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: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ignoring what?

That past administrations gave aid and sanctions.

No aid from Trump but the sanctions are still in play.




posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

Do you not understand that there were agreements before from North Korea to stop using nukes? Do you not understand that they are a bunch of liars over there? Do you not understand that this agreement is not worth as much as the toilet paper I wipe on my derrière? It. Means. Nothing.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing that happened here is that Trump gave NK what they could never have dreamed of otherwise: to be seen as diplomatically commitant with America.

Dear Leader won.


God forbid the US engage in dialogue and diplomacy with north Korea rather than Bomb it!


We've been engaging with NK for years. Bush got a better agreement in 2005.


Do u have the details of this agreement by any chance? i would like to do the comparison and see how you came up with that conclusion?


edit on 26630America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2018 08:26:34 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Obama learned from Bush's mistake that it's best not to give NK the time of day.

Actually the GOP raved and roared whenever Obama discussed trying to talk to NK.
Conservatives hated it when Obama said he’d meet with North Korea. Guess what they say now.
But hey, all's cool now.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: WarPig1939

Oh, so now your morality is so utterly degraded, that you think that if something is legal, it is right?

You need to examine your ethics more closely, and you can try and come back at me about my own, but even a lowly person like me knows that what is legal and what is right are two very different things more often than not. I also know the difference between an unreported crime, and a righteous act. I am not perfect, but I would hope if I was as thoroughly wrong as you are, someone would have the decency to shoot me.


Sorry but I follow the rule of law that precedes over me as I am a law abiding citizen. The right thing may not always be right under the eyes of the law. It has always been like that and won't ever change. Vigilante justice isn't how you run a country. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

It doesn't matter if you feel like I am wrong. Besides a righteous act is subjective to the individual and inadmissible in a trial. This isn't gotham city and you aren't batman or judge dredd



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing that happened here is that Trump gave NK what they could never have dreamed of otherwise: to be seen as diplomatically commitant with America.

Dear Leader won.


God forbid the US engage in dialogue and diplomacy with north Korea rather than Bomb it!


We've been engaging with NK for years. Bush got a better agreement in 2005.


Do u have the details of this agreement by any chance? i would like to do the comparison.

North Korea: How Obama, Bush, Clinton dealt with the rogue nation
Clinton:

Former President Jimmy Carter was secretly sent to Pyongyang to pave the way for a diplomatic agreement.

Clinton’s administration successfully established a deal known as the Joint Framework Agreement which offered $4 billion worth of nuclear, energy, economic and diplomatic benefits in exchange for the halting of North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994. The deal also included two light-water nuclear reactors, which were believed to be more difficult to use to make weapons than Pyongyang’s plutonium reactor.

Bush:

“The Six-Party Talks” comprising China, North Korea, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. began in 2003 and continued over a number of years until 2009 under President Obama. In 2005, the group offered some energy and economic assistance if North Korea would give up its renewed efforts to build up its nuclear program, which Pyongyang tentatively agreed to.

But that plan didn’t really hold and North Korea said it had successfully completed a nuclear test in 2006. In 2007, an agreement was reached to send $400 million worth of fuel, food and other aid in exchange for North Korea shutting down its main nuclear reactor.

Obama:

Obama had to deal with a nuclear test by North Korea in mid-2009. The U.N. Security Council quickly adopted sanctions banning arms transfers to and from the country.

Obama sent an envoy to North Korea at the end of the year, asking leader Kim Jong Il to begin denuclearization talks, but his regime didn’t make any major moves toward pursuing them.

Some more progress was made in 2012 when new leader Kim Jong Un agreed to halt nuclear tests in exchange for food aid.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: WUNK22

Do you not understand that there were agreements before from North Korea to stop using nukes? Do you not understand that they are a bunch of liars over there? Do you not understand that this agreement is not worth as much as the toilet paper I wipe on my derrière? It. Means. Nothing.


Do you not understand everything you just listed is your opinion and like the asshole you mention wiping is sticks as well.

Fact is this is a move in the right direction. Is it still possible either side backs away from the deal or doesn’t meet their obligation? Sure! Guess what honey bunny that’s a factor in all deals!! From buying a car to denuclearization of a nation.

Maybe I’m wrong but judging by your tone you seem to hope it fails.... which means war. Sorry but I prefer talking if at all possible.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I'm honestly not sure where i stand on all this. At face value, it is truly great - something that no other President has managed to achieve.

On the other hand, what has actually been agreed? This could easily prove to be all sound bites with no actual substance so its too early to really make a judgement call. Credit where it is due though.

I would have been more in favour had i not read a leaked security report last week (from mid 2000s) formulated with the aid of defectors. They stated in this report that the Kims only wanted nukes so they could then disarm. Disarmament would eventually lead to removal of US troops which was North Korea's aim as it would then South Korea vulnerable. Now obviously over 10 years have passed and things change, but if that report is in any way accurate then Kim has played an absolute blinder and suckered Trump and the US.

I am hopeful but that report has left an inkling of doubt.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Do you not understand everything you just listed is your opinion and like the asshole you mention wiping is sticks as well.

Uh... No. There HAVE been agreements before. I just posted them. That isn't an opinion. It is a fact.


Fact is this is a move in the right direction. Is it still possible either side backs away from the deal or doesn’t meet their obligation? Sure! Guess what honey bunny that’s a factor in all deals!! From buying a car to denuclearization of a nation.

THIS is an opinion.


Maybe I’m wrong but judging by your tone you seem to hope it fails.... which means war. Sorry but I prefer talking if at all possible.

It's not about hoping it fails, it's about using history to predict the future.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right , but where is the details on Trumps meeting and agreement with NK which led him to conclude that Bush agreement was better?


edit on 09630America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2018 08:09:48 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

It’s not an opinion that other presidents had agreements with North Korea to de-nuke, and North Korea went back on all those agreements - it’s a fact.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GuidedKill
Do you not understand everything you just listed is your opinion and like the asshole you mention wiping is sticks as well.

Uh... No. There HAVE been agreements before. I just posted them. That isn't an opinion. It is a fact.


Fact is this is a move in the right direction. Is it still possible either side backs away from the deal or doesn’t meet their obligation? Sure! Guess what honey bunny that’s a factor in all deals!! From buying a car to denuclearization of a nation.

THIS is an opinion.


Maybe I’m wrong but judging by your tone you seem to hope it fails.... which means war. Sorry but I prefer talking if at all possible.

It's not about hoping it fails, it's about using history to predict the future.



Hahah and here come the rightfully self titled dem defender!!! You hoping for war too Krazy?? Cause that’s krazy!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

South Korea doesn't sound or look all that worried.

They look happy.


m.yna.co.kr...



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: GuidedKill

It’s not an opinion that other presidents had agreements with North Korea to de-nuke, and North Korea went back on all those agreements - it’s a fact.



Your conjecture into the fray is the opinion. Funny how others trying to deal with NK wasn’t bad but since the man you love to hate is doing it let’s all flip out!!!

Hahaha you’re faux outrage is showing



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing that happened here is that Trump gave NK what they could never have dreamed of otherwise: to be seen as diplomatically commitant with America.

Dear Leader won.


God forbid the US engage in dialogue and diplomacy with north Korea rather than Bomb it!


We've been engaging with NK for years. Bush got a better agreement in 2005.


I'm amazed everyone is just ignoring this. Doesn't fit into their paradigm that Trump is the "best president in the history of presidents", I guess.

Obama learned from Bush's mistake that it's best not to give NK the time of day.


Except, while not giving NK 'the time of day', they've developed nukes and ICBMs and stated they'd use them on the U.S., How'd that work out for Obama? Just more mess to clean up.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So if we're using history to predict the future then what is different this time?

I'll give you a few hints. It involves interaction from other leaders. It involves a measure of courage and respect.

It also involves from what position each party meets under.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing that happened here is that Trump gave NK what they could never have dreamed of otherwise: to be seen as diplomatically commitant with America.

Dear Leader won.


God forbid the US engage in dialogue and diplomacy with north Korea rather than Bomb it!


We've been engaging with NK for years. Bush got a better agreement in 2005.


I'm amazed everyone is just ignoring this. Doesn't fit into their paradigm that Trump is the "best president in the history of presidents", I guess.

Obama learned from Bush's mistake that it's best not to give NK the time of day.


Except, while not giving NK 'the time of day', they've developed nukes and ICBMs and stated they'd use them on the U.S., How'd that work out for Obama? Just more mess to clean up.


Bush gave them the time of day, and they developed nukes and stated they’d use them on the U.S. How is that better?



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: vinifalou
Maybe all the U.S needed was a billionaire president who doesn't need to sell the country to Iran/Russia to get things done.

Well done, indeed.



Trump is selling out to Russia. Every so-called "erratic" choice he has made makes sense if you assume he wants to further Russian interests by alienating American allies.






"Trump is selling out to Russia. Every so-called "erratic" choice he has made makes sense if you assume he wants to further Russian interests by alienating American allies."


Oh my garsh......next you will be claiming he is colluding with them pesky Russians!



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Different tactic.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right , but where is the details on Trumps meeting and agreement with NK which led him to conclude that Bush agreement was better?



The difference, hopefully, is Trump has at least created the image that KN has better keep any agreements made, or else. That 'may' make the difference this time around. Truth be told, I'm skeptical that it'll work. I have hope, though.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join