Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'd still like to know what changed so drastically in North Korea since November that it merited a complete reversal of US foreign policy towards the country?
Are you effin' serious? The Leader of the Free World has met him as an equal, praised him to the skies as a talented leader and, as the final turd in the waterpipe, agreed to stop military exercises in South Korea.
Please direct us to the posts where you bashed (or even mildly criticized) Obama's meeting with Castro.
First the Loonies describe Trump as a buffoon dictator whose tough talk will cause nuclear WW3.
Now they say Trump is weak and gave in to Rocket Man by saving money cancelling pointless war games.
They 'forgot' Kim returned our three hostages in exchange for nothing from us.
They expect miracles from a first meeting, which sounds like they think Trump is a genius.
"When Obama stated that he would be susceptible to meeting “not just with our friends but our enemies,” Fox News correspondents were seriously suspicious, and hyper critical, saying they “think that’s a mistake,” that he’s “bowing and scraping before dictators” and that they’re “not sure there’s any real discussing issues with Kim Jong-un.”
But when mention was made of Trump speaking with him, their opinions seemed much different."
Is this just the same thing as "conservatives want to balance the budget and pay down the debt" and stuff like that - you know, stuff that they are allowed to forget about 100% (and actually go the other way).....???
Those of us who have been around the block a couple times know that much of this stuff comes and goes. Weren't we hopeful that an Iranian or Turkish or even Iraqi revolution would take place??
The world is not a photo op. In the end it takes hard work...not "knowing in the first minute" or "GW looking into the beautiful soul of Mr. Putin".
NK is a real sideline to the world in general.
The loss of stuff like the Iran deal, Paris accords and the pissing off of our allies and friends is 100X bigger - so is Russia and their open war against us.
And as is always the case at this level, but it's hard to explain diplomacy to multiple generations raised on a diet of expectations of instant gratification
and it's hard to explain diplomacy to someone who thinks that cavalier, off the cuff comments made by a President with an extensive and fully documented history of lying actual amounts to diplomacy.
No one is expecting your strawman immediate gratification, they are just looking for something beyond the 13th time that North Korea has promised to discuss denuclearization without having ever actually done more than say that. As of now, NK has made no concessions - but the US has.
I do not believe that most liberals believe that at all. I think that most reasonable people, of either party, look at the summit and think "This is good, it is a positive step forward", but realize that history dictates that we move very cautiously. See my prior posting herein for the link to a website that documents our history with North Korea for many decades.
For instance, President Trump, apparently off the cuff, proclaimed that he was suspending joint military exercises with South Korea, which announcement took South Korea, and our Department of Defense, by surprise.
Is it being a 'liberal' to warn Mr. Trump that he is already conceding a huge prize to Kim in return for nothing?
Is it 'liberal' to maintain that by meeting with Kim, President Trump has recognized Kim Jong-Un as the 'de jure' leader of North Korea? Why couldn't the meeting with the President be put off until firm agreements were made? It would have been a worthy carrot to offer: "Meet our demands, and you will sit side-by-side with the leader of the Free World".
Is it 'liberal' to have maintained that President Trump should have insistent that, in addition to addressing North Korea's military ambitions, North Korea's human rights policy should be included? Recall, when President Reagan was meeting with the Soviet leader regarding the arms race, he insisted that the Russian's violations of basic human rights also be part of the negotiations.
Try not to think in terms of party. I realize that some Democrats (including the liberal wing) will find fault with everything Mr. Trump does. However, most reasonable people will urge Mr. Trump to heed the words of Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick.
Here's the thing: Maybe Kim will not adhere to the agreement. Then the military exercises can continue. Why are you assuming only Kim can go back on the agreement?
Please direct us to the posts where you bashed (or even mildly criticized) Obama's meeting with Castro.
We'll wait.
Good point.
Meanwhile actual US criminals are allowed to hide in Cuba, while innocent visitors were released by NoKo in exchange and preparation for talks.
I could go through this thread and the POTUS lying thread and copy the posts about Trump doing the "grip and grin" with Kim, calling Kim honorable, putting his signature next to Kim's on that worthless document, ...
I could go online and pull up tweets and excerpts from articles from all the national security folks detailing how Trump flew halfway around the world to treat Kim as an equal, even calling off the joint military maneuvers while getting nothing in return.
Please direct us to the posts where you bashed (or even mildly criticized) Obama's meeting with Castro.
We'll wait.
Righties are the master of apples and oranges comparisons, out of necessity I suppose. Cuba does not have nukes and her people are not starving while they try to build one, Cuba does not threaten to destroy the US, Cuba does not even have a credible military force. Even at its worst Cuba has never practiced the systemic human rights abuse that has been going on for decades in Korea and is possibly at its worst under the latest member of the Kim family to rule.
Even the far right conservative National Review has a dim view of this summit.
While allowing that something many turn out of yet, still at the moment:
"There’s every reason in the world to be deeply skeptical that Kim will make good on his commitments to “de-nuclearize.”
"Why? Because: North Korea has promised to do exactly that — with far more specificity — in the past. The actual paper agreement that Trump and Kim signed is not just worthless on its own, it’s less than worthless given that it literally recycles past worthless promises as if they are new ones."
Here's the thing: Maybe Kim will not adhere to the agreement. Then the military exercises can continue. Why are you assuming only Kim can go back on the agreement?
You are correct, of course. I should not assume that only Kim can 'go back' on any agreement. Indeed, a valid, good, sustainable agreement may be reached this year, only for Mr. Trump to 'back out' next year for reasons known only to him.
I noted earlier that the leader of Iran even warned Kim to beware of the President of the United States' propensity to withdraw from agreements previously entered into by the US of A.
Anyway, I assume that Mr. Trump's statement about ceasing the 'war games' was spur-of-the-moment, and he will be informed by Mattis, etc., of why we need to keep that particular card in our pocket.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
