Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Trump will meet with Kim Jong Un

592 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

StarMountainKid

I'm getting some flack for my comments. I'm not against opening communications with North Korea. What are the underlying motives here?

Trump gets political gain by grandstanding his meeting with the powerful and evil Kim. Maybe even a Nobel Prize. Really?

Kin gets center stage in world events by negotiating personally with the President of the U.S.

Kim relinquishes he nuclear arsenal, which he never intend to use. It's called coercion. Not bad by a third-world dictator to force the U.S. into negotiations to benefit the dictator. 

The U.S. removes sanctions against North Korea.

Everybody's happy, especially Mr. Kim and President Trump. 

What has changed? Kim gets what he wants in concessions from the U.S. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
8 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

1.  It pumped $150 Billion into a wrecked economy which greattly helped Iran fund their terorist enetrprises around teh world.

You do realize that Iran is a Shia nation who wanted weapons to fight against the Sunni ISIS fighters who were against them, right? :huh: I'm not saying Iran is a great nation, but to say they're the ones spreading terrorist enterprises around the world is rather ironic given that they've been fighting against ISIS from the beginning.

14 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

2.  US Military aircraft landing pallets of cash totalling near $2 billion dollars  offloading in Iran was an international embarrassment.

How? Getting rid of sanctions to get the Iranian economy back to what it should be anyway is not some tremendous gift to them. It's not like we were giving them any money, we simply weren't taking their money through sanctions anymore.

That's like deciding to not take the weaker kid in school's lunch money anymore, and then calling that a gift.

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

3. The inspection restrictions were an absolute joke and nearly worthless

WTF!? What kind of alternate reality are you living in dude? :huh:

The IAEA had the ability to regularly inspect the Iranian nuclear sites, and the UN directors could demand special access whenever they want, and then a predetermined joint commission of one member from each negotiating state would then have to approve the inspection. The panel was made up of all western nations and Iran.

If Iran wanted to stop them from going in there or conceal anything, they couldn't do jack to stop them.

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

4.  It wasn't just conservatives that disagreed with it the democrats did to which is why Obama didn't try amd do a treay wioth Iran. he'd never get any support in congress.

That's cause the democrats are hawkish corporatists just like republicans, they're just ever so slightly less so.

I'd say this was the best deal we could've made given the circumstances, so I'm not sure what you'd expect in regards to some 'treaty'. The only real options I've ever seen presented from opponents of it are to slap sanctions back on Iran and/or (in some more extreme cases) go to war. So again, wtf kind of 'treaty' are you even talking about?

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

5.  The agreement was primarily writen by the Irananian lead scientist aand in a speech claimed “According to the JCPOA, we have kept our nuclear program in accordance with our needs and requirements for [carrying out] research and development.”   In other words they were continuing their research all over the country.

And? All nations are allowed to under international law posses a nuclear program, so long as the nuclear program goes towards energy and not towards weapons. Furthermore, Iran actually wrote in the deal that: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons."

So what if they were carrying out further research and development? As would be expected under a new up and coming nuclear energy program. You're just automatically assuming that any research and development = nuclear weapons when it doesn't.

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

6.  The deal essenitally allowed Iran to build a bomb legally while taking the economic pressure of sanctions off their backs thereby provifding neccessary funding for said research.

I already explained why they weren't going to build a bomb, and couldn't even if they wanted to under the provisions, so that's complete bull, but since this is related I might as well bring this up...

What conservatives keep tripping over is the provision which says that under 5 years Iran would be able to buy small weapons and then ten years big weapons on the international market. You keep painting this picture that 'The US is arming the Iranians' or some s**t.

No, they simply wanted the ability to buy some kind of weapons to fight back against ISIS (since again, Iran is Shia and ISIS is Sunni, and ISIS wants to destroy Iran as much as they do other western nations). That's perfectly reasonable.

19 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

7.  The only way to stop Iran from get ting a bomb was teh overthrow of the militant regime building it and only sanctions could accomplish that.  The Iran deal undid what sanctions had done with little gain for us.

That's complete bulls**t. The provisions insured that they were never gonna get their hands on a nuclear weapon even if they wanted to, and essentially what you're arguing for is a far-right war hawkish regime change strategy, where the US once again illegally invades a country that didn't attack us and topples them.

I'm a non-interventionist, so I find your suggestion here appalling.

20 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

8.  The Iranians didn't even sign the thing.

The Iranians had two options: Go with the deal, or have ramped up sanctions and possibly war.

Whether it be officially 'legally binding' or not, the results would still be the same.

20 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

9. We gave up a lot for very very little, if anything, in return and simultaneously alienated our allies in the region.

What in the world are you talking about? :huh: What pray tell did we 'give up'? Not profiting off of sanctions and the military industrial complex not profiting off a war with Iran? Cause as far as I can tell that's about the only thing we 'gave up' in the deal.

I considered the Iran deal to be a historic peace deal in the region, yet conservatives just aren't happy with anything short of all-out war with everyone it seems... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
51 minutes ago, skliss said:

Obama and the left blamed everything on Bush for the entire 8 years!! Lol

Bush was a legitimate war criminal who also wrecked the US economy, so while he wasn't the cause of everything that went wrong, he sure did cause a lot of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

You do realize that Iran is a Shia nation who wanted weapons to fight against the Sunni ISIS fighters who were against them, right? :huh: I'm not saying Iran is a great nation, but to say they're the ones spreading terrorist enterprises around the world is rather ironic given that they've been fighting against ISIS from the beginning.

Is that what you think Iran is doing?  LMAO

Quote

How? Getting rid of sanctions to get the Iranian economy back to what it should be anyway is not some tremendous gift to them. It's not like we were giving them any money, we simply weren't taking their money through sanctions anymore.

Why would anyone want Iran, teh leading terorist nation onearth, to have a healthy economy?  Why do you think thy had snctions against them in the first place? 

Quote

That's like deciding to not take the weaker kid in school's lunch money anymore, and then calling that a gift.

WTF!? What kind of alternate reality are you living in dude? :huh:

The IAEA had the ability to regularly inspect the Iranian nuclear sites, and the UN directors could demand special access whenever they want, and then a predetermined joint commission of one member from each negotiating state would then have to approve the inspection. The panel was made up of all western nations and Iran.

If Iran wanted to stop them from going in there or conceal anything, they couldn't do jack to stop them.

 

Quote

That's cause the democrats are hawkish corporatists just like republicans, they're just ever so slightly less so.

I'd say this was the best deal we could've made given the circumstances, so I'm not sure what you'd expect in regards to some 'treaty'. The only real options I've ever seen presented from opponents of it are to slap sanctions back on Iran and/or (in some more extreme cases) go to war. So again, wtf kind of 'treaty' are you even talking about?

And? All nations are allowed to under international law posses a nuclear program, so long as the nuclear program goes towards energy and not towards weapons. Furthermore, Iran actually wrote in the deal that: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons."

So what if they were carrying out further research and development? As would be expected under a new up and coming nuclear energy program. You're just automatically assuming that any research and development = nuclear weapons when it doesn't.

I already explained why they weren't going to build a bomb, and couldn't even if they wanted to under the provisions, so that's complete bull, but since this is related I might as well bring this up...

What conservatives keep tripping over is the provision which says that under 5 years Iran would be able to buy small weapons and then ten years big weapons on the international market. You keep painting this picture that 'The US is arming the Iranians' or some s**t.

No, they simply wanted the ability to buy some kind of weapons to fight back against ISIS (since again, Iran is Shia and ISIS is Sunni, and ISIS wants to destroy Iran as much as they do other western nations). That's perfectly reasonable.

That's complete bulls**t. The provisions insured that they were never gonna get their hands on a nuclear weapon even if they wanted to, and essentially what you're arguing for is a far-right war hawkish regime change strategy, where the US once again illegally invades a country that didn't attack us and topples them.

I'm a non-interventionist, so I find your suggestion here appalling.

The Iranians had two options: Go with the deal, or have ramped up sanctions and possibly war.

Whether it be officially 'legally binding' or not, the results would still be the same.

What in the world are you talking about? :huh: What pray tell did we 'give up'? Not profiting off of sanctions and the military industrial complex not profiting off a war with Iran? Cause as far as I can tell that's about the only thing we 'gave up' in the deal.

I considered the Iran deal to be a historic peace deal in the region, yet conservatives just aren't happy with anything short of all-out war with everyone it seems... <_<

HS, this is like reading a 16 year old SJW's post.  I'm not even going to bother and guess where you're going?   Right to ignore.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Guantanamo Bay is an illegal torture camp

This cracks me up...my nephew has been doing Guantanimo prisoner transfers since Obama  became potus....he said not only are these guys mad that they have to leave...they get to take all the stuff they've accumulated since they got there, furniture, flat screen tv's, etc...he said some have more stuff than he has in his house....the only thing they aren't allowed to take with them are their computers. Once they reach their destination they are given $100,000. Some torture camp!

Edited by skliss
Added a sentence part
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Bush was a legitimate war criminal who also wrecked the US economy, so while he wasn't the cause of everything that went wrong, he sure did cause a lot of it.

In your opinion...because you've been told that...but you're young, you'll learn to look beyond what they tell you one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 hours ago, skliss said:

This cracks me up...my nephew has been doing Guantanimo prisoner transfers since Obama  became potus....he said not only are these guys mad that they have to leave...they get to take all the stuff they've accumulated since they got there, furniture, flat screen tv's, etc...he said some have more stuff than he has in his house....the only thing they aren't allowed to take with them are their computers. Once they reach their destination they are given $100,000. Some torture camp!

Think your nephew is pulling your leg.  It's a prison, they don't get anything that can be made into weapons or can be caught on fire- like furniture.  Not that any of that stuff is available for them to purchase in Cuba.  Many do get the money though,  being released after having no charges on you does get you some spending money.

Tour of duty there is usually only a year as well for servicemen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Think your nephew is pulling your leg.  It's a prison, they don't get anything that can be made into weapons or can be caught on fire- like furniture.  Not that any of that stuff is available for them to purchase in Cuba.  Many do get the money though,  being released after having no charges on you does get you some spending money.

Tour of duty there is usually only a year as well for servicemen.

He's not "pulling my leg", he's  been doing these transfers for years. He isn't stationed there, he just does the transfers for hazard pay. It's known they take the $100,000 with them, security is tight, tight, tight. They have to pack up these guys posessions. He was a marine during the first Iraq invasions, did several tours there, was actually one of the marines who helped rescue Jessica lynch. Then he joined the air force national guard. He's been training soldiers in hand to hand combat for about 13 years. He got back last month from I think his 6th tour in Afghanistan. I could tell you lots more about these transfers but you probably would choose to not believe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
4 minutes ago, skliss said:

He's not "pulling my leg", he's  been doing these transfers for years. He isn't stationed there, he just does the transfers for hazard pay. It's known they take the $100,000 with them, security is tight, tight, tight. They have to pack up these guys posessions. He was a marine during the first Iraq invasions, did several tours there, was actually one of the marines who helped rescue Jessica lynch. Then he joined the air force national guard. He's been training soldiers in hand to hand combat for about 13 years. He got back last month from I think his 6th tour in Afghanistan. I could tell you lots more about these transfers but you probably would choose to not believe.

You might not know this but I am prior military.  And to put it bluntly, your nephew seems to filling you with a lot of yarn.  Ask him what his MOS/AFSC is and tell me.  That's the quickest way to see to the truth of the matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

I know you are prior military. I'm not bothering him with some message board nonsense, he's not even back to work yet after months in Afghanistan. He's getting married in August...much more on his mind. I know he's never going to joke about this as he's agonized over taking the transfer jobs because he believes these guys shouldn't be let go, but it's good money for him. He may have been sarcastic about them having "more than he does in his house " but they have a lot of stuff, he's packed up many a transfer. The $100,000 is standard for each transfer. Again I could go on. I know the truth of it....it matters not to me if you believe it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
7 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

The U.S. removes sanctions against North Korea.

Everybody's happy, especially Mr. Kim and President Trump. 

What has changed? Kim gets what he wants in concessions from the U.S. 

It may all work out just fine.  But are there some lessons here?

If a dictator that starves and imprisons his people, develops nuclear weapons and ICBM's shoots them off across our allies in Japan, threatens the world then gets a summit with the President of the most powerful nation on earth and they talk about beautiful hotels on NK beaches; what message does that send to Iran or our allies? Or China or Russia?  Get tough with Canada and EU?  How about China who has stolen our technology and wants to supplant us in the world? We are going to get troops out of their region, because they are expensive?

Nope, I don't want a war.  Yes I think it was good that President Trump got this far. Now the future is open to possibilities.  Some are even talking about reduction of sanctions as a reward for good behavior.   I think that might be a little soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
11 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

It may all work out just fine.  But are there some lessons here?

If a dictator that starves and imprisons his people, develops nuclear weapons and ICBM's shoots them off across our allies in Japan, threatens the world then gets a summit with the President of the most powerful nation on earth and they talk about beautiful hotels on NK beaches; what message does that send to Iran or our allies? Or China or Russia?  Get tough with Canada and EU?  How about China who has stolen our technology and wants to supplant us in the world? We are going to get troops out of their region, because they are expensive?

Nope, I don't want a war.  Yes I think it was good that President Trump got this far. Now the future is open to possibilities.  Some are even talking about reduction of sanctions as a reward for good behavior.   I think that might be a little soon.

 

As far as I know , sanctions were not changed in any way.  Am I wrong on this (not trusting SMK, he is, umm, well, you know.), because if so I will be very much what happened in Singapore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
6 hours ago, skliss said:

In your opinion...because you've been told that...but you're young, you'll learn to look beyond what they tell you one day.

I'm sick to death of people using my age as an excuse to ignore my arguments.

You're just condescendingly talking down to people without actually presenting a reasonable and informed argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

As far as I know , sanctions were not changed in any way.  Am I wrong on this

No, you are correct.  No changes in sanctions yet.  I heard it on the car radio this morning, but I can find no source.in print.  I guess I fell for some punditry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I cant believe people are being negative about this. I keep waiting for people to see how the media have gone to far. I thought certainly this will be it, but no.

Speaking of the media, its outright sick how they are attempting to sabotage this. This whole meeting was to begin to establish the ground work, and they are complaining that every goal wasn't outright accomplished this very second? I have seen this entire situation spun as negatively as they could make it, even going as far as to say the reunification of Korea will just cost to much money, so its not worth it. What a bunch of pathetic losers. I didn't think it was possible but I mistrust, and loath the media even more after yesterday.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
18 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Woooah there bud. Guantanamo is one of the worst civil rights atrocities the US ever conceived. I consider Obama's failure to shut it down as one of the biggest scandals of his administration, yet you're calling for him to be actively tortured essentially as punishment.

Hacktorp is a true believer in the Qanon conspiracy and all the madness which comes with it. One of the heavily recurrent themes is that Trump is using secret indictments and is secretly putting his political opponents in GITMO and rather tellingly they are rabidly cheering that on. 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

I cant believe people are being negative about this. I keep waiting for people to see how the media have gone to far. I thought certainly this will be it, but no.

Why? Different POTUS and the very same people who are being positive about it today were absolutely losing their minds with negativity at the mere mention of the idea. 

 

There are legit benefits and concerns. 

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

peaking of the media, its outright sick how they are attempting to sabotage this. This whole meeting was to begin to establish the ground work, and they are complaining that every goal wasn't outright accomplished this very second?

I would encourage you to examine foxnews's arguments against Obama doing what Trump just did. They had some valid points about things like giving legitimacy to a nation which still operates Nazi style concentration camps. 

Im in wait and see mode personally. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
20 hours ago, RAyMO said:

this was not new it was same wording as used with moon weeks back.

ETA and the denuclearise includes the south and any US nuclear capability there as well. But I said early it is an important first step. But at this stage many more need to be taken, hopefully both will stay calm enough to allow that to happen.

What are you suggesting is not new? I'm confused to what it is exactly that you're talking about.. 

The denuclearization consist of the entire Korean Peninsula.  

Hopefully individuals such as yourself will wake up and see how fortunate we are to have such a great President and Country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
54 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why? Different POTUS and the very same people who are being positive about it today were absolutely losing their minds with negativity at the mere mention of the idea. 

 

There are legit benefits and concerns. 

I would encourage you to examine foxnews's arguments against Obama doing what Trump just did. They had some valid points about things like giving legitimacy to a nation which still operates Nazi style concentration camps. 

Im in wait and see mode personally. 

 

What I notice about that video you selected  is that the entire context is  pretty much removed. I did get to hear a partial portion  like what Sara Palin said  that Obama would meet with dictators madmen  without any preconditions.  I heard another lady state that Obama was bowing down to such dictators again without any preconditions.  

I know that fox news does have some individuals working for them that  are not conservatives but claim to be.  

@ Farmer Do you respect  & uphold the American Constitution &  America's Founding Fathers in  their dream of building a nation, America? 

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Why? Different POTUS and the very same people who are being positive about it today were absolutely losing their minds with negativity at the mere mention of the idea. 

 

There are legit benefits and concerns. 

I would encourage you to examine foxnews's arguments against Obama doing what Trump just did. They had some valid points about things like giving legitimacy to a nation which still operates Nazi style concentration camps. 

Im in wait and see mode personally. 

 

Why are you talking to me about fox news? I'm not a fan at all. I haven't trusted them for years. Even if they are saying some things I'd agree with right now.

As for your question why? Its pretty simple. The policy we have had towards NK clearly has not, and will never work. If this ends with Korea being unified, talking to a dictator to get it done is a VERY small price to pay. The people complaining that he talked to a dictator with nuclear weapons clearly couldn't give a crap about the many great things this could achieve.  

I thought this would be the one anti Trump message you'd disagree with. Instead you are going with 'they did it first'? Sure this still has a long way to go, and yes it's still a long shot, but condemning him for trying is outright disgusting. These people are the scum of the earth.

And BTW maybe if 0bama had done the same with Libya, it wouldn't be the extreme hell hole it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm sick to death of people using my age as an excuse to ignore my arguments.

You're just condescendingly talking down to people without actually presenting a reasonable and informed argument.

You will understand, one day lol :P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Why are you talking to me about fox news? I'm not a fan at all. I haven't trusted them for years. Even if they are saying some things I'd agree with right now.

Because whether you like it or not your arguments generally parrot theirs.  Heck even the one I responded to was damn near put out verbatim on their airwaves. 

 

6 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I thought this would be the one anti Trump message you'd disagree with. Instead you are going with 'they did it first'? Sure this still has a long way to go, and yes it's still a long shot, but condemning him for trying is outright disgusting.  

Like I said im in wait and see mode. It could go either way at this point. 

Honestly if it weren't for this administrations complete lack of regard for human rights I would probably be more excited. To give up on caring about those things now though makes me concerned. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
17 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Because whether you like it or not your arguments generally parrot theirs.  Heck even the one I responded to was damn near put out verbatim on their airwaves. 

No their arguments parrot mine, and my sources. That's only because if they didn't they were going to lose massive amounts of viewers. They tried the anti Trump rout, and quickly found out they were going to be left behind.  

17 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Like I said im in wait and see mode. It could go either way at this point. 

Honestly if it weren't for this administrations complete lack of regard for human rights I would probably be more excited. To give up on caring about those things now though makes me concerned. 

 

You are in defend people who are crapping on this mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm sick to death of people using my age as an excuse to ignore my arguments.

You're just condescendingly talking down to people without actually presenting a reasonable and informed argument.

You have a history of ignoring anything you can't refute by saying we are all horrible humans who can't possibly know anything so you won't continue the debate or our thinking is so incomprehensible and so evil you are done.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 

 

Honestly if it weren't for this administrations complete lack of regard for human rights I would probably be more excited. To give up on caring about those things now though makes me concerned. 

 

Try explaining  if you can   just  how exactly the  President  of America  Donald Trump  and his  cabinet are  displaying disregard towards  human rights ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.