View Poll Results: What is the best course of action in dealing with North Korea?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Full scale preemptive military strike

    4 28.57%
  • Limited preemptive military strike

    0 0%
  • Appeasement in the form of recognition and aid

    1 7.14%
  • Strategic Patience - Neither negotiation nor military action

    9 64.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 53 of 57 FirstFirst ... 4445464748495051525354555657 LastLast
Results 781 to 795 of 843

Thread: The Korean Dilemma

  1. #781
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    No verification was mentioned in what you call a 'communique' which would not be binding. Stop making up stories.
    You're the one making up stories; pretending that this is a treaty. This is NOT a Treaty. Neither was anything else written on our side. This is NOT a treaty but a simple communique. It is non-binding and communicates intent and goodwill and NOTHING ELSE. Stop turning it into something it is not. It is CERTAINLY NOT A TREATY! So, stop pretending that it is

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The North Koreans first promised 'denuclearisation' in 1982 and guess what? They did nothing.
    Funny. The IAEA reported that KJI had shut down his plutonium bomb factories. He restarted them when US money and Japanese/South Korean aide wasn't coming. Guess you're making up stories again.

  2. #782
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Reading the Singapore Summit statement: Three principles and one political gesture | IE | Jun 12 2018

    Reading the short statement issued after the talks between the two leaders, you would think it did not take much to do this—just three simple political principles.

    The first principle is about building a new relationship between America and North Korea.

    The second is about building a stable peace regime in the Korean Peninsula.

    The third is about ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons.


    Ending the prolonged tensions and building a new relationship between America and North Korea has inevitably become the first principle for Trump and Kim.

    The second refers to a ‘stable peace regime’ in the Peninsula. This is about America guaranteeing the security of North Korea. If nuclear weapons were in insurance for the Kim family against regime change, Trump is assuring Kim that he has no intention of dislodging the family from power. A stable peace regime also demands reduction of military tensions between US and North Korea. At his press conference Trump revealed that he is suspending the routine but provocative military exercises that America conducts in South Korea. He also mused about withdrawing American troops from the Korean Peninsula over the longer term.

    The third refers to denuclearisation. If Kim sees no threat to his survival, why does he need nuclear weapons? The first two principles quite clearly create the political conditions for nuclear disarmament in North Korea.

    To be sure, there will be many problems when the two sides begin to put flesh on the bones of this agreement. Trump and Kim know they need a lot mutual trust to realise the goals of this agreement. That brings us to the political gesture.

    Kim promised to recover the remains of thousands of American soldiers captured or missing in action during the Korean War. This move comes on top of Kim’s earlier confidence-building measures like suspension of nuclear and missile tests, destruction of nuclear test site, and release of American political prisoners.

    With the three principles and one gesture, Trump and Kim may have begun to move the Korean Peninsula into uncharted but hopefully calmer waters.


  3. #783
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Quote Originally Posted by 667medic View Post
    Two nations (North Korea and Singapore) and two individuals (Kim and Trump) gained gained the most from this so called summit.
    Yes thanks to Singapore for picking up Kim's tab : D

    $20 million this gig cost, you should make it back with interest in many ways
    Last edited by Double Edge; 14 Jun 18, at 10:42.

  4. #784
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Perhaps the GS can enlighten me but does the USFK really need 2 army level exercises a year? And there are several more smaller exercises with the AF and Navy. I don't remember VII Corps having this type of pacing.

  5. #785
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    How many US soldiers are buried in North Korea? | BBC | Jun 12 2018

    Estimates vary, but at least two million Korean civilians, up to 1.5 million communist and about 400,000 South Korean, 30,000 US and 1,000 UK service personnel are believed to have died.

  6. #786
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,701
    You've got to be shitting me! After the way he blindsided Ottawa, Seoul, and Tokyo, you think Beijing and Pyongyang can pressure him into keeping his word?

    Also, this is the man who outplayed KJU. Fat Boy made noises about cancellation but it was Trump who cancelled the meet and KJU scarmbled to put it back on. Trump cancelled once. He can, will, and has done it again and again and again.

    I do not see the exercises being cancelled until the first American verified the first North Korean claim.
    the badness was Trump echoing NK propaganda; the entire construct of "no NK provocation/no US-ROK wargames" is pure China.

    yes, i'm well aware that Trump doesn't keep his word but other than his own stupidity, he had no need to SAY those words in the first place. that will be NK/China propaganda gold, weakens ROK trust in the US, and for what?

    as for Trump cancelling the meeting at the start-- what of it? NK benefits more from the meeting than the US does, which is why Kim acted as he did. and if that's the case, why should Trump have indulged him? in the end, we got a bunch of vague promises from each other, with Trump echoing NK propaganda to boot. was that worth the prestige of a US Presidential visit?

    i understand -Trump- thinks it was worth the prestige because he personally wants that Nobel, but how about the US benefit?
    Last edited by astralis; 14 Jun 18, at 15:49.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  7. #787
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,701
    for instance, this is now on NK propaganda.

    Name:  trump.jpg
Views: 99
Size:  7.4 KB
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #788
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the badness was Trump echoing NK propaganda; the entire construct of "no NK provocation/no US-ROK wargames" is pure China.

    yes, i'm well aware that Trump doesn't keep his word but other than his own stupidity, he had no need to SAY those words in the first place. that will be NK/China propaganda gold, weakens ROK trust in the US, and for what?
    Which again happens to be true. Those exercises were designed to invade and to destroy the DMZ of which NKorea has no defence.

    As for Seoul, they're the ones who pushed for the meet and worked behind the scenes to make sure that this meet happened both before and after the cancellation. They've got what they asked for.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    as for Trump cancelling the meeting at the start-- what of it? NK benefits more from the meeting than the US does, which is why Kim acted as he did. and if that's the case, why should Trump have indulged him? in the end, we got a bunch of vague promises from each other, with Trump echoing NK propaganda to boot. was that worth the prestige of a US Presidential visit?

    i understand -Trump- thinks it was worth the prestige because he personally wants that Nobel, but how about the US benefit?
    Trump shut down KJU's propaganda machine with their nuclear war talks by his cancellation and saw KJU scrambling to make this meet happen, showing who came begging. That is a propaganda win for Trump, not KJU.

    Whatever else comes from this meet, both sides are now talking turkey, not horse puckey..

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    for instance, this is now on NK propaganda.
    This is worst than My Button is Bigger than Your Button?
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 14 Jun 18, at 17:08.

  9. #789
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You're the one making up stories; pretending that this is a treaty. This is NOT a Treaty. Neither was anything else written on our side. This is NOT a treaty but a simple communique. It is non-binding and communicates intent and goodwill and NOTHING ELSE. Stop turning it into something it is not. It is CERTAINLY NOT A TREATY! So, stop pretending that it is
    So where does it mention "verification" in the paper they signed? Where did you get that from?

  10. #790
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So where does it mention "verification" in the paper they signed?
    In the word denuclearization. You have to prove denuclearization.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Where did you get that from?
    From the news reports. You know. Something you don't read. Verification is not in doubt. Somehow you think it is. Whether it is the IAEA or Chinese or Japanese or South Korean, verification has always been part of the process. As in the Agreed Framework of 1994 which you misquoated. The IAEA verified KJI's actions during that period. The point here has been made that it will be American verification.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 14 Jun 18, at 17:35.

  11. #791
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    In the word denuclearization. You have to prove denuclearization.
    Yea that would be same sort of denuclearization they have promised since forever...

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    From the news reports. You know. Something you don't read. Verification is not in doubt. Somehow you think it is. Whether it is the IAEA or Chinese or Japanese or South Korean, verification has always been part of the process. As in the Agreed Framework of 1994 which you misquoated. The IAEA verified KJI's actions during that period. The point here has been made that it will be American verification.
    So you did not get "verification" it from the 'communique' or 'agreement' they both signed. You inferred it... from where precisely? TV?

  12. #792
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Yea that would be same sort of denuclearization they have promised since forever...
    Take it up with the IAEA. They confirmed 2 Pu bomb factories shut down. But you keep ignoring this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So you did not get "verification" it from the 'communique' or 'agreement' they both signed. You inferred it... from where precisely? TV?
    Google too hard for you?

    CNN: 'Getting the deal is only half the battle': US fears fact-checking Kim Jong Un post-summit

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said repeatedly that the US is "committed to the permanent, verifiable, irreversible dismantling of North Korea's weapons of mass destruction." He's raised the issue with North Korean delegations, but the nitty gritty planning around methods of inspection will ultimately be left to professional sat the State Department and intelligence community.

    "We have conveyed to the North Koreans our expectations that they will be fully transparent," an NSC spokesperson told CNN, adding that ensuring compliance will be the work of years.

    "Verification is a complex process that requires potentially years of transparency and access to a wide variety of locations and facilities to verify that North Korea has upheld its commitments and not retained nuclear material, weapons, or capabilities in violation of an agreement," this spokesperson said.

    "The more forthcoming that North Korea is, the more quickly we will have confidence that North Korea has actually committed to and followed through with denuclearization," the spokesman said.

  13. #793
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    As for Seoul, they're the ones who pushed for the meet and worked behind the scenes to make sure that this meet happened both before and after the cancellation. They've got what they asked for.
    This is a key point. Moon's stature has risen not just domestically but globally. He stands taller than his predecessor now

    From war talk to olympics to this meet. All Moon.

  14. #794
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Take it up with the IAEA. They confirmed 2 Pu bomb factories shut down. But you keep ignoring this point.
    So you read in CNN with the paper they signed where verification is not mentioned once. FACT is it is not mentioned in that paper which as you say is not binding anyway so what did Trumpkin actually get?

  15. #795
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,081
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So you read in CNN with the paper they signed where verification is not mentioned once. FACT is it is not mentioned in that paper which as you say is not binding anyway so what did Trumpkin actually get?
    You must be shitting me with this. ALL THAT IS ACHIEVED AT THIS POINT IS GOOD WILL. Nobody got nothing! Not Trump. Not Fat Boy.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 15 Jun 18, at 02:49.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Drone Dilemma
    By Merlin in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15 Dec 09,, 00:02
  2. S. Korean perception of N. Korean nuclear program
    By Ironduke in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13 Jan 09,, 01:36
  3. the dreadful dilemma....
    By dave angel in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 15:44
  4. The Second Korean War and China's dilemma...
    By YellowFever in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24 Oct 06,, 06:41
  5. Dilemma of Confronting Fundamentalism
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Sep 05,, 22:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •