Re: North Korea
 

Or, they've realised that they can manipulate Trump - they've got him to agree to meet, which no other President would do; what Trump has given them is a massive ego boost, by saying Kim Jong Un has made Trump meet with him by building up his ICBM and nuclear arsenal - tremendous publicity coup.

Kim Jong Un wants to be seen as Donald Trump’s equal, and a meeting would do that - just by sitting down with President Trump, Kim Jong Un would get what he craves the most: legitimacy.

He wants to be treated as an equal by the global superpower, and a photo opportunity with the most powerful leader in the free world would go a long way to helping him achieve that, and this is what his father and his grandfather wanted: to be on the same footing as the world’s greatest power.

One commentator said “A meeting with the American president has for decades been considered the prize at the end of a successful denuclearization process, not an incentive to get the process started, and neither Kim’s father nor grandfather made it to that finish line,” he added. “So I have to grudgingly take my hat off to Kim because he’s played a very poor hand brilliantly to get there.”

by the way, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't give you the right to be very rude and call them super stupid; it's a very complex subject, not easily resolvable.

Re: North Korea
 

Im sure i read somewhere that China has become more and more distant from North Korea over the past few years. Phaps China has told Kim where to go basically.

Re: North Korea
 

:tu:

It's a positive development if the North Koreans are interesting in talking but we should be careful as to what their intentions are. Too many people taking them at face value which is naive for a country that has been unpredictable for decades.

As much as I don't like Trump I still don't want to see a President 'played' by North Korea. I really don't like North Korea. The threat to their neighbours and the horrors they've inflicted on their own population isn't to be underestimated.

If Trump gets real concessions then that will be quite the success however.

Re: North Korea
 

How predictable , that I would expect you to come up with this, that no other President would meet with Kim Jong Un, give him what he wants, it’s as if you have been watching low ratings & Fake News CNN. Because they’ve been saying the same nonsense.

No, no other president wouldn’t and didn’t, because they would not get the opportunity and didn’t even try, with the laidback super soft approach they had.. too busy caring what other world leaders would think of them, if they went in super heavy, threatening to totally obliterate them which is exactly what Trump did and Mattis. Trump does not give a shit, what other world leaders think of him, that’s one of the personal traits that got him elected.

The North Korea threat has been ignored by all the other former Presidents, for decades. Allowing them to build up their Nuclear capability. Trump is totally spot on, that this should have been sorted decades ago.

It is time to sit down and try resolve this, face to face if necessary or are you saying let’s carry on with how it is now, because you cannot possibly accept that Trump would go down in History has one of the most successful Presidents of all time, for heralding a massive peace keeping treaty and finally securing the safety of the Korean Peninsula?

But for you, let’s keep having North Korea throwing up ICBM with Potential Nuclear capability over Japan.

Trump could never win with the Crooked Hillary fans, they were mocking him for his tough stance, saying he is going to get everyone killed in a nuclear conflict but now Trump is going the diplomatic route, which is the best option out of all of them and he still can’t win. It’s pathetic. :rolleyes:

Re: North Korea
 

No need to be rude just because you disagree with me - you may think it’s bollocks, I see it as a different viewpoint.

I have disagreed with you in the past, but never said you speak bollocks.

Re: North Korea
 

Meeting with the President is itself seen as a mark of respect. If you're a hostile nation, i.e Iran, you generally have to make some concession or progress to be granted it.

Obama was cautious with meeting the President of Iran for example. There were backchannel meetings with less senior members of the administrations and eventually a phone call. All whilst the Iranian deal slowly became more likely. He didn't sit down with the President from the get-go. That's what Hugh is getting at.

Yes but I think Trump should ensure they get something first. The worst case scenario is the meeting happens and Kim Jong-un gets footage if it happening, internal NK broadcasts boast of the historical mark of respect by the 'evil Americans', and no concessions are made.

It's also worth noting that these deals have happened before and fallen though because you cannot trust North Korea. Clinton hasn't gone down in history as one of the most successful Presidents of all time for that because he gave them too much credit. As have South Korea. Under the last leadership it was common for NK to show a willingness to talk and deal before accepting aid and then going back to their old ways.

I agree that if Trump manages to get NK to de-arm and become a greater part of the world then that would be a historical achievement, easily the most successful of his Presidency irrespective of what he then does, but I don't trust NK at all.

Re: North Korea
 

Fair enough, I’ve edited my post accordingly and diplomatically offer my apologies. :handshake

Re: North Korea
 

Thanks - very much appreciated.

Re: North Korea
 

BREAKING: North and South Korea set to officially announce the end to War.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/nort...r&par=sharebar

Thank you, President Trump.

Re: North Korea
 

Let's see what else that comes with first. They've not actually been at war for decades. Hopefully this comes with NK scaling back their nuclear weapons program for a start.

Re: North Korea
 

True about the war bit, but the news article highlights the fact that they have not been at peace either, just stuck in a truce for 60+ years.

Re: North Korea
 

Its a start and that is better then nothing.

Re: North Korea
 

Yeah but I see this as largely symbolic. I am wondering what else is behind it? Who is getting what kind of concession and what happens next. Never trust North Korea.

Re: North Korea
 

Let's just nuke 'em instead then. Problem solved!
or
Would you prefer the way things are going?

Re: North Korea
 

I am not saying don't sign a peace treaty. I said wait and see to see what happens because I don't understand why North Korea suddenly want to adopt an open and diplomatic approach. As I said I hope it comes with something along aside the symbolism of stopping a non-existent war.

North Korea has a long history of breaking diplomatic agreements after they've been brokered and they've gotting something. It's not past them to blow up over some minor non-issue, declare the whole thing off and start mouthing off again.

It's a positive step but we need more to happen.

Re: North Korea
 

Of course it will be very weird to see, two leaders who have slung insults at each other, if their meeting ever takes place, Trump referring to Kim as "Lil Rocket Man" and Kim calling Trump, "Dotard".

Re: North Korea
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43792658

Looks like it may happen..

Re: North Korea
 

China is the driving force behind the change of attitude in North Korea they realised things couldn't continue as they were and that North Korea was likely to initiate a conflict putting China in an impossible position. If a deal is done here and North Korea breaks it as they have in the past it will be China they deal with and it's quite likely China would break the traditional ties it's had with North Korea removing the gaurantees that have allowed kim to act so brazenly.

Re: North Korea
 

BREAKING: North Korea closes Nuclear test facility.

https://news.sky.com/story/north-kor...-site-11340053

Re: North Korea
 

More positive news, still suspicious into their sudden change of heart though.

Re: North Korea
 

You're right to be suspicious, the test site had to be closed and could the reason they aren't doing anymore nuclear tests be because they already have enough weapons? Donald won't be fooled despite his tweets and as a great man once said, jaw jaw is always preferable to war war, who knows where the talking will lead

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...aves-200-dead/

Re: North Korea
 

I think the reason that THAT test site is being closed has more to do with the fact that the mountain it's in is close to collapse if another test goes ahead.

I hope the US is watching it's satellite pictures carefully for a new site being set up.

Re: North Korea
 

BREAKING: North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un has crossed in to South Korea for peace summit with South Korea's leader Moon Jae-In.

Re: North Korea
 

Well that is something l thought would never ever happen so its a start but as to where it all ends well we shall see.

Re: North Korea
 

This, except it was speculated upon a while ago that the facility has actually collapsed in and wiped out major players in their Nuclear prospects, thus ending it completely. I don't think it was ever properly confirmed.

As of today, they're running with the story that it did indeed collapse

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...f-action-china

Re: North Korea
 

Here's the clip:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-a...der-for-summit

Shook hands in both countries. I hope this is the monumental turnaround it could be.

Re: North Korea
 

It is pretty extraordinary.

Re: North Korea
 

Both China and the U.S have played major roles in this and hopefully it will be more productive and long lasting then previous diplomatic attempts in the past. I think it will for two main reasons China is not as ready to support North Korean silliness as it has in the past recognising that it's economy is now too affected by global uncertainty and instability. Second reason is North Korea is on it's knees economically with too many dying of starvation and the people are getting more angry with their government with all it's fantastic claims kim needs to get decent food to the people and needs to completely reform the entire country.

Re: North Korea
 

China finally snapped late last year after NK's constant provocations.

Re: North Korea
 

And let’s remember they only snapped, after pressure and interventions from President Trump.

Re: North Korea
 

I think increasing regional instability played a part as well as NK's constant stupidity handing the U.S a reason to increase it's military presence. Trump has played a part in this but China was the big factor no longer supplying the fuel for kim's missile program hit NK hard and signalled even to the notoriously thick skinned NK's that times were changing and they couldn't continue as they had in the past. This might all still be nothing words have always been easy for NK sticking to agreements with actions will be the test.

Re: North Korea
 

Well to be fair they snapped because NK were actually testing the range of missiles, including flying them over Japan, and antagonising everyone in the region including the Americans. Trump taking an interest certainly added to that too.

As Rizzy pretty much said the last thing China want is increased American interest in the region! I think China and South Korea should take a lot of the credit but Trump has earned his share as well. He also gave cover to South Korea's President to meet with North Korea but announcing he would do so as well.

Re: North Korea
 

North Korea was flying missles for years. about 4-5 Presidents did nothing to promote peace. South Korea Minister today, said the Summit is down to Trump and it really is. This would not have happened under a Hillary Presidency.

Re: North Korea
 

I was just talking about the circumstances here rather than getting into a Trump fight. I said he was a factor but there were others.

And yes they did fly missiles for years but nothing like the range and amount we saw last year. As an example over all of Obama's term they fired 12 missles a lot of which were satellites and the rest being short range missiles rather than intercontinental missiles.

The reason why people started getting concerned and China finally had enough was last year they fired 16 missiles including intercontinental missiles capable of holding nuclear warheads. That's why N.Korea became a massive issue last year.

As I said Trump can definitely share in the credit though for the reasons I gave above.

Re: North Korea
 

Missiles were satellites or were launching satellites??? I always thought rockets launches satellites. However, please explain the difference in a missile/rocket capable of delivering a satellite or nuclear warhead and an ICBM.

Re: North Korea
 

I think the list I had had an entire list of ‘launches’ both rockets and missles and I worded that paragraph wrong

Re: North Korea
 

Trump definately played a part but he wasn't the only part and credit must be given to all player's not just one and perhaps it will enable more positive diplomacy in the future which is more important then elevating one person.

Re: North Korea
 

I agree, it is more than one person that has brought this about but part of the credit has to go to Trump due to his stance on the missile tests.

Re: North Korea
 

I haven't said Trump shouldn't get some credit just not all of it this hasn't happened just because of Donald Trump.

Re: North Korea
 

I think China told their noisy neighbors who live below them to pack it in or else.

Re: North Korea
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44242558

Re: North Korea
 

Nor under a Trump presidency, it seems :erm:

Re: North Korea
 

It could change again. I was skeptical of this whole thing and people got too excited. North Korea are famously unpredictable and have had various agreements before which they then backed out off.

I think long-term this will fail but I wouldn't be surprised to see this meeting happen anyway. Also China and South Korea are apparently still involved so maybe it will happen with them.

Re: North Korea
 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...0?guccounter=1

Re: North Korea
 

He could have at least consulted them, everything is so off the cuff.

Re: North Korea
 

He did a tweet, what more do they want ?!

Re: North Korea
 

Latest: Senior White House official says North Korea promised Pompeo that international observers would be able to witness destruction of nuclear site. But that didn’t happen only journalists invited.

Re: North Korea
 

Exactly, they should try following him, then they'd be in the know like the rest of us

Re: North Korea
 

On both sides! You must understand that the NK leadership are a slippery and unreliable bunch and normal diplomacy doesn't work with them. If Kim is going to be unpredictable, then maybe he will understand Trump. Fire with fire!

Re: North Korea
 

When discussing nuclear war, probably not the most apt comment.

Thermonuclear war - sub-optimal for ongoing survival.

Re: North Korea
 

No disagreement here. It's why I was so pessimistic in the first place.

Re: North Korea
 

I'm afraid it's the only language that Kim understands. All this time, NK has been bellicose, threatening, manipulative. It makes agreements and then breaks them. This pattern of behaviour does need to be challenged. Go soft on these people and they will walk all over you, probably your dead body.

Re: North Korea
 

Looks like it's back on again!

Re: North Korea
 

There appears to be some confusion.

This information was given to the New York Times, and 50 other News reporters in a White House Briefing Room (with 200 others on taking part through a Conference Call) by a White House Press Official, and it was arranged by the White House Press Office.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...h-korea-609617 In fact, there is an audio recording of the meeting, and of the "non-existent" Senior White House official who is named.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...d-doesnt-exist

Re: North Korea
 

Doesn’t matter, he knows his most ardent supporters won’t read the rebuttal.

Re: North Korea
 

The New York times is a disgusting news agency and I will NEVER accept their decision to publish Manchester Arena photos, of dead bodies and bomb fragments, in their efforts to embarrass the U.S relationship with the UK and an attempt to undermine the Trump Administration by sharing UK intel, just days after the Terrorist Attack occurred in my city. They are utter *******s & they deserve all the attacks they get whether they are right or wrong on their stories.

Re: North Korea
 

Really? I've always found them to be even handed in their reporting.Everyone gets brick batted.

Re: North Korea
 

I live in Cleethorpes and find it's not available at the news agents .

Re: North Korea
 

Hope this helps...

https://www.nytimes.com/

Re: North Korea
 

So you don't like them then? Who do you like?

Re: North Korea
 

It seems The New York times was indeed still incorrect with all the above regardless of that audio... that audio does NOT say what the NYT claims it says according to the Federalist...

So it seems the NYT did indeed publish FAKE NEWS all along. :rolleyes:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/28/...ling-fake-news

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Yes really, if you think posting UK intel of dead bodies from a terrorist attack and bomb fragments, days after the event actually occurred and you think that is even handed, then you have strange standards indeed Maggy. :td:

Re: North Korea
 

Comes back to the whole aspect of journalism though ; if you are presented with a leak do you report it or not?

Disgusting as it may be, the ethics surrounding it are far greater than pictures of what happened in our back yard.

Re: North Korea
 

Trump said that the spokesman didn't exist - that's Fake News, as the briefing was set up by the White House Press Office, and Matt Pottinger was the spokesman :rolleyes:

btw, the author of that piece in the Federalist (a very Libertarian Pro-Trump website) has been described as https://www.salon.com/2017/12/01/roy...ervative-mind/

More "Fake News"...

Re: North Korea
 

The Times article in question published pictures of the home made bomb, not bodies. The UK press also carried those images after it was published in the Times.

Re: North Korea
 

So, can I take it that like the article in The Federalist, the slur against the New York Times is erroneous?

Re: North Korea
 

I am just restating what the NY Times leaked intelligence story was. It was pictures of the bomb which were then put in many other media publications including ones in the UK. The UK Government were largely angry at the leak itself.

Re: North Korea
 

They are just as disgusting as well. But as for the pictures of bodies, it did post those bloody bodies, slightly blurred out but still identifiable as motionless fatalities - I know what I saw at the time and those pictures were in the NYT as well as other publications but I single out NYT as they seemingly gained leaks from U.S Intelligence agencies.

---------- Post added at 10:10 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

But not really - I know what I believe and it is not the NYT-end of.

Anyway lets get back on topic - this thread is about North Korea, not what you inaccurately portray what is or is not fake news.

---------- Post added at 10:36 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

I said back on topic which is anything related to actions in North Korea.

Re: North Korea
 

If you are losing the argument always best to bring it back on topic :)

Meanwhile, back on topic, Fox News, Desperate Don's go to news source had a totally different take on talking to North Korea in Obama's day:

Fox News Had a Different Reaction When Obama Wanted to Negotiate with North Korea

Re: North Korea
 

Only I have not lost any arguments. I don’t see posting an opinion or contributing to a topic a competition. If I’m wrong, I will say so, if I’m not, I will also say so.

Re: North Korea
 

hmmm, so when have you been 'wrong' Mick ? ;)

Re: North Korea
 

Re: North Korea
 

Dude, that's the wrong Kim!!!*

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1527777544

*h/t @t_wedernoch

Re: North Korea
 

But look at the smile on his face .

Re: North Korea
 

But that's the Kim he wants. :D

Re: North Korea
 

It’s back on!

Excellent.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ace-on-june-12

Re: North Korea
 

Trump should sell this on Pay Per View.

Re: North Korea
 

If it was in Thailand instead of Singapore that would probably get a lot more PPV subscriptions (for all the wrong reasons...)

Re: North Korea
 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...h-korea-630404

Re: North Korea
 

Maybe he's practised his putting ? There's some nice golf courses in Singapore.

Re: North Korea
 

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-p...t-kim-jong-un/ That worked out so well with

Manafort
Bannon
Sessions
Scaramucci
Flynn
Priebus
Tillerson
McMaster
Shulkin

Re: North Korea
 

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Re: North Korea
 

Don’t give him any ideas! :p:

Re: North Korea
 

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...tes-and-canada :D

Re: North Korea
 

Is there a date set? If so, that is one the for the dairy :)

Re: North Korea
 

Finally, history is made... Way to go Mr President..



Like you said in one of your latest tweets, forget about the haters and losers.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

They’re about to sign something. Has Kim agreed to get rid of his nuclear weapons?! If so in return for what?

Re: North Korea
 

I think he prefers to be called leader of the workers party, I'm sure he'll appreciate the sentiment regardless though

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

Document signed what we don’t know what’s in it

---------- Post added at 07:35 ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 ----------

Complete denuclearisation with security assurances. If true (and it happens) then that’s a big achievement for Trump and probably the biggest he’ll have,

Not sure why North Korea have agreed though. This massive change of heart is bizarre. Once the nukes have gone then does Kim really trust the assurances of America that he’ll be safe?

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

It’s great that this could be happening.

However, don’t forget one of them has previous in leaving treaties he doesn’t like...

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

I might have oversold it. The document just says they should 'work' towards denuclearisation. No details on what that would mean, how to get there or what the 'security assurances' will be.

Someone pointed out how common such agreement are with NK so we'll have to wait and see how this develops: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/arch...he-precedents/

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

They might just be signing an agreement about mobile libraries for all we know. A bit meaningless as N Korea have reneged on previous treaties. Kim just fancies a day in the limelight and tv pics to cheer up the starving peasants back home. Donald just likes being on tv. Bet he's set his legendary Tivo for it.

2 tin pot dictators with the same hairdresser, no wonder they get on well....

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

You're just bitter and envious because Obama never signed a deal for mobile libraries with North Korea. Give them both the Noble Peace Prize immediately to shut up all the doubters and losers!

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

No, what's meaningless is most of your negative crap. :rolleyes:

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

On this initiative I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and am hopeful that something comes of it. I think the two leaders are well-matched and both have strong motives to strike a deal. Time will tell but I'm 60/40 on a successful outcome i.e., denuclearisation of North Korea.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

Yes time will tell whether this day will mark a sea change in a good many things Andrew as one has to be hopeful but no more then that currently.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

He thought he had an agreement with the Canadian PM, that didn't last long !

I'm sure Kim is much more trustworthy. If he didn't have nuclear weapons, we'd have done our 'regime change' thing long before now. They have worked for Kim, he's not going to give them up. The agreement is very vague and doesn't really commit anyone to anything, it's all about tv pictures ensuring these 2 remain in power.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

During his press conference, Trump described the joint military exercises with South Korea as "provocative" to North Korea. Previously, both South Korea and the US have described the drills as "defensive" and "routine", so by stating that the exercises are a "provocation", Trump could also be setting himself, and the US military, up for difficulties if the they attempts to resume the drills in the future if the talks break down.

Many analysts consider the halting of the military exercises as a huge concession from the US.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

North Korea to scrap the idea of nukes, receive constant aid from the US and the South, build relations and gradually become part of this world. :erm:

Too much?

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

Not if it actually works.

Re: [Updated]U.S hold diplomatic Summit with North Korea
 

Here is the meat of the Joint Statement.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/...091218916.html