AA747123 wrote:

This is a true testament to Trumps power and influence as a world leader. Obama could not get them freed during his time in office. Here Trump got it done, and is bringing peace to the Korean peninsula, again something Obama couldnt get done.

Well, it's not like Trump's the first Republican president.
Why could W, or HW, or Reagan? Don't single out Obama for maintaining status quo, just like Clinton didn't solve anything there, aside from his trip after his presidency. I'm not an Obama fan, but at least he was some stability from the three musketeers of W, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I have been seeing the orange god and his fanboys celebrating that these three were released when Obama could not do it. However, two of them were detained under TOM's watch in the spring of 2017.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... -551011820

Also, more Americans were released from DPRK under Obama than have been under tRump. 10 to 3.

I wonder what the "yeah, but..." response will be from the usual low-information posters.....

CCGPV wrote:

zkojq wrote:

“We want to thank Kim Jong Un, who really was excellent to these three incredible people,” Trump said as he welcomed the three men back to the US early on Thursday morning.

WTF?

Trump insults Kim Jong Un - "What a maniac he's going to get us all killed."

Trump thanks Kim Jong Un for releasing prisoners as part of a deal. "What a maniac he's thanking a crazy person."

Ya just can't win.

Well Pence said one hadn't seen daylight in a long time and another was doing hard labor so the use of the word 'excellent' wasn't really needed

RichyJ wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

zkojq wrote:

WTF?

Trump insults Kim Jong Un - "What a maniac he's going to get us all killed."

Trump thanks Kim Jong Un for releasing prisoners as part of a deal. "What a maniac he's thanking a crazy person."

Ya just can't win.

Well Pence said one hadn't seen daylight in a long time and another was doing hard labor so the use of the word 'excellent' wasn't really needed

Its called being diplomatic and polite before a crazily complex and tenuous deal is announced.

Most of the members of this forum would applaud Kim for imprisoning missionary workers for trying to indoctrinate North Koreans with Christianity.

Does de nuclearising the Korean Peninsula include US nukes?.

bennett123 wrote:

Does de nuclearising the Korean Peninsula include US nukes?.

There are no US nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula itself. They are all naval based hardware.

So North Korea gives up it’s Nukes and the US one sit offshore.

However, Uncle Donald promises not to be nasty.

Is Kim really going to buy that.

CCGPV wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So North Korea gives up it’s Nukes and the US one sit offshore.

However, Uncle Donald promises not to be nasty.

Is Kim really going to buy that.

We don't know the terms of the deal that's been agreed to. We will know in June when it is announced in Singapore.

I very much doubt that deal includes him giving up the weapons he already has. It may curtail certain missile development, further bomb-making or other delivery options from being brought online. I'd imagine there's a test ban of some sort as well.

This is in addition to aid, trade, and money given to the north for their cooperation.

So what did Trump win exactly when he agrees to this?

bennett123 wrote:

So North Korea gives up it’s Nukes and the US one sit offshore.

However, Uncle Donald promises not to be nasty.

Is Kim really going to buy that.

We don't know the terms of the deal that's been agreed to. We will know in June when it is announced in Singapore.

I very much doubt that deal includes him giving up the weapons he already has. It may curtail certain missile development, further bomb-making or other delivery options from being brought online. I'd imagine there's a test ban of some sort as well.

This is in addition to aid, trade, and money given to the north for their cooperation.

Dutchy wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So North Korea gives up it’s Nukes and the US one sit offshore.

However, Uncle Donald promises not to be nasty.

Is Kim really going to buy that.

We don't know the terms of the deal that's been agreed to. We will know in June when it is announced in Singapore.

I very much doubt that deal includes him giving up the weapons he already has. It may curtail certain missile development, further bomb-making or other delivery options from being brought online. I'd imagine there's a test ban of some sort as well.

This is in addition to aid, trade, and money given to the north for their cooperation.

So what did Trump win exactly when he agrees to this?

I don't know. I don't know the terms of the deal. Nobody outside of government does.

CCGPV wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

We don't know the terms of the deal that's been agreed to. We will know in June when it is announced in Singapore.

I very much doubt that deal includes him giving up the weapons he already has. It may curtail certain missile development, further bomb-making or other delivery options from being brought online. I'd imagine there's a test ban of some sort as well.

This is in addition to aid, trade, and money given to the north for their cooperation.

So what did Trump win exactly when he agrees to this?

I don't know. I don't know the terms of the deal. Nobody outside of government does.

We don't even know if there is a deal already? I, for one, would not be surprised if Trump leaves there empty-handed and blame it all on Kim. He accepted the invitation with a blink of an eye, so I doubt there has gone some serious thought into it. Kim holds all the cards, Trump none.

Dutchy wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So what did Trump win exactly when he agrees to this?

I don't know. I don't know the terms of the deal. Nobody outside of government does.

We don't even know if there is a deal already? I, for one, would not be surprised if Trump leaves there empty-handed and blame it all on Kim. He accepted the invitation with a blink of an eye, so I doubt there has gone some serious thought into it. Kim holds all the cards, Trump none.

That's a possibility. These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

But all indications point to the final details of something being ironed out or a deal has already been signed. There have been many meetings with the highest echelons of all three countries for weeks (and months), prisoners have been released, the colorful rhetoric on both sides has all but disappeared, Kim crossed the border and shook hands with his arch nemesis and the leaders of both nations have agreed to meet in a neutral place. To me, that sounds like something substantial has taken place already.

If you think Trump is so unhinged why hasn't he been trash-talking Kim this whole time? Why have the prisoners been released? Why did the leaders of both Koreas meet? There's something positive going on. Will it last? I doubt it, but I hope it does.

At least something is happening rather than the status quo of missile launches and nuclear tests and sanctions and the threats, and rinse and repeat of the last decade and a half.

CCGPV wrote:

These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

Normally I would say yes and with almost every head of state, I would agree with you, but with the Trump administration, who knows?

Dutchy wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

Normally I would say yes and with almost every head of state, I would agree with you, but with the Trump administration, who knows?

Yes indeed. But does it matter how the invitation was accepted as long as there's some positive result?

Just look at the whole picture. If Trump and other leaders can pull this off then does it matter? Look at the things that have stopped happening and the things that have started happening. Its impossible to deny there has been a mutual cooling off and some positive steps taken by all involved.

We all know Trump is a train-wreck but this, so far, seems to be headed in the right direction. Lets see what happens on June 12.

CCGPV wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I don't know. I don't know the terms of the deal. Nobody outside of government does.

We don't even know if there is a deal already? I, for one, would not be surprised if Trump leaves there empty-handed and blame it all on Kim. He accepted the invitation with a blink of an eye, so I doubt there has gone some serious thought into it. Kim holds all the cards, Trump none.

That's a possibility. These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

But all indications point to the final details of something being ironed out or a deal has already been signed. There have been many meetings with the highest echelons of all three countries for weeks (and months), prisoners have been released, the colorful rhetoric on both sides has all but disappeared, Kim crossed the border and shook hands with his arch nemesis and the leaders of both nations have agreed to meet in a neutral place. To me, that sounds like something substantial has taken place already.

If you think Trump is so unhinged why hasn't he been trash-talking Kim this whole time? Why have the prisoners been released? Why did the leaders of both Koreas meet? There's something positive going on. Will it last? I doubt it, but I hope it does.

At least something is happening rather than the status quo of missile launches and nuclear tests and sanctions and the threats, and rinse and repeat of the last decade and a half.

We already know the DPRK nuclear test site was destroyed. Could it be that Kim Jung Un realized that they have no ace in the hole, nothing to negotiate with, and decided he better make nice because he has nothing to back up his rhetoric? That China would not back him up, either?

Maybe the orange menace has been too busy tweeting about how horrible this democracy is with free speech and freedom of thought and how the Russia investigation is starting go close in? Maybe he was too busy being offended by the press corps asking questions and the Correspondent Dinner cracking jokes like they do every year? He has the attention span of a gnat. Unless he is on his golf course. I wonder how many holes in one he made at Mar A Lago this week?

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We don't even know if there is a deal already? I, for one, would not be surprised if Trump leaves there empty-handed and blame it all on Kim. He accepted the invitation with a blink of an eye, so I doubt there has gone some serious thought into it. Kim holds all the cards, Trump none.

That's a possibility. These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

But all indications point to the final details of something being ironed out or a deal has already been signed. There have been many meetings with the highest echelons of all three countries for weeks (and months), prisoners have been released, the colorful rhetoric on both sides has all but disappeared, Kim crossed the border and shook hands with his arch nemesis and the leaders of both nations have agreed to meet in a neutral place. To me, that sounds like something substantial has taken place already.

If you think Trump is so unhinged why hasn't he been trash-talking Kim this whole time? Why have the prisoners been released? Why did the leaders of both Koreas meet? There's something positive going on. Will it last? I doubt it, but I hope it does.

At least something is happening rather than the status quo of missile launches and nuclear tests and sanctions and the threats, and rinse and repeat of the last decade and a half.

We already know the DPRK nuclear test site was destroyed. Could it be that Kim Jung Un realized that they have no ace in the hole, nothing to negotiate with, and decided he better make nice because he has nothing to back up his rhetoric? That China would not back him up, either?

Maybe the orange menace has been too busy tweeting about how horrible this democracy is with free speech and freedom of thought and how the Russia investigation is starting go close in? Maybe he was too busy being offended by the press corps asking questions and the Correspondent Dinner cracking jokes like they do every year? He has the attention span of a gnat. Unless he is on his golf course. I wonder how many holes in one he made at Mar A Lago this week?

Yes, the test side has been destroyed already. But Kim regime has already demonstrated that he has a missile and nuclear bomb, so what more has he to proof? Same with China, he has China by its balls, they already have demonstrated that they will not let the Kim regime fall.

So with this meeting, Trump is the one whom has everything to lose and that makes Trump possition weak and KIm's rather strong.

zkojq wrote:

“We want to thank Kim Jong Un, who really was excellent to these three incredible people,” Trump said as he welcomed the three men back to the US early on Thursday morning.

WTF?

I think millions of people are saying WTF?

seb146 wrote:

I have been seeing the orange god and his fanboys celebrating that these three were released when Obama could not do it. However, two of them were detained under TOM's watch in the spring of 2017.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... -551011820

Also, more Americans were released from DPRK under Obama than have been under tRump. 10 to 3.

I wonder what the "yeah, but..." response will be from the usual low-information posters.....

10? I dunno I clicked on the link on Obama's name and it showed Laura Ling who was released under Clinton. Who are the 10 released under Obama? I will give O credit for the Osama Bin Laden kill under his watch but that is all I will give him. It is ok to trash Trump I do it myself but give the guy credit if it's due.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We don't even know if there is a deal already? I, for one, would not be surprised if Trump leaves there empty-handed and blame it all on Kim. He accepted the invitation with a blink of an eye, so I doubt there has gone some serious thought into it. Kim holds all the cards, Trump none.

That's a possibility. These invitations don't fall out of the sky- they are carefully crafted and agreed upon before being publicly accepted.

But all indications point to the final details of something being ironed out or a deal has already been signed. There have been many meetings with the highest echelons of all three countries for weeks (and months), prisoners have been released, the colorful rhetoric on both sides has all but disappeared, Kim crossed the border and shook hands with his arch nemesis and the leaders of both nations have agreed to meet in a neutral place. To me, that sounds like something substantial has taken place already.

If you think Trump is so unhinged why hasn't he been trash-talking Kim this whole time? Why have the prisoners been released? Why did the leaders of both Koreas meet? There's something positive going on. Will it last? I doubt it, but I hope it does.

At least something is happening rather than the status quo of missile launches and nuclear tests and sanctions and the threats, and rinse and repeat of the last decade and a half.

We already know the DPRK nuclear test site was destroyed. Could it be that Kim Jung Un realized that they have no ace in the hole, nothing to negotiate with, and decided he better make nice because he has nothing to back up his rhetoric? That China would not back him up, either?

Maybe the orange menace has been too busy tweeting about how horrible this democracy is with free speech and freedom of thought and how the Russia investigation is starting go close in? Maybe he was too busy being offended by the press corps asking questions and the Correspondent Dinner cracking jokes like they do every year? He has the attention span of a gnat. Unless he is on his golf course. I wonder how many holes in one he made at Mar A Lago this week?

Or maybe its the lizard people finally making their appearance.

AA747123 wrote:

This is a true testament to Trumps power and influence as a world leader. Obama could not get them freed during his time in office.

Two of them were captured on Trump's watch, you know. Not to worry, though - Obama did get 11 US citizens freed from North Korea during his presidency.

AA747123 wrote:

Here Trump got it done, and is bringing peace to the Korean peninsula, again something Obama couldnt get done.

So the new conservative line is "it's good to appease dictators"? My how that party has fallen.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I have been seeing the orange god and his fanboys celebrating that these three were released when Obama could not do it. However, two of them were detained under TOM's watch in the spring of 2017.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/loca ... -551011820

Also, more Americans were released from DPRK under Obama than have been under tRump. 10 to 3.

I wonder what the "yeah, but..." response will be from the usual low-information posters.....

10? I dunno I clicked on the link on Obama's name and it showed Laura Ling who was released under Clinton. Who are the 10 released under Obama? I will give O credit for the Osama Bin Laden kill under his watch but that is all I will give him. It is ok to trash Trump I do it myself but give the guy credit if it's due.

TRump said the three that were just released were not able to be released no thanks to Obama. He blamed Obama for not releasing them. Two of them were detained under tRump.

Kenneth Bae, Matthew Todd Miller, Jeffrey Fowle, Eddie Jun Yong-su, Aijalon Mahli Gomes, Robert Park; Laura Ling and Euna Miller were released in August 2009, after Obama had been in office eight months. They were flown back on a charter flight with Bill Clinton from Pyonyang. So, eight. I am looking into the other two.

Otto Warmbier was released under tRump's watch but no righties ever crow about that one.

AA747123 wrote:

This is a true testament to Trumps power and influence as a world leader. Obama could not get them freed during his time in office. Here Trump got it done, and is bringing peace to the Korean peninsula, again something Obama couldnt get done.

Wow, kind of like this post is a true testament to you not knowing what the hell you are talking about. Actually the same could be said for most of them.

Kim Jong no doubt with China after his train ride there, are playing Trump. What is it they want? It all looks good, de-nuclearization of the area, ending the war, peace. But what does Trump do when Kim Jong, with China standing behind him, says, hey, we canned our nuke program, blew up facilities and released Americans. All we need you to do to make this work is pull your military out of Korea... If Trump refuses who's the bad guy now?...Maybe that's their trump card?..lol

Hey, aren't Kimmy, Dennis the worm Rodman and 'ol Trumpster buddies? Trump should take the worm with him, they can sit around get drunk and discuss hair styling issues.

TRump wants to help DPRK rebuild their economy. Flint, Appalachia, Puerto Rico, veterans still need health care, food, clean water, housing but he needs to #makenorthkoreagreatagain

I’m old enough to remember how the left characterized Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets.

For those not old enough or with liberal memories the reason we are talking about Russians today and not Soviets is directly due to those policies But then, listening to 99% of the press in Europe and 95% of it here Reagan was risking WW3.

And the same people who were wrong then gave us the Iran deal.

Trump’s handling of Nk and The Iran deal in the same week is a brilliant move. Can you imagine the pressure on Iran and the backers of the deal 6 months, a year from now two years from now with a successful deal w NK?

Trust me Iran, China and Russia can.

Sure, a lot can go wrong but we will be no worse off than we are now.

Now let’s be honest could either of the Clintons, Obama’s or for that matter Bush gotten us to this point?

You just got to love that the same people who loved the Iran deal also worry that Trump will somehow appease Rocket Man. Does anyone read what they write?

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m old enough to remember how the left characterized Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets.

For those not old enough or with liberal memories the reason we are talking about Russians today and not Soviets is directly due to those policies But then, listening to 99% of the press in Europe and 95% of it here Reagan was risking WW3.

And the same people who were wrong then gave us the Iran deal.

Trump’s handling of Nk and The Iran deal in the same week is a brilliant move. Can you imagine the pressure on Iran and the backers of the deal 6 months, a year from now two years from now with a successful deal w NK?

Trust me Iran, China and Russia can.

Sure, a lot can go wrong but we will be no worse off than we are now.

Now let’s be honest could either of the Clintons, Obama’s or for that matter Bush gotten us to this point?

You just got to love that the same people who loved the Iran deal also worry that Trump will somehow appease Rocket Man. Does anyone read what they write?

The difference is that Eisenhower through Reagan did not constantly berate and call Soviet leaders horrible names in public. Presidents from Eisenhower through Reagan did not undermine and backtrack on the work of previous administrations because of hatred of the previous administration.

Keep in mind that DPRK had their only nuclear test site destroyed and that Iran had no way of making nuclear weapons until the orange menace decided to back out of the treaty.

BTW, where is the better replacement for Obamacare and when will Mexico start paying for the wall? Remember he said he would single handedly do that? That only he could do that? Where is it?

The US now seems to have set a goal of ensuring that North Korea cannot strike the US with nuclear weapons, and are leaving it at that. That is not even remotely the same thing as denuclearization, and will throw South Korea and Japan completely under the bus.

How this can be seen as a win for Trump, or the US as a whole for that matter, is beyond me.

Mir wrote:

The US now seems to have set a goal of ensuring that North Korea cannot strike the US with nuclear weapons, and are leaving it at that. That is not even remotely the same thing as denuclearization, and will throw South Korea and Japan completely under the bus.

How this can be seen as a win for Trump, or the US as a whole for that matter, is beyond me.

I don't know where some of you get your news but is is very clear some of you don't read the news at all. Or is the true goal just spread enough FUD around, somebody will believe it?

So.....I was going to put up some links but I have discovered that GoogleNews no longer lists yesterday's news in a readily findable format that I can find, and so, there is little to no coverage of NK. Sorry. Now I understand your ignorance, we are not getting news that does not conform.

That was only slightly sarcastic, there is this tidbit from Bolton at the bottom of the page -second to last story in World - notice only right wing sources seem to be covering this story according to Google. The news bias in this country is just effing horrible.....

Full coverage
The Hill
Bolton: Denuclearization is non-negotiable — including non-nuclear weapons
The Hill 11h ago

Breitbart News
Bolton: US focused on total denuclearization in North Korea, Iran
Breitbart News 4h ago

Washington Times
Trump may submit North Korea nuclear deal for Senate approval, John Bolton says
Washington Times 10h ago

More Articles
Washington Examiner
John Bolton: US needs proof North Korea can't renege on denuclearization before benefits flow
Washington Examiner 10h ago

Mir wrote:

The US now seems to have set a goal of ensuring that North Korea cannot strike the US with nuclear weapons, and are leaving it at that. That is not even remotely the same thing as denuclearization, and will throw South Korea and Japan completely under the bus.

How this can be seen as a win for Trump, or the US as a whole for that matter, is beyond me.

The most common form of fake news is the msm forecasting outcomes rather than reporting events.

Planeflyer wrote:

Mir wrote:

The US now seems to have set a goal of ensuring that North Korea cannot strike the US with nuclear weapons, and are leaving it at that. That is not even remotely the same thing as denuclearization, and will throw South Korea and Japan completely under the bus.

How this can be seen as a win for Trump, or the US as a whole for that matter, is beyond me.

The most common form of fake news is the msm forecasting outcomes rather than reporting events.

I will ask the question again, what constitutes MSM versus ???? Is it anything not Pro trump? Does MSM mean that more people watch it ? If more people watch MSM, it must mean that more people trust MSM, or it would not be MSM ? I never did receive an answer last time I asked, I am confused, can any of our Conservative friends out there help us poor confused doubters of all things trump?

Planeflyer wrote:

Mir wrote:

The US now seems to have set a goal of ensuring that North Korea cannot strike the US with nuclear weapons, and are leaving it at that. That is not even remotely the same thing as denuclearization, and will throw South Korea and Japan completely under the bus.

How this can be seen as a win for Trump, or the US as a whole for that matter, is beyond me.

The most common form of fake news is the msm forecasting outcomes rather than reporting events.

Like "Obamacare will bankrupt the country and crash the economy!"?

CCGPV wrote:

zkojq wrote:

“We want to thank Kim Jong Un, who really was excellent to these three incredible people,” Trump said as he welcomed the three men back to the US early on Thursday morning.

WTF?

Trump insults Kim Jong Un - "What a maniac he's going to get us all killed."

Trump thanks Kim Jong Un for releasing prisoners as part of a deal. "What a maniac he's thanking a crazy person."

Ya just can't win.

because the world is so binary that there is nothing between unconditional praise and unhinged insults......

best regards
Thomas

mham001 wrote:

I don't know where some of you get your news

From the mouth of Mike Pompeo. On Fox.

Look, we’ll have to see how the negotiations proceed, but make no mistake about it: America’s interest here is preventing the risk that North Korea will launch a nuclear weapon into LA or Denver or into the very place we’re sitting here this morning, Chris. That’s our objective, that’s the end state the President has laid out, and that’s the mission that he sent me on this past week to put us on the trajectory to go achieve that.

https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks ... 282048.htm

The end state laid out is not denuclearization, only North Korea not being able to launch a nuclear weapon to the US.

seb146 wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m old enough to remember how the left characterized Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets.

For those not old enough or with liberal memories the reason we are talking about Russians today and not Soviets is directly due to those policies But then, listening to 99% of the press in Europe and 95% of it here Reagan was risking WW3.

And the same people who were wrong then gave us the Iran deal.

Trump’s handling of Nk and The Iran deal in the same week is a brilliant move. Can you imagine the pressure on Iran and the backers of the deal 6 months, a year from now two years from now with a successful deal w NK?

Trust me Iran, China and Russia can.

Sure, a lot can go wrong but we will be no worse off than we are now.

Now let’s be honest could either of the Clintons, Obama’s or for that matter Bush gotten us to this point?

You just got to love that the same people who loved the Iran deal also worry that Trump will somehow appease Rocket Man. Does anyone read what they write?

The difference is that Eisenhower through Reagan did not constantly berate and call Soviet leaders horrible names in public. Presidents from Eisenhower through Reagan did not undermine and backtrack on the work of previous administrations because of hatred of the previous administration.


You must have forgotten Reagan's Evil Empire reference. Trump is not as eloquent as Reagan but like him he knows how to deal with the bad guys.

Planeflyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m old enough to remember how the left characterized Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets.

For those not old enough or with liberal memories the reason we are talking about Russians today and not Soviets is directly due to those policies But then, listening to 99% of the press in Europe and 95% of it here Reagan was risking WW3.

And the same people who were wrong then gave us the Iran deal.

Trump’s handling of Nk and The Iran deal in the same week is a brilliant move. Can you imagine the pressure on Iran and the backers of the deal 6 months, a year from now two years from now with a successful deal w NK?

Trust me Iran, China and Russia can.

Sure, a lot can go wrong but we will be no worse off than we are now.

Now let’s be honest could either of the Clintons, Obama’s or for that matter Bush gotten us to this point?

You just got to love that the same people who loved the Iran deal also worry that Trump will somehow appease Rocket Man. Does anyone read what they write?

The difference is that Eisenhower through Reagan did not constantly berate and call Soviet leaders horrible names in public. Presidents from Eisenhower through Reagan did not undermine and backtrack on the work of previous administrations because of hatred of the previous administration.


You must have forgotten Reagan's Evil Empire reference. Trump is not as eloquent as Reagan but like him he knows how to deal with the bad guys.

I must be mis-remembering. When did St. Ronnie call Gorbechev fat and "rocket man"?

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump is not as eloquent as Reagan but like him he knows how to deal with the bad guys.

"Give them what they want and take back some small tokens of appreciation" is one way of dealing with them, yes. Perhaps not the best one?

Any comparison between Trump and Regan is ridiculous. Reagan knew the importance of working with allies. Trump couldn't care less about allies. Reagan knew the importance of a clear, coherent message. The word of Trump's diplomats and advisers cannot be relied on. Reagan took action deliberately. Trump acts impulsively. In short, while some might have had policy differences with Reagan, he was competent at his job. Trump is not.

Mir wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump is not as eloquent as Reagan but like him he knows how to deal with the bad guys.

"Give them what they want and take back some small tokens of appreciation" is one way of dealing with them, yes. Perhaps not the best one?

I think you must be thinking to the Iran deal. It cant be that you are thinking of Reagan and Gorbachev as this led to the end of the evil empire.

Any comparison between Trump and Reagan is ridiculous. Reagan knew the importance of working with allies. Trump couldn't care less about allies. Reagan knew the importance of a clear, coherent message. The word of Trump's diplomats and advisers cannot be relied on. Reagan took action deliberately. Trump acts impulsively. In short, while some might have had policy differences with Reagan, he was competent at his job. Trump is not.

Did you respect Reagan in the 1980's as much as you do now?

I ask because what can't be argued is that Reagan was reviled by the MSM the way Trump is today. We'll see if the MSM is as wrong today as they were in the 1980's. I'll make a friendly bet that that they are.

Planeflyer wrote:

Mir wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump is not as eloquent as Reagan but like him he knows how to deal with the bad guys.

"Give them what they want and take back some small tokens of appreciation" is one way of dealing with them, yes. Perhaps not the best one?

I think you must be thinking to the Iran deal. It cant be that you are thinking of Reagan and Gorbachev as this led to the end of the evil empire.

Any comparison between Trump and Reagan is ridiculous. Reagan knew the importance of working with allies. Trump couldn't care less about allies. Reagan knew the importance of a clear, coherent message. The word of Trump's diplomats and advisers cannot be relied on. Reagan took action deliberately. Trump acts impulsively. In short, while some might have had policy differences with Reagan, he was competent at his job. Trump is not.

Did you respect Reagan in the 1980's as much as you do now?

I ask because what can't be argued is that Reagan was reviled by the MSM the way Trump is today. We'll see if the MSM is as wrong today as they were in the 1980's. I'll make a friendly bet that that they are.

The difference, as has been pointed out, Reagan could speak well. MSM disagreed with Reagan on policy and pointed out how Republicans were acting like sheep. He certainly was not the greatest president ever, but he is head and shoulders above tRump!

Why is it that MSM speaks out against policy for St. Ronnie or the orange menace, they are evil and horrible and fake but when they speak out against policy for Obama or Clinton, they are upstanding and doing their jobs and full of integrity?

Planeflyer wrote:

Did you respect Reagan in the 1980's as much as you do now?

I still think he's undeserving of the adoration conservatives seem to be unable to keep themselves from heaping upon him. He did some good things, but he also laid the groundwork for the biggest sins we see from today's GOP, who took that stuff and ran with it in directions that even Reagan himself would have been shocked by. That doesn't change the fact that he was competent at the basics of running a government.

Which, by the way, isn't unique to him. George HW Bush was as well, as was Clinton, as was George W Bush, as was Obama. That shouldn't be surprising, because it's really the minimum standard for the job, and Trump is still failing to meet it.

Mir wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that he was competent at the basics of running a government.

Which, by the way, isn't unique to him. George HW Bush was as well, as was Clinton, as was George W Bush, as was Obama. That shouldn't be surprising, because it's really the minimum standard for the job, and Trump is still failing to meet it.

They also listend to Donald Trump, paraphrasing: A deal is a deal, you keep it or you get the wrong reputation, impeding future deals.

Young Trump would call today´s Trump an idiot for not carrying through a deal, because today´s Trump won´t be getting any deals in the future in young Trumps opinion. Young Trump was fairly smart.

best regards
Thomas

Thomas, Mir, Seb,

The Soviets like NK today was an intractable problem.

Normal diplomatic approaches worked in neither situation because diplomats would not, could not accurately name the problem. Diplomacy would not allow the use of the terms evil empire or rocket man despite both being far more accurate than USSR or the NK leader or as he preferred dear leader( I hope the contrast between dear leader and rocket man explains the power of the latter).

In summary, to solve a problem you must name it.

The rules of diplomacy didn’t allow for accurate naming.

Looks like there is not enough love being tossed in North Korea's direction .

North Korea is threatening to withdraw from talks based on ongoing military operations between the US and sourth

https://abcnews.go.com/International/no ... d=55184033

casinterest wrote:

Looks like there is not enough love being tossed in North Korea's direction .

North Korea is threatening to withdraw from talks based on ongoing military operations between the US and sourth

https://abcnews.go.com/International/no ... d=55184033

Well, they have canceled a meeting between North Korea and South Korea. I can actually understand North Korea again, why talks when there is a military exercise aimed at war with North Korea.

It is quite interesting why Trump has maneuvered himself into this position. Kim's North Korea seem to have the upper hand, he is playing with South Korea and America.

casinterest wrote:

Looks like there is not enough love being tossed in North Korea's direction .

North Korea is threatening to withdraw from talks based on ongoing military operations between the US and sourth

https://abcnews.go.com/International/no ... d=55184033

The BBC is reporting that tomorrow's talks between N & S Korea have been cancelled by the North and they are threatening warning the US that their summit is threatened by the joint S Korean & US military exercises.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44133308

texdravid wrote:

Aesma wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

He got it because he was black and elected in the USA? I voted for the guy but it had nothing to do with his race.

Why on Earth did that deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Because of your country's history over the treatment of black people. Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk also got one for similar reasons.

Are you kidding???!!!
Mandela fought, bled and was tortured for decades for simply being a black man seeking equal rights.

DeKlerk went against his own racist brothers and his entire white race to end apartheid. A sefthless act of courage.

Let’s see about Obama. Every step of his college and law schools and rise in politics due to either affirmative action or white guilt among white liberals. A simple politician who simply got elected.

Obama doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Mandela, Gandhi, King, or Abernathy.

He is on another list:
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Louis Farrakhan (called him the respectful minister)
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, racist preacher who was the Obama’s pastor for over a decade.

The confederacy of racist black people.

Only on a.net can a prisoner release/swap in NK (yes, spirit airlines before someone asks) lead to a discussion about Obama and affirmative action

Dutchy wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like there is not enough love being tossed in North Korea's direction .

North Korea is threatening to withdraw from talks based on ongoing military operations between the US and sourth

https://abcnews.go.com/International/no ... d=55184033

Well, they have canceled a meeting between North Korea and South Korea. I can actually understand North Korea again, why talks when there is a military exercise aimed at war with North Korea.

It is quite interesting why Trump has maneuvered himself into this position. Kim's North Korea seem to have the upper hand, he is playing with South Korea and America.

Kim Jong-Un is offering Trump a choice: stand with South Korea and miss out on a historic summit at which a historic deal could be made (i.e. appealing to Trump's ego), or go for the deal and turn his back on an ally. Hopefully Trump is smart and tells Kim where he can stick it.

Dutchy wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Looks like there is not enough love being tossed in North Korea's direction .

North Korea is threatening to withdraw from talks based on ongoing military operations between the US and sourth

https://abcnews.go.com/International/no ... d=55184033

Well, they have canceled a meeting between North Korea and South Korea. I can actually understand North Korea again, why talks when there is a military exercise aimed at war with North Korea.

It is quite interesting why Trump has maneuvered himself into this position. Kim's North Korea seem to have the upper hand, he is playing with South Korea and America.

But the North-South talk they just announced to cancel was only proposed yesterday when the exercise was already underway! Seems to me they proposed that talk just to announce the cancellation in order to show their stance

Oh and the previous Inter-Korea talk being held was hold under the precondition of North Korea understand the planned annual US-ROK military exercise

Mir wrote:

Kim Jong-Un is offering Trump a choice: stand with South Korea and miss out on a historic summit at which a historic deal could be made (i.e. appealing to Trump's ego), or go for the deal and turn his back on an ally. Hopefully Trump is smart and tells Kim where he can stick it.

I wouldn't describe the situation as such as currently (at least before this DPRK move) many people in South Korea have higher desire for a deal than the US

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m old enough to remember how the left characterized Reagan’s policies towards the Soviets.

For those not old enough or with liberal memories the reason we are talking about Russians today and not Soviets is directly due to those policies But then, listening to 99% of the press in Europe and 95% of it here Reagan was risking WW3.

And the same people who were wrong then gave us the Iran deal.

Trump’s handling of Nk and The Iran deal in the same week is a brilliant move. Can you imagine the pressure on Iran and the backers of the deal 6 months, a year from now two years from now with a successful deal w NK?

Trust me Iran, China and Russia can.

Sure, a lot can go wrong but we will be no worse off than we are now.

Now let’s be honest could either of the Clintons, Obama’s or for that matter Bush gotten us to this point?

You just got to love that the same people who loved the Iran deal also worry that Trump will somehow appease Rocket Man. Does anyone read what they write?

Pressure on Iran? You mean the pressure that Iran citizens are now going to blame those who supported the deal by saying "See, you traded our nuclear capability with the west and now they aren't offering what they promise! It proved the deal is wrong and we should have continued developing our own nuclear capability!" ? Surely it is going to turn out good!

And in case you didn't notice, what North Korea is looking for is a gradual step of nuclear abolition, so that they will disable further development of nuclear capabilities but keeping what they have already developed in their own house in the long run