Everyone can agree that denuclearization of the korean peninsula is a goal worth pursuing. Trump should try whatever he thinks will work because talks are better than missile tests, but keep in mind that this is not the first time N. Korea has sat at the peace table, and made similar, even more detailed concessions only break those agreements when convenient, or simply lie about following them at all. The following a partial list of the "historic agreements" from more than 2 decades that were not honored by N. Korea. That is I believe the source of caution on this deal.philip964 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:19 pm https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-aston ... 14681.html
Trump’s astonishing concession to Kim.
MSM really trying hard to find a reason to hate denucularization of Korea.
Today in Trump's 1st term as President
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
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.
June 15, 2000: Following a historic summit, North and South Korea sign a joint declaration stating they have “agreed to resolve” the question of reunification of the Korean Peninsula. The agreement includes promises to reunite families divided by the Korean War and to pursue other economic and cultural exchanges. No commitments are made regarding nuclear weapons or missile programs or military deployments in the Demilitarized Zone.
July 19, 2000: During a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Il reportedly promises to end his country’s missile program in exchange for assistance with satellite launches from countries that have expressed concern about North Korea’s missile program.
May 3, 2001: At a press conference in Pyongyang, a European Union delegation headed by Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson reports that Kim Jong Il pledged that he will extend Pyongyang’s moratorium on missile testing until 2003 and that Kim was “committed” to a second inter-Korean summit.
August 4, 2001: During a meeting in Moscow with President Putin, Kim Jong Il reaffirms his pledge to maintain a moratorium on ballistic missile flight-tests until 2003.
September 17, 2002: North Korea announces that it will indefinitely extend its moratorium on missile testing as part of the North Korea-Japan Pyongyang Declaration signed during a meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
A portion of the North Korea-Japan declaration references nuclear weapons, saying that the two countries “affirmed the pledge to observe all the international agreements for a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.” It is unclear whether this statement simply affirms a commitment to existing agreements or signals support for additional arms control measures.
January 10, 2003: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective January 11. Although Article X of the NPT requires that a country give three months’ notice in advance of withdrawing, North Korea argues that it has satisfied that requirement because it originally announced its decision to withdraw March 12, 1993, and suspended the decision one day before it was to become legally binding.
September 19, 2005: The participants in the six-party talks conclude a joint statement of principles to guide future negotiations.
According to the statement, North Korea commits “to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.” It also calls for the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which forbids the two Koreas from possessing uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation facilities, to be “observed and implemented.” Washington affirms in the statement that it has no intention to attack or invade North Korea.
The statement commits the participants to achieving “the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner” and says that the parties agree “to take coordinated steps to implement” the agreed-upon obligations and rewards “in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action.’”
February 8-13, 2007: The six-party talks concludes its fifth round with an agreed “action plan” of initial steps to implement the September 19, 2005 joint statement on North Korea’s denuclearization.
According to the action plan, North Korea is to halt the operation of its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon during a 60-day initial phase in return for an initial shipment of 50,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil.
The action plan also establishes five working groups to “discuss and formulate specific plans” regarding: economic and energy cooperation; denuclearization; implementation of a “Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism;” North Korean relations with the United States; and North Korean relations with Japan.
The statement indicates that, following the shutdown of North Korea’s nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, Pyongyang is to provide a complete declaration of all of its nuclear programs and disable all of its existing nuclear facilities in return for an additional 950,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil or its equivalent.
In addition to helping to provide energy aid to North Korea, the United States agrees to begin the process of removing Pyongyang from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and to stop the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act toward North Korea.
October 2-4, 2007: South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun travels to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to discuss prospects for reconciliation and economic cooperation. It is the second time in history that such summit-level discussions have been held.
The summit concludes with a an eight-point joint declaration in which both sides agree to take steps toward reunification, ease military tensions, expand meetings of separated families, and engage in social and cultural exchanges. The declaration also expresses a “shared understanding” by the two countries “on the need for ending the current armistice mechanism and building a permanent peace mechanism.”
July 12, 2008: The participants in the six-party talks issue a statement outlining broadly the process for verifying North Korea’s nuclear programs. The six parties agree that experts from those countries will be involved in visits to nuclear facilities, the review of documents related to North Korea’s nuclear program, and the interview of technical personnel. The statement also establishes a timeline for completing the disablement of North Korea’s key nuclear facilities and the energy assistance being provided to Pyongyang in return, stating that both processes would be “fully implemented in parallel.”
August 13, 2008: Japan and North Korea reach an agreement on procedures for addressing the abduction issue. Pyongyang commits to complete a reinvestigation into the fate of the abducted Japanese nationals by Fall 2008 and to provide Tokyo with access to locations, documents, and interviews in North Korea to conduct its own investigation. In return, Japan agrees to lift certain travel restrictions between the two countries and to discuss easing a ban on North Korea’s access to Japanese ports. The agreement is not implemented in the agreed timeframe.
October 11, 2008: U.S. officials hold a State Department press briefing to announce a preliminary agreement with Pyongyang on measures to verify North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. The agreement consists of a written joint document and verbal understandings which they say must be approved by the other four six-party talks participants. According to a State Department summary, the new agreement gives inspectors access to all 15 declared sites related to North Korea’s plutonium production program as well as undeclared sites “by mutual consent.” It also allows inspectors to carry out “scientific procedures” such as sampling.
In response to the verification agreement, the United States removes North Korea from the State Department’s terrorism list.
January 11, 2010: The North Korean Foreign Ministry issues a statement suggesting talks begin on replacing the 1953 ceasefire with a peace treaty.
February 9, 2010: Xinhua News Agency reports that Kim Jong Il informed Chinese authorities that Pyongyang is still committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
March 15, 2011: North Korea tells a visiting Russian official that it is willing to return to six-party talks and to talk about its uranium-enrichment activities.
March 17, 2011: South Korea rejects the latest North Korean offer, calling for actions to show the sincerity of North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization before multilateral talks can begin again.
August 24, 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 resumed talks.
February 29, 2012: Following a Feb. 23-24 meeting between the United States and North Korea in Beijing, the two countries announce in separate statements an agreement by North Korea to suspend operations at its Yongbyon uranium enrichment plant, invite IAEA inspectors to monitor the suspension, and implement moratoriums on nuclear and long-range missile tests.
March 8, 2014: China declares a “red line” on North Korea, saying it will not permit war or chaos on the Korean peninsula and that the only path to peace can only come through denuclearization.
January 10, 2015: North Korea announces it offered to suspend nuclear testing in exchange for the United States and South Korea calling off annual joint-military exercises slated for spring 2015.
July 6, 2016: North Korea signals a willingness to resume negotiations on denuclearization and defines denuclearization in a statement by a government spokesperson.
And now the most recent round of talks:
April 27, 2018: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in meet in Panmunjom on the border of North and South Korea in the first high-level summit between Kim and Moon and the third ever meeting of North and South Korean leaders. Kim and Moon issue a joint declaration, including agreements to facilitate "groundbreaking advancement" in inter-Korean relations, "to make joint efforts to practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean peninsula," and to cooperate to "establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula."
June 12, 2018: U.S. President Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore at the Capella hotel in the first summit between the sitting leaders of the two countries. Trump and Kim sign a joint declaration agreeing to "establish new US-DPRK relations," "build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula" and recover POW/MIA remains. Kim also committed to "work toward complete denuclearization on the Korean peninsula" and Trump committed to provide security guarantees for North Korea.
June 15, 2000: Following a historic summit, North and South Korea sign a joint declaration stating they have “agreed to resolve” the question of reunification of the Korean Peninsula. The agreement includes promises to reunite families divided by the Korean War and to pursue other economic and cultural exchanges. No commitments are made regarding nuclear weapons or missile programs or military deployments in the Demilitarized Zone.
July 19, 2000: During a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Il reportedly promises to end his country’s missile program in exchange for assistance with satellite launches from countries that have expressed concern about North Korea’s missile program.
May 3, 2001: At a press conference in Pyongyang, a European Union delegation headed by Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson reports that Kim Jong Il pledged that he will extend Pyongyang’s moratorium on missile testing until 2003 and that Kim was “committed” to a second inter-Korean summit.
August 4, 2001: During a meeting in Moscow with President Putin, Kim Jong Il reaffirms his pledge to maintain a moratorium on ballistic missile flight-tests until 2003.
September 17, 2002: North Korea announces that it will indefinitely extend its moratorium on missile testing as part of the North Korea-Japan Pyongyang Declaration signed during a meeting between Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
A portion of the North Korea-Japan declaration references nuclear weapons, saying that the two countries “affirmed the pledge to observe all the international agreements for a comprehensive solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.” It is unclear whether this statement simply affirms a commitment to existing agreements or signals support for additional arms control measures.
January 10, 2003: North Korea announces its withdrawal from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), effective January 11. Although Article X of the NPT requires that a country give three months’ notice in advance of withdrawing, North Korea argues that it has satisfied that requirement because it originally announced its decision to withdraw March 12, 1993, and suspended the decision one day before it was to become legally binding.
September 19, 2005: The participants in the six-party talks conclude a joint statement of principles to guide future negotiations.
According to the statement, North Korea commits “to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.” It also calls for the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which forbids the two Koreas from possessing uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation facilities, to be “observed and implemented.” Washington affirms in the statement that it has no intention to attack or invade North Korea.
The statement commits the participants to achieving “the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner” and says that the parties agree “to take coordinated steps to implement” the agreed-upon obligations and rewards “in a phased manner in line with the principle of ‘commitment for commitment, action for action.’”
February 8-13, 2007: The six-party talks concludes its fifth round with an agreed “action plan” of initial steps to implement the September 19, 2005 joint statement on North Korea’s denuclearization.
According to the action plan, North Korea is to halt the operation of its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon during a 60-day initial phase in return for an initial shipment of 50,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil.
The action plan also establishes five working groups to “discuss and formulate specific plans” regarding: economic and energy cooperation; denuclearization; implementation of a “Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism;” North Korean relations with the United States; and North Korean relations with Japan.
The statement indicates that, following the shutdown of North Korea’s nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, Pyongyang is to provide a complete declaration of all of its nuclear programs and disable all of its existing nuclear facilities in return for an additional 950,000 tons of heavy-fuel oil or its equivalent.
In addition to helping to provide energy aid to North Korea, the United States agrees to begin the process of removing Pyongyang from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and to stop the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act toward North Korea.
October 2-4, 2007: South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun travels to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to discuss prospects for reconciliation and economic cooperation. It is the second time in history that such summit-level discussions have been held.
The summit concludes with a an eight-point joint declaration in which both sides agree to take steps toward reunification, ease military tensions, expand meetings of separated families, and engage in social and cultural exchanges. The declaration also expresses a “shared understanding” by the two countries “on the need for ending the current armistice mechanism and building a permanent peace mechanism.”
July 12, 2008: The participants in the six-party talks issue a statement outlining broadly the process for verifying North Korea’s nuclear programs. The six parties agree that experts from those countries will be involved in visits to nuclear facilities, the review of documents related to North Korea’s nuclear program, and the interview of technical personnel. The statement also establishes a timeline for completing the disablement of North Korea’s key nuclear facilities and the energy assistance being provided to Pyongyang in return, stating that both processes would be “fully implemented in parallel.”
August 13, 2008: Japan and North Korea reach an agreement on procedures for addressing the abduction issue. Pyongyang commits to complete a reinvestigation into the fate of the abducted Japanese nationals by Fall 2008 and to provide Tokyo with access to locations, documents, and interviews in North Korea to conduct its own investigation. In return, Japan agrees to lift certain travel restrictions between the two countries and to discuss easing a ban on North Korea’s access to Japanese ports. The agreement is not implemented in the agreed timeframe.
October 11, 2008: U.S. officials hold a State Department press briefing to announce a preliminary agreement with Pyongyang on measures to verify North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. The agreement consists of a written joint document and verbal understandings which they say must be approved by the other four six-party talks participants. According to a State Department summary, the new agreement gives inspectors access to all 15 declared sites related to North Korea’s plutonium production program as well as undeclared sites “by mutual consent.” It also allows inspectors to carry out “scientific procedures” such as sampling.
In response to the verification agreement, the United States removes North Korea from the State Department’s terrorism list.
January 11, 2010: The North Korean Foreign Ministry issues a statement suggesting talks begin on replacing the 1953 ceasefire with a peace treaty.
February 9, 2010: Xinhua News Agency reports that Kim Jong Il informed Chinese authorities that Pyongyang is still committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
March 15, 2011: North Korea tells a visiting Russian official that it is willing to return to six-party talks and to talk about its uranium-enrichment activities.
March 17, 2011: South Korea rejects the latest North Korean offer, calling for actions to show the sincerity of North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization before multilateral talks can begin again.
August 24, 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 resumed talks.
February 29, 2012: Following a Feb. 23-24 meeting between the United States and North Korea in Beijing, the two countries announce in separate statements an agreement by North Korea to suspend operations at its Yongbyon uranium enrichment plant, invite IAEA inspectors to monitor the suspension, and implement moratoriums on nuclear and long-range missile tests.
March 8, 2014: China declares a “red line” on North Korea, saying it will not permit war or chaos on the Korean peninsula and that the only path to peace can only come through denuclearization.
January 10, 2015: North Korea announces it offered to suspend nuclear testing in exchange for the United States and South Korea calling off annual joint-military exercises slated for spring 2015.
July 6, 2016: North Korea signals a willingness to resume negotiations on denuclearization and defines denuclearization in a statement by a government spokesperson.
And now the most recent round of talks:
April 27, 2018: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in meet in Panmunjom on the border of North and South Korea in the first high-level summit between Kim and Moon and the third ever meeting of North and South Korean leaders. Kim and Moon issue a joint declaration, including agreements to facilitate "groundbreaking advancement" in inter-Korean relations, "to make joint efforts to practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean peninsula," and to cooperate to "establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula."
June 12, 2018: U.S. President Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore at the Capella hotel in the first summit between the sitting leaders of the two countries. Trump and Kim sign a joint declaration agreeing to "establish new US-DPRK relations," "build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula" and recover POW/MIA remains. Kim also committed to "work toward complete denuclearization on the Korean peninsula" and Trump committed to provide security guarantees for North Korea.
-
flechero
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 77
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Central Texas
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Yes, we should go right back to the Clinton/Bush/Obama methods of dealing with north Korea... because it was so much more effective than what the Trump administration has done. 
ETA:
The honest approach would be to start with the where we were when Trump and Kim jun un took their respective offices and then documented activity/progress from there... but that would require you showing some progress on behalf of Trump.
ETA:
The honest approach would be to start with the where we were when Trump and Kim jun un took their respective offices and then documented activity/progress from there... but that would require you showing some progress on behalf of Trump.
Last edited by flechero on Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bitter Clinger
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 173
- Posts: 2593
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:16 pm
- Location: North Dallas
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
"You may all go to H3ll, and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything." - Wyatt Earp
NRA Life Member
לעולם לא תשכח
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
To ignore history... but you should know that one. The history provided is not to diminish from what has been started, but to put in perspective that n. korea HAS NEVER honored any of it's pledges WITH ANY government (US, S. Korea, Russia, Japan, China) on this issue. To act as if it's a done deal is at best premature. To believe that this issue is simple and easy is naive. On the other hand, if this is over, the president can get back to the real enemy... Canada and it's dairy tariffs
and just for those who deal entirely in cartoons:
-
philip964
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1540
- Posts: 18225
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Anyone notice since Trump took office there is not an ammunition shortage. Did someone recently post there was an AR-15 sale some where - $350?
-
flechero
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 77
- Posts: 3486
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
- Location: Central Texas
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
So your answer would be to ignore N Korea?
ETA: just noticed your comment about success being premature...
No one said anything was a done deal! But labeling it a complete fail, before the process even runs the course is worse. Just because several past presidents didn't solve it, doesn't mean it's not worth trying or that the current administration can't.
Also, having lived in Canada for 4 years, I know better. You may not like the news cycle on it, but their sense of entitlement is arrogant.
ETA: just noticed your comment about success being premature...
No one said anything was a done deal! But labeling it a complete fail, before the process even runs the course is worse. Just because several past presidents didn't solve it, doesn't mean it's not worth trying or that the current administration can't.
Also, having lived in Canada for 4 years, I know better. You may not like the news cycle on it, but their sense of entitlement is arrogant.
Last edited by flechero on Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
mojo84
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 253
- Posts: 9043
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
If Donald Trump walked on water, people would criticize him for not being able to swim.
Just how effective has the Obama deal with Iran been? Looks like we gave them quite a bit and got little to nothing in return. We can't even verify with certainty they have done anything to comply with the agreement since they continue to deny access to inspect certain facilities. Even the liberal LA Times has covered it.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html
How about showing the many past promises, agreements and treaties many other countries have reneged on? It's not just North Korea. Does that mean Trump shouldn't try? I am quite sure if Obama would have done and said the exact same things as Trump, there would be a few on here praising him like he was the second coming of Christ. Oops!, that has already happened.
I am cautiously optimistic about the recent developments with North Korea but I refuse to criticize Trump for his efforts at this point.
Just how effective has the Obama deal with Iran been? Looks like we gave them quite a bit and got little to nothing in return. We can't even verify with certainty they have done anything to comply with the agreement since they continue to deny access to inspect certain facilities. Even the liberal LA Times has covered it.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html
How about showing the many past promises, agreements and treaties many other countries have reneged on? It's not just North Korea. Does that mean Trump shouldn't try? I am quite sure if Obama would have done and said the exact same things as Trump, there would be a few on here praising him like he was the second coming of Christ. Oops!, that has already happened.
I am cautiously optimistic about the recent developments with North Korea but I refuse to criticize Trump for his efforts at this point.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
-
philip964
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1540
- Posts: 18225
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Ronald Regan quote?mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:22 am If Donald Trump walked on water, people would criticize him for not being able to swim.
Just how effective has the Obama deal with Iran been? Looks like we gave them quite a bit and got little to nothing in return. We can't even verify with certainty they have done anything to comply with the agreement since they continue to deny access to inspect certain facilities. Even the liberal LA Times has covered it.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html
How about showing the many past promises, agreements and treaties many other countries have reneged on? It's not just North Korea. Does that mean Trump shouldn't try? I am quite sure if Obama would have done and said the exact same things as Trump, there would be a few on here praising him like he was the second coming of Christ. Oops!, that has already happened.
I am cautiously optimistic about the recent developments with North Korea but I refuse to criticize Trump for his efforts at this point.
-
mojo84
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 253
- Posts: 9043
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
What part? Not sure where I got any of it but it just came to mind when I read some of the posts on here.philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:42 amRonald Regan quote?mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:22 am If Donald Trump walked on water, people would criticize him for not being able to swim.
Just how effective has the Obama deal with Iran been? Looks like we gave them quite a bit and got little to nothing in return. We can't even verify with certainty they have done anything to comply with the agreement since they continue to deny access to inspect certain facilities. Even the liberal LA Times has covered it.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html
How about showing the many past promises, agreements and treaties many other countries have reneged on? It's not just North Korea. Does that mean Trump shouldn't try? I am quite sure if Obama would have done and said the exact same things as Trump, there would be a few on here praising him like he was the second coming of Christ. Oops!, that has already happened.
I am cautiously optimistic about the recent developments with North Korea but I refuse to criticize Trump for his efforts at this point.
I may have heard Huckabee say the walk on water analogy a while back. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/15/h ... -cant-swim
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
trump has said n. korea is no longer a threat. That's what I would call premature.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... op+News%29
As far as Iran, that deal is exactly why you shouldn't rush something as serious as this. Iran did not stop being a threat because obama wished it to be true. Your point is proof that this should proceed cautiously. As far as other treaty violations, that is a deflection using a what aboutism that seems popular among trump apologists and has no relation to the ongoing issues with nuclear weapons in korea.
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Let me suggest: Use your ignore list when it comes to lefties who come here to pontificate.
Then all their blather simply...vanishes.
Then all their blather simply...vanishes.
-
mojo84
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 253
- Posts: 9043
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
philbo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:03 amtrump has said n. korea is no longer a threat. That's what I would call premature.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... op+News%29
As far as Iran, that deal is exactly why you shouldn't rush something as serious as this. Iran did not stop being a threat because obama wished it to be true. Your point is proof that this should proceed cautiously. As far as other treaty violations, that is a deflection using a what aboutism that seems popular among trump apologists and has no relation to the ongoing issues with nuclear weapons in korea.
I think your contention that things haven't worked in the past with N. Korea is not only a deflection but a cop-out for not trying to avoid a nuclear North Korea.
When one doesn't have a good response they always deflect by saying something is a deflection. I am quite confident you would not be near as critical of Obama or Clinton if they had done or said the exact same things Trump has.
You never know, N. Korea may no longer be a threat because Trump may have put them on notice if they violate the agreement or try something stupid as launching a nuclear missile they will be wiped off the earth posthaste. It is hard to be a threat when your nation is nothing but ashes.
You fail to acknowledge both of the leaders are relatively new in their respective positions and haven't met before. At least give them a chance to see what happens.
Last edited by mojo84 on Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
-
philip964
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1540
- Posts: 18225
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:47 amWhat part? Not sure where I got any of it but it just came to mind when I read some of the posts on here.philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:42 amRonald Regan quote?mojo84 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:22 am If Donald Trump walked on water, people would criticize him for not being able to swim.
Just how effective has the Obama deal with Iran been? Looks like we gave them quite a bit and got little to nothing in return. We can't even verify with certainty they have done anything to comply with the agreement since they continue to deny access to inspect certain facilities. Even the liberal LA Times has covered it.
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg ... story.html
How about showing the many past promises, agreements and treaties many other countries have reneged on? It's not just North Korea. Does that mean Trump shouldn't try? I am quite sure if Obama would have done and said the exact same things as Trump, there would be a few on here praising him like he was the second coming of Christ. Oops!, that has already happened.
I am cautiously optimistic about the recent developments with North Korea but I refuse to criticize Trump for his efforts at this point.
I may have heard Huckabee say the walk on water analogy a while back. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/15/h ... -cant-swim
If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: 'President Can't Swim.' Lyndon B. Johnson
Dang, not my favorite President.
If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim. Margaret Thatcher
Better, but did she know about LBJ's quote?
https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/ne ... _on_water/
History of the quote, down through the ages. LBJ didn't invent it
-
mojo84
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 253
- Posts: 9043
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Today in Trump's new term as President
Regardless the origin, I believe the analogy fits.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.