Morch

4 hours ago, carmine said:

The UN vote is a very fair reflection of europes views of the Israeli behavior.  of course they won't be pulled into line because the current Trump administration won't allow it.  I suppose they want Israel onside for when they want their next piece of dirty work carried out in the region.  

 

Perhaps someone else is getting invaded soon, in the name of freedom or some other bullshit like that, because the last month at the UN Assembly has been quite humiliating for Trump yet they plough on with the same flawed rhetoric that no ones buying into.

European countries' votes were actually split between those supporting of the resolution and those abstaining. I don't know that this is quite what you had in mind when making the assertion. Hard to tell what you were on about in the first part, anyway.

7 hours ago, ezzra said:

The UN has lost it's moral legitimacy long time ago by being bias, hypocrite and under pressure from the arab/muslim members, the UN can go on condemning Israel as much as they like, the bottom line is that Israel is fighting for its survival and existence in a sea of hostile terrorists and misguided Palestinians,

as long as the Palestinian are being led by a brutal and murderous leadership, and be sent to be a sniper's fodder, they will continue to suffer and the UN will continue to condemn Israel...

The UN might be this or that, but that's no excuse for hyperbole.

Israel is hardly "fighting for its survival and existence" - it's pretty much an accepted fact that it is stronger than regional enemies, or equal to them. There is no "sea of hostile terrorists" threatening Israel's existence - there are terrorist groups and organizations posing a threat, yes. Existential - I think not. As for the supposed "brutal and murderous leadership" of the Palestinians - which one would this apply to? The Hamas? Alright. But then the Palestinian leadership is a contested issue, and I don't think the PA's description as "brutal and murderous" holds much water these days.

Israel does have a right to protect its borders, and is not obligated to unconditionally let a horde of Palestinians in. That said, there was obviously excessive force used to prevent such an eventuality. Whether other means would have been effective dealing with the situation, can be debated, though. And while Hamas does bear some of the responsibility for how things panned out, it doesn't fully excuse Israel's transgressions. Sometimes there are no perfect solutions, or even good ones.

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Maybe they did consider these things prior to the announcement. Maybe the announcement was not a given in the negotiations and was a option held in reserve if needed. I don't know and I don't think you do either. I do not think the Pentagon is lying about giving counsel about this. If they were surprised I think they would not comment at all rather than concoct a lie. That's just my opinion.

Didn't claim that I "know". Just pointing out that the comment was odd. And it wouldn't be the first time that the Pentagon (or the State Department, or Trump's own staff) cover for Trump's announcing things out of the blue.

6 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

Says who?!  Nearly all Europeans and a majority of Americans I talk to hate Israel now, and well deserved because of its behavior.

And "says who" would apply directly to your post as well. No idea who you talk to, in which capacity and under what circumstances. I guess the same comments form the likes of either @ezzra or @dexterm would yield very different results. IMO most people are more opinionated than informed, but maybe that's just my take.

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think that means which specific exercises may be suspended and what other training, outside Korea may take place to ensure military readiness. I didn't hear anything from them that suggested they wouldn't continue doing everything to maintain readiness. Just that they may need to reconfigure how that is achieved.

I doubt there would have been a need to consider these things if the Pentagon was properly informed beforehand. In that case they would have already done the assessment prior to the talks.

10 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

It does not surprise me that SK was surprised by this or Korean based military units. It IS surprising to me that you and others don't choose to believe the Pentagon was aware of the suspension of military exercises as a negotiation chip despite their assurances that they were "in the loop" and had offered their counsel. We do not not know if what Trump offered with regard to military exercise is in keeping with their counsel or despite their counsel but I don't think it is correct to say they were surprised.

A Pentagon comment was linked on this or one of the other running topics. While it denied the Pentagon wasn't in the loop, it also said that the Pentagon needs to study the implications or some such. An odd comment if things were discussed beforehand.

13 hours ago, dragonballz said:

same again i would like to post but being a trump supporter do not want to get banned

12 hours ago, sanemax said:

I do not know why people are surprised by this move .

The joint US/SK military exercises in the area were to prepare for a war with North Korea , now that there is a new era of friendship between USA & NK , there are now no need for these military exercises .

   It would show a lack of distrust in the peace agreement , if the USA continued preparing for war with NK , by continuing their military exercises in the region

Other than in your posts, there is no such "new era". There are words on paper, and it is yet to be seen if they will develop into something concrete. You jumping the gun doesn't change facts and reality.

There is nothing in NK's international relations which particularly inspires trust. NK's own stance is distrustful. Signing a peace of paper doesn't do away with the distrust. This take a whole lot more than words. Giving something for nothing might not be the best way to go about it.

11 hours ago, sanemax said:

If Donald doesnt want to participate in war games, he doesnt have to and he doesnt have to ask or tell anyone before hand .

   What difference does it make , if Donald told SK last week or next week ?

Donald and Kim came to an agreement : No more rocket testing and in return, no more military exercises  , Donald will then inform SK that USA will not participate in any more war games 

I don't know the specific details of the agreements between the US and SK. Somehow doubt that your assertion is based on intimate familiarity with such, specifically with regard to US obligations about informing this or that. 

The difference it makes is that countries usually treat allies better than they treat those who were enemies yesterday.

10 hours ago, sanemax said:

The Iran deal is a separate issue and its off topic .

Two different situations and incomparable 

This thread and discussion is about Trump and Kim

How are the two situations not comparable? How is Trump conduct related to the Iran Deal irrelevant?

Insisting on ignoring any past information which proves uncomfortable, might be fine - if there's a coherent and reasonable reason for doing so. You fail to provide such.

9 hours ago, buick said:

why would halting the war games during peace negotiations be considered a 'surprise concession' ?  the surprise would be if they continued the war games during the peace negotiations.

Apparently South Korea was surprised by this. And despite denials, seem this applies for the Pentagon as well. It would have been more appropriate to make it conditional on something tangible from North Korea's end, or to inform allies about intentions.

6 hours ago, Thaidream said:

What happened in the past is now insignificant- Kim has agreed- Trump has accepted.  I really believe if the accord falls apart- Trump will order an attack.  I hope it never happens but in the end Kim will be destroyed.

I think you'll need to have a better rationalization for "what happened in the past is now insignificant". There's no particular reason to ignore either leader's past conduct and ways. Same goes for how previous negotiations failed. Simply announcing it "insignificant" doesn't cut it.

9 hours ago, sanemax said:

Here we go again : 

Make a statement , cannot back it up, tell the other person to google it and after that person keeps asking for a link, say.............Ive already posted it a few pages back .

   I have played that game too often, either you post a link or what you said isnt true

Considering you made a whole lot of statements on these recent topics, and that most of them cannot be backed up (either due to them not being actually factual, or relying on your "beliefs" and "feelings"), that's a rather lame complaint there.

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

They are not "pointless" , its very important to have an understanding of what words mean and I would like you to explain to me what you feel the word "denuclearisation" means

18 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I do believe that using a dictionary is the best way to find out what words mean .

How do you think that Kim will interpret the word "denuclearisation" ? 

What do you think that the word means .

Give me your definition of what the word means and give me what you think Kims definition will be .

Yeah....them pointless word games. Thanks for making my point.

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Me playing "word games " !!!!!!!!!

You was the one who disputed what a word mean and I told you what the disputed word meant .

That would be you playing word games again. Pulling up a one-liner dictionary definition of a word doesn't imply both parties actually interpret things in such a simplistic manner or that their takes are the same. Try harder.

@sanemax

Yes, and the point made was that he doesn't actually trust Trump. In other words, if the next time they meet he takes a poop at the WH toilets, it will be a good sign.

@sanemax

Allow me not to share your complete and utter faith in Kim's being an honest player, or his views being accurately represented in your posts. All you've got on offer is hope that Kim will be true to his words. Doubt many would fully buy into this notion. If you need to play word games, guess your argument isn't all that solid.

8 hours ago, sanemax said:

What would you prefer ?

• USA and North Korea threatening each other with Nuclear war OR USA and North Korea having peaceful discussions ?

 

That a misleading way of framing things as either/or. There's quite a range of options and scenarios in between. Some of them possibly involving holding talks which are less of a spectacle, but perhaps more substantive.

5 hours ago, sanemax said:

Its not just talk though , is it .

Agreements are in place , signed agreements .

Can we just give them a polite round of applause at the moment ?

The meeting was a success , that cannot be denied .

 

It is just talk. Signing a paper with some bullet points is not much of an "agreement". Considering a rather comprehensive agreement (yeah, that Iran Deal thing), with way higher resolution on details was denigrated by Trump and Trump supporters I find the above comment disingenuous, at best. Then there's this little matter of both signatories not being averse to going back on their word, or not keeping it. That you insist on ignoring this won't make it go away.

The meeting was not a "success". There, it can be denied. You haven't provided a single meaningful explanations as to what makes it a "success", at least not in a way which involves concrete or substantial issues.

You feel like applauding, go right ahead.

On 6/12/2018 at 10:09 PM, Rarebear said:

I didn't know that. 

Yeah, well - knowledge isn't a requirement for making definitive posts on this forum. Although the above is a slight improvement on the usual practice of not even acknowledging lack of knowledge, so well done.

Essentially, both Trump and Netanyahu belittle, dismiss or ignore the advice and input of their own intelligence services when it comes to Iran. I have no idea if the US intelligence services had such a clear position regarding North Korea, but I'm pretty sure that Trump's way of handling things wasn't a feature.

21 hours ago, sanemax said:

NK had already agreed to stop developing and testing  nukes last April .

Todays talks were just basic talks , further talks and agreements about inspections and sanction lifting will happen in the near future .

   NK agreed to denuclearizeation ,   which should mean dismantling their nukes , although agreements need to be reached in future meetings

 

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles/north-korea-says-will-stop-nuclear-tests-scrap-test-site-idUSKBN1HR37J

 

North Korea (or rather, Kim) views on what constitutes "denuclearization" might differ from these of other parties involved. That "which should mean...." - Should mean is not good enough. It's all very well to "agree" on labels, much harder when it comes to substance. You seem focused on the former.

22 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

No, it isn't because of Obama's name. It's because Iran is involving itself in military conflicts regionally and the US is partnered with the Saudis who are the sworn enemies of Iran as they battle for regional hegemony. I'm not saying it's right. I'd rather we were backing Iran minus the ayatollahs, but that's not the way it is.

Last time I checked North Korea was involved in a regional military conflict, and the US was "partnered" with its main adversaries.

23 hours ago, sanemax said:

I am in no position to make any diagnoses of him , a professional would have to make that analysis .

  Its hard to make any judgement , because so little is known about him .

Although , he probably does have a few mental conditions .

I do feel that he now knows that hes been going in the wrong direction with NK and that he wants to reverse that

22 hours ago, sanemax said:

The reason for that is because Kim didnt want his turds to be analysed by anyone , like the turds from NK soldiers were analysed and the results published in the media by South Korea

   

Do make up your mind. Either you know or you don't know.

What you "feel that he now knows" doesn't carry much weight. Same goes for your views on Kim's turds.

4 hours ago, sanemax said:

Both .

It was a successful meeting and its the beginning of a new peaceful era 

Yet another meaningless post.

You have no idea if it is actually "the beginning of a new peaceful era". You may hope it is, but that's not a fact. And once more, even if this works out - the scope is probably "somewhat" more limited than you allude to.

As for the meeting being "successful" - again, that's just a label you apply based on rather flimsy criteria (pretty much along the lines of the above assertion). There wasn't all that much substance for it to be judged "successful", there weren't, I think, clear criteria as to what would be regarded a "failure". IMO, it is, at best, a modest success, if that. Seems like Kim got more out of it anyway.