And there is a reason for that. He does not want to be dead. Thinking about whether you want to be dead or you want to be alive is something the Americans are encouraging him to think about.
Reply is inline below. "exGOPer, post: 4659068, member: 327981"]Look at the people I swear at - Poindexter, LacesOut - they give no respect so I offer none in return. You don't back down when a bully yells at you, that only emboldens them to bully others who can't fight back. It sounds like everything is in balance then. NK already has the weapons, they are going to keep it - what is the deal here? I don't mind NK sanctions being removed and NK citizens having a better life but this notion that Trump is doing something unprecedented is nonsense. If Obama or Clinton stuck a deal where the US got nothing, you guys would be calling them 'pussy' just like one of the posters already did. The situation was different under Clinton and some believe Clinton was an key enabler of the North Korean nuclear weapons program. The creation of the materials necessary for critical mass were created in the nuclear power plant that he apparently authorized. I would hope a President would not base their decisions on whether someone might call them a pu**y or not. If they did, then that President would be indeed, a pu**y. The US appears to have a propaganda machine emanating from our intelligence agencies that promotes millitary solutions to some our issues with other countries. This may be related to he fortunes of the businesses that makeup our millitary and industrial complex. It is my perception these companies are very involved politically as shown by who is on the board of directors of these large corporations. In my mind it is possible that the President's intelligence briefings were slanted in such as way as to promote the use of force as the only "regrettably necessary" effective action available. How many world leaders can you remember were called insane or crazy just before we attacked them? It is my understanding they got Clinton to authorize a war by using political pressure on him. Although it may seem comforting to some that the US should be only real wolf in the world, the US has abused it's power. This has caused other countries to long for us to be "hoisted up on our own petards". I agree with you that getting the North Korean deal alone does not somehow make Trump "great". It will show that our political leadership can adjust to the way things are, and not make bad decisions according to the way they would like them to be. I believe good stewardship on the part of several interested parties on the North Korea situation could lead to something great, however. Perhaps this could turn out to be a pivot point in human development. The time and place seems right for it.
Agreed, the Libya model does not apply. If we try to take out Korea Kim, we have failed. TreeFrogTrader made some important points. There could be stability problems from within North Korea. If part of the source of these instability problems is US, then we should lay off as a goodwill gesture. I felt sad after the second attack on Gaddafi where he was killed. Apparently, he had become an effective leader for his people and kept a very low profile in regards to the United States. There seemed to be impetus out of Europe to get him over revenge for Gaddafi's nationalization of oil company assets, such as Schlumberger, a long time ago.
Kim has nukes,a signed defense pact with China and China recently stating they will defend NK if The US attacks first.Trump might scare you but Kim is not worried about Dotard at all.
Kim needs to worry about China too. Their agreement to defend North Korea was only if the U.S. and/or Japan attacked unprovoked, ie, if he did not sent out any more missiles or threatened to take out Guam, Los Angeles and his usual talk. Maybe you are such a Kim authority that you can certify that he wont do any of that again. China has a long history of supporting North Korea as as long as they serve as a buffer and a chronic pain in the arse to the U.S. As long as he stayed within his assigned lane he was all set but now he is causing instability in the region and he is also causing an arms escalation in Japan - a long time foe of the Chinese. Plus, trade relations with China are linked to China's "helpfulness" or not in North Korea. As I just said, China will support any difficulties that North Korea can bring to the U.S except those difficulties are not supposed to hurt China. That is not the plan. You think China is going to save Kim? Heh, he has to be careful about Trump and Xi meeting at Maro Largo and deciding that it is time for him to go. You think he doesnt lie awake at night worrying about that? China would not need to do anything draconian- just stop cheating on the sanctions and North Korea will be drop several more notches in a month. Xi would swap Chubby for a good trade deal any day of the week.
That is not thier agreement and you are making shit up.Kim testing missile s and running his mouth is not an attack.By your dumb ass logic all the threats trump made against NK were attacks.
No he would not.Xi does not want chaos in NK or a friendly with The US unified SK on Chinas border and would not trade that for a trade deal
Talking about Trump https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html Middle East civilian deaths have soared under Trump. And the media mostly shrug. By Margaret Sullivan March 18, 2018 at 4:00 PM The numbers are shocking — or at least they should be. 2017 was the deadliest year for civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, with as many as 6,000 people killed in strikes conducted by the U.S.-led coalition, according to the watchdog group Airwars. That is an increase of more than 200 percent over the previous year. It is far more if you add in countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and many others. But the subject, considered a stain on President Barack Obama’s legacy even by many of his supporters, has almost dropped off the map. Obsessed with the seemingly daily updates in the Stormy Daniels story or the impeachment potential of the Russia investigation, the American media is paying even less attention now to a topic it never focused on with much zeal. “The media has unfortunately been so distracted by the chaos of the Trump administration and allegations of the president’s collusion with Russia that it’s neglected to look closely at the things he’s actually doing already,” said Daphne Eviatar, a director of Amnesty International USA. That includes, she said, “hugely expanding the use of drone and airstrikes, including outside of war zones, and increasing civilian casualties in the process.” Trump, of course, was a candidate who promised to “bomb the shit out of ’em [Islamic State],” and has since declared victory over the terrorist organization, while continuing to drop bombs. But at what human cost? Eviatar, and others who monitor these issues, deplore not only the deaths of innocent people but also the government secrecy that has worsened significantly over the past year. The Pentagon no longer reveals, she said, “even the legal and policy framework the U.S. uses to guide these lethal strikes.” That makes the role of dogged reporting even more important. A recent New York Times article revealed that the United States launched eight airstrikes against the Islamic State in Libya, but disclosed only four. The story noted that military commanders have decided to reveal strikes only if a reporter specifically asked about them — the Pentagon even has a name for this policy: “responses to questions.” Too often, the questions never come. “Drone strikes are more prevalent than ever before, and we are hearing about it less,” said Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War project at Brown University. Part of the reason, she said, is a kind of distorted, post-9/11 flag-waving, combined with a heavy dose of news fatigue. “We all know there’s stuff going on in the name of fighting terror, but there’s not much interest in the details,” Savell said. “It’s considered unpatriotic to question what’s going on with the military.” And so, front pages, cable TV pundit panels and network news shows are far more likely to probe the palace intrigue at the White House. “As someone whose job it is to, essentially, read every article I can find on the U.S. drone war and the consequences, I can’t help but feel disheartened when some former campaign aide’s public breakdown garners drastically more coverage on the same day as a story about how the U.S. killed 150 civilians after they repeatedly bombed a school in Syria,” said Allegra Harpootlian of ReThink Media, a nonprofit communications organization. Although aggressive reporting on drone strikes and civilian deaths is relatively rare these days, it can yield impressive results. A BuzzFeed investigation, for example, led to the U.S. government reversing course and admitting responsibility for the deaths of 36 civilians in Mosul. The follow-up story reported that no condolence payments to the families of the victims had been approved — and, given current policy, probably never will. And a New York Times Magazine investigation in November — “The Uncounted” — revealed that the vaunted precision of U.S.-led airstrikes is both overestimated and underexplained. Other reporting suggests the U.S.-led coalition’s aggressive bombing of the Islamic State may have been successful, by some estimations, but there is a heavy price to pay in how the United States is perceived. Widespread civilian casualties, reportedthe Intercept, are “transforming the coalition in the eyes of locals from liberator into aggressor.” There is an important national debate to be had about this. But given the administration’s secrecy and the lack of interest from a highly distracted public and media, that debate will not happen any time soon — certainly not while we have the Twitter feed of Stormy Daniels to occupy us. For more by Margaret Sullivan visit wapo.st/sullivan