The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
It's possible for Trump to share in a Nobel Peace Prize, for facilitating nuclear negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.
The other recipients would include Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Xi Jinping of China, and Mount Mantap (the NK nuclear test site that collapsed and can't be used anymore).
President Obama had the audacity to hope, but liberals do not. Animosity clouds their judgment even with nuclear devastation on the horizon.
What’s wrong with this picture?
mtierney said:
President Obama had the audacity to hope, but liberals do not. Animosity clouds their judgment even with nuclear devastation on the horizon.
What’s wrong with this picture?
You're wrong. We have hope.
We hope that Trump doesn't screw this up.
drummerboy said:We hope that Trump doesn't screw this up.
And therein lies the problem. The only upside to this business is that Trump probably won't push the button while he is in Korea.
I am entirely open to the possibility that Kim will negotiate a deal. I am certain that, if Trump is negotiating for the US, that deal will not be in America's best interest.
nohero said:
It's possible for Trump to share in a Nobel Peace Prize, for facilitating nuclear negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.
The other recipients would include Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Xi Jinping of China, and Mount Mantap (the NK nuclear test site that collapsed and can't be used anymore).
There's no proof of total collapse at Mt Mantap. It looks like only one test area in the mountain collapsed, and there are other test tunnels already built. Besides, their centrifuges are nowhere near Mantap, and even 38North, which initially reported that Mantap had collapsed, is now reporting that other areas of the range are still accessible.
ridski said:
nohero said:There's no proof of total collapse at Mt Mantap. It looks like only one test area in the mountain collapsed, and there are other test tunnels already built. Besides, their centrifuges are nowhere near Mantap, and even 38North, which initially reported that Mantap had collapsed, is now reporting that other areas of the range are still accessible.
It's possible for Trump to share in a Nobel Peace Prize, for facilitating nuclear negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.
The other recipients would include Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Xi Jinping of China, and Mount Mantap (the NK nuclear test site that collapsed and can't be used anymore).
https://www.38north.org/2018/0...
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
That may be, but I'd still put them in this order:
Kim & Moon
Xi
Mantap
Trump
mtierney said:
President Obama had the audacity to hope, but liberals do not. Animosity clouds their judgment even with nuclear devastation on the horizon.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Nothing wrong with this picture. Everybody wants peace. Just don't start celebrating before you cross the finish line.
nohero said:
ridski said:That may be, but I'd still put them in this order:
nohero said:There's no proof of total collapse at Mt Mantap. It looks like only one test area in the mountain collapsed, and there are other test tunnels already built. Besides, their centrifuges are nowhere near Mantap, and even 38North, which initially reported that Mantap had collapsed, is now reporting that other areas of the range are still accessible.
It's possible for Trump to share in a Nobel Peace Prize, for facilitating nuclear negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.
The other recipients would include Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Xi Jinping of China, and Mount Mantap (the NK nuclear test site that collapsed and can't be used anymore).
https://www.38north.org/2018/0...
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Kim & Moon
Xi
Mantap
Trump
I find that order difficult to dispute until such time as Trump also collapses in equal fashion.
mtierney said:
President Obama had the audacity to hope, but liberals do not. Animosity clouds their judgment even with nuclear devastation on the horizon.
What’s wrong with this picture?
dude, the word "hope" is explicitly in the conclusion of my last post:
ml1 said:
We can only hope they somehow manage to get it right.
BCC said:Perhaps the signing of a peace treaty after 65 years.
Perhaps the pressure from China, the UN, and the sanctions which are starting to bite?
I said, the Kim's have pulled this bait and switch several times and Trump is well aware of it.
I agree we should not 'misunderestimate' Mr Kim
Other than that would you or TJ advise dropping out of negotiations?
Also helps that the site may be collapsing in on itself.
dave23 said:
BCC said: Perhaps the signing of a peace treaty after 65 years.Also helps that the site may be collapsing in on itself.
Perhaps the pressure from China, the UN, and the sanctions which are starting to bite?
I said, the Kim's have pulled this bait and switch several times and Trump is well aware of it.
I agree we should not 'misunderestimate' Mr Kim
Other than that would you or TJ advise dropping out of negotiations?
This is what nohero and I were discussing.
ridski said:
dave23 said:This is what nohero and I were discussing.
BCC said: Perhaps the signing of a peace treaty after 65 years.Also helps that the site may be collapsing in on itself.
Perhaps the pressure from China, the UN, and the sanctions which are starting to bite?
I said, the Kim's have pulled this bait and switch several times and Trump is well aware of it.
I agree we should not 'misunderestimate' Mr Kim
Other than that would you or TJ advise dropping out of negotiations?
Oops. Missed that.
dave23 said:
ridski said:Oops. Missed that.
dave23 said:This is what nohero and I were discussing.
BCC said: Perhaps the signing of a peace treaty after 65 years.Also helps that the site may be collapsing in on itself.
Perhaps the pressure from China, the UN, and the sanctions which are starting to bite?
I said, the Kim's have pulled this bait and switch several times and Trump is well aware of it.
I agree we should not 'misunderestimate' Mr Kim
Other than that would you or TJ advise dropping out of negotiations?
No worries. I had the seen the South China Daily report on the collapse last week, came to a similar conclusion, and was about to post about it, but I then dug up some more stuff and realized there was perhaps more than a little hyperbole surrounding that report.
Can someone explain to me what the actual consequences of a Korean Peace Treaty might be? From what I have read it mainly seems to boil down to family reunification travel (something that was part of the last failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program), reopening the special economic zone that was established as part of the previous failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program and the removal of foreign (US) troops from the peninsula.
Given the historical context, it is hard to see how any of that is in the particular interest of the US.
Klinker said:
Can someone explain to me what the actual consequences of a Korean Peace Treaty might be? From what I have read it mainly seems to boil down to family reunification travel (something that was part of the last failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program), reopening the special economic zone that was established as part of the previous failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program and the removal of foreign (US) troops from the peninsula.
Given the historical context, it is hard to see how any of that is in the particular interest of the US.
I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
gerritn said:
Klinker said:I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
Can someone explain to me what the actual consequences of a Korean Peace Treaty might be? From what I have read it mainly seems to boil down to family reunification travel (something that was part of the last failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program), reopening the special economic zone that was established as part of the previous failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program and the removal of foreign (US) troops from the peninsula.
Given the historical context, it is hard to see how any of that is in the particular interest of the US.
Its one of the conditions that Kim Jong-Un has set. The South Korean government opposes it but the SK opposition supports removing US troops.
gerritn said:
Klinker said:I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
Can someone explain to me what the actual consequences of a Korean Peace Treaty might be? From what I have read it mainly seems to boil down to family reunification travel (something that was part of the last failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program), reopening the special economic zone that was established as part of the previous failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program and the removal of foreign (US) troops from the peninsula.
Given the historical context, it is hard to see how any of that is in the particular interest of the US.
Jeez, we almost did it before any peace treaty.
--
Kelly entered the White House with a mandate to instill order in a West Wing where aides regularly had unfettered access to the president. He adopted some key changes, such as shrinking the number of people in meetings and limiting access to the Oval Office.
He has also pushed back against the president on some foreign policy and military issues, current and former White House officials said.
In one heated exchange between the two men before February's Winter Olympics in South Korea, Kelly strongly — and successfully — dissuaded Trump from ordering the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula, according to two officials.
For Kelly, the exchange underscored the reasoning behind one of his common refrains, which multiple officials described as some version of "I'm the one saving the country."
"The strong implication being 'if I weren't here we would've entered WWIII or the president would have been impeached,'" one former senior White House official said.
--
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...
Klinker said:
gerritn said:Its one of the conditions that Kim Jong-Un has set. The South Korean government opposes it but the SK opposition supports removing US troops.
Klinker said:I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
Can someone explain to me what the actual consequences of a Korean Peace Treaty might be? From what I have read it mainly seems to boil down to family reunification travel (something that was part of the last failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program), reopening the special economic zone that was established as part of the previous failed agreement to halt the NK nuclear program and the removal of foreign (US) troops from the peninsula.
Given the historical context, it is hard to see how any of that is in the particular interest of the US.
To be fair it's always one of the conditions. Kim Jong-Un's bringing it as a bargaining chip, but I think it can be negotiated.
ridski said:
Klinker said:To be fair it's always one of the conditions. Kim Jong-Un's bringing it as a bargaining chip, but I think it can be negotiated.
gerritn said:Its one of the conditions that Kim Jong-Un has set. The South Korean government opposes it but the SK opposition supports removing US troops.
I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
This is not my area of expertise, but I'd expect "denuclearization" would depend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
nohero said:
ridski said:This is not my area of expertise, but I'd expect "denuclearization" would depend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Klinker said:To be fair it's always one of the conditions. Kim Jong-Un's bringing it as a bargaining chip, but I think it can be negotiated.
gerritn said:Its one of the conditions that Kim Jong-Un has set. The South Korean government opposes it but the SK opposition supports removing US troops.
I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
As I said, I think that could be negotiated. SK doesn't want us to leave, but we might be able to negotiate a reduction of Army forces there. There are currently fewer US Army troops in SK than there are in Hawaii or Germany. If we could negotiate a reduction there, beef up our air force capabilities, commit another carrier group to the South China Sea, it might work for everyone. I'm no expert, either, I'm just spitballing.
nohero said:
ridski said:This is not my area of expertise, but I'd expect "denuclearization" would depend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Klinker said:To be fair it's always one of the conditions. Kim Jong-Un's bringing it as a bargaining chip, but I think it can be negotiated.
gerritn said:Its one of the conditions that Kim Jong-Un has set. The South Korean government opposes it but the SK opposition supports removing US troops.
I do not think a peace treaty automatically means removal of US troops from the peninsula.
Seems like, given the NK track record, that is backwards.
ridski said:
As I said, I think that could be negotiated. SK doesn't want us to leave, but we might be able to negotiate a reduction of Army forces there. There are currently fewer US Army troops in SK than there are in Hawaii or Germany. If we could negotiate a reduction there, beef up our air force capabilities, commit another carrier group to the South China Sea, it might work for everyone. I'm no expert, either, I'm just spitballing.
Yes, we can always move the pieces around, like we used to. 
nohero said:
Klinker said:I guess I should have written that each is dependent on the other.
nohero said:Seems like, given the NK track record, that is backwards.
This is not my area of expertise, but I'd expect "denuclearization" would depend on the withdrawal of U.S. troops.
"peace treaty" and "denuclearization" are not the same thing. I would not expect US troops to be withdrawn for a peace treaty, but it is probably on the table for denuclearization.
And may I congratulate mtierney on her 6 year 15,000 comment thread? Not bad going!
What a difference 6 years make in terms of what is happening in the rose garden. It may not be progress but it sure is change.
apparently lying is OK now. Remember when leaving out the word "terrorism" in a speech was an outrage?
ml1 said:
apparently lying is OK now. Remember when leaving out the word "terrorism" in a speech was an outrage?
I pine for the days when not saying "Islamist" was a sin. Now the president is allowed to use the office to make $15+ million a year for his private business.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
it's possible that Kim is not bluffing this time. If that's the case, there's a good chance it's because China is invested in peace on the peninsula. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
The U.S. obviously has to be involved in any negotiations, as does China. But once again, Americans make the mistake of assuming that the POTUS is the omnipotent driver of these processes. The process has its own momentum, started by the South Koreans and North Koreans themselves. The U.S. wasn't going to be able to bring peace to Korea by fiat. But our military-industrial complex has a vested interest in unending war, and our POTUS is unstable, unpredictable, egotistic, and uninformed. So even if we can't make peace happen, we are more than capable of preventing it from happening.
Unfortunately there are so many nut jobs in the Trump Administration that there's probably at least a 50% chance that they'll screw up Korea, either through malice or incompetence.
We can only hope they somehow manage to get it right.