North Korea Foreign Ministry says talks with Pompeo 'regrettable,'

a reply to: Isurrender73

We should move everyone who thinks war with South Korea is good to North Korea. Oh, wait, the communists already did that!

Remember that both countries are already at war with each other, officially. And it is very much OK to push for war, it has been for a long time. Although I'm sure the regime has come up with nicer ways to push for war.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Everyone accept Trump and his diehards knew NK idea of denuclearization included the removal of US assets in the region as well as missile defense programs.

NK representatives have made that clear for years and now that Trump has pissed off China and NK has made the US look like the one breaking deals as well as Trump legitimizing little Kim with his meet and greets it looks like the US has lost a ton of credibility to pressure NK.

How is attempting to negotiate with Kim losing credibility? This comment makes no sense. Negotiations should always come before actions. Negotiation can only make the party who is unwilling ro negotiate look bad.

How else are we supposed to solve problems. Should we give the country over to the neocons and just go straight to war. How has the demon we gave birth to in the middle east making the US look right now?

I was liking this post up until the Middle East comment. Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, it's not like we rushed into war. Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and UN for over a decade. We gave him a ton of chances to avoid war.

a reply to: face23785

There were no WMD in Iraq. What was Saddam doing other than killing the Wahhabist who we kept calling freedom fighters? I suggest you have no idea why we went to war. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were never the problem.

They opposed radical islam, we gave Wahhabist money and weapons. Their is absolutely no defending the US actions in the middle east.

Those were wars about money and oil, they had nothing to do with freedom, quality of life or threat to US or US interests.

Re: www.foxnews.com...

Looks like we're going to have to turn on the next batch of sanctions.

Oh well... Trump/Pompeo tried.

originally posted by: carewemust
Re: www.foxnews.com...

Looks like we're going to have to turn on the next batch of sanctions.

Oh well... Trump/Pompeo tried.

This is literally the same story as what was quoted in the OP. It's nothing right now.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
just like Mexico is not paying for the wall.

Short of war, why would they? Would you? I wouldn't.

On the other hand why do they just sit back and let 100,000s come into their country knowing they are heading to America. Whether they pay for the wall or not they are the primary instigator in our border problem and should pay one way or another for that.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: face23785

There were no WMD in Iraq. What was Saddam doing other than killing the Wahhabist who we kept calling freedom fighters? I suggest you have no idea why we went to war. Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were never the problem.

They opposed radical islam, we gave Wahhabist money and weapons. Their is absolutely no defending the US actions in the middle east.

Those were wars about money and oil, they had nothing to do with freedom, quality of life or threat to US or US interests.

I've already derailed another thread straightening out some misconceptions about military spending and the Iraq War. I really don't want to derail this thread.

There were WMD in Iraq though.
See here
and here
and here.
Even the VA has already acknowledged this, unlike Vietnam where the government was in denial about soldiers exposed to agent orange for decades.

We know for a fact they had WMD. They used them on Iran in the 80s. They even used them against their own people. What we got wrong was that they weren't actively producing them anymore. But they did have plans to resume production once they played nice long enough to get all the sanctions lifted, which is the same game Iran is playing right now.

Anyway, like I said I have no wish to derail the thread with a debate about the merits of the Iraq War, I was merely taking exception to the idea that we rushed into war. Nor was it just something cooked up by the Bush administration. The intelligence that led to the invasion had been collected since the Clinton administration.

a reply to: face23785

You mean the chemical weapons the CIA gave him. We gave him the idea and then we killled him for it.

I don't support two-faced leaders.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grimpachi


Say it isn't so! The honeymoon is over before it started! So sad.

So, you enjoy the threat of war? Cool. Moving on...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: face23785

You mean the chemical weapons the CIA gave him. We gave him the idea and then we killled him for it.

No, the ones they produced themselves.

The 1980 Iran-Iraq War gave new impetus to chemical weapons research. In June 1981 Iraq founded Project 922, within the Ministry of Defense, to oversee development and production. [4] Project 922 drew much of its equipment and expertise from the al Rashad laboratory complex of the al Hazen Institute, and was able to produce tens of tons of mustard gas by 1983. [5] Project 922 continued to expand in size and scope, and by 1989 had produced several thousand tons of CW agents, including mustard gas and two different types of nerve agents.

Please see this source that I already sent you once, which you apparently ignored.

There was some behind the scenes stuff with CIA, sure, but let's be fair, who hasn't been #ed with by US intelligence? Better yet, what other country's intelligence apparatus hasn't #ed with just about every other major country, including the US?

Regardless, Iraq had their own CW/BW production program. They weren't just given such weapons by the CIA. That's a fact. Iraq also had their own nuclear program at one point, with some help from the French, but that they were operating themselves for the most part. That was attacked by Iran and later destroyed by Israel.

Hussein continued to have aspirations of eventually restarting WMD production all the way up until the invasion. I don't have a source for that last part, because I read that in a book. I think it was in Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, but I'm not 100% sure. I've read a lot of books the last few years, it's hard to keep them all straight. Saddam didn't admit to that himself, that was intel they gained from interrogating his generals.

I don't support two-faced leaders.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Our problems with Saddam spanned multiple administrations from both major US political parties. It's not like one President set him up and then invaded, which isn't what happened anyway. Again, none of this is to say whether the invasion was a good idea or not. The facts I've presented here don't hinge on whether you were for or against the war, they have no bearing on whether it was a sound decision.

originally posted by: nightbringr

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: pavil
Boy are some people here just drooling hoping the talks with NK fail. Would you just rather we go to open hostilities?

Negotiations will continue.

That's how much they hate Trump. They'd rather see military conflict than have to give Trump credit for success.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I hate both Trump and Hillary.

But let's be honest, all the conservatives in ATS did the exact same thing when Bill Clinton's rapprochement with Kim's father failed. I was here and remember it.

For what it's worth, I am a conservative. You CAN be conservative and despite Trump, btw. And I sincerely do hope for peace. But it was laughable how all the Trumpian lemmings here were convinced beyond a doubt NK would denuclearize.

No, no they didn't. Your wrongness is bigley.

Bill Clinton's Korea deal was in 1993 and Simon didn't even register ATS until 1997. Your lies are laughable.


ETA and no, Trump supporters as a whole seemed to really want peace, but also realize who and what Kim is. hoping for positive things isn't quite the same as being convinced without a doubt. Please don't post things this ignorant again.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grimpachi


Say it isn't so! The honeymoon is over before it started! So sad.

So, you enjoy the threat of war? Cool. Moving on...

I never thought the bromance would last. So sad. It looks like Trump got left at the alter!

Having paid attention to this from the get go, the following can be stated:

The first is to open up with a statement: Once an action has been done, it cannot be undone.

From the start of this, it has been a trap, in favor of North Korea and the US, under the leadership of Trump, took it hook, line and sinker. No country that has ever had nuclear weapons, that they have built, will ever be free of such. They can get rid of the missiles, but the cores still remain and more importantly, the knowledge of such will always be present. Even Russia and the USA have learned this lesson. You see the destruction of the main part of the weapon, but the part that does all of the damage, you never see destroyed, for it is not so easy to unmake or destroy without consequences.

The problem is that North Korea has a habit of this kind of behavior, they sent up signals that they want peace, and then when it looks like there could be progress, will claim to be slighted, or that the terms are unfavorable, and then the talks end and they go back with all gains and not having given anything up. And that is what is going on now, however, the gains that was gotten are more intangible and have are more consequences around the world for both countries.

The president met with the leader of North Korea, however it was done haphazardly, with no conditions, with no definitions and with no real way for them to proceed, save a document that is neither binding or having any real consequences. And therein is the problem the very definitions, of what is said in that document. The president sits alone with no one to whisper into his ear, to give him direction on what may be good for the country, but prefers to go it alone, and thus this is on him, to deal with.

If one thought that this one meeting was going to end the Korean conflict, the answer is no. Unfortunately that will have to be between North and South Korea.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Liberals are the ones who GAVE Trump this economy. You can thank Obama.

What an absurd thing to say that liberals want the economy to fail. It's the Democrats who have to pull this Country up by the boot straps every time after a Republican President ruins the economy. Obama did it after Bush. Clinton did it after Reagan/Bush. And I suspect, whoever the next Dem President is, will have to fix the "tariff" economy that Trump will leave in a complete mess.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So , one member of the N.K. is saying that the Imperial Kim was wrong
Bet that person disappears.
Or Kim has him over for "lunch"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grimpachi


Say it isn't so! The honeymoon is over before it started! So sad.

So, you enjoy the threat of war? Cool. Moving on...

I never thought the bromance would last. So sad. It looks like Trump got left at the alter!

Notice you didn't answer the question. I guess you're fully prepped for November. Got your pink hat and scream to the heavens down?

originally posted by: carewemust
Re: www.foxnews.com...

Looks like we're going to have to turn on the next batch of sanctions.

Oh well... Trump/Pompeo tried.

No they didn't, they just wanted to put together a flimsy pretext for war.