It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Not a fan of trump......but.....

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

He hasn't actually done anything though. NK hasn't disarmed, and so far all Trump has to show for the visit is a 'pinky swear'.....




posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Kim wanted the sanctions removed. No sanctions have been removed. As a matter of fact, we have additional sanctions waiting in the wings if he should decide to renege.


Again, we do not know what Trump promised in secret. By meeting with Kim, Trump gave him everything he wanted at the time. In addition to lifted sanctions, he wants the United States off the peninsula. Complete"denuclearization" means no nuclear powered submarines or aircraft carriers, no overflights by nuclear bomb carrying aircraft. Is that what Trump wants? He seems to think it will save money. Of course, if he really wanted to save money he would pull us off of Okinawa. Look for that to become an issue now.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: DieGloke

He hasn't actually done anything though. NK hasn't disarmed, and so far all Trump has to show for the visit is a 'pinky swear'.....


Don't bother trying to explain that to Trumpolators.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



The United States cannot sign a peace treaty without South Korea being on board

Technically, South Korea never signed the armistice therefore they technically have no say in the matter. The armistice involves three parties...The US, North Korea, and China. Involving them is a courtesy not a requirement.

Armistice

Unless I am missing something in regards to your statement South Korea has the least amount of say in regards to peace.




posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61


Wait, so now Trump's the aggressive one? And he's rewarding Kim's aggressive behavior, so he's weak?


They are both aggressive idiots, just that Trump is the bigger of the two.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Hehe, you just can't get out of your own way.

If you say "we don't know what trump promised in secret," and then follow it up with the most biased and jaded opinion one more time, I'm going to wet my pants in laughter.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustaBill
a reply to: DJW001



The United States cannot sign a peace treaty without South Korea being on board

Technically, South Korea never signed the armistice therefore they technically have no say in the matter. The armistice involves three parties...The US, North Korea, and China. Involving them is a courtesy not a requirement.

Armistice

Unless I am missing something in regards to your statement South Korea has the least amount of say in regards to peace.



A fair point. As usual, Trump is being rude to one of our allies and trading partners. Concluding a separate peace would also have the benefit of being an insult to the veterans who risked their lives to keep Korea united and free. But they're dying out like John McCain.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


So your ideal solution is to nuke them?

Where did I advocate nuking anyone?

Debate tip #1: it is generally considered bad form to make up accusations about others that are untrue.

Debate tip #2: It is not a good thing to try and switch positions in the middle of a discussion without giving a reasonable explanation. It is worse if one continues to switch sides at a rapid pace.

Debate tip #3: It is considered proper etiquette to use words as they are defined in the language being used.

You're welcome.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Tell you what: go change your diapers, come back, and explain the geopolitical situation for me. Who are the stakeholders? What do they want? Why has the situation not been resolved before? What can Trump bring to the table that will satisfy all the stakeholders? Or will you just continue the playground insults?



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Oh, so now you are opposing the summit because of what you think might have happened that no one knows about?

Please, continue. This is getting entertaining.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DJW001

Oh, so now you are opposing the summit because of what you think might have happened that no one knows about?

Please, continue. This is getting entertaining.

TheRedneck


Debate tip #1: it is generally considered bad form to make up accusations about others that are untrue.



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Concluding a separate peace would also have the benefit of being an insult to the veterans who risked their lives to keep Korea united and free.

So it would be preferable to not have Korea united and free? Better that these brave souls die in vain than Trump have another success, am I right?

Speaking of those brave veterans, we also have another "pinky-swear" that their remains will finally be returned to their families. How insulting! [/sarc]

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Debate tip #1: it is generally considered bad form to make up accusations about others that are untrue.


Like you do here?


Debate tip #2: It is not a good thing to try and switch positions in the middle of a discussion without giving a reasonable explanation. It is worse if one continues to switch sides at a rapid pace.


See tip #1.


Debate tip #3: It is considered proper etiquette to use words as they are defined in the language being used.


Example?



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: JustaBill
a reply to: DJW001



The United States cannot sign a peace treaty without South Korea being on board

Technically, South Korea never signed the armistice therefore they technically have no say in the matter. The armistice involves three parties...The US, North Korea, and China. Involving them is a courtesy not a requirement.

Armistice

Unless I am missing something in regards to your statement South Korea has the least amount of say in regards to peace.



A fair point. As usual, Trump is being rude to one of our allies and trading partners. Concluding a separate peace would also have the benefit of being an insult to the veterans who risked their lives to keep Korea united and free. But they're dying out like John McCain.





Trump is being rude to one of our allies and trading partners.


Help me out with what you said there. I honestly don't know what you mean. How is he being rude to anyone?


Concluding a separate peace would also have the benefit of being an insult to the veterans who risked their lives to keep Korea united and free.


China has indicated its support for a formal peace agreement, and Trump's meeting with Kim this week could provide the ideal moment to begin negotiations to replace the 1953 armistice with a new treaty.

Any actual peace agreement would require those 3 parties to agree and China is in full support. How does this insult veterans?




posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What have I accused you of saying that is untrue? Did you or did you not state that you wanted us to not be involved in Korea?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Take it easy there lil guy. I know you can't help to dish it out so in all fairness, you should be expected to receive it in turn. I met you halfway on a few items before you chose the low route (which I'm happy to go down).

Your entire argument(?) rests on viewing the situation in a partisan light, or to put it more succinctly, hatred for Trump. Which is fine I suppose depending on the reader. The points you bring up have been addressed and your refutation of them is your biased opinion on Trump.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

OK, let me break this down for you...

#1...

You said:

The preferred result is for the two Koreas to work it out on their own. All we can do is honor our agreements to provide ROK with security. Right now, Trump is wading in without Korean support, and his history of breaking contracts and shredding treaties is not comforting.


You said we should not be involved, despite recent events that include North Korea firing missiles across the Sea of Japan toward our major ally in the region, and despite Kim Jong Un's open threats of nuclear action against Guam and possibly mainland USA.

Then I said:

So your ideal situation is to sit back and just ignore the missile tests and the nukes going off?

Thank God you're not the one calling the shots.


That was your position, was it not?

#2...

That makes absolutely no sense.

#3...

The term "peace" does not include a country threatening other countries with nuclear war while simultaneously firing off ICBMs toward said countries and testing nuclear weapons.



This is getting over the top. You seriously need to pick a position; so far all you have done in this thread is to constantly complain about anything you could dream up in your obviously feverish imagination, ignoring recent events and factual reports as it suits you. Now that you got called out on your position and the real-world disadvantages to it, you are trying to state that others have a position they have never espoused.

Understand this: your opinions on this subject are irrelevant now to me. You are now a laughing stock of your own making. People are making fun of you, and you don't even seem capable of understanding that. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


What have I accused you of saying that is untrue? Did you or did you not state that you wanted us to not be involved in Korea?


I said that it was for the Koreans to work out, not us. I went on to make clear that we should stand behind ROK, having standing security agreements with them. That is not exactly "not involved."



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Where did you enumerate the stakeholders, clarify their positions and propose a workable solution?



posted on Jun, 13 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The term "peace" does not include a country threatening other countries with nuclear war while simultaneously firing off ICBMs toward said countries and testing nuclear weapons.


So the United States has never been at peace?







 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join