This is HUGE: Kim Jong Un invites President Trump to meet in person

[Jack Davenport]

I meant to say palatable on post #56 not palpable.

Mondays SMH.

 

[Chopper3000]

Agreed, The Nobel committee always hands out [NOBABE] the prize [/NOBABE] to lefties. Kim would get it for making the gesture.

Trump would get the Nobel Hair Piece prize.

I disagree. They would both be up for laughing stock.

 

[ChuckFaze]

Depends on what they agree on...

But even if there's a peace deal between north and south korea, the nobel would go to Kim and the South Korean president, not to Trump, just like it went to Arafat and Rabbin, not to Bil Clinton in 1994 for the Oslo Accord

On the extreme least, they'd have to give Trump an Honorary Nobel for squeezing Kim's balls so hard that he decided to finally explore peace with said South Korean president. Cuz Kim didn't on his own just wake up one day and decide that he was tired of the nuclear game and decided that he was willing to denuke if they could guarantee not to oust him from power.

If peace materializes, it won't be just something that someone else started and did all the hard and dirty work and Trump just inherited the good results.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I disagree. They would both be up for laughing stock.

Nah, that’s what you are to us.

 

[Chopper3000]

Nah, that’s what you are to us.

Yep, you keep thinking that way. Love it.

 

[tvstrip]

On the extreme least, they'd have to give Trump an Honorary Nobel for squeezing Kim's balls so hard that he decided to finally explore peace with said South Korean president. Cuz Kim didn't on his own just wake up one day and decide that he was tired of the nuclear game and decided that he was willing to denuke if they could guarantee not to oust him from power.
If peace materializes, it won't be just something that someone else started and did all the hard and dirty work and Trump just inherited the good results.

Exactly. Love him or hate him he's been the only one to call kimmy's bluff and put his feet to the fire. If the korean peninsula denuclearizes after this it will be hard to argue he doesn't deserve it more than anyone else other than maybe Dennis rodman.

The reason I think it's a real possibility (de-nuking NK) is that twump cares more about his legacy than the US or the world. If he could say he achieved peace in korea, it's something no US prez (or any world leader) has even come close to (Heck, the meeting itself is already historical). And since we know he will make any deal he sees fit, regardless of what his advisers say, I would say very few things are off the table. He could offer to pull the US out of SK, lift all US sanctions, sign a non-aggression pact, sign a trade deal, or any number of things that would have been considered insane in the past, so long as he is able to say he got the deal done.

Side note: Obama was nominated for this nobel just 12 days AFTER HE TOOK OFFICE. You might be able to argue he did stuff to deserve it during his presidency, but he did nothing in his first fortnight in office to deserve it.

 

[bodie54]

all those hours pissed away for nothing? what exactly did you hope to accomplish here?
laters.

I think I can answer your question. My brother is a strong believer in the power of reason. That's why making a suggestion of this sort...
How about this as a radical idea: how about we give both presidents credit for what they've each accomplished in this battle?
...seems like such a simple, logical compromise to him.
And yet almost like clockwork these days what might ordinarily be considered reasonable ends up being annihilated by partisan emotion. I tried to warn him some time ago that political chat boards are about the last place reason is going to reign, on either "side". But he persisted. He felt that even if in some small way he could employ reason, civility and documentable fact to occasionally be a bridge builder of sorts he was doing some good here, among people he felt he "knew". Pretty naive for a guy his age, I suppose. But then again the last time americans lost the ability to reason together we ended up in a civil war that killed 600,000 of us, so....?

 

[sean miguel]

I think I can answer your question. My brother is a strong believer in the power of reason. That's why making a suggestion of this sort...
How about this as a radical idea: how about we give both presidents credit for what they've each accomplished in this battle?
...seems like such a simple, logical compromise to him.
And yet almost like clockwork these days what might ordinarily be considered reasonable ends up being annihilated by partisan emotion.?

I want to focus on that part. I claimed President Trump defeated ISIS. PH, as usual, took that as a sleight towards Obama, scoffed at that saying Obama already had ISIS on the ropes by the time Trump took office. I replied by quoting battlefield commanders who claimed the opposite - that Obama's war on ISIS was dragging on needlessly because he insisted on micromanaging the battlefield. It was progressing at a snail's pace if not an outright quagmire. The number of ISIS fighters in Syria and Iraq reached it's peak in 2016. Also read that like 80% of the territory lost by ISIS happened with Trump as President. It wasn't some grand change in strategy, but in tactics. Battlefield commanders were given the authority to do their job description - wage war. How is it a lack of reason to point out what those actually fighting this war have sad? Compromise is nice but not when what you're agreeing on simply isn't true.

I've never shied from giving President Obama credit in the past. I praised him for ramping up the drone program and taking out enemy combatants, especially the American ones. His taking out Bin Laden was a huge gutsy call. So much could've gone terribly wrong with that operation (like Jimmy Carter Desert One wrong).


That said, it's good to hear from you, Bodie. I hope Pool isn't gone for good, but I respect his decision.

Good wishes for both of you.

 

[sean miguel]

Did Trump Beat ISIS?
By Jonathan S. Tobin

October 19, 2017 8:00 AM

Unlike Trump’s other boasts, the shift in the war occurred on his watch and after he changed the rules of engagement.

When President Donald Trump boasts, the nation rolls its collective eyes. From his first moments in office, Americans on both sides of the political aisle understood that his claims of triumph usually had little to do with the facts. That was true of the talk about record attendance at his inauguration and continues to also be true about his claims of passing more legislation or getting more done than all of his predecessors. The controversies engendered by Trump’s bragging or false statements (such as those he recently made about other presidents consoling the survivors of American combat troops killed in battle) have become the obsessive concern of his critics as well as of fans who brand the president’s debunkers as purveyors of “fake news” or merely take delight in his trolling of his liberal opponents.

But when it comes to one of Trump’s boasts, it’s hard for even his sternest detractors to gainsay him. Try as they might to deny it, even the efforts of the New York Times to discount his assertion rings false. ISIS was still largely undefeated and in control of much of the territory of Iraq and Syria when Trump was sworn in before a non-record setting crowd. But only nine months into his administration, the Islamic State’s hold on these countries has dwindled, and after the liberation this week of Raqqa, Syria, capital of the Islamists’ caliphate, it’s fair to say that the group is being routed after years in which it held its own against coalition forces.

How much of this is due to Trump’s influence?

As with any war and, indeed, a great many other occurrences during any administration, the personal credit or blame that accrues to a president is widely exaggerated. The people winning this war are the U.S. air crews and special operators killing the terrorists as well as the coalition forces — principally local militias and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters — who have paid for the ground won from the terrorists in blood. Trump didn’t personally beat ISIS anymore than Franklin Roosevelt beat Japan and Germany singlehandedly. Nor, on the other side of the ledger, were Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon solely to blame for the disaster in Vietnam. But that is how history and politics works, and if the current victories lead, as seems highly likely, to the collapse of the caliphate, the only reason to deny Trump his fair share of the credit is partisan politics and the personal animus most of the press harbors toward him.

Recent political history provides us with a clear example of how this works.


Republicans and conservatives winced in 2011 when President Barack Obama took credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden. Their irritation grew as Obama and other Democrats never missed an opportunity during the 2012 election to do a bin Laden touchdown dance, which sought to draw a contrast between this easily understood symbolic American victory and the bloody stalemates produced by the frustrating wars George W. Bush fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But while Obama may have exploited bin Laden’s death for partisan purposes, the fact remains that it happened on his watch, not that of Bush, who had done all that he could to achieve the same object, as well as to avenge 9/11 by depriving al-Qaeda of its base in Afghanistan. Dismiss it as mere luck if you like, but if we are prepared to blame presidents for everything else that happens while they are in the White House, it’s only fair to let them take credit for anything good, especially if they are the ones involved in making the decisions, as Obama was on the bin Laden operation.

The facts about the campaign against ISIS are just as clear-cut.

When Trump took office, the U.S. had been mired in a discouraging stalemate in the fight against a group that Obama had initially dismissed as the “JV” terrorist team and therefore unworthy of his attention. Obama had little appetite for another Middle East war after he pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq. Having claimed that he had ended or wound down America’s wars, it took more than a year for him to admit that his Iraq bugout and refusal to intervene in the Syrian civil war — even to enforce his “red line” over Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons — had created a vacuum that ISIS filled. That reluctance seemed to carry over into U.S. efforts during the two years following Obama’s 2014 pledge to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist group as coalition forces made little headway against the enemy.

Did Trump entirely reinvent the war against ISIS? No, he didn’t, and his liberal detractors have spent the year correctly pointing out that the coalition war plans implemented this year were conceived by Obama’s Pentagon. But try as they might to deprive Trump of credit, there’s no way to pretend that the coalition didn’t have better success with those plans this year than they had in the previous two. In January, ISIS controlled 23,300 square miles. Today it holds onto about 9,300 square miles.

Trump’s role in the transformation is not insignificant.

It is unfair to U.S. and coalition troops to claim, as Trump does, that they didn’t “fight to win” until he arrived in the Oval Office. But as the Times admits, there was one significant difference. In the spring, Trump loosened the rules of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day decisions about fighting the enemy. Under Obama, the White House micromanaged the conflict in a manner that calls to mind the way President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fought the Vietnam War with similar dismal results.

Trump loosened the rules of engagement to allow commanders in the field more authority in day-to-day decisions about fighting the enemy.

The Times and other Trump critics blame Trump for the increase in civilian casualties in the fighting against ISIS since then. But if you are going to link Trump to that statistic, it isn’t logical to assert that the new rules of engagement had nothing to do with freeing up the coalition to attack the enemy with more aggression. Though the number of air strikes hasn’t increased, their impact has been greater, and that is probably because competent military commanders in the field are making the decisions rather than civilian staffers posing as military experts in the White House situation room.

It’s true that the taking of Raqqa and the collapse of the caliphate as a functional state won’t end the war. ISIS fighters will probably reassemble to fight a guerilla war. Trump’s defense team will have to be nimble enough to adapt to the shift. Trump must also understand that the fight against ISIS shouldn’t distract the U.S. from Iran, which remains the main threat to Western interests in the region. Ultimately, he’s going to have to choose between his correct instinct to confront Tehran and his desire for better relations with Russia, Iran’s ally in Syria.

Yet none of that changes the fact that ISIS is being defeated on Trump’s watch and, at least in part, because of decisions he has made. There will be plenty that happens during his presidency for which he will deserve to be blamed but, his boasts notwithstanding, this victory also belongs to him.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/trump-isis-victory/

Tobin doesn't sound like a rabid Trump supporter and the National Review have certainly not been fans.

 

[sean miguel]

Kim Jong Un meets in Beijing with China's Xi Jinping with de-nuclearization discussed.

Kim wants assurances that China has his back (regime preservation) if he gives up his nukes. He saw what happened with Ghaddafi. So how did we even get to this point?




And yes, this can be another ruse and the Kims have broken previous agreements. I think with President Trump, Jong Un sees a legitimate threat to end his regime, unlike with previous administrations.

 

[bodie54]

Compromise is nice but not when what you're agreeing on simply isn't true.

Of course. But in fact after reading the article in your subsequent post I don't think he would strenuously object to very much of it.
Pool DID give credit to Trump for what Trump has accomplished, as do I. We're just saying, don't forget how far towards success his predecessor had in fact carried us, and that the basic framework for that success was his creation. Let this be a mutual victory we all contributed to and can all unite around.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...p/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/

re so-called micro management: as you noted military commanders are trained to do their job - wage war. But this "war", as much if not more than any previous war, is more a psychological than a conventional one, and that's where considerations of that sort become extremely weighty. Considerations that are often not the expert province of military commanders.

That said, it's good to hear from you, Bodie. I hope Pool isn't gone for good, but I respect his decision.
Good wishes for both of you.

Thanks Fox and to you too. I'm hoping he returns because with me rarely being here somebody has to be around to uphold the family's libtardishness

 

[sean miguel]

Of course. But in fact after reading the article in your subsequent post I don't think he would strenuously object to very much of it.
Pool DID give credit to Trump for what Trump has accomplished, as do I. We're just saying, don't forget how far towards success his predecessor had in fact carried us, and that the basic framework for that success was his creation. Let this be a mutual victory we all contributed to and can all unite around.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...p/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/

But this "war", as much if not more than any previous war, is more a psychological than a conventional one,

actually, it's not. Jihadis from around the globe were converging to one region to bring about their final battle at Dabiq - their Armageddon, if you will. It was and remains really this simple - kill them.

Considerations that are often not the expert province of military commanders.

I said earlier that Obama didn't micromanage Benghazi, but I forgot how the Marines in Italy who were to be a rapid reaction force, had to change in and out of their uniforms four different times because those in the Administration couldn't decide what would be appropriate. You know, considerations that are their expert province.


from the platoon commander:

"We were told multiple times to change what we were wearing, to change from cammies into civilian attire, civilian attire into cammies, cammies into civilian attire," the platoon commander, who was not identified, told the committee. "There was also some talk of whether or not we could carry our personal weapons.

"I was basically holding hard and fast to the point where we were carrying our personal weapons. Like, we've got a very violent thing going on the ground where we're going, so we're going to be carrying something that can protect ourselves. But as far as what the Marines were wearing, that continually changed, and we had to make those changes inside of the aircraft."

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/ne...ebate-on-weapons-and-uniforms-commander-says/

In the end, President Obama's considerations will have resulted in many more being killed - both combatants and civilians - than needed to be. And we'd still be degrading ISIS today in an Obama third term.

 

[bodie54]

actually, it's not. Jihadis from around the globe were converging to one region to bring about their final battle at Dabiq - their Armageddon, if you will. It was and remains really this simple - kill them.

That's a lovely wish
Sadly wars on isms don't work that way. You've got to try to kill both the combatants in the field and the ideology, with the ideology in this case being the much much greater challenge.

In the end, President Obama's considerations will have resulted in many more being killed - both combatants and civilians - than needed to be.

Again it seems you're looking at the small picture. In the end I see his considerations as liable to have saved a great many lives, both at the time and, even more to the point, in future.

And we'd still be degrading ISIS today in an Obama third term.

And you base this on what? As noted in the above analysis ISIS was already on the ropes when he left office.

Anyway I guess we're done here. You aren't going to change my perspective and it seems clear I'm not going to change yours.

Too bad. Once again this seems like a golden opportunity for americans from both "sides" to unite and celebrate as one. God knows how badly in need of that we are. But even here the war between americans goes on. Sad.

 

[sean miguel]

Too bad. Once again this seems like a golden opportunity for americans from both "sides" to unite and celebrate as one. God knows how badly in need of that we are. But even here the war between americans goes on. Sad.

I think I've demonstrated that ISIS wasn't "on the ropes" based on the battlefield commanders' accounts. Does Obama deserve credit? Sure, I guess. After this whole thing metastasized on his watch, I guess he deserves credit for not continuing to dismiss them as a JV team and not completely ignoring it.

But yeah, we're just going in circles here. We can agree to disagree without killing each other. I think that's the best we can hope for these days.

 

[sean miguel]

That's a lovely wish
Sadly wars on isms don't work that way. You've got to try to kill both the combatants in the field and the ideology, with the ideology in this case being the much much greater challenge.

In this case you're combating eternity. What is this life but a blink of an eye? What is all the suffering in the world but a mere wince considering what's in store for those allah accepts into his paradise?

when you have a young couple with an infant girl who are willing to give all that up in order to kill their co-workers at a christmas party in the name of allah, there is no war of ideas to be fought - you've already lost. The only thing to do is to send them on their way before they hurt anyone else.

 

[bodie54]

when you have a young couple with an infant girl who are willing to give all that up in order to kill their co-workers at a christmas party in the name of allah, , there is no war of ideas to be fought - you've already lost.

Not only have we not already lost, I think we're actually on the road to winning. You'll be around a long time after I'm gone and I truly believe you'll live to see that victory, assuming 1) a death cult like ISIS never gets its hands on a cache of nukes and 2) we don't do anything unwise to help grow the problem, as we have at times in the past.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Not only have we not already lost, I think we're actually on the road to winning. You'll be around a long time after I'm gone and I truly believe you'll live to see that victory, assuming 1) a death cult like ISIS never gets its hands on a cache of nukes and 2) we don't do anything unwise to help grow the problem, as we have at times in the past.

It’s inevitable that they get their hands on nukes. We did something unwise with the Iran Deal. The weapon will be constructed within the targeted country and detonated if they can’t devise a method to deliver a payload.

 

[sean miguel]

CIA Director Pompeo met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over Easter weekend


by Shane Harris, Carol D. Leonnig, Greg Jaffe and David Nakamura April 18 at 8:12 AM

CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a top-secret visit to North Korea as an envoy for President Trump to meet with Kim Jong Un, and plans for a possible summit between the two leaders are underway, Trump confirmed Wednesday.

The extraordinary meeting between one of Trump’s most trusted emissaries and the authoritarian head of a rogue state was part of an effort to lay the groundwork for direct talks between Trump and Kim about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

The clandestine mission came late last month, soon after Pompeo was nominated to be secretary of state. The Pompeo mission was first reported Tuesday by The Washington Post, citing two people with direct knowledge of the trip.

On Wednesday, Trump acknowledged the outreach and said “a good relationship was formed” that could lead to a landmark meeting between the president and Kim.

“Mike Pompeo met with Kim Jong Un in North Korea last week,” Trump tweeted. “Meeting went very smoothly and a good relationship was formed. Details of Summit are being worked out now. Denuclearization will be a great thing for World, but also for North Korea!”

Trump did not give further details of the talks, which took place over Easter weekend, according to the two people who first described the Pompeo trip to The Post. It was unclear why Trump referred to “last week” in his tweet.

the rest here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d0fd1d8a820

 

[sean miguel]

June 12 Singapore.

Complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

US troops vacating is off the table.

 

[sean miguel]

denuclearization

Actual Chance of that happening: Zero

screenshotted.

I'm sure you're crossing your fingers hoping you're wrong.