The North Korea Problem

[a fan]

Talks broke down (again) this morning; but the love affair is going strong according to Orange Duce.

Oh, they're just about to cave.

TrumpFans will double down on our Great Negotiator.

Iran. N Korea. EU trade. China trade. Spinning his wheels-----which would be fine if he and his fans didn't shoot their mouths off about how much he did that previous Presidents couldn't.

Wait... the Clinton administration solved the Nork problem decades ago. How is this even an issue today?

Yes. As I said, it would be fine if Trump wasn't shooting his mouth off. I don't have a problem with Trump failing to get a deal. Kim is a d*ck. Full stop. Didn't expect Trump to get anything done. Nor the next Potus. Nor the next.

It's the crowing about getting something done, when in reality, nothing is done.


I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

[cradleandshoot]

Talks broke down (again) this morning; but the love affair is going strong according to Orange Duce.

Oh, they're just about to cave.

TrumpFans will double down on our Great Negotiator.

Iran. N Korea. EU trade. China trade. Spinning his wheels-----which would be fine if he and his fans didn't shoot their mouths off about how much he did that previous Presidents couldn't.

Wait... the Clinton administration solved the Nork problem decades ago. How is this even an issue today?

Yes. As I said, it would be fine if Trump wasn't shooting his mouth off. I don't have a problem with Trump failing to get a deal. Kim is a d*ck. Full stop. Didn't expect Trump to get anything done. Nor the next Potus. Nor the next.

It's the crowing about getting something done, when in reality, nothing is done.


I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

well said... no argument from were I sit. Trump is an abysmal failure when negotiating with weeds. It is so easy for them to see right through his little charade.

[youthathletics]

I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

well said... no argument from were I sit. Trump is an abysmal failure when negotiating with weeds. It is so easy for them to see right through his little charade.

I agree, especially when our partisanship drives such a significant wedge in progress, that we are seen like a teenage girl picking her outfit each morning. When I heard Schumer agree with what Trump is doing in China, I thought it may gain traction and it would show a backing and strength in fortitude for success. We are our own enemy at times....our vision can't get past our bank account and selfishness for partisan power.

[jhu72]

I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

well said... no argument from were I sit. Trump is an abysmal failure when negotiating with weeds. It is so easy for them to see right through his little charade.

I agree, especially when our partisanship drives such a significant wedge in progress, that we are seen like a teenage girl picking her outfit each morning. When I heard Schumer agree with what Trump is doing in China, I thought it may gain traction and it would show a backing and strength in fortitude for success. We are our own enemy at times....our vision can't get past our bank account and selfishness for partisan power.

You can't blame Trump's failure on partisan divide. Even a totally united nation would be up against the same immovable object (NK). You want to remove nukes, you have to go to war. It is the same with Iran. The juice isn't worth the squeeze in either case.

[cradleandshoot]

I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

well said... no argument from were I sit. Trump is an abysmal failure when negotiating with weeds. It is so easy for them to see right through his little charade.

I agree, especially when our partisanship drives such a significant wedge in progress, that we are seen like a teenage girl picking her outfit each morning. When I heard Schumer agree with what Trump is doing in China, I thought it may gain traction and it would show a backing and strength in fortitude for success. We are our own enemy at times....our vision can't get past our bank account and selfishness for partisan power.

You can't blame Trump's failure on partisan divide. Even a totally united nation would be up against the same immovable object (NK). You want to remove nukes, you have to go to war. It is the same with Iran. The juice isn't worth the squeeze in either case.

When it relates to NK and Iran I am reminded of the saying that you can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber. The Norks may be outrageously belligerent but the chances of them attacking anyone is pretty slim IMO. Iran IMO is a different story. Their biggest issue is how long Israel will stand by while they threaten the existence of them as a nation. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody sees or wants to admit is even in the room. When the Iranian leadership constantly claims that they want to wipe Israel off of the map... well are they serious or just busting chops?

https://dailypost.ng/2019/07/06/iran-th ... 0-minutes/ is it real or is it all just rhetoric?

[MDlaxfan76]

I should trademark this phrase when it comes to negotiating with Fascists: America has elections. They don't. Makes negotiating next to impossible.

well said... no argument from were I sit. Trump is an abysmal failure when negotiating with weeds. It is so easy for them to see right through his little charade.

I agree, especially when our partisanship drives such a significant wedge in progress, that we are seen like a teenage girl picking her outfit each morning. When I heard Schumer agree with what Trump is doing in China, I thought it may gain traction and it would show a backing and strength in fortitude for success. We are our own enemy at times....our vision can't get past our bank account and selfishness for partisan power.

You can't blame Trump's failure on partisan divide. Even a totally united nation would be up against the same immovable object (NK). You want to remove nukes, you have to go to war. It is the same with Iran. The juice isn't worth the squeeze in either case.

When it relates to NK and Iran I am reminded of the saying that you can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber. The Norks may be outrageously belligerent but the chances of them attacking anyone is pretty slim IMO. Iran IMO is a different story. Their biggest issue is how long Israel will stand by while they threaten the existence of them as a nation. That is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody sees or wants to admit is even in the room. When the Iranian leadership constantly claims that they want to wipe Israel off of the map... well are they serious or just busting chops?

https://dailypost.ng/2019/07/06/iran-th ... 0-minutes/ is it real or is it all just rhetoric?

It's real (among hardliners), but the Iranian regime is not so irrational as to think they would survive any attack on Israel other than through support of terrorist groups. But alienation of Iran will never move Iran other than to more extreme hard line views. Engagement, with carrots as well as sticks, is the only path to possible, though not guaranteed, success.

[old salt]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

[MDlaxfan76]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

[old salt]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

[MDlaxfan76]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

[old salt]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

[MDlaxfan76]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

[old salt]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

Apparently you have not been following Japan - SK relations recently.

[MDlaxfan76]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

Apparently you have not been following Japan - SK relations recently.

Absolutely have.
The Japanese are very, very concerned that they can no longer depend on their supposed ally, the USA...under Trump.

[old salt]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

Apparently you have not been following Japan - SK relations recently.

Absolutely have.
The Japanese are very, very concerned that they can no longer depend on their supposed ally, the USA...under Trump.

Based on your response, apparently you have not.

I say again -- the Japanese & S Korea need to resolve their issues with each other.

That has nothing to do with depending on the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bout-past/

[Trinity]

“After 3 years & 2 summits, the reality is that denuclearization is not happening, sanctions are eroding, and N Korea is ignoring empty Potus threats of fire and fury and instead testing its missiles & increasing the quality/quantity of its nuclear warheads.”
Richard Haas

[Farfromgeneva]

MD, problem is your following from “mainstream media” as opposed to more honest conduits like breitbart and the North Korea Times. If you read those fine outlets you’d understand.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD, problem is your following from “mainstream media” as opposed to more honest conduits like breitbart and the North Korea Times. If you read those fine outlets you’d understand.

[jhu72]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

Apparently you have not been following Japan - SK relations recently.

Absolutely have.
The Japanese are very, very concerned that they can no longer depend on their supposed ally, the USA...under Trump.

Well, the plight of the Kurds will make them feel better.

[MDlaxfan76]

NK is not an expansionist terrorist state, seeking to dominate an entire region, which provides a resource critical to the global economy.

NK is only a threat to SK, which should be able to defend itself, with the US as an ally.

Maybe you forget about Japan?
I'm sure that's an inadvertent miss.

But your point is reasonably well taken as to "expansionist", especially as compared to Iran's posture which I assume was your intent. That said, NK is highly problematic in the spread of nuclear and ballistic technology to non-state as well as rogue state actors. Serious stuff.

Which doesn't mean warfare is the answer.

So NK is a threat to invade or destabilize Japan, which is unable to defend itself ? Like Iran is to it's neighbors ?

You don't want a substantive discussion. You just want an argument.

oops, I assumed by "a threat" you meant those words.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was just inadvertent.

I guarantee you Japan considers NK a "threat".

And I was not at all arguing the difference you were trying to draw between Iran and NK in the "expansionist" aspect.
It's just that the "expansionist" aspect is not the sole factor determinative of what our foreign policy should be.

At this point in time, NK is not actively attacking Japan, as Iran is attacking SA & Israel, & threatening our forces throughout the region.
NK is not destabilizing an entire region. Iran is.
At this point, NK is a more rational, deter-able adversary, & less a regional threat to out allies, than Iran.
Japan & SK need to resolve their issues with each other.

We don't disagree other than your last line.
Japan is our ally by treaty and by long practice.
They depend heavily on our deterrence umbrella.

I'm not sure why you digging so hard on this.
Both NK and Iran are serious issues. They are not identical.

Apparently you have not been following Japan - SK relations recently.

Absolutely have.
The Japanese are very, very concerned that they can no longer depend on their supposed ally, the USA...under Trump.

Based on your response, apparently you have not.

I say again -- the Japanese & S Korea need to resolve their issues with each other.

That has nothing to do with depending on the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bout-past/

If you are arguing that SK should stop shipping sensitive tech to NK as part off the thawing in relations under the current SK gov't, ok, I see the connection with NK. But the reason Japan is so spooked is that they recognize the NK threat.

https://theaseanpost.com/article/saving ... lationship

Of course, the current flare-up between SK and Japan is over other issues as well, but these aren't related specifically to NK. https://www.ft.com/content/94ce21dc-c58 ... 6ca66511c9