Morch

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

I have no idea what he means by that either .

I have been trying to find out myself .

I spoke to Morch earlier and we established that "working towards denuclearisation" means to build more nuclear bombs with the capacity to reach US mainland 

No, we didn't. You lie.

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

Trump probably meant that in the way of "As we are now friends with NK , there is no longer a nuclear threat from them * , although considering NK still have nuclear capabilities , sanctions will be lifted along NK's nuclear abilities . 

Maybe he meant this, maybe he meant that.

That's not the level of clarity and communication one would expect from the POTUS.

19 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do you understand the concept of self depreciating humour ?

 

Do you understand this is something Trump actually does? As in ignoring past statements, denying them or claiming he said the opposite? It comes back to who the person is. As much as you'd like to, can't ignore that.

6 hours ago, MisterTee said:

Bravo!

You nailed it.

That's quite an apt avatar and handle.

@ChidlomDweller

The two issues raised were mentioned in the post you replied to, and on previous posts. They had nothing to do with your nonsense assertions regarding my supposed "point". I have never posted anything such as you alleged. Not being able to deal with criticism is not reason enough to put words in my mouth.

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

If Trump walked on water, CNN would headline with "Trump cannot swim".

 

This is a great first step - but even Trump said he could be wrong about Kim after the agreement. 

 

So a good move forward.

He also said he wouldn't admit it, and come up with an excuse.

I liked this topic better when it was about food posters make themselves. Not that I mind some of the dining tips.

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That isnt my view, that is the reality .

The "vague" items in the agreement are just general agreements about how to proceed the future .

  The "vague" items in the agreement are the blueprint for future discussion , they are more than just "vague points" , they are the topic and agreements for future discussions.

The reality is that a peace of paper with some generalized bullet points was signed by two leaders not known for keeping their word or respecting norm and conventions.

You insist on treating these bullet points, the signing of the document and the two leaders involved as if all that matters is the image broadcasted. Any context which doesn't support your assertions is ignored or belittled.

When these supposed future agreements, and future discussions materialize - never mind positive results, then your take may have some merit. Until then, you're just building castles in the air.

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That just doesnt make sense .

When I wrote "IMO (In my opinion)" , how can you say I am confusing my opinion with  what is real ?

   When I wrote "In my opinion" , I quite clearly meant "in my opinion" .

I do think that now you are just deliberately being obtuse  .

  I stated my opinion about what will happen in the future , of course I may be wrong .

No one knows what will happen in the future .

You keep stating that my view is my view .

I know that , you dont have to keep on telling me

Your posts on these topic include multiple instances of state something is your opinion, then go on to treat it as a done deal, as a fact, as reality. Or the opposite path is taken, something stated as fact, real, a done deal - then claimed to be an opinion. Not an approach particularly conductive to meaningful discussion.

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Trump didnt sign with the Iran agreement and he didnt sign them that is the big difference .

   Kim did commit to numerous things in the agreement .

Trump gained peace with NK , he solved the NK problem , not just for the USA , but for the whole region

Trump is not a permanent fixture. The US is. That Trump didn't sign the Iran Deal doesn't even begin to address the point. The Iran Deal is a way more comprehensive agreement than what Trump signed in the meeting with Kim.

Trump didn't "gain peace with NK" yet. That remains to be seen.

Trump didn't "solve the NK problem" yet. That too, remains to be seen.

40 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It is quite clear what has been said and what has been signed , that is a "reality" and that is what I believe .

   My implications about the motive of Trump and Kim are based on the reality of the situation on facts known .

  I am aware of the histories of both the USA/Trump/Kim and NK and the relations between them , but IMO , they all have moved on from previous hostilities and are all moving forward to a new era .

  This is the end of the last relic of the cold war .

What is clear, for those not too invested in adulating Trump, is that the document signed doesn't quite live up to the hype. You take the rather vague items included and imply they are more than that. That's not reality, but your view. Same goes for you take on leaders' motives - it's an opinion, based on your interpretation of selected facts - and it doesn't command greater validity than other views, to put it mildly.

You keep confusing between what is your opinion, and what is real. That you say "IMO, they have moved on.." etc. doesn't actually make it so.

The last line is just more generalized nonsense.

32 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

 " As for your last bit of nonsense " ... Here you show who you really are ! Use your brain , the answer is obvious .

 

Do tell. How are various crises mentioned not comparable?

36 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Whatever, it's not about me qualifying myself to you.  I've been a news junkie since my teenage years, but that's not even necessary.  This has been a news item for many decades now.  Anyone who observes the news knows the big picture here.  Your argument strikes me as a deflection.  

That would be yet another post which doesn't address any points raised.

There were two issues discussed - one is how much one can rely on echo chambers to gauge general views, the other dealing with an inconsistent presentation included in your own post. You haven't addressed either in any meaningful way, yet announce "deflection".

Deflecting would be bringing up all sorts of claims that weren't claimed, or going about posting general statements without much foundation.

A couple of observations:

The resolution did pass, and with a formidable majority. Many abstentions, though - and quite a bit of the so called "civilized world" (such as Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, South Korea, and the UK). The vote was preceded by a US attempt to modify the resolution, so that it will include a few lines condemning the Hamas as well.

This seems to be a relatively new policy development by the US, a sort of an extension of the Negroponte Doctrine. In essence, it pushes for a clearer mention and condemnation of Palestinian parties, rather than a generalized non-specific mention often used.

The Us motion to include such a phrase passed through three sets of General Assembly votes. Two won a majority, and the last one failed by a narrow margin. The first vote was an objection (raised by the resolution's sponsor) to the very point of holding a vote on the altered text, and the second was on adopting the changes. These two passed - so claiming the world view is this or that, might not be all that some make it to be.

Considering that this is a relatively new policy, and that Israel's condemnation was almost a foregone conclusion, I don't know that the US sees the results as that bad. In terms of mustering support for specific condemnation of Hamas, that's, as far as I recall, a first, in terms of votes. Maybe not a bad result as far as Haley is concerned,  odds being what they are.

The voting results were as follows:

- Rejecting motion to vote on amended text - 78 against, 59 in favor, 26 abstentions.

- Accepting suggested US suggested changes -  62 in favor, 58 against, 42 abstentions.

- Incorporating changes w/o a two-third majority -  73 against, 66 in favor, 26 abstentions.

- Resolution vote -120 in favor,  8 against, 45 abstentions

As expected, one of the most vocal voices in favor of the resolution was that of the Palestinian Ambassador. And to make things clearer, the post is manned by a PA official. One of the arguments cited objecting to naming the Hamas in the resolution text was that it might damage the prospects of Palestinian reconciliation.

Kinda funny when one considers that on the domestic and regional front, the PA was (and still is) one of the main agitators for increasing diplomatic and economic pressure on the Hamas (at the Gaza Strip's population expense). This would be the same PA which claimed protests are encouraged and funded by Iran. And the same PA trying to ban and disperses demonstration supporting the protests or objecting to its policies on this.

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Although I am basing my opposite claims on what has been said and on signed agreements .   I believe that Kim will give up his nukes , on the basis of what he has said and on what he has agreed too .

  There are also other factors , such as Kim wants sanctions lifted , pressure from China , he doeant want a war with the USA and also that his nuclear weapons are not too good .

   That is what I am basing my claims on .

What was JohhnnyBKK basing his claims on, when he stated that "there was no way NK will give up their nukes" ?

 

You are basing you assertions on interpretations of what's been said and signed. What you "believe" is a different category of reality than what "is". That you keep implying an insight into both Kim and Trump's motivations doesn't actually mean your views are more solidly founded.

There were enough posts on this and parallel topics making the case for views opposite then your own. That you cite a bit and ignore the rest is pretty much in line with the insistence on ignoring both leaders' past, or certain parts of history related relations between the countries, and negotiations.

1 minute ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Basic outlines of this conflict have been around for long enough.  I've read up plenty on this conflict, but have no desire to spend an hour posting details we all know.  Your argument strikes me as similar to the Thai pro-elite one that foreigners cannot possibly understand Thailand.  

Your previous posts do not exactly inspire confidence that your take is indeed informed. I have said nothing about commenters being foreigners or not, that's just something you tossed in. My post addressed the way you presented things - first claiming the issue to be complex, then offering a simplistic take.

55 minutes ago, sanemax said:

How do you know this though ?

How do you know what Kims future intentions are ?

How does Trump know what Kim will do in the future ?

 

You seem to have no issues with making the exact opposite claims.

16 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Yes , Israel is at fault for not ignoring Hamas provocations , because it is just provocations ... should be mostly ignored by Israel , as it does not cause a lot of damage .

By overreacting violently Israel plays Hamas' game . Not very clever ...

 

Yes , the UN doesn't actually carry as many meetings and resolutions on other conflict and crises , because none of those conflicts can be compared to this one .

That you assert they are "just provocations" doesn't make it a fact. In the context of the current mass protests - would a mass breaching of the border fence and the assured ensuing mayhem be considered "just a provocation" as well?

I'm not claiming Israel's response was "clever", or that it didn't play into Hamas's hands. My point is that sometimes there are no great options.

As for your last bit of nonsense - are you for real? Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, and Tibet "cannot be compared" to this one? Pray tell why.

32 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't make them wrong in this case.

"Them" how? It's not like Europe unanimously supported the resolution.

24 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Just read the comment section on related articles in the NY Times, when comments are turned on at all.  Sort comments by Popularity et voila...   And you can hardly accuse the NY Times of being an anti-semitist rag.  It's just that most people value fairness.  I know it's a very complicated issue and understand why Israelis have become hardened, but ultimately the onus is squarely on their shoulders to make reparations.  If they'd tireless done that the past 2 generations, this conflict would be mostly over by now.  

Notice that I said nothing about antisemitism, you and other posters keep bringing it up, though. IMO, the NYT reader base is mostly what one would call left-wing or liberal - so the comments would be as expected. It's just an extension of your previous argument, nothing more. Pick another venue (say, Fox) and you'll get different reactions. Echo chambers are like that.

And allow me to reiterate most people are opinionated rather than informed. Take your own post as an example:

- It's a very complicated issue.

- If Israel would have made reparations in the past two generations, the conflict would be mostly over by now.

That's a very simplistic take on things, to put it mildly.

3 hours ago, carmine said:

In short Israel has to stop indescriminently  murdering innocent women and children and laying the blame for their action on others.  Why are sanctions not being imposed, same as is down to other states that break international law?  They are being allowed to behave in their barbaric way because the American administration condones it.  

The UN doesn't step up and get involved in all international crises, not even those more severe than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't see many of the posters active in these "discussions" up in arms at every such instance.

@dexterm

Your tally Conveniently leaving out 45 abstentions (many by countries hailing from what you often label the "civilized world"). Additionally, many of the other "civilized world" countries voting in support of resolution, did express their regrets it was not articulated in a more balanced manner.

I don't know that it was a "tremendous plot" by Hamas. Nor do I fall for you faux queries about the IDF supposedly "obliging".

Muddying the waters with regard to both facts and the timeline is something you repeatedly attempt on this and other topics. That you make rockets into the only form of Palestinian violence on offer, doesn't make it so. In the relevant time frame (before and during the protests), there were numerous incidents involving firearms, IED's and attempts to cross or sabotage the border fence. Quite a few of these were acknowledged by both the Hamas and the Islamic