Trump cancels summit with North Korea's Kim, warns that military ready

[billd766]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Which unfortunately means deals made with the USA can not be trusted.

 

I believe they can be trusted if an incoming POTUS wants to. just the same as Trump has done with Obama and Iran.

[lionsincity]

He is playing trump like the brainless buffoon he is

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44265287

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, lionsincity said:

He is playing trump like the brainless buffoon he is

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44265287

On 25 May 2018 at 7:49 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

NK is now free to negotiate with SK with the backing of China and without the interference of the US.

 

US influence and power in the region significantly deminnished.

 

China wins at US loss created by Trump.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I believe they can be trusted if an incoming POTUS wants to. just the same as Trump has done with Obama and Iran.

In other words, deals with the US can only be trusted until the next President takes office.  Since most deals take years to negotiate and ratify, that means deals with the US can only be trusted for a few years, or less.  Most countries won't bother.

[lemonjelly]

So annoying to see the “Breaking News” tag on this to find out that it’s from yesterday morning.... I mean, how old does it have to be before it’s no longer “Breaking News”?..... the situation has evolved anyway.

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In other words, deals with the US can only be trusted until the next President takes office.  Since most deals take years to negotiate and ratify, that means deals with the US can only be trusted for a few years, or less.  Most countries won't bother.

 

I think most countries and governments recognize Trump's term in office to be an anomaly.

 

On the other hand, the whole thing also serves as a reminder that leaders need to be more responsible when trying to pass controversial decisions without having a majority.

 

The norm is that governments honor international commitments of previous governments. I think that running on an opposite ticket, and how the commitment was made, left an opening. That's not necessarily something that happens often.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Does the "sane group" count John Bolton as a member? And exactly what range of options does the "sane group" think would be advisable?

 

I think the sanctions were doing some good. I think it would have been prudent to continue those while remaining in a strong defensive posture and formulating an offensive plan hould it become necessary. I wouldn't think sane would include a pre-emptive strike.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think the sanctions were doing some good. I think it would have been prudent to continue those while remaining in a strong defensive posture and formulating an offensive plan hould it become necessary. I wouldn't think sane would include a pre-emptive strike.

And what would make an offensive strike necessary?

[lannarebirth]

26 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what would make an offensive strike necessary?

I would think an attack on your country or one in a mutual defense treaty with your country would do it but I don't know what the military rules of engagement for North korea are. I think that is classified information. 

[geriatrickid]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

In other words, deals with the US can only be trusted until the next President takes office.  Since most deals take years to negotiate and ratify, that means deals with the US can only be trusted for a few years, or less.  Most countries won't bother.

Rubbish. The "deal" you reference has a clause that allows a signatory to disengage. The USA is following the terms and conditions of the agreement. If that clause is so awful,  it should not have been included in the original agreement. It was a clause that had to be negotiated between the two and agreed to. Iran wanted the clause included as well.

 

Now, please explain, why the USA can only be trusted "until the next President takes office" if the  USA is complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement. What has the USA done that is so wrong in respect to the agreement? Parties to the original  agreement are allowed to review and to renegotiate  terms and conditions in accordance with the original agreement terms and conditions.

 

The USA has done nothing wrong. Just because you do not agree, does not mean that a wrongful act has occurred.  The USA believes that  the agreement was flawed and now that additional information is available, information that was not available when the agreement was signed, the USA is exercising its legal right to renegotiate.

 

Renegotiation of agreements is not unusual in world diplomacy. This occurs with many agreements. The USA is doing it now with NAFTA. The EU does it. For example, the EU, specifically Belgium,  tried to screw over Canada after the CETA was signed in 2014. No one in Europe was up in arms over the duplicity and blackmail of the Belgians.  The Belgians did have the legal right to do what they did, and Canada  had recognized that legal right when it signed CETA.  How is this so different in law from what  is occurring here, although in this case the USA isn't blackmailing Iran as Belgium tried to do with Canada. 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by geriatrickid

[Credo]

29 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Rubbish. The "deal" you reference has a clause that allows a signatory to disengage. The USA is following the terms and conditions of the agreement. If that clause is so awful,  it should not have been included in the original agreement. It was a clause that had to be negotiated between the two and agreed to. Iran wanted the clause included as well.

 

Now, please explain, why the USA can only be trusted "until the next President takes office" if the  USA is complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement. What has the USA done that is so wrong in respect to the agreement? Parties to the original  agreement are allowed to review and to renegotiate  terms and conditions in accordance with the original agreement terms and conditions.

 

The USA has done nothing wrong. Just because you do not agree, does not mean that a wrongful act has occurred.  The USA believes that  the agreement was flawed and now that additional information is available, information that was not available when the agreement was signed, the USA is exercising its legal right to renegotiate.

 

Renegotiation of agreements is not unusual in world diplomacy. This occurs with many agreements. The USA is doing it now with NAFTA. The EU does it. For example, the EU, specifically Belgium,  tried to screw over Canada after the CETA was signed in 2014. No one in Europe was up in arms over the duplicity and blackmail of the Belgians.  The Belgians did have the legal right to do what they did, and Canada  had recognized that legal right when it signed CETA.  How is this so different in law from what  is occurring here, although in this case the USA isn't blackmailing Iran as Belgium tried to do with Canada. 

 

Playing it out on Twitter is wrong.   Very wrong.   

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Rubbish. The "deal" you reference has a clause that allows a signatory to disengage. The USA is following the terms and conditions of the agreement. If that clause is so awful,  it should not have been included in the original agreement. It was a clause that had to be negotiated between the two and agreed to. Iran wanted the clause included as well.

 

Now, please explain, why the USA can only be trusted "until the next President takes office" if the  USA is complying with the terms and conditions of the agreement. What has the USA done that is so wrong in respect to the agreement? Parties to the original  agreement are allowed to review and to renegotiate  terms and conditions in accordance with the original agreement terms and conditions.

 

The USA has done nothing wrong. Just because you do not agree, does not mean that a wrongful act has occurred.  The USA believes that  the agreement was flawed and now that additional information is available, information that was not available when the agreement was signed, the USA is exercising its legal right to renegotiate.

 

Renegotiation of agreements is not unusual in world diplomacy. This occurs with many agreements. The USA is doing it now with NAFTA. The EU does it. For example, the EU, specifically Belgium,  tried to screw over Canada after the CETA was signed in 2014. No one in Europe was up in arms over the duplicity and blackmail of the Belgians.  The Belgians did have the legal right to do what they did, and Canada  had recognized that legal right when it signed CETA.  How is this so different in law from what  is occurring here, although in this case the USA isn't blackmailing Iran as Belgium tried to do with Canada. 

 

I did not say it was illegal to withdraw from the Iran deal, just as it was not illegal to abandon the TPP (begun under Bush, negotiate for the duration of the Obama Presidency, and designed to establish westerns rules and standards of trade through-out east Asia before China could dominate the area).

 

However just because something is legal does not make it right.  The Iran deal was working; it accomplished everything it was supposed to accomplish and Iran was in compliance.  The deal was limited in scope because the priority was delaying the day when Iran would have the capability of acquiring nuclear weapons.  Expanding the scope of the deal would have greatly increased the time and difficulty of reaching an agreement, and Iran would have continued their nuclear research during this extended negotiation.

 

The fact that Trump thought it should have included more is irrelevant.  Nothing prevented him from initiating other agreements with the parties involved.  Instead he abandoned a working agreement, betrayed allies, and is unlikely to replace it with anything else.  In spite of Trump's much promoted deal-making abilities, so far he has only broken international agreements.  He hasn't made a serious start on initiating any, and after alienating allies he is unlikely to make much progress on getting anything done.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I would think an attack on your country or one in a mutual defense treaty with your country would do it but I don't know what the military rules of engagement for North korea are. I think that is classified information. 

File that under ‘we’ll think of something’.

 

While you’re ‘thinking of something’, find out where the NK have their artillary and Missile barrages, how well dug in they are and what they are aimed at.

 

You might also want to find out if the NK have any mutual defense treaties of their own.

 

yeehah the cowboys are riding into town!

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

File that under ‘we’ll think of something’.

 

While you’re ‘thinking of something’, find out where the NK have their artillary and Missile barrages, how well dug in they are and what they are aimed at.

 

You might also want to find out if the NK have any mutual defense treaties of their own.

 

yeehah the cowboys are riding into town!

 

Why would I do that? It's not my job to know these things. But it's sombody's.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I would think an attack on your country or one in a mutual defense treaty with your country would do it but I don't know what the military rules of engagement for North korea are. I think that is classified information. 

I'm not asking you what the rules are. I'm asking you think would justify an attack on North Korea. And your answer is an attack by north korea. So if North Korea doesn't attack, then not justified. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Why would I do that? It's not my job to know these things. But it's sombody's.

What are the odds that the guy whose job it is to know these things actually does?

[stud858]

The way Trump informed people by showing the letter and explaining to the masses was a contrast to the usual hidden politics.  Well done Trump. That's all you gotta do.  Make decisions,  enact,  keep the people informed.  

 

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I'm not asking you what the rules are. I'm asking you think would justify an attack on North Korea. And your answer is an attack by north korea. So if North Korea doesn't attack, then not justified. 

Right. But keep the strong sanctions in place and sanctions against those who break the sanctions. That's just my opinion. I'm not an expert in these matters.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

What are the odds that the guy whose job it is to know these things actually does?

 

He/She/They know more than us, and certainly more than the guy I was replying to, who doesn't know much at all.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, stud858 said:

The way Trump informed people by showing the letter and explaining to the masses was a contrast to the usual hidden politics.  Well done Trump. That's all you gotta do.  Make decisions,  enact,  keep the people informed.  

 

LOL, never thought I'd see the name "Trump" and the word "informed" in the same sentence!

There's a reason why these sensitive diplomatic issues are not for public consumption and the reason is they work best when the pros do it. 

[stud858]

16 minutes ago, Becker said:

LOL, never thought I'd see the name "Trump" and the word "informed" in the same sentence!

There's a reason why these sensitive diplomatic issues are not for public consumption and the reason is they work best when the pros do it. 

The reason is so funny business can take place if not public.

Stream everything live to the world.  What is there to hide? We are born sinners and liars, all of us,  but the good ones strive to be better. Go Trump! Su-su. 

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, stud858 said:

The reason is so funny business can take place if not public.

Stream everything live to the world.  What is there to hide? We are born sinners and liars, all of us,  but the good ones strive to be better. Go Trump! Su-su. 

Sinner and liar - that's a more apt description of the man-child. Sensitive diplomatic negotiations "funny business"??

What is there to hide? Could be a whole range of reasons why negotiations should not be made public and if you try really hard I'm sure you could come up with a couple yourself.

Su-su, is that an alternative war cry to MAWA??

[UncleTouchyFingers]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

Su-su, is that an alternative war cry to MAWA??

 

What the hell is MAWA? That’s like the 3rd time you’ve posted it.  I thought you were just a really bad typist but it appears intentional.  

[Becker]

5 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

What the hell is MAWA? That’s like the 3rd time you’ve posted it.  I thought you were just a really bad typist but it appears intentional.  

Well, it's the 3rd time you've posted the exact same post.

Do you really not know what MAWA stands for or are you just being coy? 

MAWA; Make America White Again - every base man-child supporter's wet pipe dream.

[Brian Allen]

Those who hate My America's very-best Modern-Era President (and the first in decades both worthy of the title and competent to handle the responsibilities of the office), take him literally -- and, thus, lose the thread, every time.

 

We Who Are Right, on the other hand and who understand, admire and support President Trump, take him, take him seriously. Very seriously indeed.

 

As now, also, does the Europeons' (not a typo) Neo Soviet and do the likes of Peking's perilously pernicious plundering predator, Parteignosse Xi and his Kamarad, Kim, Xi's junkyard dog. Both of whom learned salutary lessons these past couple of weeks. 

[Becker]

2 minutes ago, Brian Allen said:

Those who hate My America's very-best Modern-Era President (and the first in decades both worthy of the title and competent to handle the responsibilities of the office), take him literally -- and, thus, lose the thread, every time.

 

We Who Are Right, on the other hand and who understand, admire and support President Trump, take him, take him seriously. Very seriously indeed.

 

As now, also, does the Europeons' (not a typo) Neo Soviet and do the likes of Peking's perilously pernicious plundering predator, Parteignosse Xi and his Kamarad, Kim, Xi's junkyard dog. Both of whom learned salutary lessons these past couple of weeks. 

Note to self; do NOT post when drunk.

[Expatthailover]

SK's moon is giving a trump a big lesson in statesmanship and diplomacy.

Mind the big mouthed draft dodging lying bully is so consumed by his own ego he will never learn.

[buick]

where is china in all of this ?  aren't they making this happen ?  followed by south korea and then trump.  i'm not bashing trump, like most do, but obviously there would be no discussions at all btwn the US and NK if china and SK were not making things happen.  maybe they've made some statement that i've missed.  most politicians would love to take credit for this kind of thing, and i'm surprised the chinese haven't cashed in.

 

 

[stud858]

1 minute ago, buick said:

where is china in all of this ?  aren't they making this happen ?  followed by south korea and then trump.  i'm not bashing trump, like most do, but obviously there would be no discussions at all btwn the US and NK if china and SK were not making things happen.  maybe they've made some statement that i've missed.  most politicians would love to take credit for this kind of thing, and i'm surprised the chinese haven't cashed in.

 

 

I think the plan is that NK will send a nuke into China and China will think it's USA attacking them and hence China will be forced into war with USA while NK hopes China will strike hard and win. But USA can't be defeated. How's that for over thinking. 

[atyclb]

9 hours ago, Becker said:

9 hours ago, Brian Allen said:

Those who hate My America's very-best Modern-Era President (and the first in decades both worthy of the title and competent to handle the responsibilities of the office), take him literally -- and, thus, lose the thread, every time.

 

We Who Are Right, on the other hand and who understand, admire and support President Trump, take him, take him seriously. Very seriously indeed.

 

As now, also, does the Europeons' (not a typo) Neo Soviet and do the likes of Peking's perilously pernicious plundering predator, Parteignosse Xi and his Kamarad, Kim, Xi's junkyard dog. Both of whom learned salutary lessons these past couple of weeks. 

Note to self; do NOT post when drunk.

 

lol

 

although not clever enough to be a tv forum member, here is what democrat harvard law professor alan dershowitz had to say;

 

ALAN DERSHOWITZ (HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR): This is playing into Donald Trump's strong suite (sic). He knows how to make a deal. He knows how to walk away from the table, he knows how to offer to come back to the table. I'm certainly not going to second guess our president when it comes to negotiating with North Korea. I don't think he had any choice. Once he heard what -- I think once he heard what the leader of North Korea said about the United States, said about our vice president, he had no choice but to walk away. But he's walked away in a conditional sense. And he said I welcome you to come back, but on my terms. And remember, we have most of the cards in this negotiation. And I think the president is playing them well.