President Trump has issued an executive order extending the state of national emergency against North Korea for another year. The order came with a written statement mirroring those from the previous year, declaring North Korea’s nuclear arms and policies as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”
This of course stands in start contrast to Trump’s recent statements on North Korea, in which he declared the nuclear threat from North Korea to be over. This has left some speculating that Trump is “flipping” on his position.
In reality, the statement going along with the executive order is practically a form letter, closely mirroring what is issued annually since the Bush-era as a justification to give the executive branch power to impose a series of sanctions on North Korea.
The Trump Administration has been very clear that those sanctions are staying in place until full denuclearization, something which they expect to take several years. That obliges them to keep the executive orders coming annually, even if justifying that requires issuing a statement that they neither believe to be true nor which reflects current policy. It is a dishonest statement, but not a shocking one nor necessarily indicative of any policy changes.
Trump gets goofier with the passage of time. Tomorrow he will go on TV and recite Ovid’s poetry while flipping a god coin.
Trump yawed that “quickly”. Quickly was NK to begin doing away with NW.
I expected him to go on doing the Twists and Turns, but not this quickly.
surprise, no delition
This degenerate says things just for the sake of saying something. He doesn’t even seem to comprehend the implications of what he spews from his filthy mouth.
What a pathetic scum little leader, of a spiritually lost pagan nation.
Trump is persisting to lie to justify unnecessary aggression towards a tiny nation on the far side of the world? Because they dared to develop a few weapons to deter a US invasion. While the US continues to develop more usable nuclear weapons, clearly demonstrating intent to ignore our commitments to abolish all nuclear weapons. Yeah, that’s not a change in policy, it’s continuing insanity.
There is a volatile regime threatening our survival, and the US president epitomizes it. Not just Trump, but all presidents since Ike. No other nation or leader even comes close.
Justin, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Probable reason: NK is not giving enough fast enough.
Trump is just doing what he said he would do,
Maintaining the pressure until the goals are accomplished.
Words are meaningless with out VERIFICATION that those words
have translated into the agreed factual reality.
Unlike the hollow, claims of success from Clinton, Bush or Obama.
Carping from the Antiwar crowd against the most effective president
(so far re NKorea), is just standard millennial whining.
No one that is truly anti-war carps against Trump, re NKorea. Unfortunately American foreign policy isn’t relegated to a single issue. Just read the other articles that appear daily and you’ll understand what the carping is all about.
There is plenty to “carp” about, I understand, but when (FINALLY) a president makes a bold, daring and unprecedented departure from the prevailing orthodoxy he deserves all the support we can muster.
This article and my comment are about NKorea,
not the rest of US foreign policy.
A “bold, daring and unprecedented departure” would be to change US policy to NK. This order is a continuation of Bush’s axis of evil policy. 3 billion people a year get on a plane and talk to someone.
Clinton, Bush and Obama prove you wrong,
their policies were the “continuation” of the same policy initiated by Clinton, appeasement first.
It takes a leader with the balls to confront dictators and have the suave
negotiate them down.
Re people on airplanes, who cares?
Seems evident, trump flies around, talks to people, yet his NK policy has not changed. Try reading the article.
That’s the point,
Trump’s hasn’t changed KIM’S policy has,
as it should be.
So your saying, is, the US shouldn’t have to demilitarize anything, including the policy of preemptive war, and regime change.
I’m saying Kim has decided to de-nuclearize and
that is a good thing. Thank you President Trump.
Are you negotiating for Kim?
Do you want him to hold out for a better deal, LOL?
How do you know what Kim has decided? The stated end goal includes denuclearization. However, Kim is not a fool, and knows very well the American track record on keeping agreements.
NO————previous president has made an INCH of progress,
until Trump.
Yes,
we cannot say it’s a “done deal” but NKorea’s behavior re. SKorea is an indication they are ready for a significant change.
Everything you claim about the Clinton Nuclear Framework is exactly backwards. Wiki it, read the above article, then start over again.
Clinton, was CHUMPED by Kim, end of story.
Uh huh….trumpU history degree ?
Clinton didn’t stop Kim from nuclearizing,
Trump, if successful, will.
If Trump does, HE deserve the credit and the Peace Prize, if he doesn’t then he can join the other dwarf presidents.
That simple.
I think Pres. Moon deserves the bulk of the credit for the change in inter-Korean relations, as do the Chinese. Trump’s share in the credit is merely in having the good sense to go along with the inevitable.
Without Trump’s military pressure none of this would have happened.
Wrong again. Without Kim’s military pressure, none of this would have happened. Trump used no more military pressure than did his predecessors. Or do you think Trump invented the joint military drills?
Kim’s final acquisition of ICBM’s and nukes certainly was a tipping point.
But Kim didn’t mind flaunting his toys,
until the 7th fleet started cruising off his shore.
War games weren’t the breaker,
B–52’s in the area, Stealth bombers stationed on Guam, and Seal Team practice for decapitation hit,
were the movers.
It wasn’t the 7th Fleet, or the B-52’s that made the difference. That was just Trump trying to look tough, and nothing that other presidents haven’t done before. The South Koreans undermined the US by going directly to North Korea, facilitated in large part by Chinese diplomacy. Also, ever heard of the Pammunjom Declaration? Iirc, it was signed the day before Trump changed his mind and rescheduled the summit with Kim. Among other things, it stated that South Korea would no longer participate in joint military drills with the US. Trump’s cancellation after the summit was simply a recognition of this fact. He knows he no longer has instant South Korean cooperation.
Sure Phil, you believe whatever you like, bottom line Trump is on the verge of getting peace on the Korean peninsula.
IF he does (big IF) he is going to get the all credit and should;
but if this gambit fails,
he and he alone will carry that failure.
If he fails, I will be calling it out.
if he successes would you be willing to give him the credit?
The Panmunjeon declaration is a fact, not a belief. I don’t give a rat’s ass who gets credit. Even Trump doesn’t give himself all the credit.
Here is the link to, the Panmunjeon declaration. Note that is an agreement between the 2 Koreas, that it prohibits provocative military exercises, but mentions nothing about denuclearization. Enjoy.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/27/national/politics-diplomacy/full-text-panmunjom-declaration/#.WzAV6YllA0M
Frankly neither do I,
a peaceful K peninsula would be so more than enough.
However, it interests me, when many posters disparage or attack the current effort, just because it’s Trump’s.
If you are truly AntiWar you would celebrate the accomplishment!
But because isn’t, … Trump,
they abandon their AntiWar virtue-signaling,
declarations, because they hate Trump more than they desire peace.
Fascinating, dontcha think?
PS: don’t think I haven’t notice your failure to answer my question
on whether you would credit Trump
(if peace on Korea was established) as a brilliant achievement or not.
The answer is I would credit all of those involved to the extent that they deserved it. It is truly an unimportant question.
But will you answer my question which you dodged twice. Will you condemn Trump, or any future US president, if they attack North Korea after they denuclearize, presuming they actually do so?
I answered you question, INDEED, I would!
You answer was Clinton-esque, parsed.
WRONG. Trump’s policy changed because NK wisely developed nukes. Any other president would have done the same. If you don’t think cancelling military drills and meeting Kim are significant policy changes, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Kim was working on and PASSING nuclear info to Pakistan and Iran for decades, the dwarf presys did nothing. They were gutless and Kim toyed with them.
Not so Trump.
Nonsense. Trump did nothing until forced to by Kim’s nuclear weapons. Personally, I think that Trump may be walking into a neoconservative trap by pushing denuclearization.
Nobody BUT Trump was able to STOP Kim,
the fact,
the end of the story.
You mean stop him from what, exactly? He has the nukes he wanted, and is closer to SK than ever.
It appears for the moment that NK is on a path away from war and nuke weapons. That’s all that matters, thank you President Trump.
The question is, is the US on a path away from war and nuclear weapons and it being the world’s policeman? This is a question you trumpkin’s are afraid to ask.
Deflection.
The question is:
can Trump pull off the de-nuclearization of NK?
If so it = greatness;
if not it = just another fail.
It’s amazing just how wrong you can be, both in your understanding of the facts, and your emotional orientation. You care more about whether Trump gets credit, then if actual peace occurs. Denuclearization is not essential to peace on the Korean peninsula. What is essential is a treaty ending the Korean War, good relations between the two koreas, and the u.s. removing its troops. And if South Korea is uncomfortable with North Korea still having nuclear weapons, they are fully capable of building their own. And they could do this while still reuniting families, having full diplomatic relations, robust trade, Etc.
Another dodge.
The firsts task is to de-nuclearize the rogue state of NK.
“Not essential to peace”, OH MY GAWD!
So you prefer SK and Japan to just join a nuclear arms race and build nukes
to counter Kim, Mr. AntiWar fellow????.
The object is to slow the proliferation of nukes in the region and
the ME, and eventually the world, IF—you really believe in being AntiWar.
So you believe that a particular type of weapon is a cause of War? And what gives you, or the United States, the right to determine who is a rogue State and who isn’t? United States seems to be the biggest Rogue state on the planet, attacking much weaker countries, seemingly at will. Do you deny that?
The US doesn’t shoot ICBM’s over other countries for intimidation sake.
Nor do they threaten another country ( US Guam) with missile shots.
The world has condemned Kim and his dictatorial horror-show in NK,
but —you—are the last NK supporter, apparently.
It is blatantly obvious you are an anything-America hater.
Just the type I enjoy outting on AntiWar.com., Tanks for the memories.
Well, fool, let’s compare the track record of the United States with that of North Korea. I’m not talking about their internal regime, but their International actions. The US has attacked Iraq without provocation, on the basis of lies, attacked Syria multiple times, attacked Serbia, Etc. In all of this, let us conservatively estimate that the United States has killed hundreds of thousands of people via it’s attacks against countries that were not threatening the United States.
So let’s talk about our alleged rougue state, North Korea. They fired off some rockets, which scared a bunch of people. Granted, not a nice thing to do, but how does that compare with the United States record of mass international killing? Call me an America hater if you like, I don’t care. Try proving me wrong, don’t worry about my supposed emotional state. All you prove by resorting to such a remark, is that patriotism is not only the last refuge of scoundrels, but the first instinct of blinkered fools.
I know you hate America,
but the topic here is the budding peace between the US and Norks.
PEACE, thank you America.
It ain’t about hating you emotional jackass. It’s about facing facts, and understanding reality on the basis of those facts. Do you dispute anything I said? And by dispute I mean have a logical counter argument. And you do not get to determine what the subject is, especially since everything I have said is related to the subject. Try using logic, and logic only.
More sophomoric bombast Phil,
I’d be glad to argue anything you want,
but I won’t be deflected from the current topic you continue to avoid.
Trump got Kim to the table, nobody else did,
and so far prospects have never been better,
those are the facts at this point.
All of your other aggregated grievances are not the current subject.
“Trump got Kim to the table”
Correct, if by “Trump got Kim to the table” you mean “Kim and Moon got Trump to the table.”
Otherwise, not so much.
Moon could not have done it alone,
he needed Trump to force the issue.
They worked well together.
BUT, without Trump, none of this would have happened.
You are probably right that without Trump, none of this would have happened.
That’s different from what he intended to happen happening.
He seems to have tried to scare Kim into giving him what he demanded, and instead to have scared Moon into talking peace with Kim. At which point his choice was to either pout like a little child and keep threatening, or else try to run to the front of the Moon/Kim parade and pretend he was leading it. I agree that he was wise to choose the latter and that it’s a good outcome.
I think Moon wanted a peaceful solution all along but was stuck between two belligerents while having no leverage.
Trump knew Kim never would change unless he believed he had no other way out.
So Trump maneuvered the UN for harsher sanctions, and China (using the trade deficit as leverage) to step back from protecting Kim, leaving him cut off and exposed.
Once China indicated they would not defend him,
Kim was on his own and
Kim started to see the light.
That and of course the 7th Fleet off the coast,
B-52 and B-2 bombers close by and
letting it be know that Seal Teams were (maybe) practicing a decapitation assault.
It was an adroit use of military, economic and strategic pressure.
Kim is not stupid and Trump –always– dangled the prospect of a wonderfully prosperous alternative IF Kim would give up his nukes.
Like him or not it was a masterpiece of power diplomacy.
But the benefit for mankind is the prospect of PEACE on the Korean peninsula, finally, … maybe.
Or Kim got Trump to the table by firing off one of his missiles and blowing up a test bomb. South Korea and China played major roles in this as well. I haven’t avoided this topic and you know it. I just gave you answers you don’t like. Answers that probably scare the crap out of you. If nothing else, they force you to look at these events from the point of view of an outside observer, rather than simply as a patriotic cheerleader. I’m glad Trump and Kim had this meeting. But recent history makes me deeply suspicious. Remember the UNSCOM inspections for wmd in Iraq? Those inspections only served to confirm to President Bush that Iraq was essentially helpless. Libya gave up its nuclear program. What was the result? Look at the Stockman article again. Real world. Not optimistic fantasy.
Why would Kim have to go to the trouble of building and firing rockets and nukes to get Trump to the table? He could have said lets talk anytime
and a meeting would be on. That line of “thinking” is simply idiotic.
And yes SKorea and China played a role, SKorea played the good cop, giving Kim an outlet to change (in the face of a massive US military build up) and China was made to understand that Kim threatens their country IF we had to come to blows with Kim.
China backed away from supporting Kim. Kim was left to stand ALONE, with crippling economic sanctions.
The entire affair was a masterpiece of diplomatic, economic and military
pressure that changed Kim’s calculus permanently.
But just because, you hate Trump, you will never see the obvious.
Stop being literal minded. Of course he did in fire off rockets to get Trump to a table. He developed nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them with as a means of defending his country against a possible u.s. attack. This is not because Kim’s tiny nuclear arsenal could actually defeat the United States in a nuclear war, but because it could inflict unacceptable damage on the US and its allies, thus preventing a US attack. This forces the United States to deal with North Korea as a regional power, which includes top level meetings and negotiations. Now do you get it?
Just stupid.
Kim thought, having nukes, and China’s back up, made him untouchable.
He also thought,
the US’s pattern (under Clinton, Bush and Obama) of surrendering and backing down to negotiate yet another meaningless agreement that would give him the leverage to reduce or eliminate the economic sanctions.
But he was SO wrong. Hilarious!
It’s not stupid at all. He still has his nuclear weapons. He’s just not testing any new ones. He doesn’t need to. In the meantime, the u.s. is no longer holding joint military exercises, which Trump has admitted are provocative. Quid pro quo. It has also broken him out of international isolation. Both Kim and Trump come out looking pretty good. They each got something.
More stupid,
Kim got nothing but a friendly gesture.
We didn’t need to continue military exercises, it was a throw away card that was damned expensive.
Let me put it this way: when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used? 1945, twice, against a country that had no such weapons. Nuclear States fear to attack each other. That keeps the peace better than any non-proliferation agreement ever will. Peace comes first ; disarmament happens later. Or are you a believer in gun control? You don’t understand why I keep making that a comparison, do you?
Nuke do not = guns.
That is your thinking error.
A nuclear armed WORLD, increases the likelihood — THE — conflagration,
it’s obvious to everyone, except you.
There are no detailed accounts on what was actually agreed upon. What appeasement do you speak of regarding Clinton? Would NK have nukes today if Clinton’s plan was carried out without the republicans sabotaging it for political reasons?
Clinton GAVE NKorea
everything necessary to develop nuclear power plants,
on the “promise” to never use it for nuclear weapons development.
Insane.
Exactly what Repub sabotage are you referring to?
What exactly did Clinton “give” NK that they didn’t have? Did he sell them reactor parts, or fissionable metals, or do you have some other definition of the word “give?”
He facilitated and AGREED to transfer nuclear info on Kim’s promise not to use US nuclear technology for weapons,
what a stark, raving, FOOL!
If you want the details, search it.
What do you mean by nuclear info? And since when did North Korea need nuclear info from the United States? Do you really believe that North Korea did not already have said nuclear info and that Clinton merely agreed that they could use it for reactor building but not weapons? The kind of nuclear info you seem to be referring to I could get in a library, then and now.
Search it Plillbin, CLINTON nuclear-ized NK.
That simple.
Believe any silly thing you like, but this is the first time I have ever heard this claim. And no, I won’t google it. You are giing to have to at least provide a link to back up such a strange assessment.
Get out of your bubble.
https://nypost.com/2016/01/06/you-can-thank-jimmy-carter-and-bill-clinton-for-north-koreas-nukes/
Haha, NY post editorial ? Nothing in there about nuke technology, no reality or facts to back up any claim. I see why you read it. You can get more facts watching the Simpsons.
From this article:
“The accord calls for a consortium of nations, led by South Korea and Japan, to provide the North with two light-water nuclear reactors, designed in a manner that makes it far more difficult for the North to convert nuclear waste into atomic weapons.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html
You stick with the Simpsons, legitimate inquiry is beyond your ability.
Amazingly, or not, your link shows the opposite of your first link, and in specific language, shows your assertion that Clinton “gave” nuclear weapon technology to North Korea is delusion.
Clinton OK’d the nuclear technology transfer,
are you paying attention or just acting juvenile?
Clinton OK’d a nuclear technology transfer (light water reactors, IIRC) as part of a deal with North Korea.
Congress stopped the administration from delivering on that transfer, at which point North Korea withdrew from the deal. And then Congress whined about North Korea withdrawing from a deal that Congress had ensured the US did not hold up its end of.
Thomas, do you have a good link to back that up?
The David Stockman article I gave you a link to says precisely that.
Not at this instant, but I’ll look for one.
The David Stockman article I gave you a link to says precisely that.
Here, let me help:
Clinton knew the agreement would be hugely controversial—so he structured it in a way that ensured it wouldn’t have to be ratified by the Senate. Republicans were infuriated. And shortly after the agreement was signed, the Republicans won control of Congress.”
Clinton, just like Obama with Iran, avoided the constitutional ratification necessary to make the deal a “treaty”.
“Meanwhile, North Korea continued producing uranium. Kim Jong Il, it turned out, had used potential nukes as a bargaining chip—even though he had no intention of stopping the program. Despite promising initial results, North Korea began flouting the agreement more and more. North Korea ignored warnings that the agreement was in jeopardy and soon intelligence agencies realized it possessed much more advanced nuclear tech than the U.S. had suspected.”
Kim skunked Clinton.
“At first it seemed like George W. Bush, who took office in 2001, might continue Clinton-era diplomatic policies toward North Korea. But then things fell apart. Bush’s diplomats stopped sending fuel shipments; North Korea complained bitterly that the promised nuclear reactors had never been built. And when the September 11 terrorist attacks happened, it pushed American diplomacy in other directions—and Bush mentioned North Korea as one of the three countries in his “Axis of Evil” State of the Union Speech in 2002.”
“Soon, relations between the two countries were openly tense, if not hostile. North Korea dropped out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. By 2006, it had conducted its first nuclear test—an underground delivery that may have been a fizzle, or unsuccessful explosion. And though Bill Clinton himself headed to North Korea to successfully negotiate the release of two American hostages in 2009, it was too late to halt North Korea’s march toward nukes.”
From this article:
https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agreed-framework
Oh yes the New York Post. And not an article but an editorial. Predictable.
And here’s a link for you, from former Reagan aide, David Stockman, which will tell you the real story, which is almost 180 degrees opposite of the New York Post editorial writer upon whom you rely.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bravo-trump-his-spur-of-the-moment-yes-unmasked-68-years-of-washington-duplicity/
We didn’t keep our word on delivering anything we promised including removing them from the state sponsors of terrorism list.. It would have been different if NK had actually taken advantage of Clinton’s “appeasement”. The republican led congress did everything they could to block Clinton’s initiatives.
“It would have been different —IF”— “NK had actually taken advantage”,
LOL!
Ah yeah,
BUT THEY DIDN’T!!! Why?
Because they knew Clinton was a puzzy and wouldn’t do anything about it!
Clinton = CHUMPED!
And WHAT exactly did the Repub congress do to block Slick Willy?
So they didn’t take advantage of Clinton’s perceived appeasement to their nuke capabilities because they knew Clinton wouldn’t have done anything about it? That doesn’t even make sense.
We didn’t deliver on any of our promises including not taking NK off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, even though they met the criteria we had set forth. What part of that didn’t you understand and what part wasn’t instigated by the republican controlled congress?
Kim took FULL advantage of Clinton’s concessions,
and continued his nuke program.
Who is “we” the Clinton admin?
The State Dept. assigns “state sponsor of terrorism” status, not the congress.
He continued his nuke program after we failed to deliver on our promises. The light water reactors for generating electricity were slow to develop. They were supposed to be completed by ’03 and they didn’t even start pouring concrete until ’01. It was still 2 years away from completion by ’03. The 500,000 tons of heavy oil for the interim were not delivered on schedule. We were also suppose to end enmity and give economic sanction relief. No attempt was made to end the enmity and sanctions weren’t relieved until 2000. The sanctions under the US anti-terrorism weren’t relaxed although North Korea hadn’t committed any acts of terrorism since 1987. Add the fact that the South had a right wing government that wanted us to bide our time until the North collapsed and our republican controlled congress that wanted anything Clinton did to fail. So we were a lousy partner who couldn’t be trusted to hold up our end of the bargain. Just like today
The “we” would be OUR state department.
Correct the Clinton admin was an abysmal failure,
as was there State Dept.
So somebody, not Bush or Obama they ignored NK also,
had to deal with them.
Now we have the makings of a serious deal to denuclearize and scale down the military presence on the peninsula.
As an anti-war believer,
i give credit where it is due, this time (so far) it’s Trump.
We failed to deliver on our promises because the republicans acted like the democrats are acting today. No money was appropriated once the republicans controlled congress. No, no one ignored NKorea. We have troops across the street and we’ve been threatening them continuously, including Trump, right up to the point that they actually had usable nukes and means to deliver them. Trump did the right thing with the summit but he had little choice. The biggest difference is the SKorean government.
Here is a link to an article by David Stockman about this very subject. It might make you sound less like an ignoramus if you were to read it. It tells you exactly what Clinton supposedly gave them, which they never received, and could not be used to develop nuclear weapons.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bravo-trump-his-spur-of-the-moment-yes-unmasked-68-years-of-washington-duplicity/
WRONG, but not for the reasons you and Dave would expect. The cases of Clinton, Bush, and Obama demonstrate precisely nothing, because none of them were dealing with a nuclear armed NK. Under the conditions presented by such a situation, and the fact that SK was no longer willing to participate in US sponsored war games, any president would have been FORCED into dealing with NK as a legitimate regional power, & not as a rogue state. All this praising and denunciation of Trump conveniently ignores the fact that he had no other choice. It was Kim Jong Un’s wise decision to develop nuclear-tipped missiles that has made all these peaceful overtures possible, not the wisdom (or even ego) of Donald Trump.
It would have been immensely easier to deal
with the non-nuke Kim. Kim would have zero leverage.
The guy that makes the peace,
gets the credit,
not the guys that whiffed.
PS: tell us why did Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize?
1) Trump wouldn’t even be talking to a non nuclear North Korea. He certainly would not be meeting with its leader. Therefore the credit goes to the person who pushed him to the table. Cause and effect are real things.
2) why do you ask me why Obama got the Nobel Prize? I’m not on the Nobel committee. Or did you think I would defend Obama? As far as I know, all Obama did was make a speech that the Nobel committee liked
1.) The credit goes to the person who CONFRONTED a nuke power and made them back down, TRUMP!
You make it sound as if Kim purposely when nuclear
in order to have peace talks??????????
2.) I ask you because you obviously believe in myths.
3.) IF—–Trump succeeds in de-nuclear-izing NK, will you applaud him or not?
He hasn’t made anyone “back down,” but it pleases Trump & his supporters to believe that. Signing vague declarations is not “backing down,” it is playing for time. And, no, Kim didn’t necessarily have talks specifically in mind; but he had leverage in mind, and he got it. He essentially traded a halt on testing of nukes for the end of joint US-SK military exercises. So if Trump can claim Kim “backed down,” Kim clearly can make the reverse claim. He doesn’t actually need to test his nukes anymore: he knows they work.
The country turning in it’s weapons, backed down.
You are ill-informed. North Korea has turned in no weapons. All they have done is agree to stop testing them. Big difference. Just like there is a big difference between a nickel and a billion dollars.
It is only the beginning,
but the best “beginning” we have ever seen with NK.
Time will tell.
f Trump fails,
he will join the other loser presidents.
So far he has surpassed any previous pres.
Just to be clear, I was referring to the summit when I said anti-war types aren’t against what Trump is doing in Korea. This article and the childish behavior that resulted in the summit is why anti-war types question trump’s actions, re NKorea.
The proof is in the pudding (the results).
Clinton, Bush and Obama didn’t accomplish a thing,
choosing to just kick the can.
And while the jury is still out on the results with Trump,
at least there is positive agreement to
de-nuclearize the peninsula, we will see.
And Trump would have kicked that can again, but for NK nukes. Why can’t you get that very simple idea?
Kim had the nukes when Obama was presy.
The only difference is Trump MADE Kim deal with him,
something the other three dwarfs could never do.
Plus none of the dwarfs had the balls to FORCE negotiations.
Wrong again. Kim’s successful nuclear test occurred during the Trump Administration.
Yes, but everybody KNEW he was developing them!!!
Including Trump. And yet he let the testing go forward. Puzzy.
Trump has only been in office 16 months or so, he was the ONLY president to call Kim’s bluff,
then kim folded, that’s all there is to it.
But so many of you so-called antiwar boosters cannot give an ounce of credit to the ONLY one who has made real moves toward peace???
I find that very interesting.
What “bluff” did Kim make? He built nukes; he still has them. Wait to judge, at least.
Kim was firing missiles at will, over Japan, threatening Guam and test nuclear bombs. Then Trump upped the ante and called his bluff.
And you think Kim didn’t know that at some point he would have to stop?
Why stop,
3 presidents before caved and tried to buy him off,
why not try that with Trump?
He did and his bluff was called.
Or perhaps Trump’s bluff was called when Kim developed nuclear weapons. Trump’s bluff was the same bluff that all prior presidents used – joint military exercises. You have zero ability to see things as other people see them.
If Kim “folded,” how come Trump cancelled the military exercises? Sounds like a quid pro quo, not a “folding.” Nothing wrong with that, & I’m guardedly happy it happened, but let’s call it what it really is.
Kim quit nuke tests, began destruction of facilities, normalized relations with SKorea, returned Korean War remains, accepted an invite to the US,
invited Trump to NK
all the while the sanctions— remain (read that as pressure).
Cutting short the war games was just a friendly gesture.
Kim improved relations with South Korea at the prompting of the South Korean president, not Trump. The Diplomatic moves that facilitated that change were made by the Chinese. And why do you think it’s so important that North Korea returned a handful of 60 plus year old Corpses? You seem to put this on the same level as normalizing relations with South Korea or ending nuclear testing. Very often, so-called friendly gestures such as canceling military drills, are part of a quid pro quo. Or do you ever look beneath the surface of anything?
Without Trump menacing his future existence,
the SK president was a nobody.
When the heat was turned on,
the SK presy became his besty.
South Korean president is not a nobody, you American chauvinist idiot. He is the president of a sovereign country which is hosting u.s. troops. He was elected essentially by campaigning against the US. Without South Korean urging, and Chinese diplomatic moves, no meeting would have occurred. Get your brain out of the New York Post. It’s rotting your neurons. These events are not all about America.
Trump making threats of nuclear annihilation while Kim continued to develop and test nukes is calling his bluff? The only reason there was a summit is because Kim has usable nukes. Maybe it was Kim who called Trump’s bluff. And by the way, I’m all for peace on the Korean peninsula. My only problem is with the tunnel vision that Trump’s Delusional Supporters suffer from in believing he is a man of peace.
Trump is the only president to get Kim to the table with the stipulation
Kim agree to dismantle his nukes.
If you can’t see that, I cannot help you.
Why did Kim blink and ask for peace talks, the US military was all over around him and Seal Team Six was developing a strike plan.
And Kim is the only leader to get Trump to call our war games”provocative” and promise to stop them. Having nukes gives you bargaining chips.
I think Kim is well aware that he’d be destroyed in a military confrontation and has been all the while. This is Kim’s endgame. Time to use those chips.
ONLY sixteen months? All that time, and he waited until Kim successfully tested a nuclear weapon before dealing with him.
Get this straight: I’ve got no problem with you giving some credit to the president for this. Just stop turning him into a superhero. And by the way, I doubt you are very much for peace. If North Korea denuclearizes, and Trump responds by attacking North Korea, will you support him or condemn him? It’s a future president does so, will you support or condemn him?
You probably don’t have the brains to understand this argument, but denuclearization has about as much to do with peace as gun control has to do with preventing crime. Denuclearization is potentially a way to set up a nation for attack. Or hadn’t you thought of that?
I give Trump credit for FORCING the issue and then diplomatically working toward a peaceful resolution, so far. if the situation breaks down or Trump turns on him, I will condemn Trump.
The missing brain is on your side, there is an obvious reason to work toward nuclear non-proliferation.
Trump forced nothing, no matter how many times you put forced in capital letters. Kim forced the issue by developing usable nuclear weapons. And if there is an obvious reason to work towards nuclear non-proliferation, then why don’t we start with the countries that have most of the nuclear weapons? Get the hint?
By the way, since you seem to think that nuclear non-proliferation is a worthwhile goal, do you also think gun control is a worthwhile goal? Yes or no? Nuclear weapons don’t cause wars, and guns don’t cause crime. Agree or disagree?
Also, what is more important to you? Denuclearization of North Korea, or peaceful relations with North Korea? Will you condemn Trump, or any future president, of whatever party, if they attack North Korea after they have denuclearized? Yes or no?
You mean none of the others were FORCED into negotiations by NK finally getting nukes. Cause and effect are reality.
An asinine argument. Kim got nukes so he could negotiate peace???
Pleez.
That’s not what I’m saying, but you’re too stupid to understand that. What I am saying is that Kim having nukes made it inevitable that the United States would negotiate with him. It doesn’t matter who the president is. Why can’t you get that? Are you such a hero worshiping fool that you can’t see that?
The juvenile level of your comments are duly noted.
Nothing was “inevitable”, Obama would never have brought the military pressure to bear on Kim as Trump did, and that changed everything.
Joint military exercises between the u.s. and South Korea occurred under the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, and the Clinton administration. Therefore, your statement is false.
“The Trump Administration has been very clear that those sanctions are staying in place until full denuclearization”
This sort of mis-attribution happens all the time. In order to slam Trump, the bellicose statements of State Dept Neocon “holdovers”, Obama leftovers, old guard GOP “stealth” never-Trumpers, and other Deep Staters who aren’t on board with the Presidents’s own policy inclinations, but are nonetheless in “The Trump Administration”,…. these statements by war party trolls are disparagingly attributed to Trump himself.
Clearly, Trump dismissed the views of Bolton and Pompeo when he met with Kim and began the transition to a US/Kim BFF policy stance.
Trump is the Boss, the President, the Big Dog, the guy who calls the shots, ***not*** “The Trump Administration”. Nothing Bolton or Pompeo or Haley says means squat (beyond a bit of rhetorical “bad cop” utility.)
Right, the purpose of the executive order trump signed (pictured above), is to keep sanctions in place, until denuclearization.
Indeed. But that EO can be cancelled the moment Trump wishes to do so, whenever Trump deems it the right moment, Haley, Pompeo, and Bolton notwithstanding.
Trump is an instinctive political genius. (Or perhaps just a man slightly more intelligent than the corrupted hacks he is gradually “draining” from the American political “swamp”.) It’s a big swamp, and his adversaries are quite powerful. So fixing things will be a bit of a slog. Not gonna happen overnight.
Watch and learn.
If trump sold his mcturds, you guys would hang em from your rear view mirrors….
“Trumpturds, shit that’s truly Presidential!”, … I like it. E-bay or Amazon?
If trump sold his mcturds, you guys would hang em from your rear view mirrors….
If trump sold his mcturds, you guys would hang em from your rear view mirrors….
Do you choke a little when you swallow, or does it go down smoothly as you look lovingly upwards at an image of “the Donald?”
Smoothly.
Watch the red wave in November, and check back in to “excoriate” me regularly as you “enjoy” 6+ more years of “The Donald”.
We won. He is still president, and you are still a TDS (tedious?) loser. Sing to me your pain — it’s a good pain, a healing pain, a learning pain, and I love it.
MAGA.
No stupid. You did not win. Trump won. Only leader worshiping fools say the words ” we won” when the candidate they voted for wins. You won nothing. And get this through your thick skull: I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.
Oh, your pain, your pain. Sing to me your pain. I love it. I won. You lost. Sing to me!
There’s no pain, you dolt. You didn’t win, and I didn’t lose. I didn’t even put a bet down on that election, let alone vote for either of the two fecal growths that were the Republiscum and Democroachic candidates. But go on telling yourself you won. It seems to boost your self esteem.