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.
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
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.
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.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That depends on the type of criticality.
We have three possible scenarios here, and only three: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.
- 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.
TheRedneck
That's the thing, it isn't about the choices.
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.
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
This is what I'm talking about. You are trying to frame it like I WANT war. This is dishonest. Please stop.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.