula is maybe hinted at as a far off goal once the denuclearization process is working well, certainly not anything you even breath one mention of NOW :angry:

6. Ensure that the neighbors to NK remain either in our camp at best or respectful of us at worst, depending on who they are. You may need them in the future ;) Gotta give Trump an "epic fail" on this one!

So this is all kind of drawn out, boring, and doesn't always work. Two petulant nuclear armed toddlers taunting each other with 3rd grade nicknames may seem kind of cute in a demented kind of way and sure it makes for good TV ratings. Maybe - just maybe - Kim actually means what he says. Recent history suggests no realistic chance of this. They have promised to give up nukes before, got some aid, food, oil, and sanctions relief out of it, and then reneged on their promises. Wait a few years, rinse, repeat, get more free shit. Why would they EVER give this scheme up?

lucy-football.jpg

 

Almost forgot: Do NOT make North Korean propaganda films for them! WTF?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/12/reporters-thought-this-video-was-north-korea-propaganda-it-came-from-the-white-house/?utm_term=.ddc32509ffbb

 

Reporters crowded into a Singapore auditorium Tuesday, expecting President Trump to walk out and announce the results of his historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Suddenly, two huge screens on either side of the empty podium came to life. Soaring music boomed over the speakers, and the reporters were bombarded with a montage portraying North Korea as some sort of paradise.

Golden sunrises, gleaming skylines and high-speed trains. Children skipping through Kim Il Sung square in Pyongyang. North Korean flags fluttering between images of Egyptian pyramids, the Taj Mahal and the Lincoln Memorial.

In a split-screen shot, Kim Jong Un waved to an adoring crowd while President Trump stood beside him with his thumb in the air. The pair appeared over and over again, like running mates in a campaign video.

The film went on like this for more than four minutes, with brief interludes of missiles, soldiers and warships interrupting the pageantry. Some journalists, unable to understand the Korean-language narration, assumed they were watching one of Pyongyang’s infamous propaganda films. “What country are we in?” asked a reporter from the filing center.

But then the video looped, playing this time in English. And then Trump walked onto the stage and confirmed what some had already realized.

The film was not North Korean propaganda. It had been made in America, by or on the orders of his White House, for the benefit of Kim.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Stop trying to change the topic to health care and climate change. 

I asked a direct question.  All of the things the POTUS is being criticized for doing in this recent summit is pretty much the exact opposite of what every other POTUS did by following conventional wisdom.  So I ask again, how did that strategery work out for us then?  Seems to me all it got us was a nuclear armed NK with ballistic missiles that can now reach the US because previous American presidents and other Western leaders refused to meet with the NK leader F2F. 

The "conventional wisdom" in 1972 was for Nixon to absolutely refuse to meet with Mao.  In fact for the 25 previous years, there was no comms and no diplomatic ties with China before Nixon agreed to go there.  And that changed the world as we know it.   Its obviously FAR too early to tell if this will have a similar outcome to Nixon's trip.  But NOT doing it was getting us exactly ZERO inches towards containing Kim's nuclear ambitions.  

Short of turning NK into a modern art glass sculpture, I don't see what the alternatives were here BUT to talk to him.  Not talking to him was getting us Fuk all.  As evadent.

I don’t agree with your premise. Kim’s nuclear ambitions may well have been delayed for decades by the sanctions regime. You are assuming that because they didn’t prevent NK from circumventing them that they “failed.” Water finds a way in if you don’t have perfect watertight integrity, and without China’s full adherence to strict sanctions & no other country finding a way to help this outcome was inevitable given NKs dogged efforts. 

Secondly, Trumps negotiating expertise is based on a businessman’s view of transactional decisions. Save money with fewer exercises & plane flight from Guam, reduced numbers of troops on the ground, condos on the beaches. From that standpoint, glossy iPad videos and equal stature of leaders and praising Kim is cool.

But from the vantage of our allies we are unpredictable and unreliable, and our enemies just knows they only have to wait for a change in administrations to upend our agreements. Trump has torn up not only three major multinational agreements, he has heavily damaged our practice of continuity & coherent foreign policy. 

You would never accept this sort of amateurism from a Democrat, never say “give him a chance.” You are a bald faced hypocrite. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

If ANY Democrat did word-for-word what Trump did they would be lucky to only be impeached.

A Democrat was impeached over a blow job. Republicans have no problem with Trump paying hush money to porn actresses or his efforts to cover it up. The only conclusion is that Republicans are ass-clowns not to be taken seriously. 

Share this post


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

A Democrat was impeached over a blow job. Republicans have no problem with Trump paying hush money to porn actresses or his efforts to cover it up. The only conclusion is that Republicans are ass-clowns not to be taken seriously. 

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. 

Yes, these charges arose from an investigation that was far-reaching, kinda like the one Republicans seem to now take issue with, but he was not impeached simply because he got a hummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 12:17 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

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?  

Besause some North Korean in a 12th floor 125 sq foot walk up apartment might see on the one TV in their building (that they don't have), on the phone they don't have, or on the internet they don't get, that Kim has legitimacy in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2018 at 2:35 PM, 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/ 
 

Fidel Castro was the Canadian Prime minister?

 

Share this post


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

Fidel Castro was the Canadian Prime minister?

 

Yes, he served for 8 years and retired to a farm in Alberta.

WTF are you talking about?

Share this post


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

Actually, that was the Chamberlain card.

I guess the distinction was a little too subtle for you.

Its the other side of the same card. If Trump is Chamberlain in this metaphor then Kim must be Hitler. 

Share this post


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

Yes, he served for 8 years and retired to a farm in Alberta.

WTF are you talking about?

Margaret Trudeau was known for fucking just about every powerful man she met and at the time there were rumors of dalliance with Fidel, and Ronnie Wood, Mick Jagger, Ted Kennedy, Ryan O'Neil... her dance card was filled up.

Justin just happens to look more like one of those paramours then the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.axios.com/israel-casts-doubt-on-success-of-north-korea-summit-8a15d92d-6f4b-41a1-8bba-a8a68377f4b1.html

A classified report from Israel's foreign ministry raises doubts over President Trump's optimistic statements about his summit with Kim Jong-un, and determines the U.S. retreated from its positions on several issues relating to North Korea's nuclear program.

Behind the scenes: The classified report, which I obtained a copy of, provides an initial analysis of the summit. It was circulated yesterday by the research department of the Israeli foreign ministry to all Israeli embassies around the world and to many senior officials at the Prime Minister's office and other government agencies.

Show less

Two main points:

"Regardless of the smiles in the summit many in Japan, South Korea and the U.S. Congress doubt that North Korea is sincere in its intentions. Our assessment is that regardless of President Trump's statements about quick changes that are expected in North Korean policy, the road the real and substantive change, if it ever happens, will be long and slow."
— From the classified report

Share this post


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

Margaret Trudeau was known for fucking just about every powerful man she met and at the time there were rumors of dalliance with Fidel, and Ronnie Wood, Mick Jagger, Ted Kennedy, Ryan O'Neil... her dance card was filled up.

Justin just happens to look more like one of those paramours then the others. 

Ah so. One of my old bosses knew her growing up. He called her the "town pump".

Share this post


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

How about this:

1. Consult with allies - our friends - over what we want to gain and what we are willing to give up.

2. Do the usual - low level exchanges and "leaks" so you both have an idea of what will be on the table and a rough idea of what the other side is looking for.

3. You don't START OFF giving the store away for a promise akin to checks in the mail :rolleyes:

4. The kind of one-on-one recognition as a peer to a superpower is a REWARD after the process is working well, not an opening give-away.

5. The idea of a significant posture change on the Korean peninsula is maybe hinted at as a far off goal once the denuclearization process is working well, certainly not anything you even breath one mention of NOW :angry:

6. Ensure that the neighbors to NK remain either in our camp at best or respectful of us at worst, depending on who they are. You may need them in the future ;) Gotta give Trump an "epic fail" on this one!

So this is all kind of drawn out, boring, and doesn't always work. Two petulant nuclear armed toddlers taunting each other with 3rd grade nicknames may seem kind of cute in a demented kind of way and sure it makes for good TV ratings. Maybe - just maybe - Kim actually means what he says. Recent history suggests no realistic chance of this. They have promised to give up nukes before, got some aid, food, oil, and sanctions relief out of it, and then reneged on their promises. Wait a few years, rinse, repeat, get more free shit. Why would they EVER give this scheme up?

lucy-football.jpg

 

Almost forgot: Do NOT make North Korean propaganda films for them! WTF?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/12/reporters-thought-this-video-was-north-korea-propaganda-it-came-from-the-white-house/?utm_term=.ddc32509ffbb

 

Reporters crowded into a Singapore auditorium Tuesday, expecting President Trump to walk out and announce the results of his historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Suddenly, two huge screens on either side of the empty podium came to life. Soaring music boomed over the speakers, and the reporters were bombarded with a montage portraying North Korea as some sort of paradise.

Golden sunrises, gleaming skylines and high-speed trains. Children skipping through Kim Il Sung square in Pyongyang. North Korean flags fluttering between images of Egyptian pyramids, the Taj Mahal and the Lincoln Memorial.

In a split-screen shot, Kim Jong Un waved to an adoring crowd while President Trump stood beside him with his thumb in the air. The pair appeared over and over again, like running mates in a campaign video.

The film went on like this for more than four minutes, with brief interludes of missiles, soldiers and warships interrupting the pageantry. Some journalists, unable to understand the Korean-language narration, assumed they were watching one of Pyongyang’s infamous propaganda films. “What country are we in?” asked a reporter from the filing center.

But then the video looped, playing this time in English. And then Trump walked onto the stage and confirmed what some had already realized.

The film was not North Korean propaganda. It had been made in America, by or on the orders of his White House, for the benefit of Kim.

Had a chat with a marketing expert. He thinks trump was brilliant. Walked in, claimed success, and all his synophants, raised on issue resolution within a single tv episode, lap it up. In his opinion, trump doesn’t care about long term success, it’s a daily ratings game. Noise about trump on PA? A trump win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, franz said:

Image result for kim reaming trump meme

Keeriste - he even makes a stupid looking Hitler.

No small accomplishment.

Share this post


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

Its the other side of the same card. If Trump is Chamberlain in this metaphor then Kim must be Hitler. 

Works for me.

Share this post


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

I guess he has something in common with Eric Trump

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, meme and text

 

That comparison is sooo perfect. :lol:

Busey has better teeth though.

Share this post


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

  I hate this fucking snipping at every little thing. 

Lying about your height is hardly a little thing. Stormy never snipped at his little thing.

Share this post


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

How is stopping one military exercise, temporarily, "ending" decades old alliances????  

Yet BL demanded that he stop military exercises right before some lower level pre-summit meetings.  Where was your outrage at that?  

The bottom line is SK are big boys.  One exercise is not going to end a decades old alliance.  They could take care of themselves just fine.  But no US troops are going anywhere in the foreseeable future.  Nothing has changed.  Jesus KIS, you used to be one of the more reasonable level-headed posters here.  You've come unglued over this!  WTF has gotten into you?  Are you shooting up TDS directly into your femoral artery?  

 

Actually, I think you're the one that has come unglued. The SORKs live under a very real threat from NORKlandia and count on us to help protect them.

A big part of this is the joint exercises, which need to be held on a regular basis because as you ought to know (if you think about reality for a minute) people in the military rotate a lot. In any given 6 month period, there will be a large turnover of personnel and they need training in their new jobs. Withdrawing that reduces SORK's level of security; and doing so WITH NO NOTICE is kind of like firing a top-level Cabinet official by posting a note on Facebook.

Are they going to take that in stride? Probably yes, they're adults. Are they going like us more, and be more favorably impressed with our commitment to their security? I suggest that they will not.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 8:43 AM, Dog said:

That would be the fucking glaringly obvious answer.

But in fairness the right does it too, they were all over Obama for talking to dictators.

Except, Obama talked, gave concessions,  then sent pallets of cash.......

Share this post


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

Except, Obama talked, gave concessions,  then sent pallets of cash.......

Childish. Very childish. 

Go back to the cartoons, my friend. International politics & “frozen assets” is apparently beyond you.

We’ll try to get you some of the green jello you like so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Fixed it for you ;)

But in warpedbird's view of the world, those were American pallets. Another DemocRAT giveaway.

Share this post


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

Except, Obama talked, gave concessions,  then sent pallets of cash.......

You just can't help making yourself look stupid and ignorant can you?

Share this post


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

I had someone just recently tell me Iran should have given us this cash to make up for the USA airplanes they shot down with their missiles. I honestly was speechless at that.

DDxoHHuWsAAemSH.jpg

That level of ignorant stupidity really is incomprehensible isn't it?

It's what gave you Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2018 at 10:26 AM, Dog said:

What if it leads to agreements that are more fair and less global confrontation. Would you be a supporter then?

Is this like "we had to destroy the village, in order to save it!"?

We need to instigate global confrontation and allow nuclear proliferation, and pull back commitments to long-standing allies. We need to curry favor with countries that have repeatedly broken promises, and we need to bully and insult countries that have been good friends and partners.

This is the only way to achieve peace, eventually. It will trickle down, honest. Just be patient, you'll see!

-DSK

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this