President Trump

[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.