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.

It’s the letter they signed. Nothing more and nothing less.

 d-usa wrote:
It’s the letter they signed. Nothing more and nothing less.

I seem to suck mightily. Any suggestions on where I can find a pdf of that letter?

EDIT.


Finally found a transcription;


"Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.


Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-up negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.



(Signed)

DONALD J. TRUMP

President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN

Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

June 12, 2018

Sentosa Island

Singapore"

Which, on the whole means almost nothing beyond an agreement to keep talking about it, and that both dictators think it was mighty historic.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Which, on the whole means almost nothing beyond an agreement to keep talking about it, and that both dictators think it was mighty historic.

But yes it’s only an agreement to keep talking.

Ok, call me paranoid, but REALLY? 4% of GDP? Does Trump understand that some of these countries can't meet 2%? Or the sort of staggering military expenditure he's asking for?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44799027

Indeed, you are both right.


I just predict that in a short while, we are going to have to remind some fellow Dakkaits about what was actually "agreed" upon - as compared to what President Trump bragged about was "agreed" upon.

In that connection, I am sure we will also have the opportunity to compare this historic "good deal" by the master of the deal himself, with "maybe the worst deal in history" made by the previous President.


You know....how vague platitudes and a firm handshake is seemingly so much better than exact agreements overseen by impartial international organisations - at least as long as the deal is made by "your guy".



.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, call me paranoid, but REALLY? 4% of GDP? Does Trump understand that some of these countries can't meet 2%? Or the sort of staggering military expenditure he's asking for?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44799027

It's the Trump shell game. The more he can get them to piss away on military expenditures, the less criminally insane our military budget will appear.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628203938/alabama-governor-bans-sheriffs-from-taking-funds-meant-for-prisoners-meals

Another in a line of "I can't believe we had to make a rule for this gak."

But protect yourself and serve your own interests I guess

 BigWaaagh wrote:
It's the Trump shell game. The more he can get them to piss away on military expenditures, the less criminally insane our military budget will appear.

I don't think it's even that complicated. For Trump's base there is no such thing as spending too much on the military, and therefore no need to justify our budget. This attack is purely about blaming Them for doing bad things to Us (and being weak and inferior in general) and presenting the US as a martyr. Who needs rational foreign policy when you can just blame Them for not doing enough?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Be careful the evangelicals will call you the anti-christ for calling them too stupid to vote

Evangelicals aren't actually single-issue voters, as demonstrated by how they embraced a proud serial adulterer who can't even name a favorite bible verse (along with all his other moral flaws) because he had an R next to his name. At this point evangelicals are zero-issue voters, anyone with an R gets their vote regardless of their position on any issues.

Here's an interesting look at "evangelicals" written by someone that I can personally attest to knowing his gak.

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/american-evangelicalism-and-politics-whiteness


For some of us, it's academic language for what we already pretty much knew, but for anyone who didn't know, or has an interest in this sort of thing, it could be very interesting.

I’ve had a denominational switch in 2016 for this reason.

Donald Trump is picking U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Kylie Jenner is the world's youngest-ever, self-made billionaire...that's it for me, I'm out!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/kylie-jenner-covers-forbes-as-the-next-youngest-self-made-billionaire/ar-AAzVHKm?li=BBnb7Kz

Foreign Direct Investment in US Falls 32% In 2017

So much winning.

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yet, somehow they voted for them.

If they voted for Trump they aren't conservative. They may SAY they are (many Republicans still do) but actions>words and all that. Selling out conservative values in favor of partisan politics means those values are less important than the latter. At best that's a person who is a Republican with secondary conservative values.

Well, that means that conservatives are such a small fraction of the electorate that they must be irrelevant.

Yup pretty much. They could make the difference in a swing vote sense but aren't numerous enough to be their own voting block. But I believe it's enough people that if the GOP did swing back to conservative values they would have enough votes to win elections without using voter suppression and gerrrymandering as a crutch.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Be careful the evangelicals will call you the anti-christ for calling them too stupid to vote

Evangelicals aren't actually single-issue voters, as demonstrated by how they embraced a proud serial adulterer who can't even name a favorite bible verse (along with all his other moral flaws) because he had an R next to his name. At this point evangelicals are zero-issue voters, anyone with an R gets their vote regardless of their position on any issues.

Here's an interesting look at "evangelicals" written by someone that I can personally attest to knowing his gak.

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/american-evangelicalism-and-politics-whiteness


For some of us, it's academic language for what we already pretty much knew, but for anyone who didn't know, or has an interest in this sort of thing, it could be very interesting.

Nothing there told me anything about why this meathead still has a 85%> rating among those folk. Those folk might be different and have different ideas and ideals, but they sort of vote like zombies.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Be careful the evangelicals will call you the anti-christ for calling them too stupid to vote

Evangelicals aren't actually single-issue voters, as demonstrated by how they embraced a proud serial adulterer who can't even name a favorite bible verse (along with all his other moral flaws) because he had an R next to his name. At this point evangelicals are zero-issue voters, anyone with an R gets their vote regardless of their position on any issues.

Here's an interesting look at "evangelicals" written by someone that I can personally attest to knowing his gak.

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/american-evangelicalism-and-politics-whiteness


For some of us, it's academic language for what we already pretty much knew, but for anyone who didn't know, or has an interest in this sort of thing, it could be very interesting.

Nothing there told me anything about why this meathead still has a 85%> rating among those folk. Those folk might be different and have different ideas and ideals, but they sort of vote like zombies.

I think that was the point. They don't vote based on their beliefs or ideals, but the letter next to the name.

Oh, I missed the agreeing with agreeing with thread of the discussion. It doesn't usually go that way. That's nice. We need more of that (or less?). Anybody else agree?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry folks, I've been out of the loop for about six months. Is Frazzled still old? Did his ugly dogs die yet? Is Whembly still not listening? Did I miss something?

Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No.

Next question?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yet, somehow they voted for them.

If they voted for Trump they aren't conservative. They may SAY they are (many Republicans still do) but actions>words and all that. Selling out conservative values in favor of partisan politics means those values are less important than the latter. At best that's a person who is a Republican with secondary conservative values.

Well, that means that conservatives are such a small fraction of the electorate that they must be irrelevant.

Yup pretty much. They could make the difference in a swing vote sense but aren't numerous enough to be their own voting block. But I believe it's enough people that if the GOP did swing back to conservative values they would have enough votes to win elections without using voter suppression and gerrrymandering as a crutch.

Really sounds like the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy...

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I agree with you here. but.... and here's the catch.... hypothetically what if members of both sides had a mass exodus of their elected officials? Some are disillusioned with their party all ready. Too many leave and it's too much to ignore. 150 years ago we had a new party form. Perhaps one of the existing two would die off?

Such an event is extremely unlikely, but in that hypothetical scenario you'd have a transition period where everything would be chaos and then various groups would re-align into two parties again. It would very likely be two different parties that have little in common with the ones we have now, but it would still be a two-party system. And that new two-party system would be stable and lock out third-party candidates just like the current one does, short of another implausible "destroy it all" event happening.

https://xkcd.com/1127/

If I'm reading this correctly, that's already happened. It appears the current Democratic party was formed in the 1830s, and the Republican party in the 1850s? Both after the sort of chaotic period that Peregrine describes in the 1820s.

Both parties have undergone changes and evolution since their original foundation.

The Republicans of the 1850s to 60s were regarded as dangerously progressive at the time.

It's clear that the modern Republican party has moved significantly to the right in the past 30 years, starting with the "New American Century" project of the 90s, then the Tea Party, and now Trumpism.

I suspect that the overall party and electoral system is strongly influenced by a relatively small number of very rich people, such as the Koch brothers, whoe huge wealth allows their idiosyncractic views to have too much sway on general policy.

Trump is on his way to Britain.

Nooooooooooooooo!

I suppose the USA was always going to pay us back sooner or later for burning down the White House

On a serious note, A giant Trump baby balloon is ready to float above London.

The US embassy is being fortified as though the North Vietnamese were marching on it, the crowds of protestors are baying for Trump's blood,


and I've just ran out of white undercoat...


The end times are upon us.

Trump's behaviour at the NATO summit goes beyond boorish. It is completely inappropriate for him to say the things he is saying to the leaders of other democracies while kissing the arse of dictators like Kim and Putin.

The US is the only country to have invoked the mutual protection of NATO back in 2001 when they wanted to go beat up a third world country (who they still haven't actually managed to beat, 17 years later) after 9/11.

He then called a press conference immediately claiming victory and rambling on about world peace, ending disease, and being a stable genius.

fething hell. We have to get a unified, independent approach to this arse now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Be careful the evangelicals will call you the anti-christ for calling them too stupid to vote

Evangelicals aren't actually single-issue voters, as demonstrated by how they embraced a proud serial adulterer who can't even name a favorite bible verse (along with all his other moral flaws) because he had an R next to his name. At this point evangelicals are zero-issue voters, anyone with an R gets their vote regardless of their position on any issues.

Here's an interesting look at "evangelicals" written by someone that I can personally attest to knowing his gak.

https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/american-evangelicalism-and-politics-whiteness


For some of us, it's academic language for what we already pretty much knew, but for anyone who didn't know, or has an interest in this sort of thing, it could be very interesting.

Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress basically said on record that it doesn't matter how bad of a human being Trump is as long as Trump's politics are the politics he wants.

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump's behaviour at the NATO summit goes beyond boorish. It is completely inappropriate for him to say the things he is saying to the leaders of other democracies while kissing the arse of dictators like Kim and Putin.

The US is the only country to have invoked the mutual protection of NATO back in 2001 when they wanted to go beat up a third world country (who they still haven't actually managed to beat, 17 years later) after 9/11.

He then called a press conference immediately claiming victory and rambling on about world peace, ending disease, and being a stable genius.

fething hell. We have to get a unified, independent approach to this arse now.

What are you gonna do? Send a mildly worded letter?

By all means kick us out of NATO...

 Frazzled wrote:

What are you gonna do? Send a mildly worded letter?

By all means kick us out of NATO...

Give it another two years of this and they may well, thus ending one of the most successful alliances in history because of a bunch of entitled morons who think we're owed something because of our absurd military spending.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump's behaviour at the NATO summit goes beyond boorish. It is completely inappropriate for him to say the things he is saying to the leaders of other democracies while kissing the arse of dictators like Kim and Putin.

The US is the only country to have invoked the mutual protection of NATO back in 2001 when they wanted to go beat up a third world country (who they still haven't actually managed to beat, 17 years later) after 9/11.

He then called a press conference immediately claiming victory and rambling on about world peace, ending disease, and being a stable genius.

fething hell. We have to get a unified, independent approach to this arse now.

What are you gonna do? Send a mildly worded letter?

By all means kick us out of NATO...

We'd still have Canada. A nation that has never lost a war and who has repelled numerous US invasions. America? Pah! Who needs them when you have Canada

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

What are you gonna do? Send a mildly worded letter?

By all means kick us out of NATO...

Give it another two years of this and they may well, thus ending one of the most successful alliances in history because of a bunch of entitled morons who think we're owed something because of our absurd military spending.

It SHOULD have ended when the Waraw Pact died. It still existing is just bureaucratic bloat and unforgivable. No government entity ever is discontinued. We still have honey subsidies to support our battle with the Hunt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump's behaviour at the NATO summit goes beyond boorish. It is completely inappropriate for him to say the things he is saying to the leaders of other democracies while kissing the arse of dictators like Kim and Putin.

The US is the only country to have invoked the mutual protection of NATO back in 2001 when they wanted to go beat up a third world country (who they still haven't actually managed to beat, 17 years later) after 9/11.

He then called a press conference immediately claiming victory and rambling on about world peace, ending disease, and being a stable genius.

fething hell. We have to get a unified, independent approach to this arse now.

What are you gonna do? Send a mildly worded letter?

By all means kick us out of NATO...

We'd still have Canada. A nation that has never lost a war and who has repelled numerous US invasions. America? Pah! Who needs them when you have Canada

Canad, the most dangerous country evah!

 Da Boss wrote:
Trump's behaviour at the NATO summit goes beyond boorish. It is completely inappropriate for him to say the things he is saying to the leaders of other democracies while kissing the arse of dictators like Kim and Putin.

The US is the only country to have invoked the mutual protection of NATO back in 2001 when they wanted to go beat up a third world country (who they still haven't actually managed to beat, 17 years later) after 9/11.

Lets be clear we aren't at war with Afghanistan. We are at war with terrorists that are bouncing around inside and out along the Pakistani border. If we wanted to obliterate Afghanistan, we would have. Much the same way we did Germany in WWII.

I don't agree with everything Trump is doing, but I am glad he's hitting NATO hard with commitment issues. Its ridiculous we have so many resources over in Europe to protect it, while some of the very countries that host us don't even pay the 2% required by NATO.

As far as Kim and Putin, I dislike both too, but lets not forget these are all separate issues here.

 KTG17 wrote:
Its ridiculous we have so many resources over in Europe to protect it, while some of the very countries that host us don't even pay the 2% required by NATO.

It might be if we were some how forced to do this, but we've put enough forces out there that why wouldn't they save their own money and do something useful with it?

 Frazzled wrote:

It SHOULD have ended when the Waraw Pact died. It still existing is just bureaucratic bloat and unforgivable. No government entity ever is discontinued. We still have honey subsidies to support our battle with the Hunt.

Do you seriously believe that ending this alliance would not have a negative impact on American influence? That it's some how useless? That it's not been used as an excuse to put American military across the globe under the pretense of this alliance? It's been one of the major tools of US force projection since it came together.

Unless you're getting together with me on this that we shouldn't be spending that much on the military, shouldn't be in those place, and should generally put the money to quite literally anything else, I don't see any merit to this position of yours. I can justify it as a military asset, despite not being huge on most of our military. All I can see in your statement is an isolationist sentiment to the detriment of understanding of the situation.