In surprise summit concession, Trump says he will halt Korea war games

[sanemax]

24 minutes ago, Morch said:

You take the rather vague items included and imply they are more than that. That's not reality, but your view.

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.

[Morch]

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.

[Morch]

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.

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I was of course exaggerating to make a point. 

This whole back and forth started with your statement 'Would you like to see this peace agreement fail , just to see Donald fail ? Would you rather have hostilities, confrontation and possibly a war , just to get a victory about a Trump failure?'

My point has always been that with a track history of making and breaking agreements over some 30 odd years, why anyone in their right mind would believe anything that NK  says. I have backed this up with facts and figures that have shown numerous commitments from NK in the past that have been agreed and then promptly reversed when they have got what they wanted. Trump has gone bowling in there with great aplomb to get a very vague agreement that does not commit NK to anything yet he proclaims it that NK is no longer a nuclear threat and insists 'everybody can now feel much safer'. That is just pure and utter fiction and is typical of how Trump goes about everything he does. He claims victory and a  complete u-turn from NK without a single thing actually being done by them other than releasing a few prisoners and shutting down a nuclear test site that was falling down anyway.

Rather than you agreeing to be sceptical, your stance has always been that despite decades of taking the p*ss, NK is now going to do the right thing and hand over the only thing that keeps everyone scared of them. I don't believe this to be true believing the past is a good indicator of the future. You on the other hand think it's all hunky dory now because your beloved Trump says so.  

That sir is delusional.  

I do believe IMO , in my opinion , what I think is that Kim and NK have moved on from the hostilities from when Kims Father was in power .Kims Father may have had a bad track record of not complying with agreements(fact)  , but I believe IMO, in my opinion (just to make it clear that I am stating my opinion?) that Kim is different to the previous NK regimes and he doesnt have a track record of backing out of agreements (fact) .

  What I believe , IMO , Kim should be given the chance to comply with the agreements , I believe IMO , that Kim is sincere about ridding NK of nukes .

   NK were a rogue nation in the past (fact) , but IMO (my opinion) they would like to move on to a new era of peace and security and prosperity (my opinion based on the facts written in the agreement)

[johnnybangkok]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

I do believe IMO , in my opinion , what I think is that Kim and NK have moved on from the hostilities from when Kims Father was in power .Kims Father may have had a bad track record of not complying with agreements(fact)  , but I believe IMO, in my opinion (just to make it clear that I am stating my opinion?) that Kim is different to the previous NK regimes and he doesnt have a track record of backing out of agreements (fact) .

  What I believe , IMO , Kim should be given the chance to comply with the agreements , I believe IMO , that Kim is sincere about ridding NK of nukes .

   NK were a rogue nation in the past (fact) , but IMO (my opinion) they would like to move on to a new era of peace and security and prosperity (my opinion based on the facts written in the agreement)

IMO (in my opinion) - Delusional

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

IMO (in my opinion) - Delusional

Another flavor of TDS.

"trump" delusional syndrome. 

Makes sense.

"trump" has announced that NK because of one meeting which produced a very vague document, that NK is no longer a nuclear threat.

That is clearly delusional.

So fans buying that crapola may be delusional as well. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Jingthing

[ballpoint]

From the horses mouth, at the press conference.  I wonder just where these bombs are being dropped "all over the place"?  His ignorance of world geography is also evident:

 

"We fly in bombers from Guam. I said when I first started, I said, where do the bombers come from? Guam. Nearby. I said, 'Oh great, nearby, where is nearby?' Six and a half hours. Six and a half hours. That's a long time for these big massive planes to be flying to South Korea to practice and then drop bombs all over the place and then go back to Guam,"

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/12/trump-move-to-halt-joint-exercises-in-south-korea-upends-decades-of-military-doctrine.html

Which didn't stop him from sending even more bombers there last year.

 

And carrying on in his customary modest style:

 

"I know a lot about airplanes, it's very expensive," he added".

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/trump-us-military-war-games-south-korea-intl/index.html

 

 

 

 

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

IMO (in my opinion) - Delusional

"Delusional" is quite an exaggeration .

I do believe that NK & USA will stick the the agreement and build on them .

I have a positive outlook on the situation .

You believe that it will all go wrong because they are "both untrustworthy liars*

You have a negative outlook on the situation

We just have differing opinions and it remains to be seen what will happen .

Try to say what you mean, without exaggerating , otherwise it just leads to confusion about what your opinion is .

You often exaggerate to try to prove a nonsense point

[sanemax]

41 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I was of course exaggerating to make a point. 

This whole back and forth started with your statement 'Would you like to see this peace agreement fail , just to see Donald fail ? Would you rather have hostilities, confrontation and possibly a war , just to get a victory about a Trump failure?'

 

I did not make a statement , I asked a question .

You can tell the difference between a statement and a question , because questions have a question mark at the end of the question (?)

   OK, so you admit to exaggerating .

You are suggesting that I am delusional for thinking that Kim will give up his nukes? 

   I do feel that your term "delusional" is also an exaggeration , IMO , the term *mistaken* would be more appropriate 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours 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 ?

 

These questions are senseless, they only serve to distract from hard facts.

 

Nobody, including I suspect Kim, knows what his future intentions or future actions will be.

 

What we do know is Kim is a brutal, murderous thug. We know he has already carried out one unprovoked naval attack, we know he has shelled SK in another unprovoked attack and we have ample evidence of his brutal treatment of his own people.

 

He is non of the ‘fine things’ Trump declares him to be in his meeting and he has already used this meeting with Trump in propaganda cementing his position of power in NK.

 

Trump gave Kim everything Kim could have dreamed of and then some, Trump’s wrecking ball approach to US diplomacy in the region arguably gave China much more.

 

Trump’s moves this week have severely impacted the trust regional allies have in the US.

 

 

The man is an unmitigated disaster.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Trump gave Kim everything Kim could have dreamed of and then some,

Could you just clarify , what did Trump give to Kim?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Could you just clarify , what did Trump give to Kim?

Well, for one thing he told the world that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat.

That's a pretty good argument against continuing sanctions.

[observer90210]

No matter where in the world, who is in charge, politics are a circus with politicians as clowns....unfortunately that's the price of modern democracy...

[Opl]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

Could you just clarify , what did Trump give to Kim?

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Opl

[Opl]

16 hours ago, sanemax said:

Could you just clarify , what did Trump give to Kim?

"Trump put the summit back on tracks without demanding anything of substance in return. That reassured the North Korean team—the same officials who have been negotiating with foreign powers for the past 20 years—that they could get what they wanted with no penalty or sacrifice. Trump had said, ahead of time, that he would walk out of the summit if things didn’t go well. The North Koreans now knew this wasn’t so. "

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/after-quebec-and-singapore-its-undeniable-that-trump-is-wrecking-the-world-order.html

[geriatrickid]

20 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think it may be one of Trump's goals to get SK and Japan to take on a large part of the responsibility.... and the cost, of what happens from here. US troops in SK isn't on the table so SK shouldn't feel abandoned.

What does this mean for the China issue? Let's not fool ourselves, as China is the  key threat. Its expansionist policies and unfair trade  practices along with  horrific environmental record represent a real threat to the USA and to the region. If Trump sabotages the relationships with key asian allies, what benefit will be achieved when China obtains a stranglehold on the shipping lanes?

[lannarebirth]

11 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

What does this mean for the China issue? Let's not fool ourselves, as China is the  key threat. Its expansionist policies and unfair trade  practices along with  horrific environmental record represent a real threat to the USA and to the region. If Trump sabotages the relationships with key asian allies, what benefit will be achieved when China obtains a stranglehold on the shipping lanes?

 

China isn't ever going to have a stranglehold on any shipping lanes, EVER!  Of all the petty provacations that have gone unanswered, that one will not. Whatever Navy they think they may have will be resting on the sea bed if they should ever attempt such a thing. I credit them with enough intelligence to know that.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

Let's not fool ourselves, as China is the  key threat.

China are not a threat at all , they participated in the sanctions against NK and they were party to bringing about a meeting to bring a peaceful solution to the problem .

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

China are not a threat at all , they participated in the sanctions against NK and they were party to bringing about a meeting to bring a peaceful solution to the problem .

The very stable genius is about to impose tariffs on 50 billion dollars worth of China's exports. With threats to impose 100 billion more.

And their record in imposing the sanctions was far from perfect.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The very stable genius is about to impose tariffs on 50 billion dollars worth of China's exports. With threats to impose 100 billion more.

And their record in imposing the sanctions was far from perfect.

That is nothing to do with this issue .

Tariffs have nothing to do with the NK issue

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That is nothing to do with this issue .

Tariffs have nothing to do with the NK issue

Because the Chinese would never do anything so low as to tie one issue to another? Do you honestly believe that this is how the world works?

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because the Chinese would never do anything so low as to tie one issue to another? Do you honestly believe that this is how the world works?

The USA are imposing tariffs on numerous Countries world wide , these tariffs implementations are nothing to do with the Nk issue

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

That is nothing to do with this issue .

Tariffs have nothing to do with the NK issue

 

Introduce yourself to the concept of "linkage". It is how zero sum thinkers think. That includes Trump, China, Russia and North Korea.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Introduce yourself to the concept of "linkage". It is how zero sum thinkers think. That includes Trump, China, Russia and North Korea.

That's the word I was looking for. Thank you.

[sanemax]

16 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Introduce yourself to the concept of "linkage". It is how zero sum thinkers think. That includes Trump, China, Russia and North Korea.

The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation

The tariffs on China are linked to the trade deficit with China

Edited June 15, 2018 by sanemax
addition

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation

 

Sure it is. As is Taiwan and the South China Sea Islands and immigration status for Chinese citizens and........

Edited June 15, 2018 by lannarebirth

[bristolboy]

Just now, sanemax said:

The tariffs on China are not linked to the NK situation

You mean the Chinese aren't going to see something to exploit here? Or that their innate sense of fair play wouldn't permit them to do this? First Kim is sincere. And now the Chinese won't exploit an opportunity when they see it. I'm beginning to think that your model of how the world works strongly resembles Disneyland.

[sanemax]

Just now, bristolboy said:

You mean the Chinese aren't going to see something to exploit here? Or that their innate sense of fair play wouldn't permit them to do this? First Kim is sincere. And now the Chinese won't exploit an opportunity when they see it. I'm beginning to think that your model of how the world works strongly resembles Disneyland.

You  began by asking me a question 

"You mean the Chinese aren't going to see something to exploit here?"

And without me even answering the question , you analysed my answer !!!!

"I'm beginning to think that your model of how the world works strongly resembles Disneyland."

   Before you give an opinion to an answer to your question , you really need to wait for an answer first .

  You seem to have made up my opinion for me and then stated that that made-up opinion is fantasy !!!!!! 

 

   

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

You  began by asking me a question 

"You mean the Chinese aren't going to see something to exploit here?"

And without me even answering the question , you analysed my answer !!!!

"I'm beginning to think that your model of how the world works strongly resembles Disneyland."

   Before you give an opinion to an answer to your question , you really need to wait for an answer first .

  You seem to have made up my opinion for me and then stated that that made-up opinion is fantasy !!!!!! 

 

   

Well you made an assertion but provided no evidence or reasoning to back it up. So fire away.

[sanemax]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the Chinese aren't going to see something to exploit here? Or that their innate sense of fair play wouldn't permit them to do this? First Kim is sincere. And now the Chinese won't exploit an opportunity when they see it. 

What do you mean by "exploit"?

*Invest* ? *Trade*

Once sanctions are lifted , China will resume *investing/trading/exploiting* NK

If NK and SK stick to their agreements and further their relationship , SK may open up trade deals , investment in NK

   (Just so Morch doesnt have to post it , the above isnt actually a fact yet, just a future possibility)