Donald Trump

Expect Trump’s North Korea Talks To Be Fruitless

Whatever we get from North Korea, we can expect to pay for in full.

|

Donald Trump says that if his meeting with Kim Jong Un "is not fruitful," he will "respectfully leave the meeting." My advice would be to wear his walking shoes, because he will probably be taking a hike.

Anytime two enemies sit down to resolve their differences peacefully rather than through war, hopes rise that reason will prevail and compromise will emerge. On Twitter, Trump assured everyone, "Denuclearization will be a great thing for World, but also for North Korea!" It's tempting to think that his combination of insults, threats, and economic pressure has caused the North Koreans to see the error of their ways.

But negotiations are often a tedious exercise in killing time. Often one side is not willing to meet halfway. Often neither is.

These are likely to yield a meager harvest. North Korea began pursuing nuclear weapons some three decades ago. It agreed in 1994 to freeze its nuclear program but cheated on the deal. In 1999, it accepted a moratorium on long-range ballistic missile tests, only to lift it in 2006.

Since then, it has conducted nuclear tests, and it is believed to have some 60 nuclear weapons. It has also tested a variety of missiles, including one capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. Through all this time, efforts by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama failed to persuade Pyongyang to renounce nuclear weapons.

Why isn't Trump likely to succeed? The first reason is that nuclear weapons are the ultimate security guarantee. After the U.S. missile strike against Syrian chemical weapons facilities, super-hawk Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said Bashar Assad had learned the hard way that "weapons of mass destruction won't create a military advantage" and "Kim Jong Un might want to learn the easy way."

Kim undoubtedly reached a different conclusion—that the U.S. felt free to attack because Assad lacks nukes. The strike is bound to have reinforced his belief that he can't afford to give up his most potent arms. If Saddam Hussein had been able to acquire nuclear weapons, he would still be in power, not dead from a hangman's noose.

Kim has generously agreed not to rule out the complete denuclearization that the administration demands. But that's a long way from signing up for it. He may be willing to place some limits on his nuclear arsenal or his missile tests, but such a modest outcome would be hard for Trump to accept.

The second reason to expect failure is that Trump has indicated we can't be trusted. Under the Obama administration, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure and submit to a strict inspections regime. U.N. inspectors have repeatedly affirmed that Iran is complying with the terms.

Yet Trump, his national security adviser, John Bolton, and his nominee for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, all detest the accord. The president said in January that if the Iranian agreement isn't amended to his satisfaction—which is unlikely—he'll abandon it.

He has until May 12 to decide whether to continue waiving U.S. sanctions on Iran, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker predicted last month that he won't. The lesson for North Korea is that even if one president agrees to certain obligations, the next one may renege.

In any case, Trump will have to confront an unpleasant prospect in the talks with North Korea. Kim is not about to trade a cow for a bag of magic beans. Getting him to surrender something the North Koreans value so highly and have invested so much to achieve would require comparable concessions on our part.

What might those be? It wouldn't be enough for the U.S. to lift economic sanctions, normalize relations, and guarantee the security of the regime—all of which would be hard for the administration to swallow. The North Koreans say they won't demand that we withdraw all our troops from the South, but they could insist on such deep cuts that we might as well be gone.

Whatever we get from North Korea, we can expect to pay for in full. Trump may not be willing to bear that cost—or be able to persuade Republicans in Congress to go along. In negotiations such as this, nothing big comes without painful compromises.

We can all hope Washington will succeed in getting Pyongyang to denuclearize. But no one has ever gone broke betting against it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

135 responses to “Expect Trump’s North Korea Talks To Be Fruitless

  1. A mind as fallow as Chapman’s has no cause to exist.

    So Syria left the impression that not having nukes created vulnerability… and Trump, who hasn’t altered the Iran “deal” showed the US to be unreliable and variable from one administration to the next…
    It’s almost as if chappy has never heard of LIBYA.

    Chap”man” – there are several cures for degenerative TDS:
    – a noose
    – rapid deceleration, best when one transitions from high to low altitude
    – arterial laceration
    – high dose of narcotics
    – 1 bullet inserted into brain (not sure if applicable in this case)

    1. Only right-wing snowflakes threaten murder when triggered, or lock ’em up, or censor the free press, or …

      – a noose
      – rapid deceleration, best when one transitions from high to low altitude
      – arterial laceration
      – high dose of narcotics
      – 1 bullet inserted into brain (not sure if applicable in this case)

      Shame on you all.

      Nardz is a typical Trumptard, bullying and shouting down differing views. These are the blowhards who pat each other on the back, laughing and yelling. “Good one!” for the “best” insults and assaults. They BELEEB that being a raging asshole is “politically incorrect” and “saying what he means.” What he “means” is pure, raging hatred.

      Trump has enabled and empowered them. Thank the libertarian establishment, which has NO policy solutions, at a time the Americans are open to even radical change. Trump is the only one who offered that. And the clock is ticking. Left – Right = Zero

      Now count his defenders. (sigh)

      1. Hihn,

        Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

        1. It’s not even the real Hihn. Just some failed, pantomime creature.

          1. ANOTHER ONE!

            These are the bellowing blowhards who pat each other on the back, laughing and yelling. “Good one!” for the “best” insults and assaults. They BELEEB that being a raging asshole is “politically incorrect” and “saying what he means.”

            Now count his defenders. (sigh)

            It’s not even the real Hihn.

            Says FAKANAME!

            (sneer)

            Left – Right = Zero

            1. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time… Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3000 a week… >> http://www.jobs63.com

      2. Not that I’m defending Nardz, but that’s not a threat of murder you cantankerous old coot.

        He very clearly prefaces it with “Chap”man” – there are several cures for degenerative TDS and all of those things he listed are standard suicide methods.

        1. These are the blowhards who pat each other on the back, laughing and yelling. “Good one!” for the “best” insults and assaults.

          Nardz|4.23.18 @ 10:14AM|#
          Hihn,
          Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

        2. These are the blowhards who pat each other on the back, laughing and yelling. “Good one!” for the “best” insults and assaults.

          – a noose
          – rapid deceleration, best when one transitions from high to low altitude
          – arterial laceration
          – high dose of narcotics
          – 1 bullet inserted into brain (not sure if applicable in this case)

          that’s not a threat of murder you cantankerous old coot.

          (smile) Tried to bait me with extreme satire. Even Trumpards aren’t THAT crazy.
          (But they’ll never match Trump!)

  2. This COULD be Trump’s biggest fiasco. It was Kim who proposed the meeting, and he’s been playing Trump like a fiddle … along with Avenati. Such a tiny ego makes him easy to bait. He’s lying here, like everywhere else, claiming Kim has already agreed to denuclearize!

    The timing of the North and South Korea peace treaty shows how badly both leaders want Trump out of their peninsula. And if Trump doesn’t withdraw our troops, Rand Paul finally has the tool of shame he needs.

    But don’t drive Trump to quit too soon. A President Pence, with a GOP Congress, would hand to the Christian Taliban what has been impossible to achieve by the Islamic Taliban. It was Mohammed who first defined the right to use retaliatory force, but only in self-defense. Might that be at risk too?

    1. Trump is better… umm… less bad than Pence.

  3. “I hope for nuclear war because I hate Trump. That’ll show him. Muh principles!”

    1. That’s in your head. There’s no basis to claim Chapman hopes for war because he wants Trump to fail.

      1. Its TDS with folks like you.

        1. For me, it’s GDS.

  4. North Korea now has 60 (sixty!) nukes?!?! Non-proliferation is NOT working!

    Time to tell North Korea, give them ALL up, or it’s time we start selling some nukes to the South Koreans and Japan, if they want them! Else, at least re-deploy USA’s tactical nukes to South Korea!

    What is “Non-proliferation” worth if the bad guys have nukes and the good guys don’t?

    1. What is “Non-proliferation” worth if the bad guys have nukes and the good guys don’t?

      Gun-control only disarms those who follow the rules. Bad guys will still get guns.

      Non-proliferation only disarms those who follow the rules. Bad guys will still get nukes.

      1. There were sever negative consequences for Iran because of their violating the NPT. The consequences were so bad, it made Iran burn through their entire foreign reserves and drove them to the negotiating table.

        Because Obama foolishly let them off the hook isn’t an indictment of the NPT. It’s an indictment of Obama’s naivete, philosophy, and leadership.

        1. You’re an idiot.

          Stopping their nuclear enrichment program cold is not “foolishly letting them off the hook”.

          1. He is a fucking idiot.

            1. “You’re an idiot.”

              —Shrike

              “He is a fucking idiot.”

              —-Get lit

              You’re factually incorrect

              Here’s the citation.

              —-Ken Shultz

              *crickets*

          2. Yet Iran now has more nuclear material than ever before. Genius Democrat logic.

            1. Well what do you want? Hillary was just trying to make a buck!

              1. You been brainwashed again. She had nothing to do with it.

                Left – Right = Zero

                Berniebots = Trumpbots

          3. You’re uninformed.

            They violated the NPT by enriching uranium in secret, and Obama’s agreement allows them to enrich their own uranium again.

            “Under the agreement, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67%.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J….._of_Action

            It isn’t just that the agreement lets them do whatever they want after 15 years. It’s also that they’re allowed to enrich their own uranium at all.

            There was no reason to let them do that again. If they need civilian use grade uranium, they could get it from Russia, China, or somewhere else. There was no need need to let them enrich their own uranium at all–not after they violated the NPT by enriching uranium in secret.

            “Stopping their nuclear enrichment program cold is not “foolishly letting them off the hook”.”

            It’s really not surprising that you thought the agreement stopped them from enriching their own uranium “cold”. You often have no idea what you’re talking about.

            1. It’s really not surprising that you thought the agreement stopped them from enriching their own uranium “cold”. You often have no idea what you’re talking about.

              I don’t get it. It is not like you need to be an expert to know the very basics of the deal.

              Peace with Iran is good, yes. But it doesn’t mean you get to ignore reality and pretend that the Iran deal offered it.

              But that is how these people, modern progressives, think. The superficial is all that matters. The optics are more important than the facts.

              1. It’s just the way Obama sold it. It was sold as a way to avoid war with Iran, so in a lot of people’s minds, not going to war with Iran meant supporting the Iran deal.

                Iran was put under a crippling sanctions program that worked in driving them to the negotiating table. The sanctions program was put into effect by the members of the NPT because Iran was found by the IAEA to be enriching their uranium in secret–in violation of the NPT.

                Their inflation rate was approaching Weimar Republic levels, and they had burned through all of their foreign reserves. Meanwhile, they’re desperately waging a defensive war against the Arab Spring in Syria next door.

                Obama sending them cold cash for non-corrupt reasons is perfectly plausible–since they were out of foreign reserves, couldn’t get access to international credit markets because of sanctions, and were absolutely desperate for financing. We had them by the balls, and the whole world was lined up behind us to stand firm because they were caught enriching their own uranium in secret.

                So what does Obama do?

                He lets the off the hook to enrich their own uranium.

                1. That’s hard for people to grasp–that Obama gave away the farm for nothing. But it’s consistent with other things he did–like the Paris Accord. The purpose is not to advance American security interests. The purpose of the Iran deal was to make it harder for neocons and hawks in future administrations to use the NPT as an excuse to wage war on Iran.

                  Being progressive is all about using the coersive power of govenrment to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good. Sometimes it’s our rights they want us to sacrifice. Sometimes it’s our standard of living they want us to sacrifice for the developing world a la the Paris accord. In the case of Obama’s Iran deal, he wanted us to sacrifice our security for the greater good.

                  People don’t want to believe that. That’s why they don’t understand it.

                  1. Some of us grasp that Obama and his Democrat cohorts gave away much for nothing in return.

                    1. But the smartest of us see how the Authoritarian Right recruits for ISIS, witlessly
                      We are to pledge military force that Israel has the only nukes in the area ……. ummm, if nobody else has nukes, why does Israel need them except for more aggression, says ISIS as they point to the LITERAL Judeo-Christian war on Islam. Jews being the only aggressors in human history to commit mass genocide of an entire culture. (Canaanites) And the ONLY religion that commands to kill all the infidels — for being infidels. (In the Quran, it’s only if they attack the temple)

                      The FIRST Holocaust was committed by Christian Crusaders, who slaughtered thousands of “Christ killers” in — Germany! (The Rhineland Massacres) They continued to Jerusalem where the evicted and/or killed Muslims AND Jews.

                      So how did the Jews return to Jerusalem? Muslims allowed them back in. For which they were “rewarded” by the forced “partitioning” to create the modern state of Israel, on land stolen from the same Muslims who had opened Jerusalem to Jews.

                      In human history, how many massive fuckups have been caused by … ignorance of that history?

                      Oh wait! We need only exterminate Islam!

                  2. Except that Progressivism has never been for any greater good. It is all about power, and easing their conscience with the superficial.

                    Intentions matter more than outcomes. That is how they have to operate, otherwise their conscience would not allow their push for dominating power over everyone.

                    1. It’s what they see as the greater good.

                      Like all collectivism, it’s about denigrating the wants of the few for the needs of the many.

                      It’s about not being selfish and sacrificing our own interests–taking the greater good into consideration instead.

                    2. Progressivism – Christian Taliban = Zero

  5. Here’s my prediction:

    There very well may be a point where one or both parties withdraw from the talks. That’s called negotiation. It’s something most people who are writing about this topic will not comprehend. They will immediately label the whole endeavor a failure. Mr. Chapman will surely write a followup article claiming victory if that occurs. Don’t celebrate just yet. If the breakdown in talks lasts a couple months, then you may claim the deal is dead. Otherwise, don’t take a victory lap while the race is still on.

    1. One of the many problems I have with modern government workers, teachers and journalists; they go straight from college to positions that should be for people who have a lot more real world experience.

      1. Bureaucrats also act as if their way is the only way and the best way.

    2. “They will immediately label the whole endeavor a failure. Mr. Chapman will surely write a followup article claiming victory if that occurs. Don’t celebrate just yet. If the breakdown in talks lasts a couple months, then you may claim the deal is dead. Otherwise, don’t take a victory lap while the race is still on.”

      That’s more or less what happened when Reagan turned his back on Gorbachev at Reykjavik.

      The press went wild celebrating Reagan’s stupid failure.

      Later, when Reagan turned around and embraced Gorbachev, it wasn’t a sign that Reagan had been a shrewd negotiator. It was a sign that that Reagan was feeble and stupid.

      When actions like these ended with the implosion of the USSR without an ICBM being fired, it wasn’t because of anything Reagan did or the way he did it. It wasn’t because of Reykjavik, Pershing missile deployments, creating leverage out of thin air with Star Wars, Stinger missiles to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, stymieing Russian expansion elsewhere in the world, etc., etc.

      No, Reagan was senile, you see. The USSR imploded peacefully as a consequence of effects that happened independently of their causes–like magic. The things that happened to the USSR would have happened anyway–no matter what Reagan did or decided to do. This is how they’ll treat Trump if his negotiations are successful.

      1. Ken, good analysis.

      2. Heads I win, tails you lose.

      3. The summit in Iceland was especially revealing because they said Reagan was an idiot and a war monger because he berated the Soviets and would never agree to nuclear cuts. Then Reagan proposes the complete eliminations of all nuclear weapons…. and Gorbachev agrees! (for a while…. then the advisers prevailed and they all went home). And for proposing complete nuclear disarmament… Reagan is an idiot who doesn’t understand MAD. Probably senile.

        TDS is nothing new. Partisan blinders are as old as politics.

  6. Expect Trump’s North Korea Talks To Be Fruitless

    This is not a news headline, it is a history lesson.
    NK needs time for something. One thing is certain; they will NOT destroy their WMD stockpile under conditions of full verification. Stopping their testing for a time just means they do not need to test at this time.

    I suspect their main goal is to replace the much repudiated cease fire with a real peace treaty. As it is now, the US is at war with North Korea, and those with TDS know he can resume shooting at any time without any bothersome authorizations. More likely, and more effective than the current sanctions, Trump could impose a naval ’embargo’ on ALL trade with NK. Looking at a map, that would leave NK with Russia and China for all trade.

    1. Blow up those bridges, like Truman was too cowardly to do. It’s easy with smart bombs or cruise missiles.

  7. Chapman is so used to lefty politicians giving stuff away to dictators that he set that up as a default.

    One thing Trump definitely is: He is like other politicians.

  8. “Trump has indicated we can’t be trusted. Under the Obama administration, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure and submit to a strict inspections regime. U.N. inspectors have repeatedly affirmed that Iran is complying with the terms.

    Yet Trump, his national security adviser, John Bolton, and his nominee for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, all detest the accord. The president said in January that if the Iranian agreement isn’t amended to his satisfaction?which is unlikely?he’ll abandon it.”

    Under the Iran agreement, the ultimate result of Iran “dismantling” its “nuclear infrastructure” is that Iran becomes eligible to enrich their own uranium again–a right they forfeited when they violated the NPT. I.e., The agreement doesn’t dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure at all–it enables it.

    The purpose of the Obama agreement wasn’t to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iran deal was meant to tie the hands of future American presidents so that they could not use Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as a pretext for war. Much like the Paris Accord, the intention was to force Americans to make sacrifices for the benefit of people elsewhere in the world. If you want to defend such agreements and their intentions, why not do so openly and honestly?

    Is it because the American people would never support agreements that force them to make sacrifices of their standard of living and security for the sake of others elsewhere in the world?

  9. If Obama’s agreement wasn’t ratified by the senate then it isn’t a treaty and says nothing about whether we can be trusted.

    At some point we will recognize that NK isn’t going anywhere.

    I don’t think NK will follow the path of China because China wasn’t a hereditary monarchy and therefore had interests beyond those of the Chairman.

    NK’s goal is to maintain the status quo. Not improve the lives of its citizens.

  10. “Kim is not about to trade a cow for a bag of magic beans. Getting him to surrender something the North Koreans value so highly and have invested so much to achieve would require comparable concessions on our part.

    What might those be? It wouldn’t be enough for the U.S. to lift economic sanctions, normalize relations, and guarantee the security of the regime?all of which would be hard for the administration to swallow. The North Koreans say they won’t demand that we withdraw all our troops from the South, but they could insist on such deep cuts that we might as well be gone.

    You’re completely ignoring China’s interest in this, and there is no good reason to do that. Why would we ignore China’s interest in avoiding a trade war, the concessions China has made on trade over the last two weeks, or the latest Kim being summoned to Beijing to meet with President Xi ahead of North Korea’s announcements that they were dropping their insistence that the U.S. withdraw from South Korea ahead of denuclearization talks–and that complete denuclearization was on the table for discussions in June?

    The question isn’t just what we could offer North Korea. It’s what the U.S. can offer China (an averted trade war) and what both the U.S. and China can offer North Korea.

    And why should we believe that, “it wouldn’t be enough for the U.S. to lift economic sanctions, normalize relations, and guarantee the security of the regime”?. Is it just because you say so?

    1. Yup. Without China, NK is nothing, and they know it. Without US trade, China is nothing, and they know it.

      So Trump puts trade pressure on China.

      All of the dealing will be done with China. It doesn’t matter what Kim or NK wants. The best they can hope for is to save face.

      1. I personally think Trump will go down as a better president than Reagan if he can pull off a great deal with North Korea. Every president since Truman has failed to fix the Korean problem.

        Reagan got credit for the USSR collapsing and the US government did not even see it coming. A resolution with NK would be because of the plan and execution of a deal that Trump made happen.

        1. Reagan made the Soviets communist?

          What a load of shit – even for a parody account.

          1. Butt, you’re admitting that you are a parody account? Finally!

          2. Reagan made the Soviets communist?

            Russia has their Pussy Riot

            Reason Comments has its Goober Riot, a dozen or so sinking submarines per page … debating which one will crash onto the ocean floor first.

        2. Truman could have done that by bombing a few bridges, helping Chiang Kai Shek with his plans to retake China, arming malcontents in Tibet and Xin Jiang, and dropping a few nukes would have wiped out Chinese (and Korean) “Communism”. The Vietnam War would never happened.

          1. *would have

        3. Reagan got credit for the USSR collapsing and the US government did not even see it coming.

          It was intentional, brainwashed child. Planned and predicted. No surprise that you’d despise a (largely) libertarian President. So did Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and their ilk. For the same reason. Love of authoritarianism.

    2. What exactly makes you an expert on foreign policy in Asia? The certainty with which you slather your opinions… How about laying off the confidence pipe for a minute?

      I do not know how many uncles KJU has to blow up with AAA for you to stop repeating this bollocks that NK is some puppet of China. To act like you have some magic eight ball to see what the absolutely incomprehensible Norks want is disingenuous, not even professional analysts at the CIA or State or DIA or academia understand the Norks.

      1. Notice how you provide no counter-points to what Ken says.

      2. 1) Kim went to Beijing to meet with Xi ahead of negotiations with our CIA director.

        2) China announced two weeks ago that they were cutting tariffs on American autos.

        3) China announced last last week that they were eliminating requirements that American companies partner with local Chinese firms to do business in China (a practice that facilitates technology transfers).

        4) North Korea announced that they were dropping the requirement that the U.S. withdraw its troops from the Korean peninsula ahead of any talks regarding denuclearization.

        5) North Korea confirmed that complete denuclearization is on the table for a summit in June.

        Why did these things happen?

        Maybe it’s out of the warmness of Emperor Xi’s heart.

        Maybe it’s because Xi read some thought provoking essays from Cato.

        Maybe it’s because Kim Jong-Un has finally succumbed to our own Francisco D’Anconia’s strategy of holding his breath until either he turns blue or the North Koreans realize that the NAP is rationally deduced from fundamental premises.

        I suspect it’s because this is what shook loose in Trump’s trade war rhetoric with China. By China’s concessions, I suspect they aren’t willing to support North Korea at the expense of a trade war with the U.S., and so they’re offering up North Korea’s nuclear program as a way to mollify Trump’s trade demands.

      3. After all, contentious negotiations are won with leverage, and so when I see concessions materializing, I look for where the leverage is being applied. It’s not unreasonable. It would be unreasonable to suggest that China’s pressure and North Korea’s concessions have nothing to do with Trump’s trade demands at all.

        You’re not one of these people who thinks that because we oppose using trade policy this way, we have to pretend it doesn’t work, are you?

        1. I agree with your assessments Ken.

          I just hope Trump and his advisors can pull it off.

          1. Indeed. The irony is that if Trump really does this amd NK actually dumps their nuke program, Trumo will be deserving of a Nobel Peace Peoze he will never be given. The same prize Obama received, but never earned.

            1. You really do impress me. That you can keep track of SO many witless conspiracies.

  11. I saw this piece coming from a mile away.

    Yesterday morning I wrote the following:

    “I’m seeing a newly emerging meme, where people feel like they have to shit on denuclearization talks with North Korea if they don’t like Trump. It seems to be all over the place right now.

    I assure you, it’ll still be okay to be against Trump–even if he succeeds in shutting down North Korea’s nuclear program through peaceful negotiations. There’s no need to root for the North Koreans–like you’re Jane Fonda posing on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun. Can’t you just oppose Trump for other reasons?

    Hoping that the president is successful against our enemies through peaceful negotiations is something all reasonable Americans should hope for. Those who hope Trump fails at this are a liability to their political causes, whatever they are.”

    —-Ken Shultz

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/04…..nt_7236176

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    1. TDS prevents the sufferer from using reason to justify when to be okay with the good things Trump does for America and oppose Trump when the things he does are not good for America.

      Shikha suffers from this because she does not act in American’s interests unless the USA is remade in the form of shithole countries.

      Chapman suffers from TDS for other reasons.

      1. There’s probably more to this than simple TDS.

        TDS is when you can’t see straight because Trump is in the picture.

        People who hope bad things for American security are suffering a moral failure much deeper than a lack of objectivity.

        1. Chapman doesn’t hope America fails. That’s just some sick shit you made up.

          1. I don’t know what’s in any individual’s heart, which is why I wrote “if the shoe fits, wear it”.

            Do you not understand what that means?

            Do you not understand that I wrote that comment yesterday–before Chapman’s piece was posted?

            1. I read too much of your crap. Never again. The comment section here is worthless.

              1. Am I to understand that you find Chapman’s two reasons to doubt that Trump’s negotiations will be successful to be legitimately persuasive?

                1. Get Lit finds any lefty reasoning super compelling.

                  Actual discussion about foreign and domestic US policy he finds frustrating.

                  1. Well, if he finds Chapman’s reasons compelling, he should say so or defend them.

                    If they’re indefensible, I’m not the only one who might speculate as to their motivation.

                    Yeah, TDS is one thing, but people suffering from that disorder should snap out of it if it makes them write pieces that are so bad, readers might think they’re rooting for America to lose.

                    I’m not sure Jane Fonda wanted America to lose either. Still, climbing onto that North Vietnamese AA gun, with spent shell casings all around it, I can understand why people might get confused about what she wanted, right?

                    If Obama were negotiating with the North Koreans right now, I’d hope that the negotiations were wildly successful.

              2. Reminds me of an old joke. “If the Foo shits, wear it”.

          2. Chapman most certainly does want America to fail. He is treasonous at heart, just like every other progressive.

            1. Umm, libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for only 50 years now..

              Fiscally conservative and socially conservative is …………….CONSERVATIVE!
              Fiscally liberal and socially liberal is …………..LIBERAL

              Libertarians are also tolerant, so we have you on bigotry, on top of that ignorance.

              Left – Right = Zero
              And less than 40% of the population combined.

      2. Shikha is driven by vengeance of some oppression that only exists in her mind, Chapman is driven by virtue-signaling/being a moron.

        1. Dipshit Scumbagetta is a hatin’ on whitey wholesaler, and Chapwoman is a guilt-ridden bulk buyer.

      3. I noticed this last night. The coverage all over the news was negative.

        NBC said that North Korea didn’t actual make any concessions at all in stopping their testing, because they hadn’t tested anything in the last month and a half. (therefore they had already stopped testing)

        The lengths people are going to in order to twist reality to fit a story where Trump is always the bad guy, always stupid and always evil are mind boggling.

        Will NK abide by any agreement they make? No, of course not. Just ask Clinton. He made a deal with them over the objections of everyone on the right. It failed miserably. And now Team Clinton runs around everywhere trying to ensure that any criticism of this deal is labeled “fake news”. (#3 link on google search is a denial piece)

        Obama failed in his negotiations with NK… and now the left editorials are taking great joy in calling Republicans hypocrites for supporting Trump after opposing Obama…. all while decrying Trump’s efforts.

        It is just pathetic.

        1. Trump also lied about denuclearization.
          YOU lie about the testing, Trumptard. Trump’s here lie is that they’ve agreed to stop testing … but only until the talks … so a fucking dictator has more negotiating class. Still.

  12. Even if the talks are fruitless, the odds that US interests will be worse off after than we are now are close to zero. Simply put, there is nothing lost by trying.

    1. And everything to gain from peaceful talks.

      The alternative is war with North Korea at some point. For those who think this will never happen, the US is technically still at war with North Korea after NK invaded South Korea in June 1950.

      A side note is that Stalin sent some of his best WWII generals to give military advice to Kim II-Sung and the North Korea army and were out maneuvered by America’s best WWII general, MacArthur, until hordes of Chinese crossed the Yalu River when dropping nukes on the Chinese was taken off the table by Truman.

      1. +1 reality

    2. That is true. I don’t expect anything to come from this, but there is nothing to lose at this point. It is just infuriating knowing that if these same exact events were happening 3 years ago, we would be hearing an endless parade of worship and praise of Obama for being a political genius who is achieving a glorious world peace.

      1. To be fair, Trump did not get a Nobel Peace Prize, so he cannot possibly know what he is doing in Korea.

        1. Trump got a Stormy Piece Prize. Which is a heck of a lot better than a metal from some Norwegian idiots.

          1. Would/Wood have. Now, not so much.

        2. “To be fair, Trump did not get a Nobel Peace Prize, so he cannot possibly know what he is doing in Korea.”

          Maybe that’s the reason he hasn’t started any new wars?

  13. Send in Dennis Rodman again. He is smarter than The Dotard and might accidentally do something right.

    1. Dollars to doughnuts, Rodman is working for the CIA.

      1. Doughnuts are much more expensive now. Throw in a free coffee.

      2. The question is, did Kim honeydick him?

  14. “It agreed in 1994 to freeze its nuclear program but cheated on the deal.”

    This is an oversimplification. During Clinton’s administration, Republicans in Congress refused to provide funding that Clinton had promised the North Koreans, and when the Bush administration came in, they effectively withdrew from the “deal”, preferring the “shock and awe” that worked so well in Iraq. Ever since the Carter administration, Republicans have tried to wreck any international agreement made by the Democrats. Since the Clinton administration, they have tried to wreck anything associated with the Democrats, foreign or domestic.

    1. Because GOP policy is based on lies and The Bible. The dumb motherfuckers think Jeeby is coming back to Israel and will sort the good from the bad.

    2. Agreements that the Democrats made?

      Here are some “great” agreements that Democrats made or tried to make:
      Income Tax (Wilson)
      League of Nations (Wilson)
      FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin after WWII (Deal made under FDR and finalized under Truman)
      The Armistice in Korea (It was negotiated under Truman and signed under Eisenhower)
      Bay of Pigs and Cuba’s embargo (JFK)
      Support for South Vietnam (JFK)
      All in for South Vietnam (LBJ)
      Support for Shah of Iran (Carter)
      NAFTA (Clinton)
      Iran Nuclear Deal Framework (Obama)
      TPP (Obama)

      Democrats are the absolute worse for American interests.

      1. The greatest things that Democrats have done were actually done by Republicans. (Ending Slavery, Women’s Suffrage, End of Jim Crowe)

        The Democratic Party has done far, far more damage to this country than good. I wouldn’t trust them with negotiations with foreign powers, either.

        1. Not to mention ending the Vietnam War and visiting China.

      2. Amd people complain when I talk of cleansing them from America.

        1. Like Hitler did with the the Jews?
          Your own KKK tried with the blacks?

  15. “Under the Obama administration, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure and submit to a strict inspections regime. U.N. inspectors have repeatedly affirmed that Iran is complying with the terms.”

    sigh.

    1. It’s true except if you are a GOP retard who hates facts and believes the crap in the Bible.

      1. Butt, how much does that goal post moving machine cost to operate?

        1. “Under the Obama administration, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure and submit to a strict inspections regime. U.N. inspectors have repeatedly affirmed that Iran is complying with the terms.”

          Stick that up your dumb ass parody GOP account.

          1. Yet Iran has more nuclear weapon grade material than ever before. Block-yo-momma logic.

            Butt, I am glad that you finally admitted that you are a parody account.

          2. Reuters reported that exemptions were granted to Iran prior to 16 January 2016. The reported purpose of the exemptions was so that sanctions relief and other benefits could start by that date, instead of Iran being in violation. The exemptions included: (a) Iran able to exceed the 300 Kg of 3.5% LEU limit in the agreement; (b) Iran able to exceed the zero Kg of 20% LEU limit in the agreement; (c) Iran to keep operating 19 “hot cells” that exceed the size limit in the agreement; (d) Iran to maintain control of 50 tonnes of heavy water that exceed the 130 tonne limit in the agreement by storing the excess at an Iran-controlled facility in Oman.[90] In December 2016, the IAEA published decisions of the Joint Commission that spell out these clarifications of the JCPOA

            Straight from Wikipedia.

            When you’re wrong, you are spectacularly wrong.

            Oh, and the anti-christian thing is so overplayed now, find another shtick.

          3. Iran themselves boast of new deadly weapons. Their claim. But PB will believe any kind of pro democrat bullshit. What a pathetic cunt PB must be. Best thing is for him to commit suicide right away.

          4. Iran themselves boast of new deadly weapons. Their claim. But PB will believe any kind of pro democrat bullshit. What a pathetic cunt PB must be. Best thing is for him to commit suicide right away.

            1. Iran themselves boast of new deadly weapons. Their claim.

              Not nuclear. (lol)

  16. Chapman is now all about war with North Korea and Russia. This is pathetic.

    1. Doesn’t Chapman ramble about the NAP on other topics but gets a war boner when it comes to Russia and NK?

    2. The faux-libertarians writers on this site, who are really just neo-liberals, make it ridiculously easy to spot them.

  17. If Saddam Hussein had been able to acquire nuclear weapons, he would still be in power, not dead from a hangman’s noose.

    True.

    Iran can’t trust The Dotard unless he re-ups the Iran deal on May 12.

    1. There also might not be any Iraqi Kurds or Marsh Arabs left, and we could be in a full-blown nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq. I think the Iraq War was an obvious mistake, but conjecturing about the past is useless. We have no idea what would have happened.

      1. Drain the swamp wasn’t an original idea.

    2. We don’t have that many pallets of foreign cash lying around to give Iran to continue that deal Obama made.

  18. Hey Steve Chpaman fuck you. Stop writing you suck.

  19. Look, negotiations with NK are very unlikely to succeed. Anyone with half a brain should know this. Clinton failed. Bush failed. Obama failed.

    The first reason these talks are likely doomed to fail is that the North Korean government is a cult with a Kim as god at the head, but more reliant on the US as the devil. It permeates everything about their country. It is a focal point of their education. It is at the center of their foreign relations. They are still on a war footing with the US.

    Second – what are their incentives? Champan touches on this. They don’t want an open society. They don’t want closer ties with the US. They don’t want most of what we can offer them. They do want to win in the conflict with the US. They do want to reunify Korea (under their control). A nuclear weapons program interferes with their ability to have an open society and free trade with western nations – something they do not want. A nuclear weapons program does not interfere with their ambitions of staying in power, unifying Korea under their flag, defeating the US….. it actually helps in these areas. So why exactly would they want to give it up?

    1. Third… and maybe most salient… they are crazy. Crazy, crazy, crazy. Anyone who thinks this is just hyperbole merely needs to find any documentary footage on North Korea. I recommend the Vice Guide to North Korea, because it is funny and sad. Others are just sad.

      They will renig on any deal they make when they feel it is in their interest to do so.

      Still, it doesn’t hurt to take the call. It isn’t like it costs us anything.

      1. China is the key here. China can make NK do things it does not want to do.

        China does want peaceful trade with the USA until they are ready for total war with the USA. China is building those man-made islands for a reason and that is a defensive shield to American naval attack. They think can see us coming.

      2. The people are indeed crazy, and I second your Vice recommendation.
        But Kim, and the regime, are neither crazy nor stupid.
        Everything Kim has done in the last 2-3 years has simply been application of the lessons implied by BO’s Iran “deal” (don’t forget that Iran and NK are allies): rattle sabre, make superficial “concessions”, get paid.
        It’s probable that it took some time from transition in our leadership for Kim (and China) to realize that 45 wasn’t going to just bend over like BO, and that a different approach is necessary.
        Not time to spike the ball yet, but a good start.

      3. “Third… and maybe most salient… they are crazy. Crazy, crazy, crazy. ”

        They’re clowns and idiots too. As long as you’re parroting media talking points, you might as well go the whole way.

        1. Watch the various documentaries – start with Vice, then move on to the ones done by people who talk to refugees (escapees). Then go back to friendly reports done with NK hand holding. You’ll find that the official propaganda does not undermine the reporting by outside groups at all.

          They really do have the USA as the prime enemy and full-time foil of everything Korean. They really do run the state as a cult of personality.

          Here’s a link to the Vice guide.

          If you’ve never seen the old Vice guides, this is how they earned their stripes. They are really unique. Well worth the time.

          1. I may have seen them already. It’s been around for a while, I believe. My advice: don’t underestimate Koreans. Bush did that and they are now one of a dozen or so countries in the world with nuclear and missile capabilities.

  20. Keep on dropping South Korean DVDs into DPRK and see how long Fat Boy Kim Hangs onto power.

  21. Trump’s talks may be fruitless, but it may not matter. Trump has been outflanked by the South Koreans who are already talking with the North and relations continue to warm between the two. These are the talks that will matter and Trump will probably be forced to abide by them. Trump already agreed to halt provocative military exercises, so he’s contributed to a peaceful atmosphere.

    1. I wonder why South Korea has not worked out a solution in 65 years?

      Maybe they work something out while NK and SK troops stare at each other in the Blue Buildings at JSA.

      1. “I wonder why South Korea has not worked out a solution in 65 years?”

        The last time relations between North and South Korea were warming was when Kim Daejung was president of South Korea and was pursuing the ‘sunshine’ policy. Bush Jr. put a stop to that. Now Trump is president and he has chosen not to follow Bush’s lead. He’s not stopping the warming relations, at least not yet.

        1. mtrueman|4.23.18 @ 12:12PM|#
          “The last time relations between North and South Korea were warming was when Kim Daejung was president of South Korea and was pursuing the ‘sunshine’ policy. Bush Jr. put a stop to that. Now Trump is president and he has chosen not to follow Bush’s lead. He’s not stopping the warming relations, at least not yet.”

          trueman knows this since it was in Parade Magazine this weekend.

          1. Thanks for your response.

    2. I don’t know how many times reality can slap people in the face before they get it.

      CHINA is in charge of NK’s future. The Trump administration is putting trade pressure on China. Deals are made with CHINA. SK/NK talks, US/NK talks are just for NK to save face and to distance the fact that China is making the decisions.

      This is the difference between Trump and other administrations. He knows who he is dealing with and who the front is.

      1. “CHINA is in charge of NK’s future. ”

        I don’t think China has the ability to iron out a peace deal between North and South Korea, or has much say in the placing of US military assets on the peninsula. You overestimate the ability of China and underestimate the importance of USA, North and South Korea, each with their own interests, and a determination to pursue them, distinct from China’s and each others.

  22. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  23. The talks won’t be fruitless for North Korea. They will extort energy and food from the US without paying any price. That has been their goal all along.

  24. They’d be fools to give up their nukes. BUT to settle for having a limited arsenal should be an acceptable compromise for the US anyway… Maybe SK and Japan won’t feel too stoked about them giving up on ICBMs, but for me living in Seattle it’d make me happy!

    The only way for them to ever give up nukes would be to have Kim step down and truly begin reunification. If he gets indemnity for crimes of the government, and is allowed to live in exile somewhere with billions, that’s his best out. Other than that he just needs to rule with an iron fist until he dies, whether that be assassination or old age. Those are the only 2 viable options. We’ve let some pretty awful dictators live in exile before, so I don’t see why we couldn’t do it for Kim.

  25. great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.