Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Korean Dilemma

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • snapper
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    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...

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    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.

    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 Officer of Engineers; 14 Jun 18,, 16:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    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.

    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..

    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 Officer of Engineers; 14 Jun 18,, 16:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    for instance, this is now on NK propaganda.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	trump.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	7.4 KB
ID:	1476695

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    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,, 14:49.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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,, 09:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    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

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    As OOE pointed out, that's not accurate. NK was more or less living up to their side of the 1994 agreement. They were cheating, but not significantly (in our estimation). The US was more at fault for killing the framework than NK.

    2005 was vague promises on both sides that never amounted to anything.

    Pausing on missile testing and the razing of the site is good for us because NK needs to do a lot more missile testing before they have reliable, road-mobile, fuelable missiles with accurate warheads (at least to my understanding). There's a big difference between a NK that has to fuel liquid missiles at a missile launch facility and a NK that has road-mobile solid-fuel ICBMs with MIRV'd warheads.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X