Historic North Korea/South Korea Meeting - Trump Peace Prize?

Yea, I really don't have an agenda.

It's fairly apparent you do though.

Your analysis that "but for Trump" Korea would have been unified under SK rule by now is just absolute fantasy.

 

Hmm... he went from "“There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea" to "Decent chance of Denuclearization...". Well, at least he is being more honest/less dishonest with what the situation is with nk (but still contradicts what his NDI reported yesterday)... btw, did they ever determine which remains they were ever able to get back?

 

His efforts to create dialogue and success is worth a nobel peace prize alone if you compare it to Obama. Debate on this should be over.

 

Obama's administration was actually able to reach a nuclear agreement with a problematic country (Iran) that was also signed by other countries like Russia, China, UK, France, etc. Of course, Trump tore that agreement up (great look BTW when other countries consider agreements with us in the future) but he had breakfast with Kim Jong Un and they said nice things to each other so he accomplished more than Obama on that front? Incredible.

 

Yea, that's not an accurate representation of the detente that has occurred between North, South and the U.S. since Trump took office.

 

It would be funny if the meeting was timed with any expectation of when the Mueller report might be released.

 

Except that was a terrible agreement. Look back in recently history and see how well nuclear inspections worked in Iraq. Putting anything that generates nuclear material in a terrorist sponsoring country and expecting them to not try to continue developing weapons in underground facilities is a joke. They already broke the treaty several times as well. Obama let other countries routinely operate as they please, wagged his finger and said no no, and didn't ever follow through.

 

The tests stopped because the tests were complete not because of anything Trump did. In fact N. Korea has tested enough that they have stepped up their nuclear program. That is hardly a triumph.

 

They have had more open communication, especially with the south, but the progress pretty much stops there.

http://time.com/5521961/north-korea-missile-nuclear-program-un/

I'm willing give it time and hopefully something more substantial is eventually agreed upon and enacted, but this idea being pushed that Trump has accomplished so much on this front while being okay with him simultaneously tearing up a nuclear agreement crafted by the previous administration and agreed upon by multiple countries is nothing but partisan garbage.

 

No, this is the stupid partisan talking point that's been pushed by the Republicans since the beginning. Experts in this field seemed to pretty unanimously agree that it was one of the strictest and most expansive weapon inspections agreements ever crafted. If the agreement was this terrible, why did so many other countries sign onto it?

And I don't even know what "Putting anything that generates nuclear material in a terrorist sponsoring country" even means, there was no nuclear material given to Iran. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

The lack of progress on the nuclear front is well documented and often cited by critics. It's an extremely complex and tense situation. It's not something that will be solved quickly or easily.

To totally eschew what has occurred since Trump took office between North, South and the U.S. as "breakfest and nice words" would be disingenuous, politically motivated and wrong. There is a clear thawing of tensions on the peninsula and we have seen many positive steps taken towards reconciliation on the peninsula. These events should be celebrated, and they would be under any other administration but since, "Orange man bad" - they can't be.

Obama stressed to Trump when Trump assumed office the most dangerous international situation ongoing was the situation with NK.

Since then we've seen

1. Denuclearization/reconcilation talks are ongoing and active.
2. Actual discussions to formally end the war.
2. the SK President visited the North and addressed the NK people. (incredible)
3. reunification of families (at least visits)
4. cooperation in sport

These are all great and positive things. Any President should be lauded for their participation in them.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test-site-punggye-ri-intl/index.html

They claim it collapsed, but we really know what happened:

Spoiler

 

That's all fine and dandy and, like I said, I'm willing to be patient but it's way too early to be acting like this is some sort of heralded accomplishment for Trump. He dropped some conditions that previous presidents have held in order to meet with Kim Jong Un, so we'll see how that eventually works out. My guess is based on North Korean leadership's shady history in these kinds of dealings that we'll eventually be back to square one but I would love to be wrong in that belief.

BTW, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the "orange man bad" argument given the ridiculous amount of obstruction and fake outrage from Republicans in the previous 8 years under Obama.

 

Well it's a free country, you can choose to be as partisan as you want, many here are and only think in terms of blue vs. red how can I sh*t on the other side, put the most negative light on any event or spin any event to sh*t on the other side.

I look at every situation for what it is and give credit where I think it's due.

If, there was for instance, a thread on Trumps desire to expand military spending, I'd be a vocal critic.

Specifically, with regards to the situation on the peninsula, I think Trump generally deserves credit, the detente we've seen and the open negotiations we've seen have been good, even if there is a long way to go.

 

For many of us, it is not just blue vs red, it is competent leadership vs incompetent leadership. If you think our current mistake-in-chief is a competent and reliable president, by all means, carry his water.

I, for one, believe him to be a blight on our great history and, at the risk of triggering mick try, a danger to our future.

 

Why don't you try reading what I wrote again and then put something intelligible together addressing that.

 

Your claim of people only criticizing him because "orange man bad" seems like a pretty big dose of partisanship to me. I can't speak for others but I criticize him mainly because he is a complete clown who is unfit (both morally and mentally) to hold the office of president. If you can't recognize that then I don't really know what to tell you, you either have terrible judgement or are willing to completely overlook ineptitude because of your political beliefs. I don't agree with Mitt Romney politically but I would have 1000x more faith in a President Romney negotiating with a problematic country like North Korea than I do with Trump.

I honestly try to be objective but Trump's absurdity and his legion of boot lickers who will defend literally anything the guy does make it really hard.