Summit Predictions

[keepthefaith]

4 minutes ago, peace out said:

 

I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it.

 

Continue your gaslighting, Doofus Rhino. Keep it up so everyone can see the idiot you are.

 

Tee up your DR scorecard, for tomorrow will provide an opportunity to make some tally's. 

[DC Tom]

47 minutes ago, peace out said:

 

I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it.

 

 

That's because you're a !@#$ing idjimit.

 

On 6/12/2018 at 11:38 AM, DC Tom said:

 

 

How'm I doing on my predictions so far?

 

[Tiberius]

33 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's because you're a !@#$ing idjimit.

 

 

How'd you think the summit went? 

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, K-9 said:

Given the immediacy with which China urged the lifting of sanctions and the likelihood of other nations like Russia and S Korea also working behind the scenes, why else would Trump seemingly contradict himself only a day after saying no sanctions relief until the nukes are gone by then saying N Korea is no longer a nuclear threat? Yeah, I believe sanctions will be lifted sooner than later and MUCH sooner than a fully verified denuclearization of N Korea would take. What else explains Trump's overnight shift?

 

Per you last paragraph, other than an agreement to reach an agreement, what have we gotten? The hostages were already home before the summit and, while I appreciate the act of good faith, it was no longer something they could offer at the table. And we've seen the same regarding the return of remains in the past. 

 

Why would 45 seemingly contradict himself only a day after saying something else?  Could it be because it is another day ending in "day?"  That is what he does.  He bloviates, contradicts himself, and enjoys rolling in the mud with his detractors.  

 

And there is likely more to the statement (like has proven out many times in the past 18 months) that NK is no longer a nuclear threat than meets the eye.  (Haven't seen the quote directly, so it is difficult to speculate specifically about it.)  It probably means that unlike in the past when NK tacitly had the approval of China to carry out its exercises/failed launches that China behind the scenes has told Kim to reign it in.

 

Yes, the hostages were home before the summit (and the silo &test site destroyed as well), but do you really believe that those weren't preconditions to get the summit to happen?    The details of the meeting between Kim and Trump were the cherry on top of many months of earlier work.  

 

IMHO, this SEEMS to be happening far more like the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings than any other between the US & NK (or the US & Iran for that matter as well).  Those meetings happened over several years with a lot of behind the scenes work leading up to what eventually (in meetings 3&4) became some serious arms limitations and led to even more talks and a treaty w/ 41.   And the 2nd meeting even appeared to be a "failure" at the time as Gorbachev demanded essentially a halt to SDI and Reagan refused.  The 2 are talking and progress (limited though it was) was made.  Considering where we were 6 months ago, I'll take that.

 

And, as far as we can tell, Kim didn't walk out of the meeting with a few $B in walking around money that he keeps whether he follows through or not.  Unlike some other recent international negotiations.   

[DC Tom]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

How'd you think the summit went? 

 

52 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's because you're a !@#$ing idjimit.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Why would 45 seemingly contradict himself only a day after saying something else?  Could it be because it is another day ending in "day?"  That is what he does.  He bloviates, contradicts himself, and enjoys rolling in the mud with his detractors.  

 

And there is likely more to the statement (like has proven out many times in the past 18 months) that NK is no longer a nuclear threat than meets the eye.  (Haven't seen the quote directly, so it is difficult to speculate specifically about it.)  It probably means that unlike in the past when NK tacitly had the approval of China to carry out its exercises/failed launches that China behind the scenes has told Kim to reign it in.

 

Yes, the hostages were home before the summit (and the silo &test site destroyed as well), but do you really believe that those weren't preconditions to get the summit to happen?    The details of the meeting between Kim and Trump were the cherry on top of many months of earlier work.  

 

IMHO, this SEEMS to be happening far more like the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings than any other between the US & NK (or the US & Iran for that matter as well).  Those meetings happened over several years with a lot of behind the scenes work leading up to what eventually (in meetings 3&4) became some serious arms limitations and led to even more talks and a treaty w/ 41.   And the 2nd meeting even appeared to be a "failure" at the time as Gorbachev demanded essentially a halt to SDI and Reagan refused.  The 2 are talking and progress (limited though it was) was made.  Considering where we were 6 months ago, I'll take that.

 

And, as far as we can tell, Kim didn't walk out of the meeting with a few $B in walking around money that he keeps whether he follows through or not.  Unlike some other recent international negotiations.   

Lots of good points here, several of which I agree with wholeheartedly. 

 

I doubt, as you suggest, that we know the extent of China’s and Russia’s and even S Korea’s influence prior to the meeting. Regardless, if it took much at all or not, it was only to get to a meeting to sign a four point agreement to have more meetings in the future. What’s the incentive moving forward, to get them back to the table and dealing in good faith? IMO, it’s the removal of sanctions and the influx of the billions of dollars that represents. And that’s why I’m convinced Trump changed his own tune so quickly after China immediately called for the lifting of sanctions. And while it’s a different topic for another thread, Trump is tied to China for his own financial gain and that’s not lost on me. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

... And that’s why I’m convinced Trump changed his own tune so quickly after China immediately called for the lifting of sanctions. 

 

Link to this? I haven't seen Trump say anything of this nature today.

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, K-9 said:

Then they will be in violation, the agreement will be voided, sanctions reinstated on the regime, and the threat of military action becomes a reality for them. 

 

But if you REALLY want to get down to the essence of it, NOTHING ANY COUNTRY SIGNS UP TO IS WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. That's the unfortunate bottom line when it comes to geopolitics as we've seen countless times. 

Then why are you arguing about what a written agreement should look like?

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Link to this? I haven't seen Trump say anything of this nature today.

Today Trump said N Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. I can link it if you like, but it’s all over the news. 

 

I found that concerning coming only a day after alluding to sanctions staying in place until they fully denuclearize. If they aren’t yet denuclearized, how can they now suddenly be considered a nuclear threat? IMO, it’s because China immediately called for sanctions relief after the summit was over. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, K-9 said:

Today Trump said N Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. I can link it if you like, but it’s all over the news. 

 

I found that concerning coming only a day after alluding to sanctions staying in place until they fully denuclearize. If they aren’t yet denuclearized, how can they now suddenly be considered a nuclear threat? IMO, it’s because China immediately called for sanctions relief after the summit was over. 

 

 

 

Oh, okay. I saw that tweet - I just didn't see anything about taking sanctions off. I think you're stretching to say they're the same thing. One thought is not connected to the other by that tweet. In the tweet you're referring to...

 

 

... Trump is saying the DPRK are no longer threatening the United States with nuclear war, as they had been doing for much of the past 12+ months and in previous administrations. That's not the same as saying they've denuclearized already or that they've hit any of the prerequisites to take sanctions off. 

 

He was very clear in his press conference that sanctions will remain in place until they are past the point of no return with their denuclearization (which he did not specify but implied it would be evident after certain other steps had been taken). Taking them off early is not on the agenda, regardless of what China says.  

[K-9]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Then why are you arguing about what a written agreement should look like?

Because words are important for the honest brokers in the world. And they allow for a basis of accountability moving forward. Words  serve as the framework for treaties to be abided by. They can’t prevent a bad actor from breaking their pledge, but that doesn’t make them unimportant. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Lots of good points here, several of which I agree with wholeheartedly. 

 

I doubt, as you suggest, that we know the extent of China’s and Russia’s and even S Korea’s influence prior to the meeting. Regardless, if it took much at all or not, it was only to get to a meeting to sign a four point agreement to have more meetings in the future. What’s the incentive moving forward, to get them back to the table and dealing in good faith? IMO, it’s the removal of sanctions and the influx of the billions of dollars that represents. And that’s why I’m convinced Trump changed his own tune so quickly after China immediately called for the lifting of sanctions. And while it’s a different topic for another thread, Trump is tied to China for his own financial gain and that’s not lost on me. 

 

The incentive moving forward would likely be in large part whatever it was that had China, Russia, & Japan all very much publicly off on the sidelines letting this baby step move forward.  Whatever drove China especially and Russia to have this move forward likely hasn't changed in the last 48 hours.

 

The removal of sanctions is another huge incentive (maybe even bigger than the other, though I'd doubt that) and I'd expect that the US negotiating team realizes this and that it is the prize for NK.  I doubt that they'd give it up before they've gotten our prize (non-nuke NK).  

 

The other potential big prize would be eventual reunification of the peninsula.  Maybe that's been taken off the table behind closed doors for China's benefit and why their request for lifting sanctions now is merely posturing.  (Absolute conjecture here and VERY likely wrong.)

 

But at any rate, it SEEMS both different and positive.

 

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Oh, okay. I saw that tweet - I just didn't see anything about taking sanctions off. I think you're stretching to say they're the same thing. One thought is not connected to the other by that tweet. In the tweet you're referring to...

 

 

... Trump is saying the DPRK are no longer threatening the United States with nuclear war, as they had been doing for much of the past 12+ months and in previous administrations. That's not the same as saying they've denuclearized already or that they've hit any of the prerequisites to take sanctions off. 

 

He was very clear in his press conference that sanctions will remain in place until they are past the point of no return with their denuclearization (which he did not specify but implied it would be evident after certain other steps had been taken). Taking them off early is not on the agenda, regardless of what China says.  

Never said they were the same thing. Not even close. I said that Trump had a sudden change in tone and my OPINION is that’s because China started talking about sanctions relief immediately after the summit. And I find that a bit concerning. Why else would Trump suddenly declare N Korea no longer a threat?

 

Also, that “evidence” of denuking may take years. Given N Korea’s previous history, I’d be shocked if they waited that long.

Edited June 13, 2018 by K-9

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, K-9 said:

Never said they were the same thing. Not even close. I said that Trump had a sudden change in tone and my OPINION is that’s because China started talking about sanctions relief immediately after the summit. And I find that a bit concerning. Why else would Trump suddenly declare N Korea no longer a threat?

 

I think that's a stretch, K-9, with respect. 

 

He didn't "suddenly declare" them no longer a threat. He said that over and over and over and over again during the summit in front of the cameras and to Kim himself. They've been in discussions, one on one, for months. He's saying that the process is working, Kim is sincere in his desire to denuke, and that because of that there is no longer the threat of war hanging over our heads as it has been for 12 months. 

 

That's not a change in tone or message. It's a repeating of what he's been saying for the whole build up to the summit. 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think that's a stretch, K-9, with respect. 

 

He didn't "suddenly declare" them no longer a threat. He said that over and over and over and over again during the summit in front of the cameras and to Kim himself. They've been in discussions, one on one, for months. He's saying that the process is working, Kim is sincere in his desire to denuke, and that because of that there is no longer the threat of war hanging over our heads as it has been for 12 months. 

 

That's not a change in tone or message. It's a repeating of what he's been saying for the whole build up to the summit. 

Also with respect, I don’t buy it. He was very specific by saying no longer a “nuclear” threat and that’s plain wrong. As long as they have nuke weapons, they are a nuke threat. Simple as that.

Edited June 13, 2018 by K-9

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Also with respect, I don’t buy it.

 

Has he not been saying for weeks that he thinks Kim is sincere in wanting to make a deal? 

 

Here's just a smattering of tweets: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same tone. It's the same swagger and big promises. 

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

 He was very specific by saying no longer a “nuclear” threat and that’s plain wrong. As long as they have nuke weapons, they are a nuke threat. Simple as that.

 

He didn't say "no longer a nuclear threat" though. Those words were never said. 

 

 

Nuclear isn't even in the tweet. He's referencing the "problem" Obama warned him about when taking office. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Has he not been saying for weeks that he thinks Kim is sincere in wanting to make a deal? 

 

Here's just a smattering of tweets: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same tone. It's the same swagger and big promises. 

 

He didn't say "no longer a nuclear threat" though. Those words were never said. 

 

 

Nuclear isn't even in the tweet. He's referencing the "problem" Obama warned him about when taking office. 

Question: if N Korea has nuclear weapons, are they a nuclear threat or not? The answer is obvious. Trump clearly stated they are no longer nuclear threat. He is wrong about that at this time. Hopefully, the reality will catch up with his rhetoric. 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Has he not been saying for weeks that he thinks Kim is sincere in wanting to make a deal? 

 

Here's just a smattering of tweets: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the same tone. It's the same swagger and big promises. 

 

He didn't say "no longer a nuclear threat" though. Those words were never said. 

 

 

Nuclear isn't even in the tweet. He's referencing the "problem" Obama warned him about when taking office. 

Here's his tweet from five minutes earlier in this Chicago Tribune article where he clearly states "nuclear"

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-twitter-north-korea-nuclear-threat-20180613-story.html

 

Here's his entire twitter string from today and it's there as well:

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Edited June 13, 2018 by K-9

[Deranged Rhino]

24 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Question: if N Korea has nuclear weapons, are they a nuclear threat or not? 

 

Is France a nuclear threat to the United States? Or England? Or Russia? Anyone with nuclear weapons can use them, that's admittedly obvious. But we don't consider France or England "nuclear threats" to us because they are working with us (most times). That's the meaning behind his tweets, as you can see by the full exchange and the specific warning Obama gave to him while entering office (war with North Korea). 

 

But! 

 

I was wrong about nuclear not appearing in his tweets. I was focused on that one tweet I figured you were referring to and missed this one:

 

 

He says it here. So you're correct  

 

Though the context is different in the entirety of the message than if you just lift that section. It's again a reference to Obama's warning, and was tweeted on the heels of the one above. 

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is France a nuclear threat to the United States? Or England? Or Russia? Anyone with nuclear weapons can use them, that's admittedly obvious. But we don't consider France or England "nuclear threats" to us because they are working with us (most times). That's the meaning behind his tweets, as you can see by the full exchange and the specific warning Obama gave to him while entering office (war with North Korea). 

 

But! 

 

I was wrong about nuclear not appearing in his tweets. I was focused on that one tweet I figured you were referring to and missed this one:

 

 

He says it here. So you're correct  

 

Though the context is different in the entirety of the message than if you just lift that section. It's again a reference to Obama's warning, and was tweeted on the heels of the one above. 

France, Great Britain, Russia? How about China or Israel? Or Pakistan? Why not list EVERY country that has nukes? If that's the standard, why are we even bothering about N Korea in the first place? That's rhetorical, btw. I can't believe someone of your intelligence would seek to make such a false equivalency. 

 

Why don't we just agree to disagree and hope for the best. This is too exhausting. Beer back at ya.