Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Kim Jong Un v Trump 06:51 - Jun 13 with 1769 viewsaleanddale

WOW

Bloody fascinating to watch.

Who would have thought that the UN-STER would be the one running rings around trump!.

0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 07:46 - Jun 13 with 1178 viewsKenBoon

In what way did he run rings around him? I don't particularly like the west normalising Kim Wrong-Um. He and his family starve and murder their people. However fake smiles is probably the only way to improve things and save countless lives in North Korea. Huge credit to South Korea, Japan, China, the United States and yes that includes Trump.
1
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 10:11 - Jun 13 with 1095 viewsNigeriamark

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 07:46 - Jun 13 by KenBoon

In what way did he run rings around him? I don't particularly like the west normalising Kim Wrong-Um. He and his family starve and murder their people. However fake smiles is probably the only way to improve things and save countless lives in North Korea. Huge credit to South Korea, Japan, China, the United States and yes that includes Trump.


Other than the hype, I am not so sure what has actually been achieved. The key meeting was when Kim took the train to China 2 months ago which was his first ever foreign visit. He won't agree to anything without China rubber stamping it first. However no reason to think China will not play ball. If North Korea giving up weapons in exchange for America completely withdrawing from the region happens, then it will be a positive outcome for all. Just that the real work will have been done in Beijing not Singapore
0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 10:38 - Jun 13 with 1064 views49thseason

According to Dennis Rodman, KJU wanted talks 5 years ago but Obama refused to even talk to Rodman. Since the Beijing meeting, there have been numerous discussion between the US State Department and KJU which have been unreported in the UK press. Ending a 70-year "state of war" is a huge achievement if it comes to fruition and it is churlish not to give credit to Trump and his team for setting this in motion when everyone else failed. Bringing NOKO into the 21st century will be a massive boost to world peace and will also prevent the proliferation of Nuclear weapons and technology especially into the Middle East.
2
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:23 - Jun 13 with 1031 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 10:11 - Jun 13 by Nigeriamark

Other than the hype, I am not so sure what has actually been achieved. The key meeting was when Kim took the train to China 2 months ago which was his first ever foreign visit. He won't agree to anything without China rubber stamping it first. However no reason to think China will not play ball. If North Korea giving up weapons in exchange for America completely withdrawing from the region happens, then it will be a positive outcome for all. Just that the real work will have been done in Beijing not Singapore


Every news channel since the meeting has been blighted by the dismal "so what's been achieved?" agenda

It was a first meeting - in total, 38 minutes in private, but of immense significance *IF* it leads to better relations between NK and the international community, and between the NK regime and it's people. Without the first eyeballing, nothing would happen

Really, the major news channels should go back to journalism school - if such a thing still exists. Perhaps Fitz could advise...

Purveyor of fine emetics

1
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:23 - Jun 13 with 1030 viewsjudd

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 10:38 - Jun 13 by 49thseason

According to Dennis Rodman, KJU wanted talks 5 years ago but Obama refused to even talk to Rodman. Since the Beijing meeting, there have been numerous discussion between the US State Department and KJU which have been unreported in the UK press. Ending a 70-year "state of war" is a huge achievement if it comes to fruition and it is churlish not to give credit to Trump and his team for setting this in motion when everyone else failed. Bringing NOKO into the 21st century will be a massive boost to world peace and will also prevent the proliferation of Nuclear weapons and technology especially into the Middle East.


Plus they're getting a McDonalds.
0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:26 - Jun 13 with 1020 viewsDaley_Lama

North Korea have achieved the proposed withdrawal of USA troops from their borders and the lifting of sanctions. This was achieved by developing nuclear capability against the wishes of the world.

Donald Trump has achieved what he wanted too. In his "Make America Great Again" campaign he is building a southern wall, imposing taxes, de-crying NATO costs and now reducing the massive expenditure of forces and war games in the Korean peninsula.

Win Win for both parties.

Plus the McDonalds.
[Post edited 13 Jun 11:27]

Poll: DF in or out

1
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:28 - Jun 13 with 1016 viewsDaleiLama

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:23 - Jun 13 by judd

Plus they're getting a McDonalds.


Better than the alternative - Slug and Lettuce (pray).

Come on you Dayul
Poll: Simple question - do you think RAFC should we pay to re-lay the pitch?

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:39 - Jun 13 with 996 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:28 - Jun 13 by DaleiLama

Better than the alternative - Slug and Lettuce (pray).


Depends whether spoons are needed. They could melt their nukes down to make some? (Perhaps by accident?)

Purveyor of fine emetics

0
Login to get fewer ads

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:51 - Jun 13 with 983 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:23 - Jun 13 by D_Alien

Every news channel since the meeting has been blighted by the dismal "so what's been achieved?" agenda

It was a first meeting - in total, 38 minutes in private, but of immense significance *IF* it leads to better relations between NK and the international community, and between the NK regime and it's people. Without the first eyeballing, nothing would happen

Really, the major news channels should go back to journalism school - if such a thing still exists. Perhaps Fitz could advise...


I know that major news outlets have pretty much lost all credibility at this point but they've gone down even further in my estimations after the way they've covered this.

The irony of the media (it's not just them either) playing the "Trump is a childish giant man-baby" card whilst refusing to give the guy any credit whatsoever for his role in these events is really quite something
1

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 13:04 - Jun 13 with 907 viewsEllDale

Is part of the deal that Trump can build hotels and golf courses on those lovely, unspoilt North Korean beaches?
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 15:55 - Jun 13 with 828 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 11:51 - Jun 13 by JimmyRustler

I know that major news outlets have pretty much lost all credibility at this point but they've gone down even further in my estimations after the way they've covered this.

The irony of the media (it's not just them either) playing the "Trump is a childish giant man-baby" card whilst refusing to give the guy any credit whatsoever for his role in these events is really quite something


Genuine question - what would you be providing credit for?
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 16:28 - Jun 13 with 792 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 15:55 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Genuine question - what would you be providing credit for?


If literally anyone else was in in office, it would be enough to answer that question with:

He/She is the *first* *ever* President to meet with a North Korean head of state/even attempt to negotiate with one of their lunatics.

I'm not joking either. After all, they (whoever they are) laughably gave the last president the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing. Can you imagine if this was Obama for example taking part in this summit? The media would be absolutely creaming themselves and he'd be on the cover of every bloody magazine. Anyone questioning his involvement would be instantly shut down.

However, because it's Trump and because you asked that question, I'm thinking you'll want a more detailed answer? I'd be more than happy to provide that when I'm at home.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 16:50 - Jun 13 with 756 viewsScunnydale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 16:28 - Jun 13 by JimmyRustler

If literally anyone else was in in office, it would be enough to answer that question with:

He/She is the *first* *ever* President to meet with a North Korean head of state/even attempt to negotiate with one of their lunatics.

I'm not joking either. After all, they (whoever they are) laughably gave the last president the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing. Can you imagine if this was Obama for example taking part in this summit? The media would be absolutely creaming themselves and he'd be on the cover of every bloody magazine. Anyone questioning his involvement would be instantly shut down.

However, because it's Trump and because you asked that question, I'm thinking you'll want a more detailed answer? I'd be more than happy to provide that when I'm at home.


I don't want to belittle any potentially positive outcome of these talks which are, at this stage, definitely a Good Thing.

However, I think people are more reticent to get excited by this because of what else Trump has done in his tenure so far. Stuff like withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, imposing the current increase in trade tariffs with the likes of Canada and ourselves, causing deaths in Palestine/Israel by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and his comments aimed at Mexico and Mexicans. That's just off the top of my head.

I'm not saying you or anyone should think all those decisions are Bad Things, but many people do.

(Grammar edit)
[Post edited 13 Jun 16:51]
1
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 17:07 - Jun 13 with 733 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 16:28 - Jun 13 by JimmyRustler

If literally anyone else was in in office, it would be enough to answer that question with:

He/She is the *first* *ever* President to meet with a North Korean head of state/even attempt to negotiate with one of their lunatics.

I'm not joking either. After all, they (whoever they are) laughably gave the last president the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing. Can you imagine if this was Obama for example taking part in this summit? The media would be absolutely creaming themselves and he'd be on the cover of every bloody magazine. Anyone questioning his involvement would be instantly shut down.

However, because it's Trump and because you asked that question, I'm thinking you'll want a more detailed answer? I'd be more than happy to provide that when I'm at home.


That's a lot to unpack, but here goes:

"He/She is the *first* *ever* President to meet with a North Korean head of state/even attempt to negotiate with one of their lunatics."

- Met? OK. Attempted to negotiate? Nope. Not really. There are pretty comprehensive sources out there (Arms Control.org is a useful one) that detail the efforts over the years to negotiate with the DPRK, but know that there have been several. The Clinton administration's participation in the "Agreed Framework" structure (1994) would be a good place to start. Or you could try the "Six-Party Talks" which the Bush Administration heavily invested in between 2003 and 2007. DPRK pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the non-proliferation treaty. You can probably guess how it turned out.

"After all, they (whoever they are) laughably gave the last president the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing."

Well for starters, the media doesn't award Nobel prizes - that would be the Nobel Committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. I'm sure they would argue that it wasn't for "absolutely nothing". You can read their statements if you like, but worth noting that Roosevelt, Wilson and Carter were awarded NPPs also. Regardless of all that, I'm not sure how relevant that is to my question about the media providing Trump with credit?

"Can you imagine if this was Obama for example taking part in this summit? The media would be absolutely creaming themselves and he'd be on the cover of every bloody magazine."

OK, this part I can see a little of your point. Obama received overwhelmingly positive coverage from centrist and left-leaning media (although you will also reclass that Fox News, the National Review etc. tore Obama apart for claiming on his campaign trail that he would meet with DPRK leaders without preconditions - their views on that have unsurprisingly changed somewhat).

"However, because it's Trump and because you asked that question, I'm thinking you'll want a more detailed answer? I'd be more than happy to provide that when I'm at home."

It is a genuine question. DPRK has claimed they would either not pursue nuclear weapons, or would denuclearise in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Why is it derisory to be reluctant to offer credit to Trump for obtaining such a devalued claim in return for legitimisation of a despotic regime and cessation of military preparedness in the Korean peninsula?
2
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 17:09 - Jun 13 with 728 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 16:50 - Jun 13 by Scunnydale

I don't want to belittle any potentially positive outcome of these talks which are, at this stage, definitely a Good Thing.

However, I think people are more reticent to get excited by this because of what else Trump has done in his tenure so far. Stuff like withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, withdrawing from the nuclear deal with Iran, imposing the current increase in trade tariffs with the likes of Canada and ourselves, causing deaths in Palestine/Israel by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, and his comments aimed at Mexico and Mexicans. That's just off the top of my head.

I'm not saying you or anyone should think all those decisions are Bad Things, but many people do.

(Grammar edit)
[Post edited 13 Jun 16:51]


You're right in what you're saying but it really shouldn't be like that.

Every decision and outcome should be judged on its own merits and it's silly to write this latest series of events off by proxy simply because you don't agree with some of the other decisions he's made (not talking about specifically btw just in general terms).

I'm not exactly a fan of Trump but I'm mature enough to give him praise when he does something positive whilst also chastising and criticising him for when he gets something wrong
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 17:58 - Jun 13 with 675 viewsJimmyRustler

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 17:07 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

That's a lot to unpack, but here goes:

"He/She is the *first* *ever* President to meet with a North Korean head of state/even attempt to negotiate with one of their lunatics."

- Met? OK. Attempted to negotiate? Nope. Not really. There are pretty comprehensive sources out there (Arms Control.org is a useful one) that detail the efforts over the years to negotiate with the DPRK, but know that there have been several. The Clinton administration's participation in the "Agreed Framework" structure (1994) would be a good place to start. Or you could try the "Six-Party Talks" which the Bush Administration heavily invested in between 2003 and 2007. DPRK pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the non-proliferation treaty. You can probably guess how it turned out.

"After all, they (whoever they are) laughably gave the last president the Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing."

Well for starters, the media doesn't award Nobel prizes - that would be the Nobel Committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. I'm sure they would argue that it wasn't for "absolutely nothing". You can read their statements if you like, but worth noting that Roosevelt, Wilson and Carter were awarded NPPs also. Regardless of all that, I'm not sure how relevant that is to my question about the media providing Trump with credit?

"Can you imagine if this was Obama for example taking part in this summit? The media would be absolutely creaming themselves and he'd be on the cover of every bloody magazine."

OK, this part I can see a little of your point. Obama received overwhelmingly positive coverage from centrist and left-leaning media (although you will also reclass that Fox News, the National Review etc. tore Obama apart for claiming on his campaign trail that he would meet with DPRK leaders without preconditions - their views on that have unsurprisingly changed somewhat).

"However, because it's Trump and because you asked that question, I'm thinking you'll want a more detailed answer? I'd be more than happy to provide that when I'm at home."

It is a genuine question. DPRK has claimed they would either not pursue nuclear weapons, or would denuclearise in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Why is it derisory to be reluctant to offer credit to Trump for obtaining such a devalued claim in return for legitimisation of a despotic regime and cessation of military preparedness in the Korean peninsula?


I meant meet AND negotiate in face to face terms. I think most people know of the Clinton's business with NK since good old Bill recently tried saving face and putting himself in the spotlight on that issue.

The 'whoever they are' in brackets was in jest and a reference to the linguistic use of "they" as some sort of anecdotal evidence. I'm not specifically talking about the media anyway (as I said in my previous post, it isn't just them). I know who gives the prizes out and it was wholly unjustified either way. It's relevant cause it adds context to my next statement about Obama. They were both part of the same point.

I haven't seen anyone legitimising the NK regime, save for a few news outlets who have somehow tried to portray KJU as the "good" guy in all of this. It's also not about 'obtaining a devalued claim' as you put it either.

The question to ask yourself is, why hasn't a meeting like this taken place before now? Let's assume that you're right and it's not for the want of trying on the side of the U.S (and rest of the West) and that NK have been obstructionists with regards to any effort that's been made to make face-to-face contact.

IMO, the fact that Trump is a "one-off" (in terms of presidential material at least), has definitely meant a change in tact. I think we can both agree that the appeasement has been the agreed upon tactic when dealing with North Korea, at least in "modern" times. To be fair, it's hard to criticise this when you have maniacal tyrants at the helm with their finger hovering so precariously close to the red button.

However, Trump hasn't backed down - in fact, I honestly think he's sailed a little close to the wind at times with his constant jibing and back and forth with KJU.

Nevertheless, he laid out his cards on the table in August:

"NK will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen" if it continues to threaten the U.S. Especially important after NK conducted 16 missile tests between February and November (allegedly an unprecented amount for the regime - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html). Important to remember that after these comments, NK famously threatened to fire missiles at Guam if you remember?

NK continued its antics, firing a ballistic missile over Japan around 3 weeks later with KJU stating he will "tame the mentally deranged U.S dotard with fire." I think this may have been after the "little rocket man" comments. Who else would have had the balls (or lacked the brain cells) to do such a thing?

Save all the stuff between NK and SK (the olympic unity etc) because that was done mostly thanks to the work of the two nations, Trump cancelled the first summit, partly cause a NK official called Mike Pence a "political dummy" (he's not wrong) and also because they wouldn't share the planning details with the U.S.

NK official Kim Yong Chol then meets with Trump to deliver a letter written by KJU which, one can only assume contained some sort of apology, as the Summit was then back on from June 1st. Throw in a few other things such as the bringing back of the three U.S prisoners by Pompeo and you have to conclude that Trump's no nonsense approach has certainly helped put the willies up KJU if nothing else.

Of course, Trump's played a pretty dangerous game with the name-calling and such but it seems to have worked. Was he lucky? Did he know what he was doing? Who knows? As I say, the fact that he's managed to build bridges by being the first president ever to meet with a NK head of state should at least warrant some praise on its own. However, Trump is unlike anything NK have ever dealt with before and it's no coincidence that it's this regime that has been the one to break down that particular wall (had to get that word in somewhere)
[Post edited 13 Jun 17:59]
0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:39 - Jun 13 with 625 viewsDale92

If China need to rubber stamp anything like we believe, why would they? The current situation is far more suitable for them likewise having Russia on the otherside. As much as they claim they are moving to are more western state, they still remain underline communist and are really only dealing with countries like the Uk and Europe to setup massive loans they can reclaim in the future, placing are markets in jeopardy. I personally likw many many others dispise Trump and in my opinion, hes being played like history suggests but what else can he really do? As long as China and Russia stay the way they are, theyll never really support it, they may say it in public but behind closed doors its a key position in that side of world, if they can get it more open. We know Russia have North Korean work camps and we know China do an exeptional amount of business via smuggling with them plus they all lie in same bed when it comes to the West, they want us to fail but by making face theyre trying to con the West into a false position, hoping well open borders and ports and allow china and russia to openly work with them. If the west do 'get in' NK well be outmuscled by the Russians and Chinese in terms off trade. Its quite literally a rock and a hard place in terms of what we can do because we're too late to the game. *sorry if any russian or chinese person is offended*

This is the One, I've waited for

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:42 - Jun 13 with 618 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 17:58 - Jun 13 by JimmyRustler

I meant meet AND negotiate in face to face terms. I think most people know of the Clinton's business with NK since good old Bill recently tried saving face and putting himself in the spotlight on that issue.

The 'whoever they are' in brackets was in jest and a reference to the linguistic use of "they" as some sort of anecdotal evidence. I'm not specifically talking about the media anyway (as I said in my previous post, it isn't just them). I know who gives the prizes out and it was wholly unjustified either way. It's relevant cause it adds context to my next statement about Obama. They were both part of the same point.

I haven't seen anyone legitimising the NK regime, save for a few news outlets who have somehow tried to portray KJU as the "good" guy in all of this. It's also not about 'obtaining a devalued claim' as you put it either.

The question to ask yourself is, why hasn't a meeting like this taken place before now? Let's assume that you're right and it's not for the want of trying on the side of the U.S (and rest of the West) and that NK have been obstructionists with regards to any effort that's been made to make face-to-face contact.

IMO, the fact that Trump is a "one-off" (in terms of presidential material at least), has definitely meant a change in tact. I think we can both agree that the appeasement has been the agreed upon tactic when dealing with North Korea, at least in "modern" times. To be fair, it's hard to criticise this when you have maniacal tyrants at the helm with their finger hovering so precariously close to the red button.

However, Trump hasn't backed down - in fact, I honestly think he's sailed a little close to the wind at times with his constant jibing and back and forth with KJU.

Nevertheless, he laid out his cards on the table in August:

"NK will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen" if it continues to threaten the U.S. Especially important after NK conducted 16 missile tests between February and November (allegedly an unprecented amount for the regime - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/29/asia/north-korea-missile-tests/index.html). Important to remember that after these comments, NK famously threatened to fire missiles at Guam if you remember?

NK continued its antics, firing a ballistic missile over Japan around 3 weeks later with KJU stating he will "tame the mentally deranged U.S dotard with fire." I think this may have been after the "little rocket man" comments. Who else would have had the balls (or lacked the brain cells) to do such a thing?

Save all the stuff between NK and SK (the olympic unity etc) because that was done mostly thanks to the work of the two nations, Trump cancelled the first summit, partly cause a NK official called Mike Pence a "political dummy" (he's not wrong) and also because they wouldn't share the planning details with the U.S.

NK official Kim Yong Chol then meets with Trump to deliver a letter written by KJU which, one can only assume contained some sort of apology, as the Summit was then back on from June 1st. Throw in a few other things such as the bringing back of the three U.S prisoners by Pompeo and you have to conclude that Trump's no nonsense approach has certainly helped put the willies up KJU if nothing else.

Of course, Trump's played a pretty dangerous game with the name-calling and such but it seems to have worked. Was he lucky? Did he know what he was doing? Who knows? As I say, the fact that he's managed to build bridges by being the first president ever to meet with a NK head of state should at least warrant some praise on its own. However, Trump is unlike anything NK have ever dealt with before and it's no coincidence that it's this regime that has been the one to break down that particular wall (had to get that word in somewhere)
[Post edited 13 Jun 17:59]


Appreciate the well-thought-out response and the clarification on your points. In general, I have to disagree that we weren't talking predominantly about the media (so again, I think the Nobel thing is irrelevant), and I also can't reconcile your point that we should ignore Trump's previous actions in assessing his current ones (particularly the Iran deal, which was an actual deal), yet we should at the same time compare his actions and treatment against those of his predecessors. You either consider historical precedent or you don't.

If you don't think the visit has legitimized (apologies for the "z" in these words, American spellcheck) the DPRK regime, again I have to disagree. The two flags intertwined, the general pomp surrounding the ceremony and the mere existence of a meeting between arguably the most powerful man in the world and the leader of a dictatorial state does exactly that. DPRK state media will present this meeting as evidence of a rising in the country's position on the world stage. I (and many others) don't feel that this gift is worthy of Kim's "government". I'd even put aside the war games as these can fairly easily be resumed if they renege on their promise. For better or worse, the reputational impact is done - that toothpaste can't be put back in the tube now. And I don't feel like the US got anything in return that it hasn't had multiple times before. To not even get formal commitments on human rights for example is IMO reprehensible. So again - I couldn't in any sound mind give credit for anything that has been done. If you'd made me president in Nov'16 and I'd offered a USA/NK summit to Kim, he would have said yes.

Those points aside, again I appreciate your side of it and for stating your case. I don't think we will agree but the fact that discourse on a League 1 messageboard in England is better than anything occuring at the highest levels in US government is fairly admirable.
[Post edited 13 Jun 18:44]
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:54 - Jun 13 with 594 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:42 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Appreciate the well-thought-out response and the clarification on your points. In general, I have to disagree that we weren't talking predominantly about the media (so again, I think the Nobel thing is irrelevant), and I also can't reconcile your point that we should ignore Trump's previous actions in assessing his current ones (particularly the Iran deal, which was an actual deal), yet we should at the same time compare his actions and treatment against those of his predecessors. You either consider historical precedent or you don't.

If you don't think the visit has legitimized (apologies for the "z" in these words, American spellcheck) the DPRK regime, again I have to disagree. The two flags intertwined, the general pomp surrounding the ceremony and the mere existence of a meeting between arguably the most powerful man in the world and the leader of a dictatorial state does exactly that. DPRK state media will present this meeting as evidence of a rising in the country's position on the world stage. I (and many others) don't feel that this gift is worthy of Kim's "government". I'd even put aside the war games as these can fairly easily be resumed if they renege on their promise. For better or worse, the reputational impact is done - that toothpaste can't be put back in the tube now. And I don't feel like the US got anything in return that it hasn't had multiple times before. To not even get formal commitments on human rights for example is IMO reprehensible. So again - I couldn't in any sound mind give credit for anything that has been done. If you'd made me president in Nov'16 and I'd offered a USA/NK summit to Kim, he would have said yes.

Those points aside, again I appreciate your side of it and for stating your case. I don't think we will agree but the fact that discourse on a League 1 messageboard in England is better than anything occuring at the highest levels in US government is fairly admirable.
[Post edited 13 Jun 18:44]


Whoa! Formal commitments on human rights? They were in a room together for 38 minutes

As I said in my first post, this... is... the... beginning...

You're making the same mistake as the overinflated media bubble in asking for the earth before they've started the real negotiations - which can only begin once the two heads of state had measured each other up for size in person. Let's apply some common sense here - we all know the human rights abuses that make NK possibly the worst example in modern history on that score. They'd have walked away the minute this was seriously broached in Singapore. But one step at a time. It's about building confidence, and starting the slow process of thawing their regime - it'll take years. Once that's underway, then human rights will fall into the agenda. Too slow for some, i know, but better to lay the ground with the possibility of improving the lives of the suffering millions in NK than kibosh the process by making demands straight away

Purveyor of fine emetics

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 19:06 - Jun 13 with 571 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 18:54 - Jun 13 by D_Alien

Whoa! Formal commitments on human rights? They were in a room together for 38 minutes

As I said in my first post, this... is... the... beginning...

You're making the same mistake as the overinflated media bubble in asking for the earth before they've started the real negotiations - which can only begin once the two heads of state had measured each other up for size in person. Let's apply some common sense here - we all know the human rights abuses that make NK possibly the worst example in modern history on that score. They'd have walked away the minute this was seriously broached in Singapore. But one step at a time. It's about building confidence, and starting the slow process of thawing their regime - it'll take years. Once that's underway, then human rights will fall into the agenda. Too slow for some, i know, but better to lay the ground with the possibility of improving the lives of the suffering millions in NK than kibosh the process by making demands straight away


And you're making the same mistake that has dissolved discourse to frothy mush by picking one sentence in multiple posts I've made in this thread, and moving on it like a POTUS on a p*ssy. If you'd care to scroll up you'll see that the entire premise of my argument is that nothing has been achieved yet that I'd be willing to give credit for. And perhaps the 38 minutes may have been better utilized had Trump spent some time preparing for the meeting (which he himself acknowledged that he didn't). They were able to make several commitments in writing - a pledge to repatriate remains was among them. A clause pledging to work together on human rights wouldn't have been that onerous.
0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 19:26 - Jun 13 with 530 viewsSuddenLad

A 38 minute meeting between POTUS and a man whose country was divided by the 38th parallel.

Coincidence ?

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 20:09 - Jun 13 with 480 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 19:06 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

And you're making the same mistake that has dissolved discourse to frothy mush by picking one sentence in multiple posts I've made in this thread, and moving on it like a POTUS on a p*ssy. If you'd care to scroll up you'll see that the entire premise of my argument is that nothing has been achieved yet that I'd be willing to give credit for. And perhaps the 38 minutes may have been better utilized had Trump spent some time preparing for the meeting (which he himself acknowledged that he didn't). They were able to make several commitments in writing - a pledge to repatriate remains was among them. A clause pledging to work together on human rights wouldn't have been that onerous.


You've simply confirmed what JR suspected - that Trump can't be given any credit whatsoever for the possibility of bringing NK to the negotiating table due to personal dislike

Nothing in my post was anything other than rational argument, so let's keep it that way

Purveyor of fine emetics

0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 20:32 - Jun 13 with 448 viewsJumeirahDale

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 20:09 - Jun 13 by D_Alien

You've simply confirmed what JR suspected - that Trump can't be given any credit whatsoever for the possibility of bringing NK to the negotiating table due to personal dislike

Nothing in my post was anything other than rational argument, so let's keep it that way


Rational argument, sure. The whole "this... is... the... beginning... " schtick was a great marker for that. Do me a favour. And I was fine having a rational discussion with JR - you'll see that I credited him for making his points well, some of which I agree with.

Yes - I personally dislike Trump. He's a greedy, ignorant, childish, parasitic egomaniac and does not have the best interests of anyone but himself at heart. I believe his mind operates in an incredibly simplified manner which isn't suitable for leadership. I'm happy to admit those feelings. It doesn't preclude me from criticising his foreign policy; to suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

Back to the point; NK wanted this summit. Indeed JR asserted that when the summit was in jeopardy, NK apparently apologised in order to bring Trump back to the table (his words, not mine). I am in agreement that NK wanted this summit to happen in the grand fashion that it did, as a "meeting of equals". The legitimising of the regime is manna from heaven for Kim. So I'll ask my opening question again - if this summit was something that NK wanted, why does Trump deserve credit for "making it happen"? It is a simple question.

(grammar edit)
[Post edited 13 Jun 20:33]
0

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:21 - Jun 13 with 415 viewsrochdale_ranger

Obama visited Cuba did that legitimise the Castro regime?
We sell arms to Saudi Arabia which is basically a little bit more scaled back version of the Islamic state does that mean we support all of their values?

Obama And Hillary fooked Libya up and turned it into a failed state.
Bush and Blair killed a million Iraqi civilians and a few hundred of our troops.
I suspect the Donald will do none of that.

Trump has done things I don’t like. He fired Bannon and fired symbolic missiles at Syria but over all I think Trump is a force for good and at the very least he is certainly better then Hillary the war pig would have been.

The left and the mainstream media will always hate Trump because he refuses to sign bills that will allow trannies to use the same toilets as women and little girls in the more socially conservative southern states and other issues of no real importance. Trump is hated for cultural reasons not political ones.
0
Kim Jong Un v Trump on 21:25 - Jun 13 with 412 viewsD_Alien

Kim Jong Un v Trump on 20:32 - Jun 13 by JumeirahDale

Rational argument, sure. The whole "this... is... the... beginning... " schtick was a great marker for that. Do me a favour. And I was fine having a rational discussion with JR - you'll see that I credited him for making his points well, some of which I agree with.

Yes - I personally dislike Trump. He's a greedy, ignorant, childish, parasitic egomaniac and does not have the best interests of anyone but himself at heart. I believe his mind operates in an incredibly simplified manner which isn't suitable for leadership. I'm happy to admit those feelings. It doesn't preclude me from criticising his foreign policy; to suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

Back to the point; NK wanted this summit. Indeed JR asserted that when the summit was in jeopardy, NK apparently apologised in order to bring Trump back to the table (his words, not mine). I am in agreement that NK wanted this summit to happen in the grand fashion that it did, as a "meeting of equals". The legitimising of the regime is manna from heaven for Kim. So I'll ask my opening question again - if this summit was something that NK wanted, why does Trump deserve credit for "making it happen"? It is a simple question.

(grammar edit)
[Post edited 13 Jun 20:33]


The "schtick" you refer to was simply spelling out the reality which your points regarding human rights blithely ignore

I'm really not interested in your opinion of Trump, all that matters to me is whether NK is finally being dragged into the 21st century and stops terrorising it's citizens. That will only happen when they cease feeling threatened by the outside world and the meeting with Trump, following on from those with the SK and Chinese leaders, is the first real positive step since the Korean War ended. Trump has engineered that by taking on KJU on terms which he understands, instead of the usual mealy-mouthed diplomacy which has got precisely nowhere for the last 70 years

So i've answered your simple question. The problem lies in seeing progress on human rights in simplistic terms, when it's actually far more complex than one leader trying to lay the law down to another in return for the lifting of sanctions

Purveyor of fine emetics

1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2018