Nobel Peace Prize

[ballsofsteel]

If Dave Dennison is able to make peace with that porkchop from North Diarrhea, he should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

[hollodero]

I wouldn't go that far.

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 09:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wouldn't go that far.

No one would.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43225074

Quote:Trump Nobel Peace Prize nomination probed amid fakery concerns


A nomination made for US President Donald Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was potentially fraudulent, according to the awarding committee.


The Norwegian committee has filed a report with police over its concerns.


Mr Trump was reportedly nominated for his "ideology of peace by force" by an anonymous American.


The director of the Nobel Institute said there were concerns that Mr Trump's nomination may have been falsified.


"I can say that we have good reason to believe that [the nomination of Mr Trump] is a fake," Nobel Institute Director Olav Njølstad told Norwegian broadcaster NRK.


"The same 'fake' nomination probably took place last year too," Mr Njølstad said.








Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize must be submitted by 31 January each year; the winner will be announced in early October.


The process for nominating candidates is highly restricted.


Those who are entitled to propose candidates for the prize include members of parliament and government, former laureates and some university professors.


In 2009, only a year into his term of office, US President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".


In 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union for transforming Europe "from a continent of war to a continent of peace".


The 2017 edition of the prize was won by the anti-nuclear weapons group International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

He can put it on a shelf next to his fake Time Magazine cover.  

[SunsetBengal]

(03-08-2018, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: No one would.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43225074



He can put it on a shelf next to his fake Time Magazine cover.  

In 2009, only a year into his term of office, US President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".


In 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union for transforming Europe "from a continent of war to a continent of peace".


The 2017 edition of the prize was won by the anti-nuclear weapons group International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.


Lol!  

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 09:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In 2009, only a year into his term of office, US President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".


In 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union for transforming Europe "from a continent of war to a continent of peace".


The 2017 edition of the prize was won by the anti-nuclear weapons group International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.


Lol!  

Yet they were all legitimate...unlike Trumps "nomination".

Lol!

[hollodero]

(03-08-2018, 09:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union for transforming Europe "from a continent of war to a continent of peace".

The nobel prize committee sure made some strange decisions, and this probably was one of them. But as for the reasoning, there is some truth to that.

[*bfine32*]

Why would folks be against Trump winning the NPP if he was the driving factor in reuniting the Korean Peninsula?

[GMDino]

(03-08-2018, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would folks be against Trump winning the NPP if he was the driving factor in reuniting the Korean Peninsula?

Well it wasn't for that.  If was a fake nomination.

Also we are a long way from reunification.  These kinds of talks have happened in the past (Bush, Clinton) and NK even "suspended" its nuke program then too.

I just don't know if he gets sole credit when NK was lobbing bombs a few months ago either.

[hollodero]

(03-08-2018, 10:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would folks be against Trump winning the NPP if he was the driving factor in reuniting the Korean Peninsula?

That's a fair question.

Also, that's a big if. Reuniting the peninsula seems utterly unrealistic, as in something Kim will never ever agree to. What if Trump brought sustainable peace though. If that were to happen, that would be a big contribution, sure would change how I view that preidency. From a nobel price committee standpoint, one might wonder how big his actual contributions were though. The sanctions are not unilateral Trump, and apart from that he pretty much just threatened and/or insulted Kim. Willingness to talk is the only real merit by now, if it turns out to be one. Meaning, he'd have to add some more until I would consider him a driving factor to peace.

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2018, 10:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: These kinds of talks have happened in the past (Bush, Clinton) 

So Bush and Clinton meet with the leader of NK? 

[ballsofsteel]

Porkchop just wants some money. Supposedly he will agree to stop testing any more missiles that can reach our mainland (too bad Hawaii & Alaska). He'll keep any nukes he has now. The mistake was made years ago when our country gave in to North Diarrhea and paid them ransoms to "be good". Porkchop will just to manipulate Dave to get sanctions lifted and some cash. He will probably still try to test Nukes in secret. It appears Dave won the stair down with Porkchop.
Can you imagine how much money our country must have to pay billions of dollars every year to countries to not start trouble?

[GMDino]

(03-09-2018, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So Bush and Clinton meet with the leader of NK? 

Terribly sorry.  I meant the "freeze" of the nuke program with the promise of "talks"
 
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

Quote:Updated: March 2018

For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology. Those efforts have been replete with periods of crisis, stalemate, and tentative progress towards denuclearization, and North Korea has long been a key challenge for the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.


The United States has pursued a variety of policy responses to the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea, including military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls. The United States also engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives to have North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid.


In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.
Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.


The second major diplomatic effort were the Six-Party Talks initiated in August of 2003 which involved China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. In between periods of stalemate and crisis, those talks arrived at critical breakthroughs in 2005, when North Korea pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the NPT, and in 2007, when the parties agreed on a series of steps to implement that 2005 agreement.



Those talks, however, broke down in 2009 following disagreements over verification and an internationally condemned North Korea rocket launch. Pyongyang has since stated that it would never return to the talks and is no longer bound by their agreements. The other five parties state that they remain committed to the talks, and have called for Pyongyang to recommit to its 2005 denuclearization pledge.

Below is a partial summary of the information at the link.

Quote:June 15, 1994: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter negotiates a deal with North Korea in which Pyongyang confirms its willingness to “freeze” its nuclear weapons program and resume high-level talks with the United States. Bilateral talks are expected to begin, provided that North Korea allows the IAEA safeguards to remain in place, does not refuel its 5-megawatt nuclear reactor, and does not reprocess any spent nuclear fuel.

July 9, 1994: North Korean President Kim Il Sung dies and is succeeded by his son, Kim Jong Il.
August 12, 1994: An “agreed statement” is signed that establishes a three-stage process for the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. In return, the United States promises to move toward normalized economic and diplomatic relations and assures North Korea that it will provide assistance with the construction of proliferation-resistant LWRs to replace North Korea’s graphite-moderated reactors.
October 21, 1994: The United States and North Korea conclude four months of negotiations by adopting the “Agreed Framework” in Geneva. To resolve U.S. concerns about Pyongyang’s plutonium-producing reactors and the Yongbyon reprocessing facility, the agreement calls for North Korea to freeze and eventually eliminate its nuclear facilities, a process that will require dismantling three nuclear reactors, two of which are still under construction. North Korea also allows the IAEA to verify compliance through “special inspections,” and it agrees to allow 8,000 spent nuclear reactor fuel elements to be removed to a third country.
In exchange, Pyongyang will receive two LWRs and annual shipments of heavy fuel oil during construction of the reactors. The LWRs will be financed and constructed through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), a multinational consortium.
Calling for movement toward full normalization of political and economic relations, the accord also serves as a jumping-off point for U.S.-North Korean dialogue on Pyongyang’s development and export of ballistic missiles, as well as other issues of bilateral concern.
November 28, 1994: The IAEA announces that it had confirmed that construction has been halted at North Korea’s Nyongbyon and Taochon nuclear facilities and that these facilities are not operational.


August 27-29, 2003
The first round of six-party talks is held in Beijing. The talks achieve no significant breakthroughs.

North Korea proposes a step-by-step solution, calling for the United States to conclude a “non-aggression treaty,” normalize bilateral diplomatic relations, refrain from hindering North Korea’s “economic cooperation” with other countries, complete the reactors promised under the Agreed Framework, resume suspended fuel oil shipments, and increase food aid. Pyongyang states that, in return, it will dismantle its “nuclear facility,” as well as end missile testing and export of missiles and related components. North Korea issues an explicit denial for the first time that it has a uranium-enrichment program.

The North Korean delegation, however, also threatens to test nuclear weapons or “demonstrate the means that they would have to deliver” them, according to a senior State Department official.

September 14, 2003: President George W. Bush agrees to waive the restrictions on U.S. funding to KEDO but only pledges to provide $3.72 million solely for administrative expenses. The United States does not provide any further funding for KEDO after 2003.


October 2, 2003
KCNA reports a statement from a North Korean Foreign Ministry official indicating that North Korea completed reprocessing its 8,000 spent fuel rods and “made a switchover in the use” of the spent fuel “in the direction increasing [sic] its nuclear deterrent force.” The official also states that Pyongyang will continue to produce and reprocess additional spent fuel when deemed necessary.

October 16, 2003
A statement from a North Korean Foreign Ministry official reported by KCNA suggests that Pyongyang may test nuclear weapons, stating that it will “take a measure to open its nuclear deterrent to the public as a physical force” if the United States refuses to change its negotiating stance.

October 19, 2003
President George W. Bush states during a trip to Asia that the United States is willing to provide a written, multilateral guarantee that the United States will not attack North Korea, but makes it clear that a formal nonaggression pact is “off the table.” Powell made a similar statement August 1.

November 6, 2003: North Korean ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ri Yong Ho, tells Reuters that North Korea possesses a workable nuclear device.

November 21, 2003
The KEDO Executive Board announces that it will suspend construction of two light-water nuclear reactors for one year beginning December 1. The Board adds that the project’s future “will be assessed and decided by the Executive Board before the expiration of the suspension period.” Department of State spokesperson Adam Ereli said November 5, however, that Bush administration believes there is “no future for the project.”

2004

January 8, 2004
North Korea allows an unofficial U.S. delegation to visit its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and displays what it calls its “nuclear deterrent.” North Korean officials allow delegation member Siegfried Hecker—a senior fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory—to handle a jar containing what appears to be plutonium metal. North Korean officials claim that it came from reprocessing the spent fuel rods from its five-megawatt reactor.

The delegation also visits the spent fuel cooling pond that had been monitored under the Agreed Framework and observes that the rods have been removed. The North Korean officials tell the delegation that Pyongyang reprocessed all of the spent fuel rods between January and June 2003.

Hecker later tells the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he does not know for certain that the substance was plutonium and that he could not determine when it was produced.

February 25-28, 2004
A second round of six-party talks takes place in Beijing. Little progress is made, although both sides agree to hold another round of talks before the end of June 2004, as well as a working group meeting to be held beforehand.

South Korea’s deputy foreign minister, Lee Soo-hyuck, issues a proposal—which China and Russia both support—to provide energy assistance to the North in return for a freeze of its nuclear program, along with a promise to dismantle it.

Wang Yi, China’s envoy to the six-party talks, states afterwards that “sharp” differences remain between Washington and Pyongyang. According to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, two specific issues divide North Korea and other participants. The first is that the United States, Japan, and South Korea want all of North Korea’s nuclear programs to be dismantled, but North Korea wishes to be allowed to retain one for “peaceful purposes.” The second is that Washington and the other two governments want Pyongyang to acknowledge that it has a uranium-enrichment program.

June 23-26, 2004: A third round of six-party talks is held in Beijing. The United States presents a detailed proposal for resolving the crisis.

The proposal calls for a two-phase process in which North Korea would receive fuel oil from China, South Korea, and Russia after agreeing to first freeze, then dismantle its nuclear programs. The United States and the other parties to the talks would also draft a multilateral security agreement and begin surveying North Korea’s energy needs. Additionally, Washington would begin bilateral discussions with Pyongyang on the removal of U.S. sanctions. The benefits spelled out in the proposal could be withdrawn if North Korea did not comply.

According to a June 28 North Korean Foreign Ministry statement, North Korea counters by proposing to “refrain from” producing, testing, or transferring nuclear weapons and to freeze “all the facilities related to nuclear weapons and products churned out by their operation.” According to the Foreign Ministry, the length of the freeze depends on “whether reward is made or not.”
November 26, 2004: The KEDO Executive Board announces that it will extend its suspension of the light-water reactor project for another year, beginning December 1.

Also note that this site is not where I learned of past attempts and past promises from NK but it had a little more detail.


If Trump meets with Kim Jung Un (no dates and times have been set and Tillerson has already started talking down the meetings) it would interesting.  I suppose some would try to compare it to Nixon's trip to China.  I also suppose people should REALLY stop comparing Trup to Nixon as it does not reflect well on Trump.  

[Dill]

(03-09-2018, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Terribly sorry.  I meant the "freeze" of the nuke program with the promise of "talks"
 
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

LOL a gap there between 1994 and 2003.  NK hasn't been the only dishonest player.