Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Korea's Leader Kim Jong-un Says He'll Give Up Weapons if US Promises Not to Invade (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the breaking-news dept.

Several readers have shared a report: North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, told President Moon Jae-in of South Korea when they met that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States would agree to formally end the Korean War and promise that it would not invade his country, a South Korean government spokesman said Sunday. In a faith-building gesture ahead of a summit meeting with President Trump, Mr. Kim also said he would invite experts and journalists from South Korea and the United States to watch the shutdown next month of his country's only known underground nuclear test site.

The comments by Mr. Kim were made on Friday when the leaders of the two Koreas met at Panmunjom, a village on their shared border, the spokesman, Yoon Young-chan, said on Sunday, providing additional details of the meeting. "I know the Americans are inherently disposed against us, but when they talk with us, they will see that I am not the kind of person who would shoot nuclear weapons to the south, over the Pacific or at the United States," Mr. Kim told Mr. Moon, according to Mr. Yoon's account of the meeting. It was another dramatically conciliatory statement by Mr. Kim, whose country threatened to do exactly those things during the height of nuclear tensions last year.

62 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. pinky swear by mschoolbus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yea, sure, we promise.

    1. Re:pinky swear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am not familiar with the details beyond the occasional headline, but it sure looks like one or both of these things has happened:

      1) Kim Jong-un did not inherit his father's insanity; he was merely raised within it's influence. Now that he has been on his own for a while, he is actually sane enough to listen to some reasonable advisers and shake off the nonsense his father imposed. He is grasping the big picture; including the nature of the global economy and how his country desperately needs to get on board if it is going to have a future (which requires playing nice).

      2) Something, possibly Trump, possibly waning support from China, has him scared shitless.

    2. Re:pinky swear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or 3) It's a trap!

    3. Re:pinky swear by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You would think Ukraine and Libya would be lessons about what giving up weaponry for promises is worth.

    4. Re:pinky swear by Junta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) Is contra-indicated by his behavior up until this year. Reportedly in some ways he was even more ruthless than his father. His rhetoric was even more aggressive.

      2) More likely this, specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point. Not only would this have likely set back their program, perhaps beyond recovery, it also demonstrated how much damage their messing around could do to the geology, right on China's border.After that point, everything toned downed rapidly. A few weeks ago he suddenly was willing to meet.
        Then a couple of weeks ago, presumable at China's insistance, Kim Jong Un went to Beijing. We are note privy to what happened in that meeting, but afterward, NK was much more concrete about terms to wind things down, though the general overtures were promising prior to that.

      Trump's rhetoric *probably* wasn't it, perhaps the elevated sanctions contributed, but I suspect if not for the test site incident, they'd still be betting on threat of force by nukes to keep things going until they'd control South Korea on their terms. Now it seems they've decided to appease the international community in exchange for guarantees their internal affairs would be left alone (which the rest of the world has already seemed content to leave alone, regardless of severity of atrocity).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:pinky swear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Another way of looking at it is that Kim built up his political capital bother at home and abroad with the nuclear weapons and missile programmes. The war of words with Trump and the fact that his threats ultimately proved hollow, combined with the election of a liberal, progressive president in South Korea gave Kim the opportunity to sue to peace.

      Now Kim is putting all the responsibility for this failing on America. He has made huge concessions, and all it needs is for the US to do the same. If Trump refuses then he looks like the one who scuppered the deal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:pinky swear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would probably involve the US withdrawing from the Korean peninsula, at least substantially. No more war games off the NK coast.

      It could be hard to resist calls for this to happen if SK decides that it's going to trust Kim. I think there is a good chance they will - there is a general feeling that Kim knows dictatorships don't last forever and is looking for a way to survive into old age without being tried for crimes against humanity.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:pinky swear by gilgongo · · Score: 3, Informative

      "specifically the aftermath of the nuclear test site collapse seemed to be a key turning point"

      Yes, although China had quietly and quite suddenly pulled the plug on them a couple of months prior to the collapse by reducing amongs other things their gasoline exports by 97%.

      China's action is thought to have prompted Kim's trip to Beijing, where he was perhaps told how things would now play out by his only ally and provider of the vast majority of his foreign trade. So much for self reliance then.

      Whether Trump had anything much to do with this is... Doubtful.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    8. Re:pinky swear by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kim Jong Un could still be quite insane and it seems he at least learned enough of the regular saber-rattling technique from his old man to keep up appearances, but I think that he just ran into someone who was even more unhinged. Someone like a U.S. president that constantly shit talks everyone and anyone on twitter, constantly opens his mouth to invite even more legal trouble that wouldn't exist if he'd just shut up, and who seems to have no problem changing his mind about something mid-sentence.

      Kim was like the deranged homeless guy that everyone wanted to stay away from and so people would just let him rummage through their dumpsters because no one really wants to confront the guy for fear of what might happen, and to some degree that homeless guy probably drums up the act a bit because he knows that this works. However, Trump is like a new homeless dude that's caked in mud and smells like piss that's screaming about god or the government that even the other homeless people don't want to fuck with because even they're a little bit worried about what this crazy mother fucker is going to do.

      Trump kind of terrifies everyone else because they aren't quite sure how he'll act or behave and most other political leaders really don't want someone to introduce enough chaos that it causes their own gravy train to come crashing down as well. Trump is the new crazy man that the rest of the world leaders will seek to appease because even thought it means giving in a little, it seems to be less painful than what might happen if he doesn't get his way.

      Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares. I think it's more of an idiot hero trope comparison where's he's so far out of his league that he's outmaneuvering opponents who were expecting a second best duelist instead of someone who looks like him might stab himself at any given moment.

    9. Re:pinky swear by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was just a tunnel that collapsed, it isn't something that sets the program back in a country with a government that has absolute power.

      The tunnel is where they make the things go "boom," it isn't where they build any of the things, and it isn't where the people who design or build the things work.

      We don't know what happened in the meeting between DPRK and PRC, but we do know that afterwards they made a joint public statement; North Korea had agreed to give up their weapons program, and China had agreed to remain allies with North Korea. That's not a subtle statement IMO, and it isn't really the same thing as not knowing what happened unless it was a ruse. We might have the answer in just a couple months, too.

      People can blather about "Trump," but he already made it clear he doesn't understand the military and lets the generals make most of the decisions about war stuff. To the extent that China has become concerned about US military action, the US military has been clear for decades that if the North Koreans actually build an ICBM that can reach the US, that will result in war. The main part that Trump has been involved in so far is that he's sitting in the chair that the media talks about when they talk about the subject. This exact conflict has been building to happen right now, for decades. This is the exact moment where peace is most likely to be achieved, because failure to achieve it means almost instant war. Not because of the personalities sitting in their respective chairs today, but because past leaders have left the conflict to come to a head at this time.

    10. Re:pinky swear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, that's what I was thinking too. Maybe Sun-Tzu's art of War. Feign weakness when you are strong, and feign strength when you are weak.

    11. Re:pinky swear by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Comparing an apple to an orange and a banana isn't exactly an improvement over the simple apple vs orange comparison.

    12. Re:pinky swear by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Even North Korea has other mountains it can dig under.

      As I've said elsewhere, I attribute Kim's behaviour change very largely to the little surprise (to him, it seems) he received in Beijing when the Chinese informed him that they do not consider themselves obliged in the slightest to follow merrily along into a WWIII started by NK.

      To put it less kindly, he's had his leash jerked but hard, and found out it's not nearly as long as he'd imagined it to be.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:pinky swear by mspohr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      North Korea has been a master of this game for years. They are expert at ramping up rhetoric to get attention and concessions. Trump is a paper tiger. All bluster but he usually folds.
      North Korea knows that it would lose badly in any real war so they calibrate their rhetoric to a fever pitch but they are wise enough to know when to pull back. Can't say the same about Trump. He usually folds but there is enough erratic behavior and stupidity to tip things the wrong way.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    14. Re:pinky swear by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a suspicion, based on not much beyond "what would *I* do in his place?" contemplations.

      Had Kim attempted to negotiate peace at the start of his rule, it likely would have resulted in a coup attempt. Peace is almost certainly going to ruin a lot of NK's "aristocracy" - the generals and the others who aren't at the top, but are still higher than everyone else. They'd be willing to kill to keep the power and wealth they have.

      So Kim had to make his rule unquestioned. He's purged plenty of people, presumably those who'd be positioned to fight over it. He had some family murdered to keep them from even potentially being puppet replacements. And he's done plenty of internal propaganda about their nukes and missiles so the peasants and soldiers will see this as a negotiation from a place of strength, not a surrender.

      Not only that, but dictators don't often retire peacefully. You die in office, of old age (if you're lucky) or to assassins, rebels or a foreign army (if you're not). And living in fear of peasant revolt or American drone strikes doesn't seem like a good way to live, to me. But if he negotiates peace, he gets to keep basically all his money, and then goes down in the history books as a generous, benevolent peacemaker.

      Is this what happened? Maybe. We don't know, maybe never really will. But it's not impossible.

    15. Re: pinky swear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. We've got the world best negotiator on our side! Really, really great. Many are saying he's the best the world has ever seen!

    16. Re:pinky swear by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      A similar promise made to Muammar Gaddafi didn't work out so well when Obama and Hillary decided to depose him anyway - collapsing the Libyan "government", such as it was, and turning Libya over to terrorists. I am frankly astonished that Kim Jong Un would trust the United States enough for him to disarm.

      One of the factors in play has to be that his testing facility in Mount Mantap is totally unusable now, due to the fracturing in the mountain caused by the last thermonuclear test. And China has certainly expressed an attitude of "If your radiation drifts into China, YOUR ashes will also drift over China."

    17. Re:pinky swear by ichthus · · Score: 2

      Maybe Sun-Tzu's art of War

      Or, maybe DJ Trump's The Art of the Deal

      --
      sig: sauer
    18. Re:pinky swear by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it's plausible.

      Kim was educated in Switzerland. That's a thriving, educated, wealthy country, and it has access to everything the world has to offer. Going from there back to North Korea must have really been eye-opening. Sure, Kim gets what he wants because his family sucks the wealth out of the country, but other than the rest of the aristocracy, nobody really has anything. It's a poor, poor country, where famine can kill hundreds of thousands in a given year. Anywhere he goes outside of his curated estate he sees abject poverty.

      I wouldn't be surprised if one factor is that he realizes that making everyone in North Korea 2x as wealthy will make him 100x as wealthy. That making life better for the peasants will make him more of a god than he already is. It only makes sense - the cult of personality is well established. Make life better for people, and you cement a legitimate place in history as a great leader.

      If China said "not supporting any of your crazy military plans", I think Plan B is enrich the country, so those at the top can benefit even more. Yes, probably needed to consolidate power before doing that. He's now got power, a bargaining chip in a robust nuclear and missile program, and it's time to both become richer and more beloved. It's a solid plan.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    19. Re:pinky swear by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Some people want to argue that all of this is somehow brilliant political maneuvering on Trump's part, but that's being far, far too gracious. He may not be the type of complete idiot that much of the media would like to portray him as, but that doesn't make him some kind of chess master playing a highly skilled game that leaves his opponents caught in any number of clever snares.

      Trump wrote (or ghost wrote) the art of making the deal. If nothing else he's had a lot of experience negotiating. It's not that he's a brilliant chess master, he's just experienced with standard negotiating tools and tricks. These are normal tricks but most people don't know them. You can learn them pretty easily in this book, although actually using them can take practice.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: pinky swear by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If NK can get the US to agree not to invade and officially end the war with SK, there is a non-zero chance that Trump will pull all the US troops out of South Korea ("the war is over, why should we spend billions on troops over there? "). With the US out of South Korea China's position in Asia strengthens considerably. China is playing the long game here and Trump will prpbably fall right in line. And dont forget, the US is always one drunken rape away from getting kicked out of Japan. If fhat were to happen too, the US would essentially loose all geopolitical influence in Asia.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    21. Re: pinky swear by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      With China building their own little islands and claiming territory that doesn't belong to them, plenty of SE Asian nations still want Uncle Sam keeping the sea lanes open.

      As for Trump pulling troops out of ROK, there's really not that many to pull...~23k, and many of those aren't combat troops. We had a lot more when I lived there back in the 80s and early 90s (peaking at ~45k), but even then USFK forces were really just to show the NK govt. that attacking the ROK would also be an attack on us. For comparison, look at Germany. We're more than 25 years post Cold War, and we still have around 34k there.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re: pinky swear by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      Trump is definitely smarter than 1000 tiny ice crystals. No arguing with that.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    23. Re:pinky swear by the_saint1138 · · Score: 2

      Or 3) He has no intention of going through with denuclearization, and this is just a stunt to get sanctions temporarily lifted.

      NK has a long history of making promises to end their missile and nuclear weapons programs in exchange for some type of compensation, then reneging on those promises when it suits them.

      https://www.armscontrol.org/fa...

  2. What it means by Dorianny · · Score: 2

    "Promising" means withdrawing U.S troops from South Korea and removing South Korea and Japan from the U.S nuclear umbrella. Exactly what NK has been asking for all along

    1. Re:What it means by jebrick · · Score: 2

      I think they said denuclearize the peninsula meaning the Us must take it's nucs home as well. Then it is down to the biggest conventional army.

    2. Re:What it means by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't Iraq try that? Worked really well.
      The real problem is that the USA is not trustworthy. Even if Trump and the current Congress make promises, the next election can change things.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:What it means by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All of the US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in 1991 .

      Nuclear deterrent is provided by submarines and forces stationed on US territories in the Pacific.

    4. Re:What it means by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      It's not quite that simple. A treaty entered into by the US carries the force of US law. An incoming administration can't just decide not to honour it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. Remember Gaddafi by StandardCell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vendetta against Gaddafi after he had capitulated to giving up his nuclear weapons program is the primary reason NK hasn't given up its weapons program.

    It will probably take the withdrawl of US forces from SK and aid to NK, and the formal acknowledgment of the continuation of the current NK regime in order to denuclearize NK. Even then, I wouldn't be certain they don't retain an actual nuke or two secretly now that they have them. This still probably won't address the effectively bigger threat of all of the NK artillery pointed at SK.

    1. Re:Remember Gaddafi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The vendetta against Gaddafi after he had capitulated to giving up his nuclear weapons program is the primary reason NK hasn't given up its weapons program.

      ...

      Thanks, Obama.

      (And Hillary!, too.)

    2. Re:Remember Gaddafi by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Korean War was a UN police action, like the first Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Taiwan held China's vote in the UN Security Council at the time, and the USSR was boycotting the UN that week so wasn't present to veto the UN Security Council authorization to intervene in Korea to counter North Korea's invasion. (North Korea concocted the fantasy that the South invaded the North, though enough time has passed that the vast majority of its population has been taught this as truth.)

      The U.S. troops in South Korea number fewer than 24,000, vs North Korea's standing army of 1.2 million (4th largest in the world), and would be inconsequential in any hypothetical invasion of North Korea. The U.S. troops are present for one simple reason - to be overrun and die if North Korea should invade again, thereby giving the U.S. an excuse to intervene on South Korea's behalf without having to go through the UN again. The troops there are fully aware of this - they call themselves "speed bumps".

      Withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea would require some sort of ironclad guarantee that North Korea would not invade again, or a guarantee of immediate UN authorization for the U.S. to intervene again, or South Korea unilaterally deciding to give up the deterrence of having U.S. troops present.

  4. Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Instead of ignoring mostly-Chinese companies that do business with North Korea (as Presidents past have done), Trump is actually going after them:

    US unveils largest sanctions yet on ships, companies trading with North Korea

    The illegal foreign trade that Kim Jong-un uses to keep his army loyal is being threatened if not actually cut off. And he's squirming. Finally.

    1. Re: Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      WTF, "back in the 60's"?

      Iran had their revolution in 1979. The US-backed shah was overthrown, and after the revolution the conservative religious wing of the revolutionary forces seized power.

    2. Re:Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      you are even to dumb to grasp it.

      Theirs allot have it a bout.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, and nothing was discussed in the meeting between North Korea and China before this turn of events.
      This has absolutely nothing to do with Trumps isolationism and nationalistic tantrums to do and China doesn't at all see a great opportunity to get US thrown out from the region by having North Korea play nice.

    4. Re: Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Simple: We have security obligations to Japan. When we took over and occupied their country following WW2; we took it upon ourselves to write their new constitution for them. Said constitution placed severe restrictions on the size and composition of any future military they'd rebuild. And the missions they're allowed to undertake are similarly restricted. In return, we took upon ourselves the obligation to assure their security. North Korea is just across the sea from Japan, of course. And they've launched missiles into Japanese airspace of late. So I think it's safe to say that NK is a belligerent toward Japan. China has maintained belligerency towards Japan for about as long as I can remember, as well. Just a couple of years ago, they started intercepting and threatening Japanese airliners in International airspace... until the Air Force sent a few B-52s through those same air lanes to show what's up. And China has been trying to muscle in on the Senkaku islands, like they are the Spratlys, for many years as well. Russia, for that matter, is actually still *occupying* some of Japan's northern islands. So yeah, there's a quite legitimate obligation and need for a US presence at least in and around Japan.

      A few decades later, President Carter signed into law the Taiwan Relations Act; which requires less comprehensive, but still binding, commitment to the defense of that nation as well. And I don't think rapacity and ambitions towards Taiwan need a reminder.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    5. Re:Trump's actually sanctioning Chinese companies by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "And there is nothing 'legal' about that. It is only an 'I have the power' and you 'have no way to do anything against it'."

      That's what legal is about.

  5. Re:Media orgasms had this been 2 years ago... by Dorianny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If a (D) President had accepted a invitation from NK, Conservatives would be calling it High Treason, but a (R) can do no wrong

  6. Geez by ugen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just how badly *did* they screw up their nuclear test site? I mean - this about face is looking a bit too desperate. These guys need to bluff a little better (or did they also keep all their newly minted nuclear weapons at the same site and lost them too?)

    1. Re:Geez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They know that we know that they know that we dropped a rod from god on that mountain.

      And we're all pretending we didn't.

      But he knows.

    2. Re:Geez by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've likely been set back decades.

      No, they haven't been. Really, they've not.

      - South Korea is offering a hand of friendship. This isn't usual, contrary to popular belief.

      Actually it's very usual.

      - We've pretty much faxed a picture of Jim Mattis to Pyongyang.

      Huh? Did he switch chairs with Pompeo while I wasn't looking?

      - We have China's balls in a vise...

      Now you're a comedian.

      - Kim Jong-un was never the heir apparent for North Korea in the first place.

      It might not have been apparent to you.

      You're already 5 for 5, I'll leave the rest alone.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  7. Out of the goodness of his heart by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    This of course has nothing to do with the fact the mountain they were testing their nukes under collapsed, and China is pissed that the radioactivity is liable to head their way.

    1. Re:Out of the goodness of his heart by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, it probably has more to do with the fact that they have Nukes and long range missiles.

      I wonder how they plan to credibly enforce the Denuclearization. It's relatively easy to monitor the development of Nukes, you need nuclear plants to get the plutonium and testing ranges to debug the tech. But once a country has working Nukes I don't know how you verify that they've been surrendered.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Out of the goodness of his heart by strikethree · · Score: 2

      The critical components in a nuclear missile do not stay in an appropriate state for creating a nuclear explosion indefinitely. Without maintenance of the type that is noticeable, any current nukes will be worthless in 20 years or less.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  8. More accurately: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's: My guy can do no wrong. And the other side's guy is Hitler/Stalin/$Satan_Figure.

    If something good happens while my guy is in office it's totally his doing. If something good happens while the other side's guy is in office it's totally due to luck/the previous guy.

    Etc, Etc, lather rinse repeat.

    And my side is virtuous unlike the immoral other side that has mostly the same human in_group/out_group motivations.

    1. Re:More accurately: by voss · · Score: 2

      Theres nothing wrong with luck/good fortune as long as your leadership is smart enough to take advantage of it. Reagan was smart enough to take advantage of Gorbachev reaching out to the west following the chernobyl disaster. I will say honestly Reagan was smart man, I say that as a liberal Democrat. In 2003 Iran shocked at the US ease destroying the iraqi army. offered George W Bush a grand peace deal that included putting issues such denuclearization and recognition of israel on the table. George W. Bush refused because he wanted regime change he couldnt overcome his ideological biases to seize the moment.

    2. Re:More accurately: by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      We've become so tribalistic that it's amazing we can even still talk to each other. I don't know what the cure will be, but if you can't talk politely/logically to people with opposing points of view, then you're part of the problem. If you're wishing ill will to those you've voted against, you're part of the problem.

      We all want the economy to do well, but we don't agree on how to go about it. We all want good foreign relations, but we don't agree on the actions we should take with rogue nations. Etc., etc.

      When opposing politicians win office, I honestly hope they do well, because it's about the nation doing well...not the fucking partys!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  9. Trust, but verify by elainerd · · Score: 2

    That the North Koreans will keep their word. I don't have much expectation of Kim Jong Un but it appears that he may be afraid of Trump or at least cannot predict what Trump will do if he rattles his saber much longer. Strength through superior firepower.

    --
    Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
  10. Don't get all worked up by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'll still figure out how to guarantee President Trump gets zero credit for this foreign policy win!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Don't get all worked up by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Since when does Trump have a foreign policy?

  11. Worked so well for Ukraine.. by abies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
    Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of[..]"

    The Russian Federation,[...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, [...], to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine
    The Russian Federation, [...] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine[...]
    The Russian Federation [...] reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine [...], to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
    etc, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  12. Insane projection by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kim Jong-un did not inherit his father's insanity

    Remember how badly America lost its shit after 911? Now imagine what this place would be like if a hostile foreign power leveled every American city in an illegal war, and since the 90's had been conducting the world's largest war games each and every year to practice for another invasion.

    That's what the U.S. did and is doing to North Korea. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons and threats to use them - in a response to an attack on their country - is entirely rational.

    1. Re:Insane projection by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now imagine what this place would be like if a hostile foreign power leveled every American city in an illegal war that America had started, and since the 90's had been conducting the world's largest war games each and every year to practice for another invasion by the US.

      TFTFY.

      (Please don't make excuses for North Korea; they're the ones who tried to unify the peninsula by conquest, remember?)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. An unprecedented breakthrough by quantaman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just look at all the goodwill!
    With surprising speed and warmth, the presidents of North and South Korea reached a broad agreement on Wednesday to work for peace and unity on their bitterly divided peninsula, the biggest step by either side to ease tensions in 50 years.
    The agreement, which came after more than three hours of talks in the North Korea capital, Pyongyang, on the second day of their first summit meeting, was signed and toasted by President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea and President Kim Jong Il of the North, who were shown on South Korean television clinking champagne glasses, shaking hands vigorously and smiling broadly.
    [...]
    The general points agreed on included the need for reconciliation and unification; the establishment of peace; the commencement in August of exchange visits by members of divided families; and more cultural exchanges.

    Wait a minute... Kim Jong... Il?

    Oooooh, that article is talking about the peace breakthrough from 2000. My bad, just got the wrong link!

    --
    I stole this Sig
  14. Didn't we already do this? by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    This whole thing seems silly and confusing. All parties signed an agreement to this fact in 1953. The only reason the US would invade North Korea is if NK they started firing on someone, which they constantly keep threatening to do. They are the aggressors here. Why are they asking us for what we have alrwady given? Why is the aggressor asking us for peace? How about take away the artillery you have pointed at your neighbor?

    Something is afoot here...

    1. Re:Didn't we already do this? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      North Korea's history books state that South Korea and the U.S. invaded the North to start the Korean War. It was actually a UN police action approved following North Korea's invasion. But by this time, 95% of the North's population, including Kim Jong Un, will have had their version of history drilled into their heads in school as being the truth. It's actually the cornerstone of their philosophy of blaming everything on the U.S.

  15. Re:How about if the US gives up weapons too? by Northdot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do you know anything about WWII?

    With Japan the choice was not "Use Nukes" vs. "Everyone lives in Peace". The alternative was a landed invasion of Japan, with an expected body count far in excess of anything the nukes did. The nukes gave the Japanese leadership a face-saving reason for surrender, saving many lives. Claiming that the U.S. leadership using nukes was "insane" in the context of the Pacific war is ridiculous.

  16. Re:Trump's rhetoric was proven empty by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You only need study H. Clinton's history during her time as Secretary of State. She's more of a globalist-enabler than a liberal. She and her clients were just itching for her to come to power so she could escalate the conflict in Syria. And it was NEVER about human rights or the plight of the Syrians. It has always been about the natural gas pipeline they want to string over Syrian territory to get said gas to market at a profit.

  17. Re:Trump's rhetoric was proven empty by MikeDataLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like to deal in facts, not wishes....

    There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

    There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

    There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

    There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

    From a warmongering perspective, Republicans are king.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
  18. Re:Trump's rhetoric was proven empty by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    I like to deal in facts, not wishes....

    You like to deal with lies in statistics. Why did you choose "war years" instead of "number of warmongering Republicans" vs "number of warmongering Democrats?"

    The truth is there are warmongering people in both parties, and you are treating politics like a sports game: you chose your side, and you will make up arguments to make your side look good. You only care about truth if it makes your team look good. Stop that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. Re:Trump's rhetoric was proven empty by greythax · · Score: 2

    Being old enough to actually remember has it's perks, one being I don't need to look up things I watched happening. Also, I find it pretty interesting that you accuse GP of lying by showing the wrong statistics, and yet you end up digging up that image, as opposed to this one at the very tip top of the wikipedia article.