Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The president said he expected the denuclearization process to start “very, very quickly” and that progress will be verified by “having a lot of people in North Korea.”
Now I may not be Einstein but a working towards denuclearisation, that this process is to happen very quickly etc generally means a reduction in nuclear capability (unless they are hoping NK blows itself up in the process, hence denuclearising the state).
I think you're missing some key words they used, bold mine
the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
They've committed towards working on denuclearization. Which means nothing. So long as they keep saying "we're committed towards denuclearization" or "we're working on denuclearization", they don't have to actually do anything besides talk about it. They haven't laid out a time schedule, plan, goals, or anything of any substance.
Aren't the sanctions still in place, with no concrete timeframe for when or even if they will be lifted? Keeping your best card seems only prudent in these circumstances.
What I am understanding from this is that people are happy with Trump to give away numerous significant concessions for absolutely nothing, and still call it a good deal and a success.
One has to wonder, as one always does, if the same people would have felt the same about Obama doing the same deal. Certainly, Fox News did not treat Obama the same when he was "weak" (and giving away concessions for nothing in return is weak, isn't it?). They loved Trump and his North Korean outing. Nobel peace prize for Trump?
Oh and Fascists are fighting Antifascists in the streets again. But let us not make any comparisons to any European states in the 20th century. That would be hyperbole.
The president said he expected the denuclearization process to start “very, very quickly” and that progress will be verified by “having a lot of people in North Korea.”
Now I may not be Einstein but a working towards denuclearisation, that this process is to happen very quickly etc generally means a reduction in nuclear capability (unless they are hoping NK blows itself up in the process, hence denuclearising the state).
I think you're missing some key words they used, bold mine
the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
They've committed towards working on denuclearization. Which means nothing. So long as they keep saying "we're committed towards denuclearization" or "we're working on denuclearization", they don't have to actually do anything besides talk about it. They haven't laid out a time schedule, plan, goals, or anything of any substance.
Aren't the sanctions still in place, with no concrete timeframe for when or even if they will be lifted? Keeping your best card seems only prudent in these circumstances.
But nobody is saying NK doing nothing towards dismanteling right now is a bad thing. What people are saying is that NK expanding its capacity is a bad sign, because it makes clear they are going to be very unwilling to give it up regardless, why else invest more now? It demonstrates that Singapore was all show and no substance regardless of what positive things people on here and in wider society were saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: What I am understanding from this is that people are happy with Trump to give away numerous significant concessions for absolutely nothing, and still call it a good deal and a success.
One has to wonder, as one always does, if the same people would have felt the same about Obama doing the same deal. Certainly, Fox News did not treat Obama the same when he was "weak" (and giving away concessions for nothing in return is weak, isn't it?). They loved Trump and his North Korean outing. Nobel peace prize for Trump?
Because when Obama did it it was some sooper secrit Muslim/Kenyan scheme to destroy America. Trump obviously only has the nation's best interest at heart, I mean why else would he keep saying that right?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/01 12:32:49
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
The president said he expected the denuclearization process to start “very, very quickly” and that progress will be verified by “having a lot of people in North Korea.”
Now I may not be Einstein but a working towards denuclearisation, that this process is to happen very quickly etc generally means a reduction in nuclear capability (unless they are hoping NK blows itself up in the process, hence denuclearising the state).
I think you're missing some key words they used, bold mine
the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
They've committed towards working on denuclearization. Which means nothing. So long as they keep saying "we're committed towards denuclearization" or "we're working on denuclearization", they don't have to actually do anything besides talk about it. They haven't laid out a time schedule, plan, goals, or anything of any substance.
Aren't the sanctions still in place, with no concrete timeframe for when or even if they will be lifted? Keeping your best card seems only prudent in these circumstances.
Sanctions haven't exactly been effective in stopping NK's nuclear program, and on top of that NK doesn't want prosperous citizens/outside trade. It wants a mass of compliant and ignorant citizens who will believe their propaganda about being the best place to live ever.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Da Boss wrote: What I am understanding from this is that people are happy with Trump to give away numerous significant concessions for absolutely nothing, and still call it a good deal and a success.
One has to wonder, as one always does, if the same people would have felt the same about Obama doing the same deal. Certainly, Fox News did not treat Obama the same when he was "weak" (and giving away concessions for nothing in return is weak, isn't it?). They loved Trump and his North Korean outing. Nobel peace prize for Trump?
Oh and Fascists are fighting Antifascists in the streets again. But let us not make any comparisons to any European states in the 20th century. That would be hyperbole.
The people actually using it as hyperbole delegitimized the comparison a long time ago.
Rosebuddy wrote: Aren't the sanctions still in place, with no concrete timeframe for when or even if they will be lifted? Keeping your best card seems only prudent in these circumstances.
Kim has already poked his Chinese buddies about reducing sanctions since the summit with Trump went so smoothly. He got the publicity (meeting POTUS), he got a free gift (cancellation of US-SK military excersises), now he would like some more cash too if you please, still without technically having agreed to anything concerning his nuclear program.
We've covered all this before in the previous thread.
Trump gave away:
1. Meeting with POTUS. 2, Stopped military exercises. 3. State visit of Kim Jong-Un to Washington. 4. Made plain he doesn't co-ordinate with his own military command or with regional allies (SK and Japan.)
China relaxed sanctions on NK.
NK gave away 0. They simply signed a statement they had made previously.
There's no point discussing this any more, and if people do so it will begin to look like spamming the forum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/01 19:34:41
Rosebuddy wrote: 1-3 are either smart and good things to do or not actual concessions. 4 should be assumed from observing Trump up until this point.
How? By meeting with the POTUS with no concessions NK has gained credibility as something beyond a weird state with massive human rights violations and issues. How is stopping military readiness exercises good? Those exercises aren't done for fun or gaks and giggles.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
#1 is a bad thing because all it did was to show that if you are a cruel dictator who runs concentration camps and kills citizens without impunity and who likes to execute political opponents as a public sport, you just need to power through sanctions and develop your nuclear program anyway while shooting rockets over neighboring countries.
And if you kill your people on one side, and have a nuke in your pocket on the other side, the POTUS will come and shake hands with you and acknowledge you as the rightful and just leader of the country your family oppressed for three generations while calling you an all around "good guy".
I'm generally on team "meet with the bad guys", and I remember how much gak Obama got from everyone when he said he would meet with folks like Kim from the same people who now defend Trump meeting him. But you should have something to show for it other than NK blowing up a mountain that they already blew up by testing it to death.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/01 21:05:49
Kilkrazy wrote: We've covered all this before in the previous thread.
Trump gave away:
1. Meeting with POTUS. 2, Stopped military exercises. 3. State visit of Kim Jong-Un to Washington. 4. Made plain he doesn't co-ordinate with his own military command or with regional allies (SK and Japan.)
China relaxed sanctions on NK.
NK gave away 0. They simply signed a statement they had made previously.
There's no point discussing this any more, and if people do so it will begin to look like spamming the forum.
According to Trump's travel ban, there can't be a state visit in Washington as they've banned travel from North Korea.
So, that's pretty funny. Trump can't invite his new friend over to his house.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Meh... it sure looked like we were heading to war with NK... didn't it?
Does anyone object to that characterization?
By what measure? The only heightened tensions occurred because of Trump's big mouth. It is back to the exact status quo it was before Trump, minus US reliability in the eyes of its allies. You don't get credit for fixing your own mistakes, that should be the absolute bare expectation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/01 21:36:34
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If war was more likely, it was because of Trump's belicose rhetoric.
So what, now he has made multiple concessions to fix a problem he caused?
NK has nuclear weapons with long range capability now, more credibility for Kim, propaganda reel showing Kim as an equal to Trump for use at home, and no more military exercises on it's border (also a bonus for Russia and China).
Da Boss wrote: If war was more likely, it was because of Trump's belicose rhetoric.
So what, now he has made multiple concessions to fix a problem he caused?
NK has nuclear weapons with long range capability now, more credibility for Kim, propaganda reel showing Kim as an equal to Trump for use at home, and no more military exercises on it's border (also a bonus for Russia and China).
What did the US get in this amazing deal?
Continuation of negotiations? While the sanctions are still in effect too.
By, hey... at least he didn't authorize pallets full of cold hard cash for a neuter'ed deal.
But, frankly, I'm not optimistic a deal can be had... even though SK is pushing hard for one. I'm still convinced a major escalation is in the offering in the future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/01 22:24:15
whembly wrote: By, hey... at least he didn't authorize pallets full of cold hard cash for a neuter'ed deal.
.
Is that alternate-reality speak for the deal that let inspectors into Iran and effectively prevented them from developing nuclear weapons? You know, the deal that worked instead of just was proclaimed as working by a blowhard?
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
whembly wrote: By, hey... at least he didn't authorize pallets full of cold hard cash for a neuter'ed deal.
.
Is that alternate-reality speak for the deal that let inspectors into Iran and effectively prevented them from developing nuclear weapons? You know, the deal that worked instead of just was proclaimed as working by a blowhard?
Its just the little fake reality that whembly and a large portion of Fox viewers tend to believe, seeing as how every time he opens up with that line a half dozen or so people point out he is wrong and it was money seized and just being returned. He/they then just go quiet or refuse to answer the question and then people forget after a page or two
Just ignore him, for the love of all that is holy.
It has been explained, over and over and over again ,that the "pallet full of cash" was the result of an international arbitration agreement between the US and Iran, that Iran paid the US a lot of money for military hardware prior to the revolution, that the US decided after the revolution "no, we are not going to sell you military hardware, but we are going to keep all the cash you paid us anyway", that we were required to give that money (and interest) back to Iran because we didn't actually honor the contract we had with Iran, and that we somehow managed to go "hey Iran, that money we have to give you anyway, give us something for it".
Everybody knows this, he knows this, and in a few months he will post the same story over and over again because "feth truth, fiction ueber alles, and 'my team can beat up your team'. It's like trying to win a Twitter argument with Trump, you are never going to win an argument with a dishonest person who uses Calvinball rules to debate and just starts back with the same basic untruth next month anyway.
Ustrello wrote: In other news senator Susan Collins just came out against any anti-Roe supreme court nomination, so that torpedoes about 90% of Trump/GOP's picks
Honestly the entire GOP moderate end is likely to take such a position. They've always been in a mixed stance of unconcerned/shut up already when it comes to abortion. Whether or not they keep it is what matters, which remains to be seen. They might bargain it away for something else.
d-usa wrote: Just ignore him, for the love of all that is holy.
It has been explained, over and over and over again ,that the "pallet full of cash" was the result of an international arbitration agreement between the US and Iran, that Iran paid the US a lot of money for military hardware prior to the revolution, that the US decided after the revolution "no, we are not going to sell you military hardware, but we are going to keep all the cash you paid us anyway", that we were required to give that money (and interest) back to Iran because we didn't actually honor the contract we had with Iran, and that we somehow managed to go "hey Iran, that money we have to give you anyway, give us something for it".
Everybody knows this, he knows this, and in a few months he will post the same story over and over again because "feth truth, fiction ueber alles, and 'my team can beat up your team'. It's like trying to win a Twitter argument with Trump, you are never going to win an argument with a dishonest person who uses Calvinball rules to debate and just starts back with the same basic untruth next month anyway.
Agreed. Let us please please stop dragging discussion down by legitimizing posts made completely and exclusively in bad faith.
d-usa wrote: Just ignore him, for the love of all that is holy.
It has been explained, over and over and over again ,that the "pallet full of cash" was the result of an international arbitration agreement between the US and Iran, that Iran paid the US a lot of money for military hardware prior to the revolution, that the US decided after the revolution "no, we are not going to sell you military hardware, but we are going to keep all the cash you paid us anyway", that we were required to give that money (and interest) back to Iran because we didn't actually honor the contract we had with Iran, and that we somehow managed to go "hey Iran, that money we have to give you anyway, give us something for it".
Everybody knows this, he knows this, and in a few months he will post the same story over and over again because "feth truth, fiction ueber alles, and 'my team can beat up your team'. It's like trying to win a Twitter argument with Trump, you are never going to win an argument with a dishonest person who uses Calvinball rules to debate and just starts back with the same basic untruth next month anyway.
In which for the longest time we refused because, hey Iran hasn't been our bestest friend who wants US to be destroyed.
Further more, it was a ransom payment. The hostage called it a ransom payment. The States Dept essentially called it a hostage payment. The IRANIANS themselves called it a ransom payment.
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. The freaking cash payment is a direct violations of US Treasure laws. Furthermore, 50 U.S. Code § 1702 stipulates that this prohibition may not be circumvented by exporting things of value “to a person in a third country” when one has “knowledge or reason to know that” such things are “intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran.”
These sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out electronically, in dollars or foreign currencies (ie the pallet-o-cash).
No amount of international courts/arbitration can circumvent this law. That arbitration agreement, that we didn't resolve for decades, was suddenly used as a pretext for the ransom payment, and to "grease the palms" for that Iran agreement.
That is why the Obama administration tried to keep this under wrap in secret.
But, you believe every word out of the former President's argument... so, there's no getting you.
Ustrello wrote: In other news senator Susan Collins just came out against any anti-Roe supreme court nomination, so that torpedoes about 90% of Trump/GOP's picks
I don't know how much that matters. Look how conservative Kennedy turned out to be for Reagan. What they say during confirmation hearings and what the rule as a justice aren't necessarily going to be the same thing.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
d-usa wrote: The Democratic Senators running for re-election in Trump Country are also going to make things more complicated.
Manchin, Tester and McCaskill for sure, but depends on the nominee.
THey'll be able to say no to Senator Lee for sure, who's literally on record to overturning Casey/Roe. But, the other in Trump's list? It'll be real hard for them to not to vote 'Yes'.
d-usa wrote: Just ignore him, for the love of all that is holy.
It has been explained, over and over and over again ,that the "pallet full of cash" was the result of an international arbitration agreement between the US and Iran, that Iran paid the US a lot of money for military hardware prior to the revolution, that the US decided after the revolution "no, we are not going to sell you military hardware, but we are going to keep all the cash you paid us anyway", that we were required to give that money (and interest) back to Iran because we didn't actually honor the contract we had with Iran, and that we somehow managed to go "hey Iran, that money we have to give you anyway, give us something for it".
Everybody knows this, he knows this, and in a few months he will post the same story over and over again because "feth truth, fiction ueber alles, and 'my team can beat up your team'. It's like trying to win a Twitter argument with Trump, you are never going to win an argument with a dishonest person who uses Calvinball rules to debate and just starts back with the same basic untruth next month anyway.
In which for the longest time we refused because, hey Iran hasn't been our bestest friend who wants US to be destroyed.
Further more, it was a ransom payment. The hostage called it a ransom payment. The States Dept essentially called it a hostage payment. The IRANIANS themselves called it a ransom payment.
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. The freaking cash payment is a direct violations of US Treasure laws. Furthermore, 50 U.S. Code § 1702 stipulates that this prohibition may not be circumvented by exporting things of value “to a person in a third country” when one has “knowledge or reason to know that” such things are “intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran.”
These sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out electronically, in dollars or foreign currencies (ie the pallet-o-cash).
No amount of international courts/arbitration can circumvent this law. That arbitration agreement, that we didn't resolve for decades, was suddenly used as a pretext for the ransom payment, and to "grease the palms" for that Iran agreement.
That is why the Obama administration tried to keep this under wrap in secret.
But, you believe every word out of the former President's argument... so, there's no getting you.
d-usa wrote: Just ignore him, for the love of all that is holy.
It has been explained, over and over and over again ,that the "pallet full of cash" was the result of an international arbitration agreement between the US and Iran, that Iran paid the US a lot of money for military hardware prior to the revolution, that the US decided after the revolution "no, we are not going to sell you military hardware, but we are going to keep all the cash you paid us anyway", that we were required to give that money (and interest) back to Iran because we didn't actually honor the contract we had with Iran, and that we somehow managed to go "hey Iran, that money we have to give you anyway, give us something for it".
Everybody knows this, he knows this, and in a few months he will post the same story over and over again because "feth truth, fiction ueber alles, and 'my team can beat up your team'. It's like trying to win a Twitter argument with Trump, you are never going to win an argument with a dishonest person who uses Calvinball rules to debate and just starts back with the same basic untruth next month anyway.
In which for the longest time we refused because, hey Iran hasn't been our bestest friend who wants US to be destroyed.
Further more, it was a ransom payment. The hostage called it a ransom payment. The States Dept essentially called it a hostage payment. The IRANIANS themselves called it a ransom payment.
To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. The freaking cash payment is a direct violations of US Treasure laws. Furthermore, 50 U.S. Code § 1702 stipulates that this prohibition may not be circumvented by exporting things of value “to a person in a third country” when one has “knowledge or reason to know that” such things are “intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran.”
These sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out electronically, in dollars or foreign currencies (ie the pallet-o-cash).
No amount of international courts/arbitration can circumvent this law. That arbitration agreement, that we didn't resolve for decades, was suddenly used as a pretext for the ransom payment, and to "grease the palms" for that Iran agreement.
That is why the Obama administration tried to keep this under wrap in secret.
But, you believe every word out of the former President's argument... so, there's no getting you.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
