The Briefing Room
General Category => World News => Topic started by: ABX on May 15, 2018, 07:08:18 pm
-
North Korea is threatening to cancel its upcoming summit between leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump over South Korea-U.S.military drills, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported, citing North Korean state media....
...North Korea has also canceled high-level talks with South Korea that were scheduled for Wednesday local time over those same drills, according to Yonhap. ...
https://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-threatens-withdraw-summit-trump-report/story?id=55184033
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/15/north-korea-threatens-to-cancel-us-meeting-over-american-military-drills-with-south-korea-report-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/15/north-korea-threatens-to-cancel-us-meeting-over-american-military-drills-with-south-korea-report-says.html)
North Korea threatens to cancel US meeting over American military drills with South Korea, report says
North Korea announced it has canceled a high-level summit with South Korea and has threatened to cancel its meeting with the United States over American military drills with South Korea, Yonhap News said Tuesday, citing KCNA.
KCNA, North Korea's state media outlet, claimed that the military drills were a rehearsal for a potential invasion of the country.
The meeting between officials from the neighboring countries was expected to be a follow-up to the historic summit held last month between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
more at link
-
North Korea suspends talks with South scheduled for Wednesday
North Korea said on Wednesday it had no choice but to suspend high-level talks with South Korea scheduled for later in the day due to U.S.-South Korean military exercises that went against the trend of warming North-South ties.
The meeting was due to focus on plans to implement a declaration that emerged from an April 27 inter-Korea summit, including promises to formally end the Korean War and pursue "complete denuclearization," the South's unification ministry, which handles ties with the North, said on Tuesday.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea-suspends-talks-south-scheduled-wednesday-190537006.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea-suspends-talks-south-scheduled-wednesday-190537006.html)
-
We're not taking our forces out of Korea, these cooperative drills will always be necessary to ensure readiness, so the Norks will never completely denuclearize.
-
This had to have some drama. At least some.
-
We're not taking our forces out of Korea, these cooperative drills will always be necessary to ensure readiness, so the Norks will never completely denuclearize.
Just like 2000, they are probably looking for any excuse for an 'out'. Lil'Kim throws this bone out every 6-7 years or so, and only one other time did we take the bait before they reeled it back in. So much 'hope for change' people failed to look at the past.
-
Someone suggested the US threaten to deny Li'l Kim any KFC, and he'll change his tune in a hurry.
-
This is how NK "negotiates". May be nothing.
-
I knew Kim would not change his spots; knew he had to have something in mind that would benefit him and not give up his missiles for sure even if he gave up the nuke stuff. So, now he won't meet unless the drills stop. What's next?
TV says white house is preparing a response.
-
This had to have some drama. At least some.
This is where usually the US leadership, afraid of the political fallout from perceived failure, would begin backpeddling.
We'll see how this administration responds.
-
White House caught off guard by North Korea warning, aides say
The White House was caught off guard by the warning from North Korea over military drills, according to aides.
One official affirmed the State Department's assertion they've received no information from Pyongyang about the status of the talks.
President Trump is expected to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-today-05-15-18/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-today-05-15-18/index.html)
-
White House caught off guard by North Korea warning, aides say
The White House was caught off guard by the warning from North Korea over military drills, according to aides.
One official affirmed the State Department's assertion they've received no information from Pyongyang about the status of the talks.
President Trump is expected to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-today-05-15-18/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-today-05-15-18/index.html)
If I were a betting woman, I would have bet that CNN would say almost exactly that, regardless of what information they actually had. :laugh:
-
If I were a betting woman, I would have bet that CNN would say almost exactly that, regardless of what information they actually had. :laugh:
Well, the State Department spokesperson and former Fox News reporter, Heather Nauert, confirmed it by saying they had no previous notice.
"What we have to go on is what Kim Jong Un has said before, that he understands and appreciates the importance to the United States of having these joint exercises, the Republic of Korea has as well," Nauert said. "We've received no formal or even informal notification of anything."
https://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-threatens-withdraw-summit-trump-report/story?id=55184033
-
Kim Kye Gwan criticized recent comments by Trump's top security adviser John Bolton and other U.S. officials who have been talking about how the North should follow the "Libyan model" of nuclear disarmament and provide a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement."
He also criticized other U.S. comments that the North should completely abandon not only its nukes and missiles but also its biological and chemical weapons.
Kim says: "We will appropriately respond to the Trump administration if it approaches the North Korea-U.S. summit meeting with a truthful intent to improve relations."
He adds: "But we are no longer interested in a negotiation that will be all about driving us into a corner and making a one-sided demand for us to give up our nukes and this would force us to reconsider whether we would accept the North Korea-U.S. summit meeting."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-us-says-going-ahead-nkorea-summit-plan-200634561.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-us-says-going-ahead-nkorea-summit-plan-200634561.html)
-
Well, the State Department spokesperson and former Fox News reporter, Heather Nauert, confirmed it by saying they had no previous notice.
"What we have to go on is what Kim Jong Un has said before, that he understands and appreciates the importance to the United States of having these joint exercises, the Republic of Korea has as well," Nauert said. "We've received no formal or even informal notification of anything."
https://abcnews.go.com/International/north-korea-threatens-withdraw-summit-trump-report/story?id=55184033
Of course they 'Had no previous notice'. We've had 6 Defense Intel Agencies laying hardware for months now designed to destroy the Nork's internet. No Command, Communication, or Crew Launched weapons.
We knew full well this could happen and extended Xi's puppet the benefit of the doubt while holding the HUGE stick behind our back.
His masters are hoping to cut better Economic terms for themselves in the Trade War they've been screwing us in for 40 years.
Part of the solution to NK is Tax Cuts round 2 further lowers the Federal Consumption/Corp Income Tax. Hold out the Carrot to all those corps doing business in China. Get them to pull out.
Without our markets China goes broke and Kim gets to eat tree roots in the dark after we fry his Command, Communications and Crew served weapons cyber capabilities.
-
Based on Kerry's behavior lately with Iran, I cannot help but wonder if Kerry or someone else left over from the Obama disaster, or maybe someone in the Deep State, has been working to make sure the NorKs cancel the meeting.
We know there are people currently in government, and certainly in Obama's old government, who would do anything in the world to torpedo anything Trump tries to do, no matter what it is or how beneficial it may be to America and the World.
-
Same old, same old.
-
Mark Knoller Verified account @markknoller
5m5 minutes ago
"This is something that we fully expected," said @PressSec this morning of North Korea threat to scrub summit with Pres Trump. "If they want to meet we’ll be ready and if they don’t, that’s okay too," said Sanders, in a WH driveway gaggle with reporters.
-
Based on Kerry's behavior lately with Iran, I cannot help but wonder if Kerry or someone else left over from the Obama disaster, or maybe someone in the Deep State, has been working to make sure the NorKs cancel the meeting.
We know there are people currently in government, and certainly in Obama's old government, who would do anything in the world to torpedo anything Trump tries to do, no matter what it is or how beneficial it may be to America and the World.
It can’t be 100% ruled out, but given the history of fickleness from the Norks when it comes to negotiations, odds are it’s nothing other than them being consistent.
-
Not surprising. Also have read accounts (MSM though) that Kim has been stated that de-nuclearization is not on the table.
How foolish is the orange leader and his orange geese going to look if this is all true?
From potential Nobel Peace Prize to an episode of "Punk'd" in one easy lesson
-
They may be looking for a pre-meeting "gesture" to postpone the military exercises, similar to Kim's release of the three U.S. captives.
If the NORKs are going to give up their nukes, the U.S. and South Korea will have to make significant concessions, including diplomatic recognition, economic aid and withdrawal of most American troops from the Korean peninsula. That may be too much to give up; reasonable minds may differ. Remember that, from the NORKs' perspective, we are an existential threat to the regime.
What should the U.S. reasonably be expected to give in return for a "Libyan style" verifiable relinquishment of nuclear weapons?
-
Also, it looks like NK has a problem with John Bolton and things he has said in the past. Although, one has to look and see if they are making excuses...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/north-korea-threatens-scrap-trump-summit-military-drills/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/north-korea-threatens-scrap-trump-summit-military-drills/)
http://www.ibtimes.com/north-korea-blames-john-boltons-libya-model-threatening-summit-trump-2681285 (http://www.ibtimes.com/north-korea-blames-john-boltons-libya-model-threatening-summit-trump-2681285)
North Korea Blames John Bolton’s ‘Libya Model’ For Threatening Summit With Trump
By Himanshu Goenka @HimGoJourno
Just days after President Donald Trump announced the date and venue (June 12, Singapore) for the historic meeting between the leaders of the United States and North Korea, the East Asian country said Wednesday it would reconsider the summit. Specifically, DPRK blamed Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton and his “Libya model†for the country’s denuclearization as factors for reconsidering the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.
Bolton, a known North Korea and Iran hawk, was speaking April 29 during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation†when he said the U.S. was “looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004†for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi allowed inspectors into his country’s weapons facilities, but in 2011, U.S. and NATO forces backed an uprising against Gaddafi, which ended with him being dragged out into the streets before being killed.
That whole Libya venture does seem to be a fiasco...mostly. It just doesn't seemed to have gone down well at all.
Even Oliver North seemed to smugly speak about what happened in Libya. And I usually agree with North but....not sure about that.
-
I knew Kim would not change his spots; knew he had to have something in mind that would benefit him and not give up his missiles for sure even if he gave up the nuke stuff. So, now he won't meet unless the drills stop. What's next?
TV says white house is preparing a response.
@Victoria33 this is why I told people they should give Trump credit for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and for "de-nuclearizing" the Norks until the ink is dry on the papers.
IMHO they agreed to the talks to stall in order to provide cover for something they are doing behind the scenes.
-
To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes, the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death. There isn't anything the NORKs fear more. The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive. Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival
-
To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes, the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death. There isn't anything the NORKs fear more. The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive. Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival
They have no intention of giving up their nukes...they never have. The Kim regime will survive regardless because they have top cover from China and Russia. The only way they'll be toppled is if the people in the North finally get tired of eating moss off of rocks while Dear Leader is eating Filet Mignon.
It won't topple from anything we do or don't do. And it's foolish if anyone believes otherwise.
-
To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes, the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death. There isn't anything the NORKs fear more. The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive. Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival
Absolutely, good posting.
-
To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes, the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death. There isn't anything the NORKs fear more. The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive. Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival
I don't see pursuing nuclear weapons would have kept Gaddafi in power. Correlation does not imply causation.
-
@Victoria33 this is why I told people they should give Trump credit for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and for "de-nuclearizing" the Norks until the ink is dry on the papers.
IMHO they agreed to the talks to stall in order to provide cover for something they are doing behind the scenes.
@txradioguy
That is exactly my thinking. Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan. Kim is in control of this.
-
@txradioguy
That is exactly my thinking. Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan. Kim is in control of this.
I don't think so, but time will tell.
-
Correlation does not imply causation.
Understood, but the actor that needs to be convinced of that is Rocket Man. He sees nukes as essential to ensuring his survival. Only if he can be convinced that his regime can both survive and thrive by re-joining the rest of the world would he agree to give up nukes.
-
Good old NK rope-a-dope in action.
-
I don't see pursuing nuclear weapons would have kept Gaddafi in power. Correlation does not imply causation.
He gave up his WMD program, hardly sounds like pursuing them but I'm not an expert on that time in history.
..........
Contact: Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, (202) 463-8270 x102
Updated: January 2018
On December 19, 2003, long-time Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi stunned much of the world by renouncing Tripoli’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and welcoming international inspectors to verify that Tripoli would follow through on its commitment.
Following Gaddafi’s announcement, inspectors from the United States, United Kingdom, and international organizations worked to dismantle Libya’s chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its longest-range ballistic missiles. Washington also took steps toward normalizing its bilateral relations with Tripoli, which had essentially been cut off in 1981.
Libya’s decision has since been characterized as a model for other states suspected of developing WMD in noncompliance with their international obligations to follow. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker stated May 2, 2005 during the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that Libya’s choice “demonstrates that, in a world of strong nonproliferation norms, it is never too late to make the decision to become a fully compliant NPT state,†noting that Tripoli’s decision has been “amply rewarded.â€
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology)
He probably could have caused a lot of damage with what he had including chemical weapons and probably an inroad to some of the precious minerals in Africa like yellow cake uranium. Seems pretty simple to me.
-
Understood, but the actor that needs to be convinced of that is Rocket Man. He sees nukes as essential to ensuring his survival. Only if he can be convinced that his regime can both survive and thrive by re-joining the rest of the world would he agree to give up nukes.
I would guess he sees nuclear weapons as a way to grow his power and economic strength. That may be a subtle difference.
-
@txradioguy
That is exactly my thinking. Kim has a plan; the US is just reacting to his plan. Kim is in control of this.
It's a lot better than the appeasement of Bush 43, Clinton and Obama... and I think they may even include Bush 41 per none other than John Bolton. Those former presidents caused this mess. Something is happening and that is good.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.
Crickets if we are going to hear these Presidents criticized, at least the Republican ones.
@Victoria33
-
My theory is that all the nuke stuff was done for and by Iran. After they got it working and lost the site, there was no point continuing.
The US and South Korea and holding joint exercises so this is the normal NK response although tempered slightly this year.
-
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.
My guess is that Gaddafi saw he was losing control to the extremists and needed help. It was just too late for him.
-
It's a lot better than the appeasement of Bush 43, Clinton and Obama... and I think they may even include Bush 41 per none other than John Bolton. Those former presidents caused this mess. Something is happening and that is good.
And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to note, how Gaddafi gave his weapons up; and he was thrown out of power some time later.
Crickets if we are going to hear these Presidents criticized, at least the Republican ones.
@Victoria33
It was Bush 43 and his war on terror that forced Gaddafi to give up his nukes. He didn't want to be the next Saddam being pulled out of a hole. He was working with us to identify other bad actors in the region.
Obama and his drive to put radical Islam into every nation in North Africa and the Middle East is the reason Gaddafi is dead and the country in turmoil.
Bush was tough on the Norks too. His predecessor and his successor were the ones that turned the blind eye to all the illegal crap the North was doing.
-
My guess is that Gaddafi saw he was losing control to the extremists and needed help. It was just too late for him.
See my post above.
-
Well gee..... who here is shocked at this latest revelation? It's the ssdd pattern of NK.
-
@Victoria33 this is why I told people they should give Trump credit for bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula and for "de-nuclearizing" the Norks until the ink is dry on the papers.
IMHO they agreed to the talks to stall in order to provide cover for something they are doing behind the scenes.
And.... the only reason why the Norks stopped nuke testing is because the testing site collapsed. Did they really think the rest of the world wouldn't figure that one out? :shrug:
-
And.... the only reason why the Norks stopped nuke testing is because the testing site collapsed. Did they really think the rest of the world wouldn't figure that one out? :shrug:
Probably not.
-
I'm a big George W. Bush fan, so I really support Trump in defeating ISIS, both in Iraq and to a lesser extent because we are not allied with Assad, in Syria as well. Trump salvaged Dubya's foreign intervention. Now, Trump has to deal with this other, but I have full confidence in him.
-
L’l Kim woke up to the fact that Trump was holding all the cards going into the upcoming meeting and finally made a move to regain some leverage. Not to worry though, Trump has done this a million times in his career as a negotiator, knows how it all works and is prepared to handle things just fine.
After Trump makes him an offer he can’t refuse, L’l Kim will give up his nuclear ambitions – despite this last minute show of bravado.
Edited to say Kim knows Trump won’t flinch at pushing the button unlike previous presidents. Advantage – ‘dat man he crazy’ – Trump!
-
My two cents' worth (not sure it's even worth 10 cents):
1. Iran and NK have been working together to develop offensive nukes
2. Iran had a massive infusion of money in the recent past; they could easily support NK's efforts to develop nukes, begging the question: is Kim really suffering? (Obviously, whether or not his people are suffering is irrelevant to Kim.)
3. China is probably putting pressure on Kim to deescalate, and well may dislike the idea of Kim having usable nukes.
4. Kim's nuclear mountain collapsed. I doubt that this destroyed his program, unless his paranoia meant that he didn't have backups of all the data.
5. Did his scientists die also? In that case, it could well slow down any development. If both 4 & 5 happened, it could pretty much end it for a long time.
6. Does Kim negotiate in good faith? Using information from past Kims and this one the answer is clearly no.
7. Is this a real opportunity for making NK nukeless? Yes, it very well could be.
-
NK has done this repeatedly over the years, so this isn't a shock.
Standard operating procedure for those folks.
There is nothing anybody on our side had to do right or wrong to bring this about.
It's just the way they are.
It will be interesting to see what comes next.
-
It will be interesting to see what comes next.
Based on what was posted above, it seems obvious what will happen next. Trump will show up with an agreement he had written in Hangul, hands-free, with his member and Kim will love it.
-
Not surprising. Also have read accounts (MSM though) that Kim has been stated that de-nuclearization is not on the table.
How foolish is the orange leader and his orange geese going to look if this is all true?
From potential Nobel Peace Prize to an episode of "Punk'd" in one easy lesson
Why does seem he is foolish?
Someone makes what seems a plausible overture to eliminate a conflict that has been occurring for over 65 years now, and you would rather just ignore the possibility to change things and be content with status quo?
The reasonable thing to do is exactly what Trump has said, and that is to be prepared to meet him under the conditions that have been prescribed.
-
Based on what was posted above, it seems obvious what will happen next. Trump will show up with an agreement he had written in Hangul, hands-free, with his member and Kim will love it.
I'm not sure what this means.
I'm not sure I want to know............
-
To the extent that Gaddafi agreed in good faith to give up his nukes, the end result was the end of his regime, and his humiliating death. There isn't anything the NORKs fear more. The NORKs will give up nukes only if the Kim regime will survive. Solving that conundrum will be quite the challenge - especially since they view their nukes as essential to the regime's survival
There was no correlation whatsover between those two events.
How do you say there was?
-
There was no correlation whatsover between those two events.
How do you say there was?
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.
-
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.
**nononono*
-
**nononono*
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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 (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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/asia/north-korea-john-bolton-trump-intl/index.html)
-
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.
-
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>
-
<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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
@Sanguine
Yeah, and you defend the indefensible, one can not make their argument stand up and now resorts to totally off topic talk, personalizes the conversation. "Blinders", "Thick Skin", what does this have to do with the conversation except to accuse others of not knowing and using a lazy argument. I set out my facts and each of these articles do. It's almost ludicrous to argue the opposite point of view. Who bombed Libya? Nato, the US, France. And we are just talking about jihadists? And if you do not submit to my point of view, I'm going to accuse you of having a thick skin and blinders on and having lived in Libya as if that proves a point of view?
-
@Sanguine
Yeah, and you defend the indefensible, one can not make their argument stand up and now resorts to totally off topic talk, personalizes the conversation. "Blinders", "Thick Skin", what does this have to do with the conversation except to accuse others of not knowing and using a lazy argument. I set out my facts and each of these articles do. It's almost ludicrous to argue the opposite point of view. Who bombed Libya? Nato, the US, France. And we are just talking about jihadists? And if you do not submit to my point of view, I'm going to accuse you of having a thick skin and blinders on and having lived in Libya as if that proves a point of view?
Yes, I was going to suggest we not go off topic. You did bring the blinders and thick skin into the conversation, and other than being insulting, I'm not sure how that was on topic.
I'm not sure what point you are making in the above, so I won't comment.
-
Ladies! Gentlemen! Please, "No fighting in the war room!" :cool:
-
Bolton mentioned the "Libya model" might be how NK goes, North Korea got upset about it. Why would they get upset about it to the point of talking about cancelling this summit is telling in itself.
Saying things such as Libya was peaceful afterwards in 2009 or whenever it was, seems to have a limited bearing to the direct reason, NK got upset at all. It almost appears ludicrous to discuss this.
I'm going to drop this part of the conversation; there are plenty of articles about this. One can't even be certain what is the point of debate from the opposite end.
-
I hope you don't mind if there are others on the thread who would not like to drop part of the conversation....
-
I say it is a personal attack.
You mean like saying everyone who is not a Trump supporter is the same as alqaeda or ISIS?
-
I wonder why what Bolton said would make North Korea upset in the first place?
That's all that needs to be asked, that's the question.
Libya started disarming back in 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
-
I wonder why what Bolton said would make North Korea upset in the first place?
That's all that needs to be asked, that's the question.
Libya started disarming back in 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya
I don't find Bolton mentioned in that article. What was it he supposedly said?
-
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.
@Victoria33
I agree.