NOKO Peace Summit

[blueboss]

CNN is now spinning it as shunning our allies to buddy up with our most dangerous foe.

Will NOKO honor their agreement for denuclearization?

Huge step forward...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UKHistory]

Even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has a conventional force that can rein destruction on South Korea.

Trump appears to have unilaterally ended the joint war games we have held with our allies for decades. He openly admits he wants to bring our troops home. The meager number of troops we have is a trip wire force designed to keep North Korea at bay.

For any who have forgotten, North Korea is supported by China and bolstered by Russia to a lesser extent. Axis of evil.

Trump accosts our allies in Europe and Asia while praising foreign dictators.

This isn’t spin. This isn’t fake news. read objectively the quotes trump makes about the bad guys and what he says about the good guys.

Donald trump is not in any way acting in th best interest of the United States or its people.

[Doc]

So we are actually going to criticize him for this? We get it. People HATE Donald Trump thus trying to get N. Korea to denuclurize is a bad thing. Barach Obama won a Noble peace prize for doing nothing but promising to work with the middle east. Jimmy Carter won a Noble Peace price by brokering a deal with Yassar Arafat (you know, leader of the PLO who was responsible for the death of millions simply because of their religion....including women and children) and now reverred as one of the all time great peacemakers ...but Trump takes an approach different from something that has not worked for 50 years to try to resolve a situation where somebody is trying to lob NUCLEAR WARHEAD MISSLES at THIS country and its a bad thing. Maybe he should have sent them a plane full of cash along with an agreement with more holes in it than a 70's porn film, and the hermit king would have promised to stop for 10 years, just like Iran.

Our troops in S Korea are meaningless. We have ample forces in Japan, Guam and multiple other spots in the S Pacific. The US got all in a tizzy when Russia parked some nukes 50 miles from our border in Cuba...called it a crisis. Imagine that KJU doesnt feel too safe with troops that he is officially at war with in a similar situation. As for the war exercises, those are nothing but huffing and puffing to show what we got and what we can do. Always was and always will be. "Lets float some big ships off your coast, shoot some fake bombs" and call it an exercise because we want to be sure our missles work...because if anything actually happens, we sit 200 miles away and level the country with missles and smart bombs.

As for China, Trump has put tons of pressure on China to pressure NK. You think he hasn't? You think China is our lapdog who does as we ask?

As for our Allies in Europe, I suspect Trump wants FREE trade. He sees tariffs on USA products into countries yet theirs are not when they come into the USA. Thats not free trade. He is telling Canada to drop their dairy tariff, but thats not how its reported. Instead its a Trade War which sounds better.


So trying to bring peace and sticking up for the USA might not have been what the last president did, but I'm fine with Trump not saying "I'm sorry for being better than you", or "its our fault your country is in the shape its in", or "We all need to just be one happy family and trust that you will do too". IMO meeting with KJU is probably the most presidential thing he has done

[UKHistory]

Yes cancelling war games without discussing s Korea and Japan is a bad idea.

Our troops stationed in South Korea is a trip wire. If we aren’t there with tactical nukes, North Korea could surge over the 38th parallel and occupy part of South Korea before we can respond.

Being there means North Korea has to kill Americans in sufficient. Umbers that forces a response.

If we aren’t physically in South Korea, the math changes.

I am for peace. Peace through strength. Giving up the war games could be construed as the US from retreTing from the world allowing geographically closer thugs like China and Russia to flex their muscles in Asia and Europe.

And I’d say that about any leader jumping into a summit with North Korea.

[UKHistory]

Chamberlain met with Hitler too. Eating with a thug doesn’t make you a leader. Bowing to their wishes makes you an appeaser. Supporting thugs over democratically elected leaders makes you an accomplice to totalitarianism.

[UKHistory]

And talking respectfully is better than hurling threats and insults. But trump relates far better to bad guys than democratically elected leaders.

Maybe that skill will be good in some circumstances. That is as close to a kind word as I can get.

[KeithKSR]

Many of our allies are allies in name only. They want the American taxpayers to foot the bills for NATO, want no tariffs on their products, while placing high tariffs on products produced by Americans.

The South Koreans helped pave the way to the Trump-Kim talks and are definitely on board.

[UKHistory]

And what of the Japanese? Is it really in America's interests to not have a military presence in South Korea.

If you are going to get personal with me...

Forget it. The Western allies are our friends and sure as hell better friends than Russia or China. No relationship is perfect and Trump isn't (note: left out the most important word) looking for balance. He is the definition of the ugly American and his policies are going to isolate us and put us in a bad spot in the near future.

Trump has removed us from major international agreements, including the Iran Deal, (which is probably about as effective as the previous North Korea ones) but admits to not only being open but wants to remove US troops from the peninsula.

You want proof he is a Russian pawn? Reducing our troops in Asia and threatening not to defend Europe/NATO because the check is late from Poland are grounds for impeachment.

[UKHistory]

Many of our allies are allies in name only. They want the American taxpayers to foot the bills for NATO, want no tariffs on their products, while placing high tariffs on products produced by Americans.

The South Koreans helped pave the way to the Trump-Kim talks and are definitely on board.

Canada, England, Australia, Germany, Japan are not allies in name only. Look at the actual financial contributions. That is not to say there aren't issues.

But putting in the most money and troops also gives us a larger say in what the alliance does. That is kind of important. There is some tangible profit in that or as someone likes to say "we win bigly" because of it.

[kingcat]

Have we ever won a war without our allies? A real question and not a statement.

[Doc]

Yes cancelling war games without discussing s Korea and Japan is a bad idea.

Our troops stationed in South Korea is a trip wire. If we aren’t there with tactical nukes, North Korea could surge over the 38th parallel and occupy part of South Korea before we can respond.

Being there means North Korea has to kill Americans in sufficient. Umbers that forces a response.

If we aren’t physically in South Korea, the math changes.

I am for peace. Peace through strength. Giving up the war games could be construed as the US from retreTing from the world allowing geographically closer thugs like China and Russia to flex their muscles in Asia and Europe.

And I’d say that about any leader jumping into a summit with North Korea.


I don't know if there was any discussions with S. Korea or Japan but I have not heard any complaints from either country. Perhaps they think that cancelling the show might help lead to peace and they would prefer peace to a game.

Russia said the same about nukes in Cuba. The flight time from Japan (where we have nuclear capability) to S. Korea is 2 hours--and that is if we put them on a COMMERCIAL airline. An Air Force jet bomber is probably 3 times faster.

Our foreign policy isn't based on number of American killed. Look at our unyielding support of Israel as proof that you don't have to pack a country with Red, White and Blue to garner our support.

The math changes only if we allow it to change.

I'm for peace thru strength too. Said that all along. I'm also for doing what is best for America, and don't give a #### what Canada, Japan or anybody else thinks.

[Doc]

Chamberlain met with Hitler too. Eating with a thug doesn’t make you a leader. Bowing to their wishes makes you an appeaser. Supporting thugs over democratically elected leaders makes you an accomplice to totalitarianism.

You mean like this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

[CitizenBBN]

You can now impeach Presidents for a foreign policy you don't like ?? Who knew. It must be in some version of the Constitution of which I'm unaware, b/c my copy says the President has the power to conduct foreign affairs and pretty much only needs approval from anyone when he signs a binding treaty.

I mean, the country is going to run so much better when those who think the other guy is just pure evil can start up impeachment trials every time he does something they think is wrong. We're going to be SO MUCH better off with this mentality now running our nation. lol

History, you are so convinced Trump is outside the rules you are going to be willing to destroy our democracy over it. You don't see it, I know, you see Trump as the threat, but you are willing to impeach a President over POLICY decisions with which you disagree. Do you realize that is the real threat to democracy here?

Policy decisions btw that he ran on as a candidate, and policy decisions supported by a LOT of Americans, none of whom are in fact Russian agents. You see, you can actually want the US to stop being the world's policeman and NOT be pro-Putin. I know that's crazy, but back when the Left was calling for the "peace dividend" many on the other side were calling to bring troops home from all over the world. It doesn't make you un-American.

It may be wrong, but it's not un-American. Though I do love watching liberals be outraged at a President calling for LESS militarization, fewer troops in foreign lands, etc. It's pretty funny in an historical sense.

Trump has called for pulling out troops from all over, b/c 1) if you were the family of that person you wouldn't want them half a world away sitting as a "trip wire" for some big geopolitical game, and 2) it costs us a TON of money.

Seriously, do you think it's a shining moment for us as a nation that we all know we have American servicemen sitting there we KNOW will die at the start of a ware, and they are there precisely TO DIE so we will be forced into military action? Yes, thats the deterrent effect we are going for, but for 60 years we've had a very screwed up situation in Korea and calling for it to continue if we can end it seems pretty unreasonable.

Also, please study the history of how Koreans feel about this situation too. Many want the US troops gone, they see this as all a function of foreign powers battling for control, and they are largely correct. The only reason Korea is split is b/c of foreign influence, and they want us to all pack up and go home.

Trump didn't say they'd leave now. He called for them to leave eventually. Yet now hoping we achieve a lasting enough peace in that part of the world we no longer need massive military presence is somehow grounds for impeachment. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

Of course, we all know Jimmy Carter was also a Soviet agent:

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/01/16/archives/carters-proposal-for-withdrawal-from-south-korea-is-uniting.html

lol. Yeah, let's impeach every President who calls for things we don't like.

[VirginiaCat]

Even without nuclear weapons, North Korea has a conventional force that can rein destruction on South Korea.

Trump appears to have unilaterally ended the joint war games we have held with our allies for decades. He openly admits he wants to bring our troops home. The meager number of troops we have is a trip wire force designed to keep North Korea at bay.

For any who have forgotten, North Korea is supported by China and bolstered by Russia to a lesser extent. Axis of evil.

Trump accosts our allies in Europe and Asia while praising foreign dictators.

This isn’t spin. This isn’t fake news. read objectively the quotes trump makes about the bad guys and what he says about the good guys.

Donald trump is not in any way acting in th best interest of the United States or its people.

Are you freaking kidding me? You do realize SK is the one pushing this the most right?

You do realize our "allies" in Europe have underfunded NATO for years upon years based on the agreement and guess who has footed the bill for that?

Conventional artillery is nothing compared to Nuclear.... and can be taken out.

Get real and get out of your hate zone.

[CitizenBBN]

Also, I love the idea that pulling NK over to the West is somehow helping Putin and Russia. The last thing they want is for Kim to make peace with the West and open up his country. Russia and China have been meeting with him to try to prevent this shift, they want NK as a thorn in our sides.

Yes, we will have to give Kim his world stage, and yes we can make him a "legitimate" leader, something he desires very much. That will be the price we pay to get him to not point nuclear missiles at us. It's a sweet deal.

[kingcat]

The president is following the bipartisan advice he received from congress back when he was engaged in rhetorical combat with NK. No one disagrees with following that advice

Alienating our allies is a separate matter and IS catering to Putin and Russia..and if it continued would be the most foolish mistake ever made by this country. You can’t justify one by the other.

We cannot stand alone and isolated as a free society no more than the Soviet’s did. It’s blindness to believe otherwise imo.
NATO protects the world from anarchy and anti democratic forces and without it we eventually fall.

Ask a WW2 vet what he thinks.

[CitizenBBN]

Last thought. It should be clear Trump said that removing troops was "not part of the equation now." I fail to see how him saying he hopes for a day we don't need 30K troops there is somehow evil or awful.

He didn't say we're doing anything with them until the situation warrants it.

he did say he'd end war games "until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should,", which seems to be a perfectly reasonable negotiation step. It doesn't reduce our capacity or reduce the deterrent force in place. There may be a small reduction in readiness if it goes on for an extended period, but if it does it means the diplomatic process is going well for that long of a period as well, which is good.

There's nothing in his comments that, had Obama been in this role, or Hillary, would get everyone running around like the world was ending. It's only b/c it's Trump and so many are convinced in their bones that Trump is evil an a Russian and whatever else that this is even an issue.

We're going to have to give things to get things, and if we can get real verification and get Kim to pivot to the west, we will have forced a major shift in the balance of power in that region to our favor, and to the detriment of china and Russia.

They both want a nuclear Korea. We, the SK and Japan do not.

backing Kim into a corner where he has no choice but take action or lose his regime is foolhardy. Trump is giving him a way out, a way to save face, save his regime, and get his seat at the world stage with that respect, IF he will eliminate his nuclear program, which of course is a de facto pivot to the West and away from China and Russia.

There's no guarantee, and Trump has been really clear about it. We may have to walk away from this, and if we do wargames can start back and we're no worse off than when we started.

But you have to take this chance. This is a chance to settle a war that has been officially going on for 70+ years. It's costing us nothing to try, so you try.

The only risk is we give away something and get nothing back, and Trump doesn't seem like he'll do that.

[CitizenBBN]

The president is following the bipartisan advice he received from congress back when he was engaged in rhetorical combat with NK. No one disagrees with following that advice

Alienating our allies is a separate matter and IS catering to Putin and Russia..and if it continued would be the most foolish mistake ever made by this country. We cannot stand alone and isolated as a free society no more than the Soviet’s did. It’s blindness to believe otherwise imo.
NATO protects the world from anarchy and anti democratic forces and without it we eventually fall.

Ask a WW2 vet what he thinks.

Do you think our alliances in the West are so fragile they can't withstand some tough talk about what many think are unfair trade agreements, or an unfair military budget burden?

The TRUTH, the hard and fast truth, is that NATO has specified minimums for military investment which many of our allies have not met in years if not decades, while the US made up the difference. Do you accept that as fact?

It's also true and well reported that both Bush II and Obama, two Presidents from near opposite sides of the political spectrum, BOTH privately pushed those same allies on this issue.

The only difference is that Trump called them out publicly. Zero shift in the American position, and even zero shift in our spending. The only difference is Trump shame them publicly where other US PResidents let them get away with decades of not meeting their agree contractual obligations.

that's not us letting our allies down. That's our allies letting us down. Trump just has the guts to point it out.

And if it offends Germany or France that we are tired of them getting away with them not being the ally they promised, in writing, to be, then so be it. I'm offended we're paying for their security more than we agreed, so maybe they need to take a turn.

NATO won't dissolve over it, and Canada won't invade Michigan over it. we've had harsh words with Canada many many times in the past, this is not the first time.

Yes Trump is gruff and rude and personal and nothing like a polished politician. He's as likely to call out Canada as Cuba. All that is true.

What is not true is that it will do some irreparable damage that will mean the US will have no allies, etc.

Obama's treatment of Israel was far more questionable than anything Trump has done, and here we are 1 year later and Israel is an old friend again. We've fought two wars with Great Britain, arguably our closest ally, and we have invaded Canada at least 3 times.

This is nothing, just negotiation and positioning. Two months ago the Canadian PM was bragging about his great relationship with Trump, and in 6 months it's likely to change again.

I don't like a lot of what Trump does, but I just don't get the dire reactions as if what he does will end our nation. I liked even less of what Obama did and said, and I knew that wouldn't be the end either. I knew it would put us on a path that is the wrong one, but end the nation or our alliances or democracy? Uh, no.

Heck, it never even occured to me we'd lose Israel as an ally due to Obama, despite him treating them horribly, up to and including funding internal political operations.

Our allies are very cushy with the US taking care of everything. I'm OK with them not being so happy with us. I don't agree with a thing Merkel wants in this world, so if she's unhappy with US policy that's probably a good thing for the US. doesn't mean we won't still be allies.

[UKHistory]

We can agree to disagree and all I can ask is folks to take me at my word when I say that if any president had behaved as trump did regarding our allies and our enemies, I’d be concerned.

If you think I am delusional or filled with hate that blinds me to trump welll, I can’t change your mind.

I might be a little sad if I lose a friend or a friends respect, but I will stand by my convictions that Trump and his policies are not in the best interests of the country.

If he leaves office willingly and we are still here, I will come back to this forum or where you guys are and say I am wrong.

Gladly.

I am not Terry and I am not trolling you with snide comments or being political where in the middle of a sports talk (unless it is specifically said as a joke).

I see trump as a clear and sincere danger to our nation.

You can mock my views. I will stand by them until proven wrong.

[VirginiaCat]

This is not about Trade Agreements. This is about world view. Both of current American major parties leadership AND all the Western Republics are lead by Internationalist viewpoints, not Nationalist viewpoints.

Trump, like many rising individuals throughtout Europe, are more nationalist.

The Trade agreements are great for a broader region but hurt many indivudial countries..the US included. Especailly some of our workers. Personally, I am fine as long as it is a level playing field..but it is not nor has it been for many years. Time to change that.

[VirginiaCat]

If he leaves office willingly and we are still here, I will come back to this forum or where you guys are and say I am wrong. .

What are you saying here? Do you honestly believe Trump and his admin will try to stay in power past 2 terms?

Can you point to 1 thing he has said that gives you this belief?

[UKHistory]

What are you saying here? Do you honestly believe Trump and his admin will try to stay in power past 2 terms?

Can you point to 1 thing he has said that gives you this belief?

VaCat: I am done with this conversation. I stand by what I wrote. You want to talk me about Trump, send me a private message and if you want to meet in person, I am glad to discuss it.

All the best.

[CitizenBBN]

History, you certainly won't lose friends here over your views. And I hope you don't think I am mocking your views.

As I said, I do not understand them b/c while I see Trump as an over the top ass, I don't see what he's done that makes him a real threat.

But I'm confident he won't end democracy, but that he will say about 5,000 more inane or over the top or just plain dumb things while he's in office, and in the end we'll put him in the history books just like we did Obama (who was a communist muslim) and Bush II (who was a war mongering fascist), etc.

I hope you don't give up on discussing him from time to time. While I can't see what you see, I am trying to figure it out and I do want to hear your views as this moves forward.

[UKHistory]

Love you to death Citizen. Always will.

[Catonahottinroof]

This is another subject where the political sunglasses need to come off....

[UKHistory]

I don't know if there was any discussions with S. Korea or Japan but I have not heard any complaints from either country. Perhaps they think that cancelling the show might help lead to peace and they would prefer peace to a game.

Russia said the same about nukes in Cuba. The flight time from Japan (where we have nuclear capability) to S. Korea is 2 hours--and that is if we put them on a COMMERCIAL airline. An Air Force jet bomber is probably 3 times faster.

Our foreign policy isn't based on number of American killed. Look at our unyielding support of Israel as proof that you don't have to pack a country with Red, White and Blue to garner our support.

The math changes only if we allow it to change.

I'm for peace thru strength too. Said that all along. I'm also for doing what is best for America, and don't give a #### what Canada, Japan or anybody else thinks.

Trying extricate myself from this tragedy c conversation but so you know. Japan and South Korea were not consulted. None of trumps people were either. They aren’t real happy but like children riding in a car with drunk father, they can’t say too much

[UKHistory]

You mean like this?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

Doc the more appropriate video would have been where Obama tells Putin to wait until after the election. Or maybe don Rumsfeld with Sadam.

Saudi’s Arabia while a horrible dictatorship is our horrible dictatorship thanks to their vast quantities of oil.

North Korea a communist satellite is our enemy and even worse than Saudi’s.

US foreign policy has grossly underestimated Russia and China since the 1990s. A lot of presidents have made poor decisions. This one is an unamerican walking abortion of ineptitude. Total backbirth.

Doc you and others have been quick to reference Obama or Hillary whenever I raise a concern about trump.

Maybe to compare this jackass with someone else. I’d think you would want to compare trump to someone you like.

If you bring up Obama’s to say “your guy did the same thing...”

He ain’t my guy. Obama was an arrogant inexperienced fucking jerk.

He was horrible that is why we got this worthless fucking guy.

God bless you all and help this country. I am gone. You can find me doing my best Charleston Heston impression at the end of planet of the apes

**** this

[VirginiaCat]

Understood. And Someday I hope I can buy you an adult beverage and have a great conversation

[VirginiaCat]

Do I think Trump is an ass. Yes I do however think he’s very effective at what this country needs right now from a standpoint of leadership in the world. For too long we have taken a backseat and been afraid to play the cards we have been dealt. Time to stand up for the American citizen and not the world

[KeithKSR]

Trying extricate myself from this tragedy c conversation but so you know. Japan and South Korea were not consulted. None of trumps people were either. They aren’t real happy but like children riding in a car with drunk father, they can’t say too much

South Korea was involved directly with the initial negotiations. The war games, aka joint maneuvers, aren’t even a real factor at this time, just something the talking heads want to show their ignorance over. The joint maneuvers in that area were held earlier this spring and no more were on the schedule until 2019.

[UKHistory]

South Korea was involved directly with the initial negotiations. The war games, aka joint maneuvers, aren’t even a real factor at this time, just something the talking heads want to show their ignorance over. The joint maneuvers in that area were held earlier this spring and no more were on the schedule until 2019.
You are Wrong. More importantly You don’t ever reply again to any comment of mine again. And since I won’t be back that won’t be a problem.

And lastly go **** yourself in a meat cleaver.

[Doc]

to be honest, there hasnt been a president, a "my guy" since Reagan. Trump is no Reagan. The only reason for the comparison to Obama is the blatant hypocrisy. Obama cut one of the worse deals possible with Iran and much of the left applauded it (not all), yet Trumps efforts are not even afforded the slightest opportunity. Conservatives were told to shut the hell up and let the left run the country because they had the mandate. This meeting is but a first move. If Trump loads a plane full of cash and sends it to N Korea, I'll be every bit as pissed as I was 5 years ago when it was done with Obama. See I see these negotiations very similar to what Barach attempted to pull off with Tehran. Difference is I actually wanted him to succeed and pull off something useful and successful were as those who despise Trump want him to fail. With the Iran deal, I actually waited until the negotiations were complete, saw the final outcome and the analysized it before forming an opinion on the value, on whether it was good or bad. Universally, as a person, Trump is seen as an ass. Me, I could not care less if he is an ass or not. What does matter is he making the world safer. Until some actual agreement comes out with NK, I cant answer that but I do know it sure as hell is far more movement than any other president. People criticized Reagan for meeting with Gorbechov, and Nixon for going to China. Both cases of negotiations with heated foes brought fruitful outcomes. So there are 2 who I'd compare to..if that is what you want. And in both cases it wasn't a trip to say we are sorry for all the bad things we have done

[Crazy4Blue]

Wow, can you say over-reaction? Very immature man.



You are Wrong. More importantly You don’t ever reply again to any comment of mine again. And since I won’t be back that won’t be a problem.

And lastly go **** yourself in a meat cleaver.

[KeithKSR]

You are Wrong. More importantly You don’t ever reply again to any comment of mine again. And since I won’t be back that won’t be a problem.

And lastly go **** yourself in a meat cleaver.

http://time.com/5094736/north-korea-south-korea-military-talks/

http://thehill.com/policy/international/383866-south-korea-confirms-peace-treaty-negotiations-with-us-north-korea

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-things-watch-north-koreas-peace-negotiations-25648

[kingcat]

The Ulchi Freedom Guardian annual joint exercise is scheduled for the Fall of 2018

[VirginiaCat]

http://time.com/5094736/north-korea-south-korea-military-talks/

http://thehill.com/policy/international/383866-south-korea-confirms-peace-treaty-negotiations-with-us-north-korea

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-things-watch-north-koreas-peace-negotiations-25648

The problem is, the radical left will not even listen to facts. They have become so out of touch because of the hatred for this POTUS it is scary..and it is reinforced by the media..

[CitizenBBN]

The problem is, the radical left will not even listen to facts. They have become so out of touch because of the hatred for this POTUS it is scary..and it is reinforced by the media..

The problem we face is the fires of hate of Trump have been stoked so high, it's now OK to do ANYTHING to get rid of him.

Trump is a threat to democracy, but not b/c of his actions, but b/c so many are accepting that the means are justified by the ends of getting rid of the Trump "threat", and in the end it will be those who oppose him who do the real harm to our nation and its political fabric.

Look, History and Kingcat and others on here are great guys, our friends here for many years, and not tin foil hat types. Yet a guy like History, who is a reasonable and thoughtful person, is absolutely convinced in his heart that Trump at least has the potential to seize control of this nation and not leave office at the end of his tenure (whether 1 or 2 terms). At least I think he feels that way, that it's at least a real risk.

I have to respect that b/c I respect him, but to me it only underscores how out of bounds the messaging has become. Likewise, we had other equally sound of mind members here very worried Obama would do the same thing, so it's not just on the Left or just these guys.

It's that extreme messaging on both sides that will be our undoing, b/c it creates a view where this case is somehow an exception so in order to save the Constitution we have to take extraordinary action.

Like impeaching Trump. the man has done absolutely nothing to date that rises to impeachment, yet there's a real chance the Democrats will have little political choice were they to win the House. that's a drastic increase in the use of the law as a political weapon, and will lead to deep and long lasting problems with our ability to function as a nation.

The Clinton impeachment was questionable simply b/c the lies he told weren't so serious as to rise to that level, even though he did commit perjury. But even Andrew Johnson's impeachment failed, and will Trump's. No President has been removed by 2/3rds of the Senate b/c no President has ever acted so far outside the bounds of his office, and Trump hasn't here either.

But b/c so many are convinced, deeply convinced, that Trump is evil or a Russian agent or whatever, they will start to use these most extreme an rarely used tools of our Constitution as weapons. We're seeing it in judicial appointments already, where civility and the "norms" of the Senate are breaking down.

The threat isn't Trump. He's too much of an ass to pull off anything so Machiavellian, everyone will see it coming and he'll tweet it out to the world. He's an open book. The threat is unraveling the process b/c we see this person or that person as somehow a serious enough threat to warrant bending those rules and breaking that process.

[kingcat]

The problem is, the radical left will not even listen to facts. They have become so out of touch because of the hatred for this POTUS it is scary..and it is reinforced by the media..

The acceptance of alternate facts has changed things drastically. The excuse that Trump sometimes says stuff that’s untrue just to ruffle feathers or just mis-spoke creates a safety net that leaves the facts ambiguous.

Above I pointed out a fact which supports History’s assertion that Keith was mistaken. Rather than anyone acknowledge that the “radical right” here :indifferent0020: chooses to ignore it and cast accusations and imply ignorance in the face of truth

Everyone prefers their version of so called “facts” anymore

Personally I don’t care about the war games at all. I think it’s a fair concession at this point. But both sides seem to find an outlet to spew and support untruths without questioning the veracity of them

There are respected conservatives on this site who refuse to participate here for that very reason. The volume of words in either sense does not indicate truth or factual thought

[CitizenBBN]

I'll acknowledge whatever schedule of wargames on the Korean peninsula you find. :)

Of course as you pointed out, it's fairly immaterial to the situation as to the exact schedule. I didn't respond b/c the exact schedule isn't a concern for me.

Yes, everyone does prefer their version of the 'facts', you included. We all do. that's what the adversarial process is designed to address. You present your facts, I present mine, we poke holes in them, question the conclusions from them, etc. to derive at answers. B/c in most any case of policy there will be multiple competing facts, and multiple layers of those facts which are open to question or interpretation.

Thus the phrase 'lies, damned lies and statistics." You can get a lot of different truths out of the same set of data.

I don't get worked up about Trump's tall tales and outright falsehoods b/c, as I have said many times, judging any politician on their words is simply an exercise in futility. All politicians exaggerate, misrepresent, obfuscate and outright lie. They cherry pick facts and figures to suit their agenda and message.

You can either wade into that and spend a lifetime in that maze, or you can step back and dismiss all the words and focus on policy implementation and the actions that have the real effect.

For example, Obama and Bush and a host of US Presidents, nearly all of them in our lifetime, have called for moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. They all said it, it has been standing US policy for decades. But none of them were ever going to pay more than lip service to it. It was a political convenience, where they show spoken support for an Israeli position but don't actually take action on it, thus avoiding the controversy.

Trump actually DID it. So from a policy standpoint he changed nothing, but from an action standpoint he changed everything. Obama's words, Bush's words, all largely irrelevant. The action, that's what mattered.

So that's how I judge Trump. And yes I give him even more leeway than most b/c he's far more off the cuff than any other President in the modern era, so he's bound to say a lot more bodacious things that don't ever amount to anything in the end. That's good and bad. People say they're tired of polished stuff shirt politicians, well here's the alternative, albeit a really extreme alternative.

[CitizenBBN]

Now, as to the war games issue in general...

So Trump has called for an end to war games. OK. But even he's said that's contingent on how things go with NK, even in that very statement. Well in that context is it so extreme? he didn't say we're done, he said we will be done with them IF things proceed as he hopes with NK's de-nuk efforts. Seems reasonable to me. It seems clear at some point the goal is to actually end this 70 year open war.

If this were another President, it's likely the announcment would be far more scripted and coordinated, but would it be any more surprising if this were Hillary negotiating with Kim? that we'd end our maneuvers pending the outcome of NK's efforts to de-nuk? that would seem pretty reasonable woudln't it?

So the difference is not in the action, but just in the delivery. Trump is off the cuff, impulsive. He's a man used to making the big decisions and moving on, sometimes consulting people but often going with his gut and his own counsel. That's what big CEO types do all the time, and that's who we elected.

He's not a polished politician, he won't call for a blue ribbon panel to study everything so as to avoid controversy and decisions. He'll open his mouth and put it right out there, and make the call as he goes.

But there's nothing radical in this process with NK. he had an historic meeting, they agreed to a general direction, that's pretty typical. Trump has offered Kim some things Kim wants, including upping his status on the world stage, ending the war games and probably offering trillions in US foreign investment in the NK. NK just has to stand down its nuclear program and start opening up to the West to receive all the benefits.

It's a good deal, and a great deal for us long term. It's the right direction. It wont' be done with polish and practice surrounded by career diplomats, but since in 70 years they haven't advanced the ball on this issue one yard, and have stood by as the North got nuclear weapons and ICBMs, I'm all for a different approach.

Shouldn't we all be for that given the failures of our career diplomatic corps on this issue for literally generations?

[kingcat]

I think everyone is for it going forward. The problem is as it has always been however. When it comes to fulfilling their side of any agreement will they actually do so, or will the regime just use it to tighten their grip and slightly weaken the US/SK alliance. They have now been treated as equals on the national stage and we are basically negotiating with a rogue and oppressive regime that supports terrorism.
Will it invite Iran and others to do the same?

I believe however that you must negotiate with anyone possessing nuclear capability that shows a genuine interest in peace. Others like Russia have proven they do not operate in good faith...NK holds the cards for now making it unprecedented in negotiations, but we must find out if the young leader actually has the heart for peace.

He hasn’t shown the heart for much of anything else good though

[CitizenBBN]

I can all but guarantee you NK will not operate in good faith, and they will face pressure from Russia and China to not comply.

We're going to try to buy them off. Buy them with prestige and foreign investment. It's our biggest negotiating tool in all such deals. We did the same with Carter with Egypt, giving them billions in aid and access to markets if they'd recognize Israel and end the conflict.

But NK will face a lot of pressure, internal and external, to not move this direction. The process will be in fits and starts, two steps forward and one back.

But it's far better than missile tests over Guam, and we have to try. We just have to get what we are promised as we go, and I think Trump will want that verification in place. I know Bolton and others aren't fooled and will not remove any real pressure until NK shows compliance.

[kingcat]

If I read the facts correctly, I think the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations both did advance the ball, only to have NK sneaking around the terms of their agreements after several years of success.
Clinton reached an aid-for-disarmament deal in 1994 that halted North Korea's plutonium production for eight years, freezing what was then a very small atomic arsenal.

Bush took a tougher stance toward North Korea, and the 1994 nuclear deal collapsed because of suspicions that the North was running a secret uranium program. But Bush, too, ultimately pursued negotiations. That led to a temporary disabling of some nuclear facilities, but talks fell apart because of differences over verification.

The Clinton and Bush administrations combined to provide $1.3 billion in assistance from 1995 to 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress.
Slightly more than half was for food aid and 40 percent for energy assistance.
Subsequently North Korea stopped producing plutonium for eight years under the 1994 agreement.
Suspicions emerged later however that North Korea had been secretly seeking to enrich uranium so thee gains there are admittedly in doubt.

So this is not new, other than the young dictators desire to have this play out on the world stage. This could indicate a new willingness to change how his family's regime operated in the past and a true interest in peace and economic partnership with the South as well as with the US.

That will be interesting to watch unfold..as will Rodman's reaction to it ;)
___

[CitizenBBN]

Clinton did reach an agreement, with Carter as the negotiator. The problem is it let the NK escape from a massive drought that nearly broke the nation, and didn't verify or get anything reduced. As it turns out, the NK was continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

That's the key. We can't let up the pressure unless and until we can verify we're getting what was promised. That's not easy, and wont' be easy no matter who is President, but I hope the fact the NK has duped multiple US presidents and broken multiple deals will mean we are more serious about being sure.

In the end we've never engaged the NK regime in a serious and extensive way to get real change. I have no idea if we can get it now, but it will take more than a "we give you aid, you do this thing" kind of deal. It will take a broad deal like we made with Egypt, where we got a complete shift away from the Soviets.

But as I said, I do not expect the NK to just suddenly start operating in good faith. I expect fits and starts, but I do think the latest sanctions were tough enough it has pushed Kim to reconsider his approach. If he can't feed his army and esp. buy off his inner circle, he has problems.

[CitizenBBN]

IMO the key is being willing to be more extreme on the stick side, so the carrot side works. Kim needs to be convinced that the next step for the US is a naval blockade to stop trade that breaks sanctions, and that we will go to war if necessary.

He needs to feel his regime is really at risk in order to get him to be serious. Clinton had that within him but clearly sending Carter is a very different approach, and obama was so very feckless in foreign affairs there was no way he'd make progress on the NK. Everyone knew he'd back down and never be willing to respond with real force.

I think Trump, like Reagan before him, has enough moxy that our enemies really do think he'd go far enough to get the job done, and that's the key to this working. If Kim really believes Trump would do what none of them would do and he'll actually attack Kim in some way, then we have a real chance at this working. if he thinks he can play us again, this won't work.

[Doc]

I chuckle at the Trump will bring down the democracy because of his "lies" stuff. After the bastions of truth we have had in Obama, the scandaless president (forget the IRS one, the fast and furious one, the plane of money to Iran one) who kept us safe with no terrorist attacks (forget the guy hacking up people while yelling Ahlah Akbar since that was work place violence, Fort Hood since that too was labelled work place), to little Bush and his WMD, to Slick Willie who didnt have sex with that intern, to Bush Sr and his no new taxes to Reagan and the whole Iran contra thing, to Nixon and Watergate...guess the only one not going to be the end of the democracy due to lying was Carter, possibly the worse President of all time, the one who had the audacity to meet with and shake the hand of Yassar Arafat, leader of the PLO, perhaps the greatest and original "terrorist" organization.

No, if there is any downfall of democracy, it will be from the politicians hell bent on holding power who will go to whatever means to maintain power. That would be the people like Harry Reid, who was more than happy to change the rules as he saw fit. Or those who play to special interests, or those within who curry favor and allegiance to their party over country. Then throw in some outside interests in our electoral process like Russia which democrats so much attack to illegal voters whom they vigorously protect. Those are what threaten a democracy, not a 72 year old blowhard. He is no more a SINGULAR threat to bring down this country than was Obama. Many on the right felt exactly the same about Obama. He had the support of much of his party. Trump does not. The idea that the Donald is somehow going to instill himself as supreme ruler, or even be the next FDR is bizarre.

[kingcat]

I won’t dare try to put the other spin on things here because the only interpretation of facts you find here are those that support the vote that was cast. I see it as one must support until the end hoping the warnings from within the Republican Party and without are baseless.
Otherwise the mistake in judgement will be historically wrong and and in support of anti American sentiment. That’s where we are currently.

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule. The danger has even been pointed out by the former republican candidate for President and many in that party, and by the majority of the press, by most of the free world. But since Democrats happen to believe the same thing supporters find it easier to believe in everything from deep state conspiracies to lizard people and baby food bases on Mars.

[KeithKSR]

The Ulchi Freedom Guardian annual joint exercise is scheduled for the Fall of 2018

I saw that on news reports. The initial interview I saw with a Congressman on the Armed Services Committee was in error. Early indicators from Pompeo’s Asian trip to see leaders in the region indicate that the cancellation of the maneuvers is not an issue.

[KeithKSR]

The Clinton and Bush administrations combined to provide $1.3 billion in assistance from 1995 to 2008, according to the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress.
Slightly more than half was for food aid and 40 percent for energy assistance.
Subsequently North Korea stopped producing plutonium for eight years under the 1994 agreement.

The problem with providing assistance or cash upfront is that there is no incentive for follow through by the recipient. This is a poor business move. I know when hiring work done if you pay up front those doing the work may not finish, or may not finish in a timely manner.

[KeithKSR]

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule. The danger has even been pointed out by the former republican candidate for President and many in that party, and by the majority of the press, by most of the free world. But since Democrats happen to believe the same thing supporters find it easier to believe in everything from deep state conspiracies to lizard people and baby food bases on Mars.

I think you are confusing this administration with the Dems and anti-Trumpers.

-Hillary’s campaign hiring foreign agents to create a dossier

-Anti-Trumper attempts to overturn the electoral primary results leading up to and during the GOP convention

-Attempts to push the Electoral College delegates to flip their votes

-Manufacturing of the collusion fiction.

-Impeachment attempts without the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors”

[kingcat]

If the shoe fits, we wear it. History will likely wash out the fiction and leave the facts.
We must all be sure our descendants know where our loyalties lay. I am comfortable myself that justice is being served one way or another.

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

[Doc]

The problem with providing assistance or cash upfront is that there is no incentive for follow through by the recipient. This is a poor business move. I know when hiring work done if you pay up front those doing the work may not finish, or may not finish in a timely manner.

I know it because its how the Iran deal worked

[CitizenBBN]

This administration has orchestrated attacks on every facet of the election process, Government, and the checks and balances which act to prevent authoritarian rule.

Please list them. Any of them. I see these broad statements all the time about how Trump is undermining our system, and not one specific thing he's done that supports the claim.

He calls out the media for "fake news", and they claim that somehow any elected official calling them out is somehow undermining democracy, but that's nonsense. The press has never been above being called out by those who disagree with them, ever. that's the only thing I ever see really listed, and it's not accurate. It's accurate Trump calls them out, but it's also accurate that a big majority of Americans think he's right in his accusation, so that's not exactly systematically undermining the system. That's the "free press" undermining the system by refusing to be objective.

But seriously, what are these Machiavellian steps being taken to dismantle the Constitution?

BTW, McCain et al haven't "pointed it out", they've just made the same claim you're making. That's not the same thing. I'm curious what specific actions he's taken that are so out of the norm they are threatening the system.

[CitizenBBN]

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

You have much more faith in history than I. :)

History is written by the victors, and in the end this battle isn't about Trump at all, but about the war between individual liberty and social justice, i.e. the collective state. Whichever side wins in the US, that side will surely insure history favors them.

[KeithKSR]

If the shoe fits, we wear it. History will likely wash out the fiction and leave the facts.
We must all be sure our descendants know where our loyalties lay. I am comfortable myself that justice is being served one way or another.

Others appear convinced that only one result is acceptable regardless of where the facts lead.

At some point alternate facts will be exposed for what they are

Unfortunately this is not at all true. History tends to be heavily slanted by the present. If you want evidence of this one only need to look at the recent uproar over the Founding Fathers.