President Trump

[Steviedoo]

Do you know why I call you far left? Because you have all the tell tale signs of it. Hypocrisy for one. You can call me a cheerleader without knowing me but I cant call you a hater without you getting overly upset with me Steviee is critical but I dont think she is far left at least she doesnt come across as it. You also post every little negative thing you can find .....

My god... my mother would have a heart attack to know I have been identified as the far left. Lol.

 

[slotplayer]

Perhaps Kim Jong un's sisters' visit to SK may have had something to do with it?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Do you know why I call you far left? Because you have all the tell tale signs of it. Hypocrisy for one. You can call me a cheerleader without knowing me but I cant call you a hater without you getting overly upset with me. Steviee is critical but I dont think she is far left at least she doesnt come across as it. You also post every little negative thing you can find no matter what. . Which is the definition of a hater. Your entitled to do that of course but I should be allowed to call you far left or a hater if you can call me a cheerleader.

The thing with your quote, while it is obviously quite true in many instances, with this one, It does not apply. Because ANY sign of movement is better than no sign. And I am going off of what facts we have right now. To see this type of response from Kim Jong un, is quite interesting especially if it ends up working out. I am in total shock him and Trump may meet face to face.

With that being said, I do realize this could all fall apart or could be some sort of ploy like they have done before. I am not naive enough to think all is said and done because I do find it strange that he goes from threatening to blow up the USA and kill every american to now happy, smiles and wanting to meet with Trump.

He is either very desperate and the pressure has finally got to them or he is playing one giant game.

BUT it cannot be any worse than it was before. Which was NK exlcuded and busy building dangerous weapons. Trump will either get an insane amount of credit or if it turns sour, it will just go back to before.

To be honest, when i read how this acceptance of the invitation came along, I have my doubts anything will come out of it other than Mr. T having another moment in the spotlight, which he so dearly likes to have.

Apparently, the SK delegation were in the WH to brief McMaster on their latest exchanges with NK when Mr. T heard they are there and summoned them to the Oval Office. He said YES the soon he heard Kim wants to meet him and then instructed the SK delegation --> "You have to give me credit for this". So the SK delegation goes out to the press, praises Mr. T to the sky and announces the invitation and acceptance, while completely diminishing their own diplomatic efforts and success.

Straight from the Trumpian book of grandstanding, IMHO. Mr. T on fire and in his element to show the world that he is THE MAN. However, Kim has learned from his father how to play a "big bluff" and Mr. T has jumped right into it.

But who knows, both being grandstanders with big egos, there might be something coming out of a meeting. IMO, the two are very comparable, both show to the outside a big ego and brag about anything and everything they "achieve", while on the inside they are both total weaklings in need of constant "adoration".

As for your cheerleader - far left hater comment, I think comparing the two is rather far fetched. You have lauded Mr. T at every occasion, so how should I call that in English other than cheerleading? I'll happily use a different word if you can suggest one or I could call you "far right hater".

Plus, I would have filled 1,000's of pages on this thread if I would post, quote "every little negative thing you can find no matter what."

 

[lockinlove]

To be honest, when i read how this acceptance of the invitation came along, I have my doubts anything will come out of it other than Mr. T having another moment in the spotlight, which he so dearly likes to have.

Apparently, the SK delegation were in the WH to brief McMaster on their latest exchanges with NK when Mr. T heard they are there and summoned them to the Oval Office. He said YES the soon he heard Kim wants to meet him and then instructed the SK delegation --> "You have to give me credit for this". So the SK delegation goes out to the press, praises Mr. T to the sky and announces the invitation and acceptance, while completely diminishing their own diplomatic efforts and success.

Straight from the Trumpian book of grandstanding, IMHO. Mr. T on fire and in his element to show the world that he is THE MAN. However, Kim has learned from his father how to play a "big bluff" and Mr. T has jumped right into it.

But who knows, both being grandstanders with big egos, there might be something coming out of a meeting. IMO, the two are very comparable, both show to the outside a big ego and brag about anything and everything they "achieve", while on the inside they are both total weaklings in need of constant "adoration".

As for your cheerleader - far left hater comment, I think comparing the two is rather far fetched. You have lauded Mr. T at every occasion, so how should I call that in English other than cheerleading? I'll happily use a different word if you can suggest one or I could call you "far right hater".

Plus, I would have filled 1,000's of pages on this thread if I would post, quote "every little negative thing you can find no matter what."

Whichever way you want to interpret it, his hard stance has created something that hasnt been seen in a long time and could be historical. So you can twist it this way and that way as you like to do. With people like you no matter what he did you would always find a way to discredit him. You know the most telling sign though that you do this? Even democrats on CNN praised him which is incredibly rare. yet you cant bring yourself to do it because your hate is so deep.

Again, you are being a hypocrit. You are saying its ok to call me a cheerleader, which is obviously not a positive comment. And I cant call you a hater. Why would you suggest the term far left hater and not far right instead? Because you are doing the victim thing. See the difference? I call you far left and instead of calling me far right, you suggest far left hater or cheerleader.

I have poked fun at Trump and condemned him on a few things. So your comment is untrue. But on the other hand you dont give him credit for anything ever. No matter what he does thats seen positive by both left and right, you are always the one to find something wrong with it. And most of my posts arent cheerleading, its coming in here trying to show my view while opposing the lefts view. I think I only have 2 posts in this thread that are just random posts praising trump, the rest are replying to left wing misleading information.

yes you would have filled this thread with 1000's of pages but it was only a few pages back that I said you are starting to stoop that low with all the small things.

 

[slotplayer]

I can post you tons of videos where Mr. T supporters are asked two questions.

Do you like the ACA? - the absolute majority answers YES
Do you like Obamacare? - the absolute majority answers NO and other expletives

Brainwashed much, eh?

Uninformed people can be found on all sides.

I'm sure there are some but the only video I could find was Jimmy Kimmel. Can you point me to a creditable one?

 

[Matti]

Whichever way you want to interpret it, his hard stance has created something that hasnt been seen in a long time and could be historical. So you can twist it this way and that way as you like to do. With people like you no matter what he did you would always find a way to discredit him. You know the most telling sign though that you do this? Even democrats on CNN praised him which is incredibly rare. yet you cant bring yourself to do it because your hate is so deep.

Again, you are being a hypocrit. You are saying its ok to call me a cheerleader, which is obviously not a positive comment. And I cant call you a hater. Why would you suggest the term far left hater and not far right instead? Because you are doing the victim thing. See the difference? I call you far left and instead of calling me far right, you suggest far left hater or cheerleader.

I have poked fun at Trump and condemned him on a few things. So your comment is untrue. But on the other hand you dont give him credit for anything ever. No matter what he does thats seen positive by both left and right, you are always the one to find something wrong with it. And most of my posts arent cheerleading, its coming in here trying to show my view while opposing the lefts view. I think I only have 2 posts in this thread that are just random posts praising trump, the rest are replying to left wing misleading information.

yes you would have filled this thread with 1000's of pages but it was only a few pages back that I said you are starting to stoop that low with all the small things.

I’ve been following this thread for a year now and enjoyed reading the debate. IMHO you are a narrow minded person who like to put labels on people.

Why do you show so much negative feelings towards ”liberals”?

 

[Harry_BKK]

I'm sure there are some but the only video I could find was Jimmy Kimmel. Can you point me to a creditable one?

Take your pick:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Harry_BKK]

2. Whichever way you want to interpret it, his hard stance has created something that hasnt been seen in a long time and could be historical. So you can twist it this way and that way as you like to do. With people like you no matter what he did you would always find a way to discredit him. You know the most telling sign though that you do this? Even democrats on CNN praised him which is incredibly rare. yet you cant bring yourself to do it because your hate is so deep.

1. Again, you are being a hypocrit. You are saying its ok to call me a cheerleader, which is obviously not a positive comment. And I cant call you a hater. Why would you suggest the term far left hater and not far right instead? Because you are doing the victim thing. See the difference? I call you far left and instead of calling me far right, you suggest far left hater or cheerleader.

I have poked fun at Trump and condemned him on a few things. So your comment is untrue. But on the other hand you dont give him credit for anything ever. No matter what he does thats seen positive by both left and right, you are always the one to find something wrong with it. And most of my posts arent cheerleading, its coming in here trying to show my view while opposing the lefts view. I think I only have 2 posts in this thread that are just random posts praising trump, the rest are replying to left wing misleading information.

yes you would have filled this thread with 1000's of pages but it was only a few pages back that I said you are starting to stoop that low with all the small things.

1. Quote from your previous post: "Well its okay. 'supporters' get called cheerleaders but then when Trump does positive things, they are no where to be seen from the far left haters in this thread....they would rather make up assumption about tariffs and almost copy and paste CNN articles."

You call me and other critical contributors very clearly: "far left haters" - since you related it to tariffs which I have posted about it is safely to assume that you call me a "far left hater". That should make it OK to call you "far right hater", right? However, I would never use such words on an opponent in a debate.

Secondly, chearleader is a rather positive word, whereas hater is way way way to the opposite. I admit that I am a chearleader of my chancellor although she gets plenty of criticism from me too, she's done great things for Germany and that without any grandstanding, bullying, lying, cheating, empty promises, etc.. Again, I would never call a critical voice a "hater", never.

You think you have only 2 posts praising Mr. T? Maybe you should go back and start counting.

BTW, German exports grew in January 8.7% year-on-year, more fodder for Mr. T and his trade war argument.

2. Whichever way you want to interpret it, his hard stance has created something that hasnt been seen in a long time and could be historical. So you can twist it this way and that way as you like to do. With people like you no matter what he did you would always find a way to discredit him. You know the most telling sign though that you do this? Even democrats on CNN praised him which is incredibly rare. yet you cant bring yourself to do it because your hate is so deep.

How can you know so sure that his "hard stance" have led to this offer for the meeting? Did Kim tell you? Do you have any insight we normal mortals don't have? Fact is you and I and anybody else, we all don't know for sure. After all Kim's father let his people starve to death and didn't care about any outside pressure. Moon won the election in SK on the premise to find a way for peace with NK and ever since being elected has tried in many ways to re-open communications with NK. His invitation to the Olympics was just one of them.

If any major credit should be given for this development, it should go to the SK president and his diplomats.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Just to add to my post above, this from a German news site:

German: "Während sich in den US-Medien alles um Trump drehte, wurde in Südkorea selbstbewusst darauf verwiesen, wie sehr diese Entwicklung Teil eines innerkoreanischen Dialogs sei."

Google translation: "While everything in the US media revolved around Trump, South Korea confidently pointed out how much this development was part of an inter-Korean dialogue."

Emphasis on "inter-Korean". That should tell you enough as to who deserves most credit for the invitation.

And I see from the WH press briefing, Mr. T is putting a big break the very following day and of course Sanders misrepresenting what NK promised. Hence, that meeting might never happen.

Quote Sanders: "They have made some major promises. They have made promises to denuclearize. They have made promises to stop nuclear and missile testing."

In fact, NK only promised the latter part. But then Sanders is known for her misrepresentations, nothing new.

 

[slotplayer]

Take your pick:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

those aren't credible for me, they're people on the street, fox does a bunch of those as well, I don't take them seriously even when fox news does them. I wanted a college campus one, as they're the future leaders.

Like this

 

[slotplayer]

I would imagine SK was instrumental in brokering the meeting. I'm sure those close to the people involved will publicly credit the appropriate people.

I watch all the Trump live meetings, if one cares to listen he gives people all kinds of credit, praises them for good job/work they've done. He also says a lot of conceited shyt at the same time.

 

[lockinlove]

I’ve been following this thread for a year now and enjoyed reading the debate. IMHO you are a narrow minded person who like to put labels on people.

Why do you show so much negative feelings towards ”liberals”?

And some lurkers like and say I do a great job.

But thanks for contributing nothing to this aside to take a moment to insult me

Why didnt you quote and call out the few people who have called me names which is much worse than what I have done

I think I know why. And dont mind me if I dont take you seriously but thanks for letting me know.

Its too bad you have been following this for a year and this is all you have to say

 

[lockinlove]

1. Quote from your previous post: "Well its okay. 'supporters' get called cheerleaders but then when Trump does positive things, they are no where to be seen from the far left haters in this thread....they would rather make up assumption about tariffs and almost copy and paste CNN articles."

You call me and other critical contributors very clearly: "far left haters" - since you related it to tariffs which I have posted about it is safely to assume that you call me a "far left hater". That should make it OK to call you "far right hater", right? However, I would never use such words on an opponent in a debate.

Secondly, chearleader is a rather positive word, whereas hater is way way way to the opposite. I admit that I am a chearleader of my chancellor although she gets plenty of criticism from me too, she's done great things for Germany and that without any grandstanding, bullying, lying, cheating, empty promises, etc.. Again, I would never call a critical voice a "hater", never.

You think you have only 2 posts praising Mr. T? Maybe you should go back and start counting.

BTW, German exports grew in January 8.7% year-on-year, more fodder for Mr. T and his trade war argument.

2. Whichever way you want to interpret it, his hard stance has created something that hasnt been seen in a long time and could be historical. So you can twist it this way and that way as you like to do. With people like you no matter what he did you would always find a way to discredit him. You know the most telling sign though that you do this? Even democrats on CNN praised him which is incredibly rare. yet you cant bring yourself to do it because your hate is so deep.

How can you know so sure that his "hard stance" have led to this offer for the meeting? Did Kim tell you? Do you have any insight we normal mortals don't have? Fact is you and I and anybody else, we all don't know for sure. After all Kim's father let his people starve to death and didn't care about any outside pressure. Moon won the election in SK on the premise to find a way for peace with NK and ever since being elected has tried in many ways to re-open communications with NK. His invitation to the Olympics was just one of them.

If any major credit should be given for this development, it should go to the SK president and his diplomats.

I related it to calling me a cheerleader, naive and the other things you label me as.

Cheerleader is never a positive word in your context and you know it. So lets no pretend you were complimenting me.

Quote all my posts that are just randomly patting trump on the back please. And I say I think its probably two, its not very many. And I will quote all your posts praising Trump.

How can I be so sure? Has anything else worked, has the new leader of NK ever shown anything like this before? But I wont argue about this, go watch the opinion of most other democrats so if you dont believe me, listen to the ones you try use as your sources who even disagree with you.

 

[lockinlove]

Why do you show so much negative feelings towards ”liberals”?

I dont have negative feelings towards liberals. I get on quite well outside of this thread with people. Even have friendly conversations with them in private message. It seems you arent very familiar with political discussions, its not the place for hugging and back rubs. I am a bit more aggressive in some instances towards certain people in here but thats usually because I know when something is twisted and made up and being posted for the pure reason to just hate on something and I find it a tad annoying.

I do hope you join in the discussions though, it would be nice to have some fresh perspective...if you can leave the insults at the door that is.

 

[slotplayer]

Obama didn't draft the plan or carry out the mission to get OBL but still gets credits for it.

So Harry, should I believe this story or not?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Steviedoo]

I dont have negative feelings towards liberals. I get on quite well outside of this thread with people. Even have friendly conversations with them in private message. It seems you arent very familiar with political discussions, its not the place for hugging and back rubs. I am a bit more aggressive in some instances towards certain people in here but thats usually because I know when something is twisted and made up and being posted for the pure reason to just hate on something and I find it a tad annoying.

I do hope you join in the discussions though, it would be nice to have some fresh perspective...if you can leave the insults at the door that is.

Omg I’m dying of laughter over here at your response...

 

[Steviedoo]

Obama didn't draft the plan or carry out the mission to get OBL but still gets credits for it.

So Harry, should I believe this story or not?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

This is what I don’t get about the media...does it really matter who is responsible for the meeting...they’re meeting....and trump is president...in charge...he is responsible for himself and the people he hired...he is responsible for their actions and words cuz they represent the White House.....it’s his presidency that this is happening with....so yes he’s responsible for the meeting....is it him personally....does it really matter....of course maybe he boasted about this....and I’m not aware ....but media....let it go already...

And if this is some sort of trap...or just a photo op....well....there have been many of these ....all the time...with every president....

 

[Harry_BKK]

Obama didn't draft the plan or carry out the mission to get OBL but still gets credits for it.

So Harry, should I believe this story or not?

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Germany is of course no exemption when it comes to the growing divide in the distribution of wealth, it is capitalism after all, although Germany is seen as a social capitalist country.

The country faced 3 major challenges in just over 2 decades, the reunification in 1990, the global financial crisis in 2008 and the refugees crisis in 2015. All of which has had huge cost plus major changes attributed to it. Despite all those challenges, it has a balanced budget, even a surplus in the last 3 years. In my view, they focused to much on that balanced budget in the last decade (a result of the financial crisis) and "forgot" to invest more into the country.

Plus it faces the same situation as other developed countries, a decrease in the number of kids / family. In Germany that amplifies the problems since it social programs such as unemployment benefits, healthcare and pensions are based on a pyramid structure. Many paying in at the bottom, few are taking out at the top, that has worked well in the decades before 2,000 when the child rate was well above 2 / family. Still healthcare is virtually free, unemployment benefits at appr. 60% of the last salary for 12 months and pensions for standard retirees at app. 60% of the last 12-months income.

Additionally, paid maternity leave of up to 1 year, basically free child care and a whole host of other social benefits.

Living in poverty is classified as those who earn less than 60% of the average yearly income, which stands at appr. 25,000EUR, meaning 15,000 EUR or $18,000 / year. The large increase in the last few years is to a big part down to the 1 Million refugees coming to Germany. It is just not possible to earn the same salary as a skilled German worker, when you do not have the qualifications / language skills / work experience etc.

So yes, big challenges ahead, but knowing how resilient Germans are, they will master them just like they mastered the others in the past.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I related it to calling me a cheerleader, naive and the other things you label me as.

Cheerleader is never a positive word in your context and you know it. So lets no pretend you were complimenting me.

Quote all my posts that are just randomly patting trump on the back please. And I say I think its probably two, its not very many. And I will quote all your posts praising Trump.

How can I be so sure? Has anything else worked, has the new leader of NK ever shown anything like this before? But I wont argue about this, go watch the opinion of most other democrats so if you dont believe me, listen to the ones you try use as your sources who even disagree with you.

Quoting my post: "Secondly, chearleader is a rather positive word, whereas hater is way way way to the opposite."

Do you actually read what I post, I mean all words. I compared the two and I think you can agree that in English "hater" is a very strong negative word. I only brought it up because you insisted that you never called me or other contributors to this thread "far left haters" whereas you clearly did.

And in my posts, I am asking you "are you that naive....?", you could answer " No, because ......". But then you see it as I am calling you that.

Regarding NK, go back in history and read how the other negotiations started and ended. So again, how can you be so sure? Provide facts not opinions. Fact is nobody can be sure.

The US and the US alone is responsible for the situation on the KP. They walked away from the peace conference decades ago and purposely refused to sign a peace treaty, purely because they wanted to keep a military presence on the KP, very convenient location to keep an eye on the USSR and China. So lets not forget who the main culprit is for this crisis.

 

[slotplayer]

This is what I don’t get about the media...does it really matter who is responsible for the meeting...they’re meeting....and trump is president...in charge...he is responsible for himself and the people he hired...he is responsible for their actions and words cuz they represent the White House.....it’s his presidency that this is happening with....so yes he’s responsible for the meeting....is it him personally....does it really matter....of course maybe he boasted about this....and I’m not aware ....but media....let it go already...

And if this is some sort of trap...or just a photo op....well....there have been many of these ....all the time...with every president....

tbh, I never gave it much thought until Harry's post.

 

[slotplayer]

Despite any good intentions, people constantly criticizing eventually get labeled "haters".

 

[Steviedoo]

Despite any good intentions, people constantly criticizing eventually get labeled "haters".

Or anti American or un American...or not a patriot....jis saying....

 

[slotplayer]

Quoting my post: "Secondly, chearleader is a rather positive word, whereas hater is way way way to the opposite."

Do you actually read what I post, I mean all words. I compared the two and I think you can agree that in English "hater" is a very strong negative word. I only brought it up because you insisted that you never called me or other contributors to this thread "far left haters" whereas you clearly did.

And in my posts, I am asking you "are you that naive....?", you could answer " No, because ......". But then you see it as I am calling you that.

Regarding NK, go back in history and read how the other negotiations started and ended. So again, how can you be so sure? Provide facts not opinions. Fact is nobody can be sure.

The US and the US alone is responsible for the situation on the KP. They walked away from the peace conference decades ago and purposely refused to sign a peace treaty, purely because they wanted to keep a military presence on the KP, very convenient location to keep an eye on the USSR and China. So lets not forget who the main culprit is for this crisis.

why not go back to Dec 7, 1941?

 

[slotplayer]

Or anti American or un American...or not a patriot....jis saying....

plenty of that going around to.

 

[Harry_BKK]

why not go back to Dec 7, 1941?

Maybe I am not smart enough, but could you please explain what the connection is between the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and the US on the Korean Peninsula?

If you read your history, it was made a policy by your governments to do everything possible to contain the spread of communism. That started before WWII but it has been an integral and major part of your foreign policy ever since the end of WWII. Or am I totally wrong?

 

[weesie]

I wanted a college campus one, as they're the future leaders.

Like this

That right there is the scariest thing! College kids of today, future leaders.... ugh!

 

[lockinlove]

Quoting my post: "Secondly, chearleader is a rather positive word, whereas hater is way way way to the opposite."

Do you actually read what I post, I mean all words. I compared the two and I think you can agree that in English "hater" is a very strong negative word. I only brought it up because you insisted that you never called me or other contributors to this thread "far left haters" whereas you clearly did.

And in my posts, I am asking you "are you that naive....?", you could answer " No, because ......". But then you see it as I am calling you that.

Regarding NK, go back in history and read how the other negotiations started and ended. So again, how can you be so sure? Provide facts not opinions. Fact is nobody can be sure.

The US and the US alone is responsible for the situation on the KP. They walked away from the peace conference decades ago and purposely refused to sign a peace treaty, purely because they wanted to keep a military presence on the KP, very convenient location to keep an eye on the USSR and China. So lets not forget who the main culprit is for this crisis.

You are confusing hater with hate and using it as reference like its being directed at someone personally.

cheerleader is someone who cheers someone no matter what they do which is what you are suggesting. Which can mean many things such as unintelligent to make proper decisions because I am bias. Its insulting and you know it. Its def not the worst term out there but its still mockery. So call me a cheerleader and accept I may call you a hater. If you cant handle that, by all means stop using words or terms that are negative.

Come on man. So asking me if I am naive is just a nice innocent question is it. And you expect someone to answer either yes or no? I bet there is not a single person who would answer yes and you know that. Its an insinuation. But honestly enough of the pettiness, its silly.

Provide what facts? I am the one who stated that previously talks havent worked out because North Korea likes to play games. So yes its an opinion but the majority opinion of both sides is that is was Trump but certain people cannot and will not accept that Trump can do anything positive. Those people are called haters. When both democrats and republicans are praising Trump, I think it may be time for you to accept there may be something to it.

"its the US and US alone responsible" Do you really believe this? Oh I wonder why the USA started monitoring the Korean Peninsula. Might have something to do with them building nukes and constantly threatening the destruction of others. Yep blame USA for that, its all their fault.

 

[vorcirion]

You are confusing hater with hate and using it as reference like its being directed at someone personally.

cheerleader is someone who cheers someone no matter what they do which is what you are suggesting. Which can mean many things such as unintelligent to make proper decisions because I am bias. Its insulting and you know it. Its def not the worst term out there but its still mockery. So call me a cheerleader and accept I may call you a hater. If you cant handle that, by all means stop using words or terms that are negative.

Come on man. So asking me if I am naive is just a nice innocent question is it. And you expect someone to answer either yes or no? I bet there is not a single person who would answer yes and you know that. Its an insinuation. But honestly enough of the pettiness, its silly.

Provide what facts? I am the one who stated that previously talks havent worked out because North Korea likes to play games. So yes its an opinion but the majority opinion of both sides is that is was Trump but certain people cannot and will not accept that Trump can do anything positive. Those people are called haters. When both democrats and republicans are praising Trump, I think it may be time for you to accept there may be something to it.

"its the US and US alone responsible" Do you really believe this? Oh I wonder why the USA started monitoring the Korean Peninsula. Might have something to do with them building nukes and constantly threatening the destruction of others. Yep blame USA for that, its all their fault.

Like we're sheep and believe every single word that comes from liberal media, from biased sources and blah blah blah. It must be nice to play the victim now. You're such a hypocrite.

 

[lockinlove]

Like we're sheep and believe every single word that comes from liberal media, from biased sources and blah blah blah. It must be nice to play the victim now. You're such a hypocrite.

What lol? Are you ok?

 

[dionysus]

I must not be following the thread well. That one seemed off base to me and I dont even agree with lock's political views.
No wonder I avoud political threads

 

[slotplayer]

Maybe I am not smart enough, but could you please explain what the connection is between the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and the US on the Korean Peninsula?

If you read your history, it was made a policy by your governments to do everything possible to contain the spread of communism. That started before WWII but it has been an integral and major part of your foreign policy ever since the end of WWII. Or am I totally wrong?

that is true and still true as far as I know, but wasn't it a single Korean peninsula under Japanese Imperial rule until the end of WW II where part of the surrender agreement was Japan had to give up its territories?

It is my understanding the US did not want to get involved in European affairs, ie.. WWII and only supplied funds and military equipment but not soldiers. Japan dragged the US in to it with the attack on Perl Harbor (on Dec 7, 1941) not sure what would have happened to Korea had that not occurred, that was my point.

 

[slotplayer]

Like we're sheep and believe every single word that comes from liberal media, from biased sources and blah blah blah. It must be nice to play the victim now. You're such a hypocrite.

Her posts don't bother me.

 

[geordiecolin]

I must not be following the thread well. That one seemed off base to me and I dont even agree with lock's political views.
No wonder I avoud political threads

They are all just apologists,the lot of them

 

[lockinlove]

No wonder I avoud political threads

I keep trying also but I just get drawn back here somehow. Its like an addiction and one day I will be able to kick it

 

[dionysus]

I keep trying also but I just get drawn back here somehow. Its like an addiction and one day I will be able to kick it

lol, i hear ya, its like me and a rigged slot thread too obstinate for my own good

 

[dionysus]

They are all just apologists,the lot of them

I'm Canadian, being an apologist is hardwired

 

[slotplayer]

The reason for the whole Korean and Iran nuke thing traces back something called the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968/1970, who signed, who refused, who withdrew.

 

[Harry_BKK]

that is true and still true as far as I know, but wasn't it a single Korean peninsula under Japanese Imperial rule until the end of WW II where part of the surrender agreement was Japan had to give up its territories?

It is my understanding the US did not want to get involved in European affairs, ie.. WWII and only supplied funds and military equipment but not soldiers. Japan dragged the US in to it with the attack on Perl Harbor (on Dec 7, 1941) not sure what would have happened to Korea had that not occurred, that was my point.

You are right, from that view Pearl Harbor played a role. However, despite that, every other party was ready to withdraw their troops and negotiate a peace treaty when the armistice was signed.

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

"During the 1954 Geneva Conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, Chinese foreign minister Zhou Enlai suggested that a peace treaty should be implemented on the Korean peninsula. However, US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, did not accommodate this attempt to achieve such a treaty.

In addition the Armistice made recommendation to [the] governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

Even in 2018, 65 years after the signing of the Armistice Agreement, these issues have not been settled; there is no peace agreement; and American troops are still based in South Korea.

Article IV (Paragraph 60) of the Armistice Agreement calls for a political conference to be held within 3 months of the signing of the agreement in order "to ensure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question". conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland in April 1954, missing the 3 month timeline by 6 months..... The peace agreement on the Korean peninsula was officially raised at the conference, by Chinese diplomat Zhou Enlai with the US Secretary of Defense, John Foster Dulles, but no progress was made. The United States intentionally avoided discussing the "Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula", in spite of criticism from the other representatives at the conference about the negative attitude of the United States."

The Russians and Chinese as well as the countries who contributed to the UN force completely withdrew their forces from the Korean Peninsula, so why was the US so adamant to keep not just a military presence but also the military command in SK? And that up to this day?

The issues are certainly complex but any books, literature and Wiki entries I read in my life point to the US being the culprit because they wanted to keep the military in SK, no matter what. Until today, the US is not prepared to negotiate a peace treaty.

 

[Harry_BKK]

You are confusing hater with hate and using it as reference like its being directed at someone personally.

cheerleader is someone who cheers someone no matter what they do which is what you are suggesting. Which can mean many things such as unintelligent to make proper decisions because I am bias. Its insulting and you know it. Its def not the worst term out there but its still mockery. So call me a cheerleader and accept I may call you a hater. If you cant handle that, by all means stop using words or terms that are negative.

Come on man. So asking me if I am naive is just a nice innocent question is it. And you expect someone to answer either yes or no? I bet there is not a single person who would answer yes and you know that. Its an insinuation. But honestly enough of the pettiness, its silly.

Provide what facts? I am the one who stated that previously talks havent worked out because North Korea likes to play games. So yes its an opinion but the majority opinion of both sides is that is was Trump but certain people cannot and will not accept that Trump can do anything positive. Those people are called haters. When both democrats and republicans are praising Trump, I think it may be time for you to accept there may be something to it.

"its the US and US alone responsible" Do you really believe this? Oh I wonder why the USA started monitoring the Korean Peninsula. Might have something to do with them building nukes and constantly threatening the destruction of others. Yep blame USA for that, its all their fault.

Fine by me, I can take it, my back is rather "bigly", oh no, "yuuuuuge".

You started putting me and others in this thread right from the start into the "liberal", "far left", "liberal MSM junky", etc. corner, just because we were not fans of Mr. T. Then you started crying for being called a chearleader or being asked whether you are that naive for not being able to read between the lines of a political statement? Ever since you've being calling out how we are the bad ones calling you names. Hmmmm, that is in my view the hypocrisy and it looks to me like you are the one who can't take the heat.

And how do I confuse "haters" with "hate"? One is the noun used to label people who hate. The other is either the noun or the verb (as in "to hate). All have the same meaning in standard English.

Quote: "its the US and US alone responsible" Do you really believe this? Oh I wonder why the USA started monitoring the Korean Peninsula. Might have something to do with them building nukes and constantly threatening the destruction of others. Yep blame USA for that, its all their fault."

This time, I really call you naive, maybe even ingnorant. Read up on the history who stationed first nuclear weapons in SK, officially in the late '50's (too lazy to check the exact year)? That was far before NK started even thinking about developing nukes themselves.

I'll give you three guesses. My answer remains, the US alone is responsible for this situation and crisis. So please get your facts right first, before pointing the finger at NK.

 

[dionysus]

only a suggestion - maybe everyone should not says who said what to whom and noone chuuck out any slurs or perceived ones.

dont shoot the messenger but you know itll only get thread forkified

 

[lockinlove]

Fine by me, I can take it, my back is rather "bigly", oh no, "yuuuuuge".

You started putting me and others in this thread right from the start into the "liberal", "far left", "liberal MSM junky", etc. corner, just because we were not fans of Mr. T. Then you started crying for being called a chearleader or being asked whether you are that naive? Ever since you've being calling out how we are the bad ones calling you names. Hmmmm, that is in my view the hypocrisy and it looks to me like you are the one who can't take the heat.

And how do I confuse "haters" with "hate"? One is the noun used to label people who hate. The other is either the noun or the verb (as in "to hate). All have the same meaning in standard English.

Quote: "its the US and US alone responsible" Do you really believe this? Oh I wonder why the USA started monitoring the Korean Peninsula. Might have something to do with them building nukes and constantly threatening the destruction of others. Yep blame USA for that, its all their fault."

This time, I really call you naive, maybe even ingnorant. Read up on the history who stationed first nuclear weapons in SK, officially in the late '50's (too lazy to check the exact year)? That was far before NK started even thinking about developing nukes themselves.

I'll give you three guesses. My answer remains, the US alone is responsible for this situation and crisis. So please get your facts right first, before pointing the finger at NK.

Wow all that work you went through to pretend you didnt call me naive to now call me it. You should have saved us all some time and back and forth and not beat around the bust the first time.

Ive read all I need to read but thanks for the suggestion. My point still stands, USA has never wanted a regime to have nukes that constantly threaten destruction of millions of people when they are angry. We can go back 500 years, we can back 200 we can go back 50 if you want. It means nothing.

Oh and btw, hater is a much looser term. Its the same when you attend a hockey game and there are rival fans and they mess around and call each other haters.

This is getting a little silly, isnt it though?

You want to discuss politics or whatever, lets do it. But lets leave cheerleader, naive, hater etc out of it. It does nothing for anyone anyways.

 

[slotplayer]

You are right, from that view Pearl Harbor played a role. However, despite that, every other party was ready to withdraw their troops and negotiate a peace treaty when the armistice was signed.

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

"During the 1954 Geneva Conference which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, Chinese foreign minister Zhou Enlai suggested that a peace treaty should be implemented on the Korean peninsula. However, US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, did not accommodate this attempt to achieve such a treaty.

In addition the Armistice made recommendation to [the] governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

Even in 2018, 65 years after the signing of the Armistice Agreement, these issues have not been settled; there is no peace agreement; and American troops are still based in South Korea.

Article IV (Paragraph 60) of the Armistice Agreement calls for a political conference to be held within 3 months of the signing of the agreement in order "to ensure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question". conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland in April 1954, missing the 3 month timeline by 6 months..... The peace agreement on the Korean peninsula was officially raised at the conference, by Chinese diplomat Zhou Enlai with the US Secretary of Defense, John Foster Dulles, but no progress was made. The United States intentionally avoided discussing the "Peace Treaty on the Korean Peninsula", in spite of criticism from the other representatives at the conference about the negative attitude of the United States."

The Russians and Chinese as well as the countries who contributed to the UN force completely withdrew their forces from the Korean Peninsula, so why was the US so adamant to keep not just a military presence but also the military command in SK? And that up to this day?

The issues are certainly complex but any books, literature and Wiki entries I read in my life point to the US being the culprit because they wanted to keep the military in SK, no matter what. Until today, the US is not prepared to negotiate a peace treaty.

Maybe the South Korean's wanted the presence?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Maybe the South Korean's wanted the presence?

Nope! They wanted to reunify, gave up that thought later and then were ready to settle for a peace agreement.

Plus the signed armistice agreement clearly states that everyone shall remove their troops from the KP. Everyone did, except the US.

Do you really think the South-Koreans voluntarily gave up the military control/command over their own country?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Wow all that work you went through to pretend you didnt call me naive to now call me it. You should have saved us all some time and back and forth and not beat around the bust the first time.

Ive read all I need to read but thanks for the suggestion. My point still stands, USA has never wanted a regime to have nukes that constantly threaten destruction of millions of people when they are angry. We can go back 500 years, we can back 200 we can go back 50 if you want. It means nothing.

Oh and btw, hater is a much looser term. Its the same when you attend a hockey game and there are rival fans and they mess around and call each other haters.

This is getting a little silly, isnt it though?

You want to discuss politics or whatever, lets do it. But lets leave cheerleader, naive, hater etc out of it. It does nothing for anyone anyways.

Your blatant disregard of history and facts when it fits your argument is amazing, just like the one with Iran. Anything happening today on the KP is directly related to the Korean War and the refusal of the US to sign a peace treaty. That is a fact.

What you are suggesting is akin as saying to somebody: "oh you committed a crime 20 years, but never mind, we just forget about that, it's history."

That the US does not want NK to have nukes is a different story. The US can have them, but wants to control the rest of the world and to determine by their own standards who should be allowed. They can only blame themselves for stationing nuclear weapons in SK. What was a small country like NK supposed to do in that situation?

hater = hater - i don't see any difference. I went to 100's of football, handball and ice hockey games and not once did I hear the word "hater".

 

[slotplayer]

Your blatant disregard of history and facts when it fits your argument is amazing, just like the one with Iran. Anything happening today on the KP is directly related to the Korean War and the refusal of the US to sign a peace treaty. That is a fact.

What you are suggesting is akin as saying to somebody: "oh you committed a crime 20 years, but never mind, we just forget about that, it's history."

That the US does not want NK to have nukes is a different story. The US can have them, but wants to control the rest of the world and to determine by their own standards who should be allowed. They can only blame themselves for stationing nuclear weapons in SK. What was a small country like NK supposed to do in that situation?

Go the read up on the NPT of 1968.

 

[slotplayer]

Nope! They wanted to reunify, gave up that thought later and then were ready to settle for a peace agreement.

Plus the signed armistice agreement clearly states that everyone shall remove their troops from the KP. Everyone did, except the US.

Do you really think the South-Koreans voluntarily gave up the military control/command over their own country?

Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, Article IV

 

[Harry_BKK]

Go the read up on the NPT of 1968.

I know the NPT, no need to read up on it. What is that supposed to show me? That NK signed up for it, but Israel, India, Pakistan and one more (can't remember who) never did?

Plus the NPT was proposed by the US from a position that they will keep their nuclear weapons. As I said, aiming to control who can and who can't have nukes. Funny, that they never criticized Israel for not signing-up and developing their own nukes (with the help of the US). Not a single resolution at the UN about that.

Fact is, the presence of the US gave the first Kim the opportunity to develop his regime and indoctrinate the NK population. At all times, the US has worked towards isolating NK, just go and check how many UN resolutions were introduced for a vote by the US to the UN security council and how many by all other countries?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) Between the United States and the Republic of Korea, Article IV

I discussed this at length with lockinlove somewhere in this thread. You can search for the posts, she even posted the one page MDT. Read up, just as I asked lockinlove to, on OPCON South-Korea and the “Agreed Minute” (the US made this a condition for the US-ROK MDT). As late as last November, Moon brought up the subject to transfer the military command for war time, in which SK officially still is, since only an armistice was signed in the '50's.

From an US official:

“I don’t think anyone is eager to see op-con transfer given how tense things are on the peninsula,”
“It is rearing its head again and I don’t think the Pentagon is eager to have this conversation when there is a lot more stuff that is more pressing,”

The US argues that the defense capabilities and their military overall is not capable or not good enough to hand over the control. Which is, of course, a good cover to first never leave and second to sell them a ton more weaponry (Trump tweet - Sep'17: I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.").

The ultimate goal of both Koreas is, just like in Germany's case, the reunification, after all they were one country for millennia before 1945. I am not sure the US wants that, they certainly know that it won't happen as long as their troops are in SK.

 

[slotplayer]

I discussed this at length with lockinlove somewhere in this thread. You can search for the posts, she even posted the one page MDT. Read up, just as I asked lockinlove to, on OPCON South-Korea and the “Agreed Minute” (the US made this a condition for the US-ROK MDT). As late as last November, Moon brought up the subject to transfer the military command for war time, in which SK officially still is, since only an armistice was signed in the '50's.

From an US official:

“I don’t think anyone is eager to see op-con transfer given how tense things are on the peninsula,”
“It is rearing its head again and I don’t think the Pentagon is eager to have this conversation when there is a lot more stuff that is more pressing,”

The US argues that the defense capabilities and their military overall is not capable or not good enough to hand over the control. Which is, of course, a good cover to first never leave and second to sell them a ton more weaponry (Trump tweet - Sep'17: I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.").

The ultimate goal of both Koreas is, just like in Germany's case, the reunification, after all they were one country for millennia before 1945. I am not sure the US wants that, they certainly know that it won't happen as long as their troops are in SK.

The NPT was a multilateral treaty, other countries had a say. The 4th was Sudan?

SK would not be buying military equipment if they did not think they needed it. Would they not get it from some place else?

Like I said if it was me I'd recall all 140k US troops from around the world.

 

[Harry_BKK]

The NPT was a multilateral treaty, other countries had a say. The 4th was Sudan?

SK would not be buying military equipment if they did not think they needed it. Would they not get it from some place else?

Like I said if it was me I'd recall all 140k US troops from around the world.

The NTP was a result of Eisenhower's speech or at least directly related to it. By the time the NPT was negotiated, the US had some 20K nuclear warheads, giving them a position of strength to influence the text of the NPT in their favor.

One article of the NPT is obligating nuclear countries to eliminate their stockpiles and to work towards complete nuclear disarmament. None of the 5 "authorized" nuke countries has done so, with the US still holding the most powerful arsenal. Mr. T recently asked for more nukes, so there is little chance the NPT will actually be followed by the US and the other 4 culprits.

Last year saw the UN putting a new treaty up for signature that would ban nuclear weapons similar to chemical weapons. The US, UK and France are strongly against it. Funny enough, North Korea and Iran are supporting it.

SK is buying the equipment under pressure from the US to increase their army capabilities. A directive clearly stated by Mr. T' in his State of the Union as well as the National Security Policy he released a few weeks ago. According to him it has to be always more guns, more weapons.... I say this again, we have only one planet where human life is possible, there is no alternative. Pushing more weapons into the precarious KP is certainly not helping the present crisis but filling rather nicely the coffers of Mr. T's friends.

PS. Had to google as my brain let me down on this one, the 4th was South Sudan. Sudan itself signed up.