The best thing to come out of this was stopping of the war games. Complete waist of money. I think the last one was last summer. There are many ways to cut into some of the useless military budge that's a start.
Trump Korean Summit
- Thread starter cernjSHU
- Start date
"in 1996, JPAC began conducting operations to recover the remains of about 5,000 U.S. servicemen believed to be buried in North Korea. But after 10 years and roughly 225 recoveries, the mission drew to a halt as a result of increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bringing-home-the-missing-soldiers-of-the-korean-war/
I caught two good pieces this morning. One was an AP article by Dan Balz. The other was a Fox piece describing Nikki Haley's contribution.
Full Balz article: https://goo.gl/oivDy6
One point made sounded like we learned our lesson from Iraq. We are not seeking regime change in NK and we are not going to invade them to do so. We are doing things in a top down manner that will include Kim being the enforcer of the solution.
Kim wants to stay in power. The sanctions are having an affect and are threatening his power. He wants the sanctions stopped. We have 300 sanctions on deck. Yes, Trump legitimized him with the meeting, etc. but that may be precisely the objective. Get Kim to buy into or otherwise accept the end-game and let him enforce it.
The Haley piece (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/...ca-tarlov-says-democrats-republicans-think-so) describes some of the behind the scenes work to get the sanctions in place. China and Russian support were key.
Full Balz article: https://goo.gl/oivDy6
One point made sounded like we learned our lesson from Iraq. We are not seeking regime change in NK and we are not going to invade them to do so. We are doing things in a top down manner that will include Kim being the enforcer of the solution.
Kim wants to stay in power. The sanctions are having an affect and are threatening his power. He wants the sanctions stopped. We have 300 sanctions on deck. Yes, Trump legitimized him with the meeting, etc. but that may be precisely the objective. Get Kim to buy into or otherwise accept the end-game and let him enforce it.
The Haley piece (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/...ca-tarlov-says-democrats-republicans-think-so) describes some of the behind the scenes work to get the sanctions in place. China and Russian support were key.
Last edited:
Are truly you saying you read the agreement and believe it is a bad start? Lordy, even Merge conceded it was good start. I think HanSolo liked his post.
But then again, if your kool-aid source is CNN, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, then I can understand why you believe that.
Foreign relations is a delicate mix of symbology and substance. No doubt this meeting was weighted on the symbology side as was the signed agreement.
Everything I have read post-summit that touts this as a good start also cautions that it will be long journey. As Hall85 said,"no one is spiking the football" or landing on carrier decks claiming mission accomplished.
To quote an appropriate phrase, "We'll see".
What's next?
My guess is that Trump let's this sit a little. Does not want to appear "too concerned."
I could see that if Kim carries through on his post-agreement throw-in to dismantle the one facility, Trump may follow-up with a White House visit at some point.
If Trump's strategy is to fully legitimize Kim, he may have his biggest problem with the MSM. There is an real argument that says we are making a deal with the devil. Perhpas not as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot , but certainly bad.
MSM will certainly use that against Trump. Then again, that could play to Trump's advantage and used to put pressure o Kim to also denounce human rights violations and make some big changes on that front.
My guess is that Trump let's this sit a little. Does not want to appear "too concerned."
I could see that if Kim carries through on his post-agreement throw-in to dismantle the one facility, Trump may follow-up with a White House visit at some point.
If Trump's strategy is to fully legitimize Kim, he may have his biggest problem with the MSM. There is an real argument that says we are making a deal with the devil. Perhpas not as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot , but certainly bad.
MSM will certainly use that against Trump. Then again, that could play to Trump's advantage and used to put pressure o Kim to also denounce human rights violations and make some big changes on that front.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump
Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
2:56 AM - 13 Jun 2018
Mission accomplished
Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!
2:56 AM - 13 Jun 2018
Mission accomplished
Last edited:
As I see it, there are four very positive things that of happened so far:
1- The three hostages have been returned safely.
2- Kim destroyed one of his missile sites.
3- Kim is having ongoing discussions with Moon, Xi and Trump. This is more than just US/NK with China and South Korea being totally engaged.
5- Kim/Trump had their summit and an agreement was signed which sets the stage for developing an enforceable treaty. Complete denuclearization is part of the agreement which is what the objective should be.
Long way to go, but the next 3 to 6 months will tell us a lot in terms of momentum and the progress.
1- The three hostages have been returned safely.
2- Kim destroyed one of his missile sites.
3- Kim is having ongoing discussions with Moon, Xi and Trump. This is more than just US/NK with China and South Korea being totally engaged.
5- Kim/Trump had their summit and an agreement was signed which sets the stage for developing an enforceable treaty. Complete denuclearization is part of the agreement which is what the objective should be.
Long way to go, but the next 3 to 6 months will tell us a lot in terms of momentum and the progress.
I think Candidate Trump would be highly critical of the agreement signed by President Trump. Meeting with your adversary, signing a weak and undefined document, and reducing our military might so as not to be “provocative” are not things great Presidents do. And yet, here we are. I think this is a testament to the power of the Presidency. Can Donald Trump change? The answer, to paraphrase former President Obama, – Yes he can!
Merge,
Can't believe you missed this one:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrump
Dennis Rodman was either drunk or on drugs (delusional) when he said I wanted to go to North Korea with him. Glad I fired him on Apprentice!
9:39 PM - 7 May 2014
Can't believe you missed this one:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account@realDonaldTrumpDennis Rodman was either drunk or on drugs (delusional) when he said I wanted to go to North Korea with him. Glad I fired him on Apprentice!
9:39 PM - 7 May 2014
"Mission Accomplished" was added by KnowKnow and not part of Trump's tweet.
Here is the original tweet:
As much as I am a Republican, real democracy seems to be working. I think it’s good that the Democrats question everything that Trump did from logistics to the actual meeting plus the post-execution of disarmament. This is where Trump will triumph over his predecessors - his staff will govern progress very, very closely. Trust, but verify.
Since this was a Fox interview none of the other networks will share the quote.
"I only consider it successful if it gets done"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2CDVOfPl_zlVWQA4A8BgqH
"I only consider it successful if it gets done"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAKegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2CDVOfPl_zlVWQA4A8BgqH
He literally said NK was no longer a nuclear threat in his own tweet. Silly to defend that tweet. It was a dumb thing to say and he would have killed Obama for it if he had said Iran was no longer a threat (and rightfully so)
I have also seen clips from that interview pop up on Twitter, lots of people picked up on him talking about the parents who asked him to get their sons remains from North Korea. Those parents would be over 100 years old at minimum right now. Why does Trump need to lie about stuff like that? Why not just say he was happy that we could honor the fallen soldiers by bringing their remains home? It's really odd.
Conversative values have really taken a lot of punches and never really fought back for a long time. Not being afraid to go after people and say crazy stuff is what got him elected. In my opinion, I agree with you he would be much better if he didn't tweet or talk so much, but whether we like him or not, that attitude plus running against a terrible candidate got him elected president of the United States of America. There's no reason for him to go back to the drawing board at this point to come up with a new game plan. His game plan worked and his approval ratings continue to rise.
Just think how wonderful the world could be If only you could be at his side to guide him! Gosh that would be beautiful.
In all seriousness though, as someone who has served - Him making up a story about someone's parents asking about getting the remains of their son doesn't offend you?
Fair question.
Admittedly, I am biased in his favor. As I listened to that interview the first time, that inconsistency did not jump out at me.
On the flip side here is a link to a Wapo article which I would say they are somewhat over the top in their analysis. This is a blue chip example of that phrase post campaign "the left takes him literally but not seriously".
I can offer a more simple analysis.
A. Trump is the bullshitter and chief. It is a character flaw I don't like but I just adjust my bullshit filter when listening to some of the stuff he says. Relative to the summit I think there are bigger fish to fry than analyzing that comment to the level of detail that wapo did
B. There's a decent chance he was recollecting conversations with Vietnam era parents and he was not careful enough to make the distinction.
In thinking about how my service affects my opinion of this. I think regardless of service or not everybody takes human remains as a serious matter. I guess it just comes back to being focusing more on the fact that the remains will be coming back as opposed to Trump's looseness with facts and details.
That being said if Obama did the same thing I'd be all over him. LOL
Admittedly, I am biased in his favor. As I listened to that interview the first time, that inconsistency did not jump out at me.
On the flip side here is a link to a Wapo article which I would say they are somewhat over the top in their analysis. This is a blue chip example of that phrase post campaign "the left takes him literally but not seriously".
I can offer a more simple analysis.
A. Trump is the bullshitter and chief. It is a character flaw I don't like but I just adjust my bullshit filter when listening to some of the stuff he says. Relative to the summit I think there are bigger fish to fry than analyzing that comment to the level of detail that wapo did
B. There's a decent chance he was recollecting conversations with Vietnam era parents and he was not careful enough to make the distinction.
In thinking about how my service affects my opinion of this. I think regardless of service or not everybody takes human remains as a serious matter. I guess it just comes back to being focusing more on the fact that the remains will be coming back as opposed to Trump's looseness with facts and details.
That being said if Obama did the same thing I'd be all over him. LOL
COULD YOU IMAGINE if Obama did what this piece of shit did here:
Every right wing clown would be frothing at the mouth, demanding resignations all over the place. It would dominate media coverage for at least two days. This moron does it, nary a peep. Same goes for all the glowing praise he gave Kim without a thought. Amazing what he gets away with from his base & the cowards on TV.
And just so we’re clear, it’s ok for a Birther draft dodger to salute a NK general, but athletes aren’t allowed to kneel for the nat’l anthem to strictly raise awareness about an issue that affects a large cross section of Americans? Got it. Makes total sense.
Every right wing clown would be frothing at the mouth, demanding resignations all over the place. It would dominate media coverage for at least two days. This moron does it, nary a peep. Same goes for all the glowing praise he gave Kim without a thought. Amazing what he gets away with from his base & the cowards on TV.
And just so we’re clear, it’s ok for a Birther draft dodger to salute a NK general, but athletes aren’t allowed to kneel for the nat’l anthem to strictly raise awareness about an issue that affects a large cross section of Americans? Got it. Makes total sense.
I think Candidate Trump would be highly critical of President Trump's salute to a North Korean General. It is an amateur's mistake but sometimes the moment is so big you lose track of who is supposed to do what to whom. In the President's defense the General had a lot of shiny medals.
I agree. Though, I do hope those who were critical of Obama bowing stay consistent.
::cough cough::
It would probably make more sense to judge a President’s performance by results rather than salutes, bows or curtsies...
Agreed. I think he just got caught up in the moment and reacted impulsively. Probably shouldn't have done it, but it's a natural human reaction in that circumstance. But the fact that it's a story is just another example of the media focusing on the issues that divide people but don't really matter in the grand scheme.
I had no problem with Obama bowing to the Saudi king. When you're meeting foreign leaders (especially those you're trying to make a deal with), you're supposed to be extremely courteous.
This was headline news on CNN.com this morning. Not sure why Bobbie is saying there was "nary a peep" about it. Again, this isn't a major issue in the grand scheme. The substance of the summit (and what comes after) is.
You should get something for that cough.
Here is a link with video of the full exchange.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/white-house-defends-trumps-north-korea-salute.html
They were in a receiving line and Trump extended his hand to shake the hand of the general. The general saluted Trump. It is proper military courtesy that Trump returned the salute.
In Obama's case, Obama initiated the bow to the Saudi King. The bow was not returned by the Saudi King. Big difference.
Had Trump initiated the salute, it would have been another story.
In the moment, I believe Trump did the right thing. However, it was a bit of a screw up in that we allowed him to be put in the situation. The NKs have a notorious and evil record of human rights violations of which the military has taken part in. A condition of the summit should have excluded the military. Then again, that is dicey with the NKs because many of their state officials wear uniforms. Everybody seems to be a general.
Last edited:
Sorry. That is a very hypocritical stance.
It is against protocol for Trump to solute there. I am not going to kill him for it. In the moment, he didn't know what to do so he went with his instinct. Just like Obama's instinct to bow as a sign of respect.
If you're talking about who initiated something... you are just trying to spin this to fit your argument since you were very critical of Obama.
Sorry, you are wrong.
For Trump to not return the salute, it would have been disrespectful. For Obama not to bow would not have been disrespectful. (To think otherwise Cern will be citing you for a false equivalence. lol)
Having said that, Trump could have just held his hand out and ignored the salute and it would not have been the end of the world. It would have been awkward but it would have sent a message. I doubt it was thought through by Trump and his instinct in this case as you pointed out was to be respectful.
Seriously, there is a big difference between a bow and the exchange of salutes. Totally different meaning.
The Bow (or Curtsy) shows subordination to the recipient. Just check out how the Queen of England is greeted on a regular basis.
A salute exchange between two military members is a different beast. Its origins go back centuries. One form was a mounted armored knight who would raise their visor with their sword hand (the right hand). It showed the other knight that he was not a foe and that he was temporarily disarming himself (by using his sword hand and exposing his face) and therefore was not a threat.
In modern times, it is a show of respect and lumped into the broad area of "military courtesy". The tradition is that the subordinate initiates the salute and it is held until the senior returns the salute. Unless practical matters prevent the return of salute, the salute should be returned. It is within protocol for the senior to initiate the salute but less common.
I stand by my comments no matter how sorry you feel.
Here is a tidbit of history for you. Grant (the victor) saluted Lee (the defeated enemy) at the surrender at Appomattox.
" General Grant now stepped down from the porch, and, moving toward him, saluted him by raising his hat. He was followed in this act of courtesy by all our officers present; Lee raised his hat respectfully, and rode off to break the sad news to the brave fellows whom he had so long commanded."
Last edited:
You are fighting the impossible fight when it comes to comparing Obama and Trump. The newest topic is breaking up families at the border. It's comical that the left is so focused on breaking up families at the border all of a sudden. Obama broke up families at the border, nobody ever said a word. Trump is doing the same thing at a greater rate of enforcing the law and all of a sudden it's inhumane. Nobody wants to see families broken up. However when you break laws it happens. It happens to families that migrate here and it happens to families that have been in this country their entire life.
I'm interested to see if you feel the same way about those who populate the prison system in the country.
Either those people need to be set free from prison or the children need to go to prison. LOL
I do not find people's suffering to be a source of laughter. Children should not be separated from their parents. I am sure there are many situations where that statement is not the best course of action for the child but that is my default position, regardless of politics.
Stand by it all you like, If it were Obama you would be blasting him right now. You criticized Obama for not knowing hot to give a "proper" salute. If he did so to an adversary, proper or not - you would be killing him for it.
and somehow comparing that moment to the significance in that moment of General Grant's solute? That is absurd.
