North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump

[txradioguy]

Perhaps not, but the point is that the "Libyan model" is being touted and the Libyan regime met its ignominious end.   That's hardly comfort to Kim,  who appears to base his regime's survival on the ability to deter the U.S. with nukes.   The point is that if Kim is going to give up his nukes,  he is going to have to be assured that his regime survives.  He doesn't want to suffer Gaddafi's fate. 

We have to understand that calls for regime change,  the garrisoning of tens of thousands of U.S. troops on Korean soil,  and active, on-going military exercises with South Korean forces are precisely why Kim won't give up his nukes.   We paint him as a crazy man, but he is a rational actor.   We threaten his survival, and we are going to have to offer him an unprecedented deal to get him to move on the nuclear issue.

 

[Jazzhead]

The alternatives are either preemptive war or acceptance of North Korea's status as a nuclear power.   The former is potentially catastrophic,  and the latter, while something we have learned to live with,  with states like Pakistan and India, strikes me as far too risky with respect to a rogue state like North Korea.   

There are no easy choices, @txradioguy .  Maybe there were more palatable options 20 years ago, but years of appeasement have brought us to this.   

[TomSea]

The alternatives are either preemptive war or acceptance of North Korea's status as a nuclear power.   The former is potentially catastrophic,  and the latter, while something we have learned to live with,  with states like Pakistan and India, strikes me as far too risky with respect to a rogue state like North Korea.   

There are no easy choices, @txradioguy .  Maybe there were more palatable options 20 years ago, but years of appeasement have brought us to this.

Correct. And all of this was basically known months ago.

The way to retain dictatorship was to develop weapons.

Not only this, I commented on this possible construction of a beneficial relationship with North Korea, South Korea announced they would build a rail line and help modernize North Korea and I commented that how can we do this, if the dictatorship is so ruthless, how can we have a good relationship with the people as a whole.  You help them along, Kim won't want a free and open society.

[thackney]

The alternatives are either preemptive war or acceptance of North Korea's status as a nuclear power.   The former is potentially catastrophic,  and the latter, while something we have learned to live with,  with states like Pakistan and India, strikes me as far too risky with respect to a rogue state like North Korea.   

There are no easy choices, @txradioguy .  Maybe there were more palatable options 20 years ago, but years of appeasement have brought us to this.

I do not agree those are the only options. 

I do not believe the US will accept NK as a nuke power. 

I do believe more pressure can be applied without war. 

I do believe our real options are accepting Kim Jong-un as a leader without nuclear power, or his assignation.

[TomSea]

There is a good record of recent events with North Korea, this Libya model has been discussed.  The exact word model may not have been spoken of but Libya certainly was and how Kim has hung his hat on that for quite some time.

[txradioguy]

What people fail to realize is that Kim never had any intention of being this summit. He's counting on exactly what's being proposed here by some.

And that is a fatal mindset when you're dealing with a despotic regieme like the one current dictator of the DPRK runs.  This regieme has outlived and out lasted 13 U.S. presidents so far.

There is no "good record" with the DPRK and unless we take a hard line...a VERY hard line...the family Dictatorship will continue long past Trump.

[Fishrrman]

Title:
"North Korea threatens to withdraw from summit with Trump"

If I was advising Mr. Trump, I'd suggest that he tweet as such:
"North Korea will give up their nuclear weapons, whether they agree to negotiations... or not."

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Perhaps not, but the point is that the "Libyan model" is being touted and the Libyan regime met its ignominious end.   That's hardly comfort to Kim,  who appears to base his regime's survival on the ability to deter the U.S. with nukes.   The point is that if Kim is going to give up his nukes,  he is going to have to be assured that his regime survives.  He doesn't want to suffer Gaddafi's fate. 

We have to understand that calls for regime change,  the garrisoning of tens of thousands of U.S. troops on Korean soil,  and active, on-going military exercises with South Korean forces are precisely why Kim won't give up his nukes.   We paint him as a crazy man, but he is a rational actor.   We threaten his survival, and we are going to have to offer him an unprecedented deal to get him to move on the nuclear issue.

The Libya model is one where a dictator seeking nuclear power was forcibly told in no uncertain terms not to.  That result was directly the easing of sanctions in place for years, and the bounty to the dictator and the country in goods, recognition of improved international relations, and trade with the general international community of nations.  I happened to be in Libya afterwards for a month as oil companies eagerly bestowed monies into the country in exchange for rights to mine its minerals.

Both companies and country prospered as a result.  The country was making strides in great ways to be a model for other Arab nations.

You are being confused if you believe the 'ignominious end' you refer to had any relation to the nuclear issue.  It did not.  That end came about due to radical Islamic elements fueled by those who disagreed with the 'reasonable approach' exemplified by Ghaddafi's actions.

[Cyber Liberty]

You are being confused if you believe the 'ignominious end' you refer to had any relation to the nuclear issue.  It did not.  That end came about due to radical Islamic elements fueled by those who disagreed with the 'reasonable approach' exemplified by Ghaddafi's actions.

Not to mention Hillary Clinton and Obastard's chicanery.  They bumped him off to make room for their pals in the Muslim Brotherhood.  "Tomahawk Diplomacy." They proved how easy it is to topple a regime when you don't give a snot who takes over.  (I think Carter proved that first with Iran.)

[TomSea]

Bolton Emerges as Potential Wrecking Ball for Trump's Kim Summit
By Toluse Olorunnipa

John Bolton’s desire to turn North Korea into the next Libya isn’t going over so well in Pyongyang, where Kim Jong Un’s government has threatened to cancel upcoming talks with the U.S. in part because of the U.S. national security adviser’s remarks.

Bolton drew the ire of the North Korean government for saying that the country’s nuclear disarmament should follow the “Libya model” embraced by Muammar Qaddafi, who was later overthrown and killed in a U.S.-backed uprising.

<snipped>

The White House on Wednesday distanced itself from Bolton’s remarks, while experts wondered why Bolton would make such an indelicate comparison just weeks before the planned June 12 meeting between Trump and Kim in Singapore.

Read more at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/bolton-emerges-as-potential-wrecking-ball-for-trump-s-kim-summit

It appears, we should not get too many NK articles on the same topic in the forum, so I submit this here....if we get too many on the same topic, I will start merging articles.

So, this "Libya model" is all over the news.

Bolton fouled up royally, if he has been saying this..... Sheeesh, now the story comes out... so, did John Bolton screw this up, it sure seems so...

[TomSea]

You are being confused if you believe the 'ignominious end' you refer to had any relation to the nuclear issue.  It did not.  That end came about due to radical Islamic elements fueled by those who disagreed with the 'reasonable approach' exemplified by Ghaddafi's actions.

Well, what is Bolton talking about then? He's talking about how Libya disarmed and they eventually saw a regime change; thanks to that Tomahawk diplomacy. I don't think @Jazzhead  is the confused one here. Why are they hopping on Bolton's case for mentioning this then?

Per the Bloomberg article just cited:

Bolton drew the ire of the North Korean government for saying that the country’s nuclear disarmament should follow the “Libya model” embraced by Muammar Qaddafi, who was later overthrown and killed in a U.S.-backed uprising.

Proof's in the pudding. I don't see what could be clearer. Anyway, perhaps we are mincing words, but it's clear, you have a less powerful dictator because they disarmed and they are more vulnerable.  Ukraine disarmed and gave up their nukes, now they fool with this trouble in the Eastern part of their country.

I'm not aware of some "Islamic" elements that are vying to overthrow Kim.

@IsailedawayfromFR

[Victoria33]

Bolton has always been quick on the draw with his words, being a hawk type.  That was fine when he was not connected with government, but now he cannot go off on his own with talk like this.  He needs to coordinate with others involved in foreign policy.

[txradioguy]

Bolton has always been quick on the draw with his words, being a hawk type.  That was fine when he was not connected with government, but now he cannot go off on his own with talk like this.  He needs to coordinate with others involved in foreign policy.

IMHO I don't think Bolton wandered off the reservation in what he said.  He's not that dumb.

This is the administration using him as a scapegoat because the DPRK is beginning to act like they always do when it comes to serious talks about the Pennisula.

[edpc]

Citing the nations voluntarily giving up their nuke programs is a no-win situation.  We already know about Libya.  The other notable example is South Africa.  Who wants to be seen praising an apartheid government?  Their reasons for destroying the constructed warheads was hardly altruistic.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, what is Bolton talking about then? He's talking about how Libya disarmed and they eventually saw a regime change; thanks to that Tomahawk diplomacy. I don't think @Jazzhead  is the confused one here. Why are they hopping on Bolton's case for mentioning this then?

Bolton drew the ire of the North Korean government for saying that the country’s nuclear disarmament should follow the “Libya model” embraced by Muammar Qaddafi, who was later overthrown and killed in a U.S.-backed uprising.

Proof's in the pudding. I don't see what could be clearer. Anyway, perhaps we are mincing words, but it's clear, you have a less powerful dictator because they disarmed and they are more vulnerable.  Ukraine disarmed and gave up their nukes, now they fool with this trouble in the Eastern part of their country.

I'm not aware of some "Islamic" elements that are vying to overthrow Kim.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Per the Bloomberg article just cited  is what boomberg wrote what Bolton said?
It was Bloomberg, not Bolton who mentioned the end of Qaddaffi. 
all Bolton did was to reference the model of disengagement from nuclear arms.

And exactly how did a dictator who gave up nuclear ambitions get weaker to be overthrown anyhow?  Was he going to use those on his own people to prevent a coup?

@TomSea , you will have to try harder than that.

[TomSea]

Per the Bloomberg article just cited  is what boomberg wrote what Bolton said?
It was Bloomberg, not Bolton who mentioned the end of Qaddaffi. 
all Bolton did was to reference the model of disengagement from nuclear arms.

And exactly how did a dictator who gave up nuclear ambitions get weaker to be overthrown anyhow?  Was he going to use those on his own people to prevent a coup?

@TomSea , you will have to try harder than that.

I don't have to try harder, you are just denying what is in the news, one story after another.

Oh, maybe you should read up on Gaddafi, you didn't know that NATO attacked him? If one doesn't have basic facts,  I now understand why debating this is like running up against a brick wall.

[TomSea]

Stick with one's story that only Bloomberg said it, so they must be wrong and I or whomever must be right. This is all over the news, the North Koreans even referred to Bolton. They called him human scum.

It is absolutely absurd to dare compare the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), a nuclear weapons state, to Libya, which had been at the initial stage of nuclear development," said Kim Kye Gwan, the first vice-minister of Foreign Affairs for North Korea.

"We shed light on the quality of Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him," Kim continued in the statement released by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

The tone of Kim's statement, however, maintained a respectful tone for President Trump, saying he hopes the "Trump administration takes an approach to the summit with sincerity for improved relations," which, Kim said, "will receive a deserved response from us."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/asia/north-korea-john-bolton-trump-intl/index.html

[Sanguine]

Stick with one's story that only Bloomberg said it, so they must be wrong and I or whomever must be right. This is all over the news, the North Koreans even referred to Bolton. They called him human scum.

Well, if the NKs said it, it must be right.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't have to try harder, you are just denying what is in the news, one story after another.

Oh, maybe you should read up on Gaddafi, you didn't know that NATO attacked him? If one doesn't have basic facts,  I now understand why debating this is like running up against a brick wall.

<personal attacks removed>

Bolton was accurate when he said the Qaddafi nuclear disarmament is the model to follow for Kim.

Anything else mentioned on the demise of Qaddafi, which in no way was caused by nuclear disarmament but by radical Islamists seeking power, was editorialized into Bolton's comments.

I happened to live in Libya for awhile following this disarmament.  Qaddafi's Libya was peaceful.

<personal attacks removed>

[TomSea]

<personal attacks removed>

Bolton was accurate when he said the Qaddafi nuclear disarmament is the model to follow for Kim.

Anything else mentioned on the demise of Qaddafi, which in no way was caused by nuclear disarmament but by radical Islamists seeking power, was editorialized into Bolton's comments.

I happened to live in Libya for awhile following this disarmament.  Qaddafi's Libya was peaceful.

<personal attacks removed>

What does the fact that Libya was peaceful to live in after disarmament have to do with the price of tea in China?

I will not just be subjected to personal attacks as a matter of debate.

[Sanguine]

What does the fact that Libya was peaceful to live in after disarmament have to do with the price of tea in China?

I will not just be subjected to personal attacks as a matter of debate.

This is not a personal attack.

[TomSea]

Well, if the NKs said it, it must be right.

Yeah, let's not use formal statements by the opposition to address anything, let's make it up as we go.

[Sanguine]

Yeah, let's not use formal statements by the opposition to address anything, let's make it up as we go.

No, Tom, I'm suggesting that you not do that.

[TomSea]

This is not a personal attack.

Have it your way, I'm not going to tell you, you have thick skin and blinders on, it's not pertinent to the debate.  I say it is a personal attack.

[Sanguine]

Have it your way, I'm not going to tell you, you have thick skin and blinders on, it's not pertinent to the debate.  I say it is a personal attack.

LOL!  And, saying I have thick skin and blinders on isn't?