Trump, Kim sign "comprehensive" document

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2018, 10:14 AM)jj22 Wrote: For the record. North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie.

Yes, but that was when we had a wimpy politician in the WH.  Now we have a fiery leader who isn't beholden to PC nonsense and political niceties. Also, his entire family is also really awesome and willing/able to take political positions.  The only question is who comes after Trump in order to keep us from electing a politician again and wrecking everything.

[jj22]

True, I guess no one though to call him honorable, abandon SK, and elevate him on the world stage. All for a 1 page document and a photo op with Kim.

Then again all it took was Kim complementing Trump for Trump to give up all he did in concessions to Kim. Maybe that's the key. We need an insecure POTUS that needs his ego boosted allowing Kim to school them on the world stage.

I'm not sure why there's a pocket of Trump supporters (not many, but obviously some) still believing and trusting Kim.

[BmorePat87]

(06-12-2018, 10:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The humorous thing is NK agreed with SK 2.5 months ago for complete denuclearization of the peninsula. 

Trump went in. Praised a dictator and gave him a platform he didnt deserve. Ripped free press. And offered concessions for basically the same deal. And it is the best deal ever. Because trumpet logic

Basically. North Korea got a meeting with the US president that they have craved for 50 years, heaps of praise about their dictator and their nation from the US days after we trashed every major democracy, and the US will ease up in Korea and Guam. 

In exchange, North Korea just reaffirmed their agreement with South Korea from April...

Sleep well, America

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 10:14 AM)jj22 Wrote: For the record. North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie.

What is interesting is what I heard about what denuclearization actually means. The term's history is that it was created to give DPRK a softer target. Denuclearization means to them that the US will stop protecting SK with our nuclear weapons, and that at some point in the distant future they will dismantle their program. When there is discussion of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, this is how the north perceives it, or I should say has in the past. We can't say for certain that the same is true for the present Chairman Kim, but it is likely the case.

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2018, 10:14 AM)jj22 Wrote: For the record. North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie.

I think the biggest concession in any of those was some aid, right?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 03:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: But what does my remark have to do with said outlets. I'm not an outlet. I see both spins in outlets, the ones saying it was a brilliant plan to show a gesture of goodwill, others seeing as an unnecessary gift without proper return and hence a bad deal.

Sure, it's sad that it was quite clear which outlet would say what even before the summit. But in this case, the "hater and loser" outlets seem to have the more solid point. Trump kind of got little in return for quite an irritating, not so unsignificant concession.
Granted, I'm preoccupied, in the sense that I don't think Trump is an exceptional negotiator and similar doubts.

Zona does a good job of pointing out my issues with this type of comparison.  I know there's an element of jest in your initial post, but this type of comparison is made by some in the US at an alarming rate.

(06-13-2018, 08:40 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Trump is from a society where criticism of a leader is permitted (at least for the time being, anyway). In contrast, criticism of Kim in NK is a literal death sentence. We in the West have always maintained that our leaders are better because of that criticism. And, for all of his perceived faults, hasn't Trump proven time and again to be a master of turning that same criticism against the very critics? In fact, I dare say that that may be the very skill that led him to be elected in the first place.

Trump criticizing critics is as ubiquitous in today's society as critics criticizing Trump. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Exactly.  The constant allegations made by some in our country about Trump being an autocrat and dictator are silly.  Such is the current level of discourse on both sides.

(06-13-2018, 08:43 AM)jj22 Wrote: He's not suspending them he's trying to end them. It's caused severe push back from both parties, including confusion from VP Pence. It was a significant concession given it was Kim's main demand and Trump got nothing in return. No need for spin if you are applauding his work at the summit right?

Inane, if he was trying to end them he'd just end them.  It's a temporary concession that costs no one a thing.  I'm applauding his efforts to solve the N. Korea issue peacefully.  The summit was a first step in a long journey.  If further steps bear absolutely no fruit then you can resume your caterwauling. 

Quote:And no it does not work like that in the real world of military operations. You can't just up and say hey lets have military operations we'll be there in 10 days!

Dur, the infrastructure and plans for such operations is in place and well established.  Starting the ball rolling would not take that long.  Dates for these things get changed all the time.

Quote:Kim is not a good man and has done some of the most horrific things to his people since Hitler. A spoiled brat. That's why no American President has ever legitimized him on the World Stage until now. That's a positive, not a negative.  The pictures comparing Trump moping and pouting with our Allies in the last 19 months vs how he is with Putin/Russians, and now Kim is outrageous. I'm glad people are comparing the two to see what is going on here, and I'm glad even Trump supporters are starting to get frustrated with Trumps adoration for Dictators like Kim.

You are correct, Kim is not a good person.  You are also right no previous POTUS has "legitimized" the N. Korean rules in this way.  That tactic brought us to where we are now, a nuclear N. Korea with ballistic missiles capable of reaching the mainland US.  If you don't see how abysmal a failure the previous tactic has been then there's not much help for you.

Quote:Sorry Bfine. Americans won't be shamed for not standing with the "Honorable" Kim (as Trump called him yesterday), and we (on both sides) won't sit quiet and watch Trump get played for a fool by him. Trump got his supporters to stand with Putin, but Kim it seems was a little too much by their reactions to the concessions yesterday.

Not Bfine, unless this is your not so clever way to insinuate I'm an alter for him or our posts are similar.  Neither is true, but whatever holds your pants up.  Also, no problem, keep throwing your tantrum, but don't delude yourself into thinking you've got an overwhelming majority of Americans rolling around on the ground beside you.

(06-13-2018, 10:14 AM)jj22 Wrote: For the record. North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie.

Rather hard to pledge denuclearization prior to having nuclear weapons.

Not impressed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 11:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Basically. North Korea got a meeting with the US president that they have craved for 50 years, heaps of praise about their dictator and their nation from the US days after we trashed every major democracy, and the US will ease up in Korea and Guam. 

In exchange, North Korea just reaffirmed their agreement with South Korea from April...

Sleep well, America

What substantive concession did we make?  I expect hyperbole from the replacement for BallofSteel, but you're a rational person.  

[jj22]

(06-13-2018, 11:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the biggest concession in any of those was some aid, right?

Yep, typically NK would act a fool, and then come to the table to get some aid relief. They'd do that every couple years or so.

[*Nately120*]

(06-13-2018, 10:29 AM)jj22 Wrote: True, I guess no one though to call him honorable, abandon SK, and elevate him on the world stage. All for a 1 page document and a photo op with Kim.

Then again all it took was Kim complementing Trump for Trump to give up all he did in concessions to Kim. Maybe that's the key. We need an insecure POTUS that needs his ego boosted allowing Kim to school them on the world stage.

I'm not sure why there's a pocket of Trump supporters (not many, but obviously some) still believing and trusting Kim.

I do have to wonder how supportive Trump's supporters would be with the president meeting with and posing for photos with this guy before finding out that Trump did it.  I was under the impression that complimenting and bowing to our enemies was more of an Obama thing than a Trump thing, but I haven't really kept up with all the perceptions floating about lately.

[jj22]

(06-13-2018, 11:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Zona does a good job of pointing out my issues with this type of comparison.  I know there's an element of jest in your initial post, but this type of comparison is made by some in the US at an alarming rate.


Exactly.  The constant allegations made by some in our country about Trump being an autocrat and dictator are silly.  Such is the current level of discourse on both sides.


Inane, if he was trying to end them he'd just end them.  It's a temporary concession that costs no one a thing.  I'm applauding his efforts to solve the N. Korea issue peacefully.  The summit was a first step in a long journey.  If further steps bear absolutely no fruit then you can resume your caterwauling. 



Dur, the infrastructure and plans for such operations is in place and well established.  Starting the ball rolling would not take that long.  Dates for these things get changed all the time.




You are correct, Kim is not a good person.  You are also right no previous POTUS has "legitimized" the N. Korean rules in this way.  That tactic brought us to where we are now, a nuclear N. Korea with ballistic missiles capable of reaching the mainland US.  If you don't see how abysmal a failure the previous tactic has been then there's not much help for you.


Not Bfine, unless this is your not so clever way to insinuate I'm an alter for him or our posts are similar.  Neither is true, but whatever holds your pants up.  Also, no problem, keep throwing your tantrum, but don't delude yourself into thinking you've got an overwhelming majority of Americans rolling around on the ground beside you.


Rather hard to pledge denuclearization prior to having nuclear weapons.

Not impressed.

I was actually referring to Bfine at that point. But carry on with the spin. My point remains, you shouldn't have to spin if you really believe Trump was successful. And yes, you can pledge denuclearization prior to having nukes. It was concerning the centrifuges and spinning uranium etc. And yes the "war games" are canceled per Trump again this morning, Are you calling Trump a liar?

Since you asked (that's how I'll take it). No, I'm not impressed with the spin.

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 11:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What is interesting is what I heard about what denuclearization actually means. The term's history is that it was created to give DPRK a softer target. Denuclearization means to them that the US will stop protecting SK with our nuclear weapons, and that at some point in the distant future they will dismantle their program. When there is discussion of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, this is how the north perceives it, or I should say has in the past. We can't say for certain that the same is true for the present Chairman Kim, but it is likely the case.

We no longer have nuclear weapons in SK.  We used to, but we removed them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 11:47 AM)jj22 Wrote: I was actually referring to Bfine at that point. But carry on with the spin. My point remains, you shouldn't have to spin if you really believe Trump was successful. And yes, you can pledge denuclearization prior to having nukes. It was concerning the centrifuges and spinning uranium etc. And yes the "war games" are canceled per Trump again this morning,

Since you asked. No, I'm not impressed.

We really didn't need someone to fill the void left by the departure of BallsofSteel.  


Sad.

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2018, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What substantive concession did we make?  I expect hyperbole from the replacement for BallofSteel, but you're a rational person.  

The face to face meeting is pretty serious leverage, but my biggest concern is Trump's post meeting statement that they'll be ending drills in Korea and Guam. I'll hold off judgement on what "security guarantees" truly means, but again, this is still substantially more than food aid for an agreement that was already made 2 months ago. 

[jj22]

(06-13-2018, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We really didn't need someone to fill the void left by the departure of BallsofSteel.  


Sad.

Shrugs. I have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of people in here (on both sides) who know better than to trust Kim. I'm not alone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 11:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The face to face meeting is pretty serious leverage, but my biggest concern is Trump's post meeting statement that they'll be ending drills in Korea and Guam. I'll hold off judgement on what "security guarantees" truly means, but again, this is still substantially more than food aid for an agreement that was already made 2 months ago. 

This is what I don't get regarding the "we gave up so much" argument.  Both concessions involve zero cost and are completely and almost immediately reversible.  They let Kim beat the drum at home and mean nothing outside of that.  The endgame is what is important and not giving up too much to get there.  As of right now we've given virtual concessions, nothing concrete at all.  I'm honestly baffled by the opposing viewpoint on this one.

[fredtoast]

“Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office,” Trump said on Twitter Wednesday shortly after arriving back in Washington from his meetings in Singapore with Kim. “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2018, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: We no longer have nuclear weapons in SK.  We used to, but we removed them.

We fly B-2s and B-52s over the peninsula and will not confirm nor deny a nuclear payload on board. We have submarines in nearby waters with ballistic missile capabilities.

The lack of a US nuclear arsenal on SK land does not mean that we do not provide protection with nuclear weapons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-13-2018, 12:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We fly B-2s and B-52s over the peninsula and will not confirm nor deny a nuclear payload on board. We have submarines in nearby waters with ballistic missile capabilities.

The lack of a US nuclear arsenal on SK land does not mean that we do not provide protection with nuclear weapons.

One Ohio class SSBN has more nuclear warheads on it than probably every country outside the top five have in their entire arsenal.  Having no land based nukes in S. Korea means absolutely nothing, as you rightfully point out.

[BmorePat87]

(06-13-2018, 11:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is what I don't get regarding the "we gave up so much" argument.  Both concessions involve zero cost and are completely and almost immediately reversible.  They let Kim beat the drum at home and mean nothing outside of that.  The endgame is what is important and not giving up too much to get there.  As of right now we've given virtual concessions, nothing concrete at all.  I'm honestly baffled by the opposing viewpoint on this one.

Zero cost in what sense? There's certainly a security cost to South Korea. There's a leverage cost as well. Everything is reversible, sure, but is that reason enough to give up something for nothing? A better question is what did we gain that we didn't already gain in April?

[fredtoast]

(06-13-2018, 12:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We fly B-2s and B-52s over the peninsula and will not confirm nor deny a nuclear payload on board. We have submarines in nearby waters with ballistic missile capabilities.

The lack of a US nuclear arsenal on SK land does not mean that we do not provide protection with nuclear weapons.

(06-13-2018, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One Ohio class SSBN has more nuclear warheads on it than probably every country outside the top five have in their entire arsenal.  Having no land based nukes in S. Korea means absolutely nothing, as you rightfully point out.

Agree, but we have 30,000 troops stationed in Japan.  We are not going to be removing our nuclear capabilities from that area.