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.

 

Some thoughts on North Korea and Kim Jong-Un.

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They seem to have left out one atrocity:

 


Destruction of California

Kim Jong Un, in an act of war, launched a preliminary nuclear attack on the USA. The nuclear-tipped ICBM detonated just outside of Oakland, California, effectively obliterating a third of the state and instantaneously vaporizing 4.6 million American citizens. Excessive levels of radiation from the blast were reported as far away as Kansas City, Kansas.

 


Oh, wait, sorry... that's just what some people are hoping will happen, so they can blame it on Trump. My bad.

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

May be more than a bit of truth to that.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They seem to have left out one atrocity:

 


Destruction of California

Kim Jong Un, in an act of war, launched a preliminary nuclear attack on the USA. The nuclear-tipped ICBM detonated just outside of Oakland, California, effectively obliterating a third of the state and instantaneously vaporizing 4.6 million American citizens. Excessive levels of radiation from the blast were reported as far away as Kansas City, Kansas.

 


Oh, wait, sorry... that's just what some people are hoping will happen, so they can blame it on Trump. My bad.

TheRedneck

That's disgusting. Just because someone is critical of Trump's efforts in NK doesn't mean they are desiring nuclear war with NK.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

what's really amazing is how the opposition is working so hard to find fault here. Can Kim be trusted? not likely, but it sure would be great if he follows through. Peace would be a great change to the way things have been.

And if things don't work out, then it all back to business as usual. Sadly, the #tards on the opposition will try to find fault with that as well. Ignorance on display.

You can't handle being told "I told you so", huh?

In any case, none of this excuses the human rights violations that Kim has done to his people. That needs to be addressed.
edit on 14-6-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That depends on the type of criticality.

We have three possible scenarios here, and only three:
  • We talk peace and continue to try and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
  • We use force to take out Kim Jong Un and his regime, in the process likely killing 90% of the population of North Korea and 50% of the population of South Korea.
  • We do nothing until Kim Jong Un launches his new toys against us, which he has already threatened to do multiple times.
Those are our choices. You choose which one you prefer. I prefer the first one myself. You apparently do not, as you are not being critical of Trump's performance, but rather of his attempt.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

what's really amazing is how the opposition is working so hard to find fault here. Can Kim be trusted? not likely, but it sure would be great if he follows through. Peace would be a great change to the way things have been.

And if things don't work out, then it all back to business as usual. Sadly, the #tards on the opposition will try to find fault with that as well. Ignorance on display.

You can't handle being told "I told you so", huh?

In any case, none of this excuses the human rights violations that Kim has done to his people. That needs to be addressed.


WTF does that even mean? You told me what? You told me nothing but tantrums and tear fests LOL! Please, try putting some effort into your posts, this is pathetic.

Read what I wrote, then try to respond to that, not what you think you wanted me to say.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That depends on the type of criticality.

We have three possible scenarios here, and only three:
  • We talk peace and continue to try and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
  • We use force to take out Kim Jong Un and his regime, in the process likely killing 90% of the population of North Korea and 50% of the population of South Korea.
  • We do nothing until Kim Jong Un launches his new toys against us, which he has already threatened to do multiple times.
Those are our choices. You choose which one you prefer. I prefer the first one myself. You apparently do not, as you are not being critical of Trump's performance, but rather of his attempt.

TheRedneck

That's the thing, it isn't about the choices. It's about wanting choice one to actually WORK or at least have a higher chance of working. Just because choice 1 is chosen doesn't mean we should ignore all the signs that highlight how this is bad diplomacy all so we can say we want to avoid war.
edit on 14-6-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
originally posted by: network dude

Oh I read it. That's why I didn't take it seriously. It was just another of your dumb posts where you pretend to know what the other side is thinking. I'm not sure why I should put effort into talking to you when you never put effort into taking me or my opinions seriously anyways. To me, you are a troll, so I treat you as one.
edit on 14-6-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

well the good news is, those without "that" problem, can read my post and see what I said, and also what you did.

sit gently.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


That's the thing, it isn't about the choices.

Oh, but it is about the choice, irregardless of what you want it to be about. Those choices represent the condition of international relationships between the USA and North Korea. It is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change what is.

That said, of course we would want choice one to work. That is an inherent assumption of choosing it. Howevr, nothing works overnight. This ain't "The Big Bang Theory" where every situation is resolved happily in the allotted time frame of 30 minutes minus commercial breaks.

What exactly were you expecting? Maybe Kim Jong Un getting down on his hands and knees in tears of remorse, offering up North Korea and all its secrets as a penance for his horrible crimes? Not gonna happen; most people knew that before the summit was even announced. This was an initial meeting: "Hello, Chairman Kim, my name is Donald Trump and I am President of the United States of America." "Hello, President Trump, I am Chairman Kim Jong Un of the People's Republic of North Korea. Thank you for meeting with me." "We have a lot to discuss, Chairman Kim. Would you like to dine while we talk?"

My expectation and hope was that Kim wouldn't try to assassinate Trump and Trump wouldn't launch a military strike. That's it. That is my definition of success at this stage. Now, later in the upcoming talks, I want to see action taken to permanently dismantle the centrifuges and missile sites, open and complete verification of such, normalized negotiations, progress on human rights violations, that kind of thing. But I am not unrealistic enough to expect it after a couple of hours of meeting. Hopefully it will come.

Your posts seem to expect a final agreement in two hours, with an implied desire to just bomb them out of existence if you don't get it. That is so unrealistic as to be ludicrously laughable.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not about choices?

It most certainly is.

We, the west, in the person of Trump and the leaders of South and North Korea, can talk him in off the ledge, possibly saving millions of future lives...

Or...

Leave the status quo as it is, and run the risk of Kim, or his replacement, attempting to blow up a portion of the world, and the longer it's allowed to go on, the greater that portion of the world would become.

I can not for the life of me understand the problem so many of you seem to have...other than "Trump did it.". Anyone else, and you'd be dancing at the opportunity.

Kicking the can down the road has a limited span of time that it'll work. Trying this we lose nothing, not trying it, we may lose a lot. Those are the choices.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Oh, but it is about the choice, irregardless of what you want it to be about. Those choices represent the condition of international relationships between the USA and North Korea. It is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change what is.

This is what I'm talking about. You are trying to frame it like I WANT war. This is dishonest. Please stop.


That said, of course we would want choice one to work. That is an inherent assumption of choosing it. Howevr, nothing works overnight. This ain't "The Big Bang Theory" where every situation is resolved happily in the allotted time frame of 30 minutes minus commercial breaks.

What exactly were you expecting? Maybe Kim Jong Un getting down on his hands and knees in tears of remorse, offering up North Korea and all its secrets as a penance for his horrible crimes? Not gonna happen; most people knew that before the summit was even announced. This was an initial meeting: "Hello, Chairman Kim, my name is Donald Trump and I am President of the United States of America." "Hello, President Trump, I am Chairman Kim Jong Un of the People's Republic of North Korea. Thank you for meeting with me." "We have a lot to discuss, Chairman Kim. Would you like to dine while we talk?"

I was expecting Trump to fail miserably; for that I wasn't disappointed since Trump gave up SOOO much in return for the exact same promises that the last three Presidential administrations received. I was hoping for actual diplomacy and negotiations to take place. I was hoping that Trump would attempt to hold Kim accountable for his human rights violations; not call him a great guy who loves his people. I was hoping that Trump would honor freedom over the appearance of trying to score a win at all costs.


My expectation and hope was that Kim wouldn't try to assassinate Trump and Trump wouldn't launch a military strike. That's it. That is my definition of success at this stage. Now, later in the upcoming talks, I want to see action taken to permanently dismantle the centrifuges and missile sites, open and complete verification of such, normalized negotiations, progress on human rights violations, that kind of thing. But I am not unrealistic enough to expect it after a couple of hours of meeting. Hopefully it will come.

I'd like to have seen a written agreement happen that outlined a timeframe, inspection details, obtain an inventory of NK's missiles and locations, and a game plan on how the disarmament is to happen at a MINIMUM for what we gave up to NK. Even restarting military exercises (in case NK doesn't follow through on their end) with SK is going to be a headache since Trump validated NK's propaganda by saying the drills were provocative.


Your posts seem to expect a final agreement in two hours, with an implied desire to just bomb them out of existence if you don't get it. That is so unrealistic as to be ludicrously laughable.

TheRedneck

Sorry, bro. I look at history. And historically we've made these promises with NK before in good faith and they have reneged on them every time. I have zero faith that things will be different here and I am SERIOUSLY upset that we gave them concessions and aren't addressing their human rights violations when we owe them nothing.

The way I interpret the meeting this week was just a giant propaganda photo op for Trump and Kim. Hell Trump even gave Kim a US financed propaganda video exclaiming his greatness. Because if we are going to pretend like Kim should be seen as a great leader, let's go the full monty on it. We only delayed any possibility of war by soothing Kim's ego versus actually upholding the rule of law and morality and being the voice of freedom.

There is hope and then there is being realistic. This meeting is 100% hope. Throw some change in there and we have a repeat of the Obama years.
edit on 14-6-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I can't understand how people assume that because I'm critical of the meeting its because I want war.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Let Trump know through congress that US navy veterans do not support talks for a peace treaty with NK unless NK first releases the USS Pueblo (AGER-2).

en.wikipedia.org...(AGER-2)
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Pueblo, still held by North Korea today, officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy.

I served with commander Lloyd M. Bucher in mine force Pacific Fleet during Operation End sweep.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


This is what I'm talking about. You are trying to frame it like I WANT war. This is dishonest. Please stop.

I am not framing your posts; you are. You have, by your own words, decided that any attempt to negotiate with Kim is futile. Ergo, you are accepting war as your choice as there are no other choices. You stop. Please. War is bad.


I was expecting Trump to fail miserably; for that I wasn't disappointed since Trump gave up SOOO much in return for the exact same promises that the last three Presidential administrations received.

Care to enumerate what Trump gave up?


I was hoping for actual diplomacy and negotiations to take place.

That is exactly what happened. Are you sure you understand what diplomacy and negotiation are?


I was hoping that Trump would attempt to hold Kim accountable for his human rights violations; not call him a great guy who loves his people.

Apparently you don't know. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Walking in the door and accusing someone of being pure evil is NOT the proper way to start diplomatic talks. Even if it's the truth.


I was hoping that Trump would honor freedom over the appearance of trying to score a win at all costs.

What in the blue blazes does that even mean?


I'd like to have seen a written agreement happen that outlined a timeframe, inspection details, obtain an inventory of NK's missiles and locations, and a game plan on how the disarmament is to happen at a MINIMUM for what we gave up to NK. Even restarting military exercises (in case NK doesn't follow through on their end) with SK is going to be a headache since Trump validated NK's propaganda by saying the drills were provocative.

After two hours, you want all the details set in stone?

As I said, ludicrously laughable. This ain't a sitcom, haus.

As for the wargame exercises, it does not matter what Trump said in negotiations. He is not withdrawing troops. It takes one phone call... ONE PHONE CALL... to start them back up again within minutes, and our military readiness has not been compromised one iota. What, did you think all our troops were leaving the area? They simply stopped running exercises that were nothing more than bluster to start with. We can bluster whenever and wherever we want to.


Sorry, bro. I look at history. And historically we've made these promises with NK before in good faith and they have reneged on them every time. I have zero faith that things will be different here and I am SERIOUSLY upset that we gave them concessions and aren't addressing their human rights violations when we owe them nothing.

What concessions did we give them? All the sanctions are still in place. Our military is still in place. We paid them not a red cent. All we did was agree to keep talking with North Korea. Is that this huge concession you speak of?

As far as history goes, I agree; North Korea's record is abysmal. However, we are back to the three choices. Which one do you choose? You are openly eliminating choice number one by that quote just above.

Do we attack them or wait for them to attack us?


The way I interpret the meeting this week was just a giant propaganda photo op for Trump and Kim. Hell Trump even gave Kim a US financed propaganda video exclaiming his greatness.

My God in Heaven... is that the "major concession" you keep complaining about? A video? Really?

Donald Trump may be an egotistical, vain, arrogant SOB in the first degree, but he is also a master negotiator. He has built a million dollar loan into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. I doubt, with your obvious lack of knowledge of negotiation tactics, you could do any better.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't recall saying you did... If so, I apologize.

But it can certainly be read that way given the vitriolic reaction of some to this attempt at a lasting peace from some quarters, many of whom were calling him a war mongering wanna be Hitler not all that long ago...



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I have no issue with that. Down the road a bit, that can, and should, be brought up.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I agree wholeheartedly... any US equipment held by North Korea must be returned as part of any final agreement. I hope (and think) Trump knows this. It's just that it seems a little silly to expect return before talks... the whole purpose of talks is to communicate what each side wants.

Anything less would be dishonorable to our soldiers.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

This is a man-child who has had relatives assassinated and had one of his generals executed by tying the man to the mouth of a cannon and firing it. He's also studied America and has played all sorts of mental games with the Asian countries for the past seven years.

Why would he want to change?

He's aware that he's hated in some circles and thus his only way to keep control of the military, the people, and his own relatives is through demonstrations of power that will make them fear him. The minute he looks like he's gone soft, his generals will tear his throat out and a new military regime will be in place.

He backstabs people because he knows they will backstab him.

He's very good at gaming people. Notice that he has always played up the visits of important (famous) people... not the thousands of others who've been there.

He gamed Trump. He's probably cackling over the picture of Trump saluting one of his generals - that's pure propaganda gold for his country and he can now wave "America loves ME" at any negotiation there in the East as a stick to leverage position in negotiations. He even got us to quit military exercises in the area while giving us nothing but a promise of "someday" in return.

He hasn't changed. If he was changing or wanted to change, you'd have already seen some human rights changes in Korea.



posted on Jun, 14 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Kim Jong Un is already playing up "concessions" made by the US to the press (if that's behind a paywall for you, here is another article that says the same thing)



The biggest policy change the president unveiled was that the US will halt joint military exercises with South Korea, which has served as a crucial way for the US to put military pressure on North Korea. This announcement came as a surprise for a number of reasons.

First, it appears that Trump made the concession without getting anything remotely comparable from Kim in return. Second, he framed it as a financial issue, pointing out that cutting back on the drills will save a “tremendous amount of money.” In the process, he criticized US ally South Korea for not pulling its weight. “South Korea contributes [to the military exercises], but not 100 percent, which is a subject that we have to talk to them about,” the president said.


As the daughter and sister of high ranking Army officers, I can say that this action is very problematic and shows a poor understanding of the value of the exercises (and of how they are funded as well.)



Trump also indicated that he’d like to eventually close down US military bases in South Korea. “We have 32,000 soldiers in South Korea. I would like to be able to bring them back home. That’s not part of the equation. At some point, I hope it would be,” he said.

It's our presence there that has stopped the Kim family from going after South Korea. Right now there's no really good answers...but pulling our troops out is not even close to a "fairly good answer." We could pull troops out of Germany instead or other similar bases (and have been) if money was such a huge worry. But money doesn't seem to be much of a worry with other equally expensive military operations.



Experts also point out that Trump declined to criticize North Korea’s terrible record on human rights, and had no details to offer on how the US would verify that North Korea was in fact going to take steps toward denuclearization.

Trump did announce one concession by North Korea — he said Kim had promised to destroy a missile engine testing site “soon.”

But MIT nuclear expert Vipin Narang criticized the testing site destruction as a “measly” giveaway and said it was easy to rebuild. “I’m totally confused about the art of this deal,” he tweeted.


Bottom line: I think he got played. And when you look at things like the picture of Trump saluting a NK general (something he hasn't done for other generals) I'm very sure he got played and that this will be used against him and for NK's own benefit.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join