They destroyed an old test site that was already going to be placed out of commission. It was pointless and a media show. They have done this before. You are naive .
you are complaining because three american hostages were released and a nuclear test site destroyed for nothing? explain how this was a bad trade? Instead of really bad analogies, the better approach would have been for you to tell me what previous administrations have achieved regarding North Korea?
Three American hostages getting released is great. A Nuclear site that was already set to go out of commission isn't an achievement or accomplishment of any kind.
2 of which were taken hostage under the current administration and a test site that was already on its last legs and was destroyed to make gullible fools like you think they are serious about denuclearizarion. The United States didn't win on anything there It infact lost on the sense that NK fooled idiots.
you are not going to compel anyone arguing that this was a bad trade. getting something for nothing is always a good deal. As far as the nuclear test site, it being destroyed cant possibly be worse than it being in tact. How meaningful it was is impossible to say unless you have some knowledge of north korea's nuclear test sites.
If releasing 3 hostages is all it takes for the NK dictatoriship to get what they have desired for multiple decades(photo op with the US head of state), yes it is a loss. That was a significant bargaining chip that was thrown to the gutter because a narcassist reality tv star way in over his head wanted to create a "legacy". I feel sorry for NK citizens the most here. Now they are going to be feed propaganda that the US yielded to their great leader thus generating a feedback loop that their leader is awesome.
because they have not been fed this for years? Trump has spent more time trying to help people in the DPRK than any president in my lifetime.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...test-site-collapse-may-be-out-of-action-china The destruction of the site has nothing to do with a desire to denuclearize. It was done out of necessity and the NK dictatoriship thought it was a solid opportunity to fool a incompetent US head of state and his zombie followers into a photo op meeting.
Really? How so? By enabling Kim to continue to commit human right violations with rewards such as a multiple decade desire to do a face to face meeting with our head of state?
We've been over this. SOTU DPRK escapee, state visit to Japan mentioned kidnap victims. Met with kidnap victim family, UN general assembly said "if china does not help USA will act alone" and mentioned kidnap victims, state visit to South Korea, speech in front of SK National assembly mentioned kids malnutrition in DPRK despite millions spent on weapons, met with DPRK escapees in oval office sends Mattis to border. Which previous administration spent that much time? TIA
How is any of this helping the NK people? Giving up essentislly nothing to be in the limelight of Western powers is just rewarding the NK regime. In fact none of these talks have anything to do with how the regime treats it's people. Infact Trump prasises the leadership of Kim.
So we are past the point and you now agree Trump has done more and spent more time on DPRK than any other president? Just arguing effectiveness?
Good grief, first, you addressed nothing I said. Would you prefer the nuclear test site be intact or destroyed? Second, to prove your irrelevant point, you are citing the guardian which is citing a Chinese geological study. This has weight with nobody. Maybe blowing up the site had very little meaning. I would still rather it be blown up.
So why do you think "world apology tour" Obama didn't want to do a face to face meeting with Kim? Because he loved the status quo of NK? Or was it something more pragmatic like understanding face to face talks without NK giving in on anything that would be a actual tangibly hard thing for Kim to do to actually show they are serious will only enable NK to continue doing what they are doing?
From the article if you just were willing to read it instead of just the headline: Who is this "nobody"? Trump zombie acolytes?
because apologizing for america was clearly his priority and not the welfare of the people in the DPRK which is why he didn't make that a priority. Now that we both agree Trump has spent more time on this issue than any other president, I don't really see your problem if your goal is welfare of the DPRK. You should be excited Trump has made this a priority and possibly nervous if you feel he is making a diplomatic misstep but overall extremely satisfied the issue is no longer being ignored. All this in spite of promising an America First agenda in his campaign.
Your post history with me suggests your account isn't a troll account which makes your statements even more bizarre. You seriously do not actually believe in this bs? I'm just going to indulge for a bit more. Trump has explicitly showed his lack of caring for the NK people while only caring about the legacy of denuclearizarion and "ending the war" by never acknowledging the human right violations, explictly stating that he wants Kim to have the same dictatoriship status after denuclearizarion and stating his people are ingenious hard workers instead of impoverished poor destitutes. Nothing in his talks suggest caring for the people. He just wants a photo op like Kim. At first he was naive enough to believe that they were actually serious about denuclearizarion but he has some career staffers around him who actually reached him and told him that isn't a real possibility so he backtracks and now only wants a photo op so he can go back home to his rabbid fan base and scream "no president has ever done this before!" and for once his claims of "the first" or "the bestest" or "the worst" would be accurate without an exaggeration but there would be no tangible substance behind it .
So when he spoke directly about the hardships of specific people, the children the kidnapping victims, what was being expressed. He did that on several occasions about several groups and several individuals. And as a general populace.
