North Korea steps up production of nuclear bomb fuels despite US talks

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

Straight from the trump manual on how to bury your head in the sand.
Step 1) Declare all news agencies as charlatans.
Step 2) Deny all news reports that are negative.
Step 3) Align yourself with one network that doesn't care about any truth and proclaim them the paragons of right and might.
Step 4) Repeat as necessary.

I see way more stuff bad about the left now than about Trump. I personally do not even like Trump, but respect him because he is president. I used to be pretty strongly liberal up till about two years ago when I started to notice they were going balistic in increasing numbers. I evaluated what I was seeing and decided I was now going to lean conservative till they get rid of a lot of the deception the left is spewing. If the left media was not blowing everything out of proportion and twisting things so much I would still consider myself mostly Democrat. These news agencies are causing a harder swing to the right by the conservatives, and the Liberals who cannot read and interpret the whole article, which is basically showed to not be more than an opinion or interpretation later on, cannot comprehend that they are being led astray by the media.

I evaluate way more than most people, I have always been that way. I never jump at anything and form an opinion. It is more of a boring life, but I usually get along with the vast majority I have personally met, that is important to me. This online community, I do not worry about what they think, if I try to use wisdom in my writing and they ignore wisdom, they can go their way. Most people whom I have tried to get to change their ways in real life that haven't wound up in jail or are dead. Their actions got them into major trouble, they did not accept my wisdom and kept going along the wrong path. That is life, I tried anyway, I learned long ago that if I do not try to get them going on the right path, I feel guilty for not at least mentioning to them where they are headed. But most people seem to have to learn the hard way. I try to steer them, not tell them outright, unless of course they are my kids.

I hate watching people go down a path to destruction.

a reply to: soundguy

Btw has Iran tested that bomb the wing nuts told us was only months away?

As far as I know, they're honoring the agreement that we walked away from.

a reply to: Aazadan

Trump surrounded himself with Generals and Admirals. He wanted a rear Adm. to take over the V.A. and the Dems blocked that appointment. Trump gave Kim boy a shot at Westernizing, like Commodore Perry did for the Tokyo Shogunate in 1859. Perry was way out on a limb, but Trump has enormous military might to hammer Rocket Man into dust.

Just my 2 cents, but if Kim bungles into an American Invasion, the Chinese, who lost so many men in the first Korean WAr, will take out Rocket Man, before we even get half a chance to do him in. I think that EVEL POTUS Trump made Kim an offer he couldn't refuse, down there, in Singapore.

a reply to: carpooler

Do you really think Kim has plans to invade the US?

originally posted by: carpooler
a reply to: Aazadan

Trump surrounded himself with Generals and Admirals. He wanted a rear Adm. to take over the V.A. and the Dems blocked that appointment. Trump gave Kim boy a shot at Westernizing, like Commodore Perry did for the Tokyo Shogunate in 1859. Perry was way out on a limb, but Trump has enormous military might to hammer Rocket Man into dust.

Just my 2 cents, but if Kim bungles into an American Invasion, the Chinese, who lost so many men in the first Korean WAr, will take out Rocket Man, before we even get half a chance to do him in. I think that EVEL POTUS Trump made Kim an offer he couldn't refuse, down there, in Singapore.

North Korea is not interested in an invasion of the US. They don't have the infrastructure to send troops, and even if they did, they don't have the naval might to escort those transports. North Korea can only theoretically invade 3 countries, and those are the countries it shares a border with: Russia, China, and South Korea. The first two are allies, and NK's economic lifeline so those are off the table. That leaves the only possible invasion target for North Korea to be the South.

He didn't mean NK invading the US, he meant an American invasion of NK.

If we do take military action, I doubt it will be an invasion though.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry after this past Administration's destruction of Libya and Syria, I've lost my appetite. What exactly in a geopolitical sense did we gain with those two destructions of countries?

Sorry, I missed this part. Syria is mainly about the control over future oil pipelines. I couldn't even begin to guess as to why we meddled in Libya.

Oh ok. So it's ok for the US to destroy a country in order to get a pipeline to Europe? Is that now the Left's stance. My my, how times have changed.

At least you are seeing through the Libya one.

Making progress.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry after this past Administration's destruction of Libya and Syria, I've lost my appetite. What exactly in a geopolitical sense did we gain with those two destructions of countries?

Sorry, I missed this part. Syria is mainly about the control over future oil pipelines. I couldn't even begin to guess as to why we meddled in Libya.

Oh ok. So it's ok for the US to destroy a country in order to get a pipeline to Europe? Is that now the Left's stance. My my, how times have changed.

At least you are seeing through the Libya one.

Making progress.

I've always loved this "wars in the middle east are for some mythical pipeline" theory.

How much longer is this scheme supposed to take? The people who started Iraq are getting pretty old. It would stand to reason if this was an actual scheme, some of the people who started it would want to be alive to reap the benefits.

Not to mention, all these years waiting to build this pipeline they could've just been transporting the product by ship and making billions.

That theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

a reply to: face23785

I've always wondered about the all-powerful pipeline..

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: face23785

I've always wondered about the all-powerful pipeline..

Same folks who think we staged 9/11 by using a bunch of Saudi citizens to fly planes into buildings so we've have an excuse to invade Iraq for oil. If we wanted to invade somebody for oil, Saudi Arabia would've been the ticket, they have way more oil than Iraq. But you can't tell them anything.

a reply to: face23785

Also we didn't get any oil contracts from Iraq...So even if we did invade for oil, we effed that up too, apparently.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry after this past Administration's destruction of Libya and Syria, I've lost my appetite. What exactly in a geopolitical sense did we gain with those two destructions of countries?

Sorry, I missed this part. Syria is mainly about the control over future oil pipelines. I couldn't even begin to guess as to why we meddled in Libya.

Oh ok. So it's ok for the US to destroy a country in order to get a pipeline to Europe? Is that now the Left's stance. My my, how times have changed.

At least you are seeing through the Libya one.

Making progress.

I just stated the reason, that was the geopolitical goal. I didn't say I agreed with it from a moral standpoint.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: face23785

Also we didn't get any oil contracts from Iraq...So even if we did invade for oil, we effed that up too, apparently.

Oh, they're coming... someday soon hopefully. Ole GW is getting up there in age.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: face23785

I've always wondered about the all-powerful pipeline..

Same folks who think we staged 9/11 by using a bunch of Saudi citizens to fly planes into buildings so we've have an excuse to invade Iraq for oil. If we wanted to invade somebody for oil, Saudi Arabia would've been the ticket, they have way more oil than Iraq. But you can't tell them anything.

The US hasn't invaded anyone for oil, at least not for government control. We have let oil companies move in and start developing, and those companies have deep political ties, but that's not the only reason we did it.

The first Iraq war was over the defense of our ally. The second Iraq war had a lot of reasons from a lot of sides but the US wasn't interested in government control of oil fields.

Saudi Arabia is effectively a nuclear power due to their partnership with Pakistan so invading them is off the table. Until recently, there wasn't enough global oil supply to deal with the shortages attacking OPEC would create either.

a reply to: DieGloke
How exactly did he get played? Did he not get our hostages back? Did he not get a formal end to the korean war? Did he not get remains back? Did he not get an end to the missile tests? What exactly did we give up? A few military drills? Seems that even if that's all that happens, trump played kim for a chump. But hey, maybe I'm missing something.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Did he not get our hostages back?

Yes. Not the first time that's happened though.

Did he not get a formal end to the korean war?

There's a treaty?

Did he not get remains back?

I haven't seen anything about that in the news.

Did he not get an end to the missile tests?

Did he? That remains to be seen, I think. Not a word in the agreement about it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Dfairlite

Did he not get our hostages back?

Yes. Not the first time that's happened though.

Did he not get a formal end to the korean war?

There's a treaty?

Did he not get remains back?

I haven't seen anything about that in the news.

Did he not get an end to the missile tests?

Did he? That remains to be seen, I think. Not a word in the agreement about it.

I have to agree here. Nothing we got is final except the hostages returning. They've yet to return any remains, they can start missile tests back up anytime (just like we can start exercises with South Korea) and the Korean War is still technically on. I still wouldn't say he got played. They met, they agreed to take steps. If Un backs out, we have other options. It would be in his best interest to keep his word. If we just attacked without attempting diplomacy, everyone would be whining that Trump is a warmonger.

a reply to: face23785

There's no doubt that Kim got more out of it than Trump did. Prestige alone covers that. Not to mention the training exercises.

In Trump's zero sum world, guess what that means?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785

There's no doubt that Kim got more out of it than Trump did. Prestige alone covers that. Not to mention the training exercises.

In Trump's zero sum world, guess what that means?

The training exercises were really nothing. We can go without them for a few months. If giving him that prestige had even the slightest chance of a peaceful solution, it was worth it, because if that doesn't work out people are going to die.

a reply to: face23785

We can go without them for a few months.

"Indefinitely" = a few months?
www.reuters.com... 1JI2YV

Yeah. We can hope. That's about it. If that doesn't work Trump can always start calling Kim names again.