Trump says expects 'signing' after 'very good' talks with Kim

[Morch]

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.

[Morch]

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.

[Morch]

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.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

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.

 

 

[Opl]

"Trump says that history doesn’t concern him. He knows better. Trump said at his press conference. “I think he wants to get it done. I feel that very strongly. By Trump's own telling, Kim told Trump what he wanted to hear and Trump discovered a deep bond. "He said no other president could have done this. I think he trusts me and I trust him."”

https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/kim-trump-summit-the-presidents-confidence-ignores-recent-history-with-north-korea

 

"Secretary of State Pompeo will soon discuss next steps with his North Korean counterpart, who will make a tough negotiating partner. At the same time, Pompeo will face domestic difficulties as the Trump administration tries to sell the deal before November's election. He will also need to work closely in this process with not only the two key U.S. allies — Japan and South Korea — but also China."

https://www.axios.com/despite-lack-of-plan-north-korea-denuclearization-could-still-happen-e6ea9126-b36f-453a-b8b5-e3588a9a3f06.html

Edited June 13, 2018 by Opl

[Morch]

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.

[sanemax]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

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.

Word do have quite specific meanings , although some words may be open to interpretation , the word *Denuclearisation* does have quite a specific meaning, this is what that word means :

 

1. to remove nuclear weapons from (a country, region, etc.).
2. to prohibit the deployment or construction of nuclear weapons in (a country, region, etc.).

    But , I do understand you point , if Kim interprets denuclearisation as meaning *build lots of nuclear bombs and bomb Hawaii*, I can see there being problems at negotiations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

 

@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.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

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.

Kim taking  portable toilet with him, to stop his turds getting examined was in the news , here you go, from CBS news 

 

Rather than using a public restroom, the leader of North Korea has a personal toilet that follows him around when he travels," Lee Yun-keol told the Washington Post.

The reason? They are protecting against a literal info dump.

"The leader's excretions contain information about his health status so they can't be left behind," Lee Yun-keol explained.

 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kim-jong-un-bringing-his-own-toilet-to-the-koreas-summit/

[sanemax]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@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.

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

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

[Morch]

 

@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.

[Morch]

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]

Just now, Morch said:

 

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.

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 .

[Morch]

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.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Morch

[sanemax]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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

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

[Morch]

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

[Scott]

Off-topic posts reported and removed.  

 

[InMyShadow]

Well that meeting just got trump nominated for the Nobel peace prize ?

[attrayant]

10 hours ago, sanemax said:

Both previously warring factions came to an agreement about how to proceed peacefully in the future

 

No - there was some vague wording that they would continue talks.  The same agreement that happened in prior "successful" summits.

 

10 hours ago, sanemax said:

the object of the meeting was to end the hostilities between the two Countries and come to a common agreement.

 

What hostilities, Trump's twitter tantrums?  If you're referring to NK shooting off missiles, they had already stopped doing that some nine months prior.  NK had previously made a commitment to South Korea, and in the Trump meeting repeated their desire to hold to that NK/SK agreement.  That doesn't qualify as a success for this summit.

 

10 hours ago, sanemax said:

The meeting has paved the way for future meetings to bring a peaceful solution to the hostilities between NK and USA.

 

This is a restatement of the first "success" you listed (an agreement about how to proceed peacefully in the future).

 

You're being generous to a fault. You fail to see that we've been here before.  Let's hold the parades until there are actual, measurable successes.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, InMyShadow said:

Well that meeting just got trump nominated for the Nobel peace prize ?

By 2 right wing Norwegian politicians.  Impressive.

[Opl]

6 hours ago, InMyShadow said:

Well that meeting just got trump nominated for the Nobel peace prize ?

And many other Nobel prizes for he is an expert on everything, a genius,  and a world authority on different issues like no-one ever before in the history of humanity, and we believe it because that's what he says.  

 

[sanemax]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

No - there was some vague wording that they would continue talks.  The same agreement that happened in prior "successful" summits.

 

 

What hostilities, Trump's twitter tantrums?  If you're referring to NK shooting off missiles, they had already stopped doing that some nine months prior.  NK had previously made a commitment to South Korea, and in the Trump meeting repeated their desire to hold to that NK/SK agreement.  That doesn't qualify as a success for this summit.

 

 

This is a restatement of the first "success" you listed (an agreement about how to proceed peacefully in the future).

 

You're being generous to a fault. You fail to see that we've been here before.  Let's hold the parades until there are actual, measurable successes.

You seem to be re writing history .

I read posts like the above and they are so far removed from reality , I cannot reply to the points raised .

   Its the same as talking to flat earthers , no point in dialogue, as they are too far removed from the reality 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

You seem to be re writing history .

I read posts like the above and they are so far removed from reality , I cannot reply to the points raised .

   Its the same as talking to flat earthers , no point in dialogue, as they are too far removed from the reality 

Of course that’s what the ‘flat earthers’ say about the rest of us.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Of course that’s what the ‘flat earthers’ say about the rest of us.

Yes, and I nod  my head to them, polity wryly smile and go somewhere else

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours 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

‘Denuclearisation’ is a process with little value unless accompanied by a specific detailed definition of the requirements with respect to the extent and target of the Denuclearisation AND Independent Verification That the agreed targets have been met and are being maintained.

 

All missing from ‘Trump’s’ NK agreement.

 

Trump achieved Zilch!

[Becker]

33 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You seem to be re writing history .

I read posts like the above and they are so far removed from reality , I cannot reply to the points raised .

   Its the same as talking to flat earthers , no point in dialogue, as they are too far removed from the reality 

As a man-child supporter you should be very careful about claiming that someone is far removed from reality as the abomintation in the WH spews out lies and falsehoods on a daily basis.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Denuclearisation’ is a process with little value unless accompanied by a specific detailed definition of the requirements with respect to the extent and target of the Denuclearisation AND Independent Verification That the agreed targets have been met and are being maintained.

 

All missing from ‘Trump’s’ NK agreement.

 

Trump achieved Zilch!

The meeting between Trump and Kim was just to come to general agreements about how to proceed in future in regard to relations between USA & NK .

   Both parties came to the same agreement about how to proceed and they both signed an agreement .

   Future meetings were agreed upon to implement those common agreements .

Its very much like building  house , you first go to an architect , agree on the design of the house , he draws up plans and then you can begin to build the house .

   You dont firstly go and see an architect , have a five hour meeting with him and then expect him to have built the house, by the time youve got home .

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The meeting between Trump and Kim was just to come to general agreements about how to proceed in future in regard to relations between USA & NK .

   Both parties came to the same agreement about how to proceed and they both signed an agreement .

   Future meetings were agreed upon to implement those common agreements .

Its very much like building  house , you first go to an architect , agree on the design of the house , he draws up plans and then you can begin to build the house .

   You dont firstly go and see an architect , have a five hour meeting with him and then expect him to have built the house, by the time youve got home .

Just like building a house, Trump’s agreement with NK is on loose sand.

 

Compare and contrast with the extensive agreement Obama made with Iran (complete with targets, definitions, transparency requirements, inspections and independent verification)  Trump has walked away from that agreement and presented no alternatives.

 

NK and China are winning big at the expense of the US and the US’ allies.

 

 

[sanemax]

13 minutes ago, Becker said:

As a man-child supporter you should be very careful about claiming that someone is far removed from reality as the abomintation in the WH spews out lies and falsehoods on a daily basis.

I cannot see the logical reasoning behind that .

I believe that Trump & Kim had a successful meeting and you are suggesting that I am the one who is "far removed from reality" ?

   I was replying to attrayant who made the claim that the only hostilities between Trump & Kim were "Trumps twitter tantrums" :

   Now , lets look at that : Is attrayant correct ?

Were the only hostilities between Trump and Kim "Trumps twitter tantrums" or was Kim building nuclear weapons with a range of hitting U.S mainland and did Kim threaten to nuclear bomb Guam and did Trump send the U.S. Navy to the Korean coast with the threat of attacking North Korea ?

   Did Trump & Kim have a meeting and signed agreements to end the hostilities or did Trump go to Singapore and wrote his name on an insignificant piece of paper ?  

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

You seem to be re writing history.

 

Maybe you  could elaborate, and tell me which parts of history I am rewriting.  NK has promised to denuclearize many times in the past, and they have never lived up to their promises.  Do you disagree with that?  Do you think I'm making it up?

 

Even if you (wrongly) think this is the first pledge to denuclearize, what happened in Singapore was not a new pledge - it was just a reaffirmation of the Panmunjom declaration from April 27th between the two Koreas.  No Trump involvement there.

 

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

I read posts like the above and they are so far removed from reality 

 

This is nothing more than hand-waving, unless you can point to something specific I've said that is "far removed from reality" (which is just a fancy way of saying I'm wrong).  Come on, what am I wrong about?

 

The document Trump and Kim signed has almost ZERO details in it, yet according to Trump they signed a "very, very comprehensive agreement".  Yes, that was "very" times two.  Clearly, Trump is the one who's removed from reality if he thinks that document was very, very comprehensive.

 

Quote

I cannot reply to the points raised.

 

Why not?  Just find something I've said wrong and show why it's wrong.  It's just that easy.  Don't just try to wave your hand and utter the magic phrase "so far removed from reality".  This isn't Fox News, so you've got to back up your statements especially when you're claiming that somebody else is not grounded in reality.