International John Bolton torpedoed the Trump/Kim Hanoi summit

[lfd0311]

Because NK first strike wouldn't be at the US, it would be at SK. Why would you think there wouldn't be mass casualties in a preemptive NK strike on SK?

If it were to use nukes, maybe. We don't know that. If you're talking conventional weapons this is absurd.

We've tried segregating and denouncing NK. Not recognizing it's leadership and sanctions. We've showcased military might with training exercises and have talked tough. We've barked about as loud as one country can without biting. And it's had zero effect.

We also tried helping them join the U.N. and trying the softest shoe approaches imaginable. They never intended to follow through with their end of the agreements a single time.

Trump is trying a drastically different approach. He hasn't gotten much further, but I think it has more potential

What drastically different approach is it that you think he's trying? Telling them to disarm, when our position for decades is you can't have those to begin with?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Expecting NK to agree to follow the Libya/Ghaddafi model borders on a level of low intelligence that is mind boggling.

No rational actor in NK's position, especially the Kims of all people, would even consider it.

Bringing in Bolton is definitely a top 3 blunder for Trump. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[hillelslovak87]

When you don't have a point to make, just try insults! That's how you know you've won.

Case rested.

 

[Mcountry]

If it were to use nukes, maybe. We don't know that. If you're talking conventional weapons this is absurd.



We also tried helping them join the U.N. and trying the softest shoe approaches imaginable. They never intended to follow through with their end of the agreements a single time.



What drastically different approach is it that you think he's trying? Telling them to disarm, when our position for decades is you can't have those to begin with?

I've only ever know the strong arm we don't recognize NK leadership or claims of leadership, sanctions approach. So if we've tried a more civil sit down and negotiate approach, I'm not aware of it.

Do you have any sources that suggest NK wouldn't inflict large number of SK casualties if attacked?

 

[7437]

Got it, you don't have one.

You honestly believe that we wouldn't have attacked NK by now if they didn't have nukes? Laughable. Axis of evil?

Even Trump said that we almost started a big war with them. It's not a secret, and it's not up for debate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/us/politics/trump-obama-north-korea.amp.html

 

[lfd0311]

You honestly believe that we wouldn't have attacked NK by now if they didn't have nukes? Laughable. Axis of evil?

Even Trump said that we almost started a big war with them. It's not a secret, and it's not up for debate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/us/politics/trump-obama-north-korea.amp.html

How long has North Korea had nukes? This is honestly embarrassing.

 

[lfd0311]

I've only ever know the strong arm we don't recognize NK leadership or claims of leadership, sanctions approach. So if we've tried a more civil sit down and negotiate approach, I'm not aware of it.

The first President Bush tried to help them join the UN. Both Clinton and W signed a number of agreements with them that were meant to stop them from obtaining nukes. They never honored them and we did nothing about it. You should pay closer attention to history, this is less than 20 years ago.

Do you have any sources that suggest NK wouldn't inflict large number of SK casualties if attacked?

Sources? Dude, try not just repeating every Left Wing fear mongering talking point you hear and apply a little logic to it first. First of all, South Korea is about twice the size of of North Korea. North Korea's military is perpetually stuck in the 50's, with painfully obsolete Soviet and Chinese equipment that is, once again, from the 50s. Their air force has about 1000 planes altogether, and of the fighters the most recent model is the MIG 23 which the Soviets stopped making in the late 60s. The South Koreans on the other hand have new equipment made by us. South Koreans have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The South Koreans have the F-16, the F-15, The F-5 Tiger and other fighters that were specifically designed for them by the best companies in the US. They have C-130s, Choppers, etc. South Korea on it's own would roll North Korea up in about the same amount of time it took us to roll up Iraq during the invasion. And if this war were to really happen, it wouldn't just be South Korea, it would be South Korea, The US, probably the Brits and most likely China. And yes, I know China is their ally, but as we saw last year, China is getting tired of thier nonsense too and if we were to actually ever invade North Korea it would not be without China's permission and more than likely thier assistance, since the last thing China wants is to be drug into a war with the West over North Korea, and would be coming in the keep Westerners as far from the actual real border of China as possible. So the idea that North Korea, given this scenario, would do anything other than implode, is a little ridiculous.

 

[Mcountry]

The first President Bush tried to help them join the UN. Both Clinton and W signed a number of agreements with them that were meant to stop them from obtaining nukes. They never honored them and we did nothing about it. You should pay closer attention to history, this is less than 20 years ago.



Sources? Dude, try not just repeating every Left Wing fear mongering talking point you hear and apply a little logic to it first. First of all, South Korea is about twice the size of of North Korea. North Korea's military is perpetually stuck in the 50's, with painfully obsolete Soviet and Chinese equipment that is, once again, from the 50s. Their air force has about 1000 planes altogether, and of the fighters the most recent model is the MIG 23 which the Soviets stopped making in the late 60s. The South Koreans on the other hand have new equipment made by us. South Koreans have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The South Koreans have the F-16, the F-15, The F-5 Tiger and other fighters that were specifically designed for them by the best companies in the US. They have C-130s, Choppers, etc. South Korea on it's own would roll North Korea up in about the same amount of time it took us to roll up Iraq during the invasion. And if this war were to really happen, it wouldn't just be South Korea, it would be South Korea, The US, probably the Brits and most likely China. And yes, I know China is their ally, but as we saw last year, China is getting tired of thier nonsense too and if we were to actually ever invade North Korea it would not be without China's permission and more than likely thier assistance, since the last thing China would be coming in the keep Westerners as far from the actual real border of China as possible. So the idea that North Korea, given this scenario, would do anything other than implode, is a little ridiculous.

Jesus you are a bitchy little dude.

 

[Prutfis]

Or maybe because the Iran deal was shit and stopped Iran from doing literally nothing it wasn't doing already.

Bull fucking shit. Irans nuclear capabilities had been crippled.

Let me know when Trumps strategy of taking it up the ass from Kim gets just 1/10th of the results the Iran deal has gotten.

The amount of spin you are putting on this is pretty amazing. Even from a partisan hack like you.

 

[lfd0311]

Bull fucking shit. Irans nuclear capabilities had been crippled.

Let me know when Trumps strategy of taking it up the ass from Kim gets just 1/10th of the results the Iran deal has gotten.

The amount of spin you are putting on this is pretty amazing. Even from a partisan hack like you.

Please go into great detail for me about how they were crippled.

 

[lfd0311]

Jesus you are a bitchy little dude.

LOL, ok. I just brought up a little reality and it crushed your talking point. If that's "bitchy" so be it. Notice how you weren't actually receptive to the information or tried to refute it in any way?

 

[Mcountry]

LOL, ok. I just brought up a little reality and it crushed your talking point. If that's "bitchy" so be it. Notice how you weren't actually receptive to the information or tried to refute it in any way?

20 years ago I wasn't following talking/following politics.

You think I'm left but I'm actually conservative. You don't come across as informative, only opinionated and aggressive.

You are kind of a cunt. If that was your goal...congrats?

 

[lfd0311]

20 years ago I wasn't following talking politics.

So maybe don't lead into conversations with "If it's occured, I'm not aware of it", because it has occured, many times, in the not too distant past. That's not me being a jerk, that's you being uninformed.

You think I'm left but I'm actually conservative. You don't come across as informative, only opinionated and aggressive.

Where did I say you were a Leftists? I said you were repeating a Left Wing talking point, which you objectively are. Those are two different things. And if I'm not coming across as informative, why did you not, once again, address what I said?

You are kind of a cunt. If that was your goal...congrats?

I mean, if that's what you have to tell yourself to deal with how wrong you just were, that it's actually just me being a jerk of some sort.

 

[Mcountry]

So maybe don't lead into conversations with "If it's occured, I'm not aware of it", because it has occured, many times, in the not too distant past. That's not me being a jerk, that's you being uninformed.



Where did I say you were a Leftists? I said you were repeating a Left Wing talking point, which you objectively are. Those are two different things. And if I'm not coming across as informative, why did you not, once again, address what I said?



I mean, if that's what you have to tell yourself to deal with how wrong you just were, that it's actually just me being a jerk of some sort.

I'm completely ok with being wrong sometimes. I'm just calling you out for being an overly aggressive cunt. If you want people to listen to your view point. Don't be such a cunt, and then I will focus in less on you being a cunt, and more on your talking points.

That's grown up talk for "calm down, little dude".

 

[Prutfis]

Please go into great detail for me about how they were crippled.

If you don´t know the details of the Iran nuclear deal and what it had already accomplished you probably shouldn´t be posting extremely stupid shit about the Iran deal..

98% reduction in fissile material
Over 75% of centrifuges destroyed leaving only older models
Enrichment and refining processes reduced massively
Only heavy water reactor destroyed
Massive reductions in nuclear research
Break-out time gone from 2-3 months to 2-3 years
Ongoing inspections

The Iran deal was working very well as every agency and government involved (except Trump) were saying..

Now let me know when Trump gets 1/10th of that from NK. So far he has given Kim everything he wants and gotten nothing in return. Kim has played him like a great big orange fiddle, and quite easily, by catering to his large ego.

If you want to call the Iran deal shitty, fine by all means. Then be a bit consistant and admit that Trumps dealings with NK aren´t even close to anything the Iran deal accomplished and is 10 times shittier.

 

[lfd0311]

If you don´t know the details of the Iran nuclear deal and what it had already accomplished you probably shouldn´t be posting extremely stupid shit about the Iran deal..

98% reduction in fissile material
Over 75% of centrifuges destroyed leaving only older models
Enrichment and refining processes reduced massively
Only heavy water reactor destroyed
Massive reductions in nuclear research
Break-out time gone from 2-3 months to 2-3 years
Ongoing inspections

The Iran deal was working very well as every agency and government involved (except Trump) were saying..

Now let me know when Trump gets 1/10th of that from NK. So far he has given Kim everything he wants and gotten nothing in return. Kim has played him like a great big orange fiddle, and quite easily, by catering to his large ego.

If you want to call the Iran deal shitty, fine by all means. Then be a bit consistant and admit that Trumps dealings with NK aren´t even close to anything the Iran deal accomplished and is 10 times shittier.

What do you think the Iran deal would have achomplished? With the stuff we were allowing Iran to keep plus what they had the ability to create we weren't delaying them at all. It amazes me that intelligent people like you can't draw direct comparisons to the Iran Deal and the Agreed Framework with North Korea, while at the same time talking about North Korea. The Agreed Framework was supposed to prevent NK from being able to obtain or produce nuclear material. It didn't. Not for a second. Neither would the the Iran Deal. Iran would have been able to, under the agreement, use up to 5000 of their centrifuges for production, yet we came to find out that in the time period after stuxnet they were never using more than 4000 to produce the stockpile that they already had. It's fantasy to think that this in any way really prevented Iran from doing anything they didn't want to do, and all they had to do was agree to a bunch of things that couldn't be enforced through anything other than war to get 150 billion dollars from the US, with a timetable of 15 years before the US could even really call them on doing anything sketchy. And at the end of all of that, it really would just push their nuclear weapons making abilities back about a year from the end of the agreement, which means they could have, with the stuff we knew they already had and being given 15 years to destroy or sell, have made a nuke a few years ago.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm completely ok with being wrong sometimes. I'm just calling you out for being an overly aggressive cunt. If you want people to listen to your view point. Don't be such a cunt, and then I will focus in less on you being a cunt, and more on your talking points.

Maybe don't be so sensitive on the internet.

That's grown up talk for "calm down, little dude".

Bro, you're clearly like 23 at best, knock it off.

 

[Prutfis]

What do you think the Iran deal would have achomplished? With the stuff we were allowing Iran to keep plus what they had the ability to create we weren't delaying them at all. It amazes me that intelligent people like you can't draw direct comparisons to the Iran Deal and the Agreed Framework with North Korea, while at the same time talking about North Korea. The Agreed Framework was supposed to prevent NK from being able to obtain or produce nuclear material. It didn't. Not for a second. Neither would the the Iran Deal. Iran would have been able to, under the agreement, use up to 5000 of their centrifuges for production, yet we came to find out that in the time period after stuxnet they were never using more than 4000 to produce the stockpile that they already had. It's fantasy to think that this in any way really prevented Iran from doing anything they didn't want to do, and all they had to do was agree to a bunch of things that couldn't be enforced through anything other than war to get 150 billion dollars from the US, with a timetable of 15 years before the US could even really call them on doing anything sketchy. And at the end of all of that, it really would just push their nuclear weapons making abilities back about a year from the end of the agreement, which means they could have, with the stuff we knew they already had and being given 15 years to destroy or sell, have made a nuke a few years ago.

So your feelings are more correct than the experts and agencies actually overseeing the deal. Hmmkay. Way to dodge all the points made. So much completely false information in your post.

I don´t think you understand this deal or anything about nuclear tech to be honest. There is a massive difference between nuclear tech for energy and the tech and processes for weapons grade materials. They had 0 weapons grade Uranium and no means of production.
They had no way to produce weapons grade plutonium. They were left with less than 300kg of non-weapons grade uranium. Fact is that Irans capabillities in regards to producing nuclear weapons was crippled.

It amazes me that people can shit on the Iran deal (while being totally clueless about the actual deal) and it´s results while praising Trump for the NK situation.

Get back to me when Trump gets 1/10th of the results the Iran deal got.

 

[lfd0311]

So your feelings are more correct than the experts and agencies actually overseeing the deal. Hmmkay. Way to dodge all the points made. So much completely false information in your post..

I hate this bullshit tactic. When you can't actually defend your own position, just fall back on the old "MMkay, you know more than the experts, mmkay" position.

I don´t think you understand this deal or anything about nuclear tech to be honest. There is a massive difference between nuclear tech for energy and the tech and processes for weapons grade materials. They had 0 weapons grade Uranium and no means of production.
They had no way to produce weapons grade plutonium. They were left with less than 300kg of non-weapons grade uranium. Fact is that Irans capabillities in regards to producing nuclear weapons was crippled.

That's absolutely false. They had enough in 2015 to make at least 1 bomb. They had been enriching uranium at Nantaz for years. Speaking of Nantaz, do you know where the exact number of 5060 centrifuges in the Iran deal came from? It's the exact max capacity number of centrifuges at Nantaz. So how exactly does that prevent Iran from building a nuke?

https://www.armscontrol.org/print/3988

Contrary to UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment, Iran continues to enrich uranium to low levels at its commercial-scale enrichment plant at Natanz and has been installing additional centrifuges.

Since the last IAEA inspection in August, Iran has installed about 400 centrifuges, for a total of about 8,700 machines. The number of centrifuges currently enriching uranium, however, has continued to decline in recent months. In May, Iran was producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) with about 5,000 centrifuges. The latest IAEA report indicates it is now doing so with about 4,000. The reason for the decline is unclear.

In spite of the decrease in the number of centrifuges enriching uranium, however, Iran’s rate of LEU production has remained at about 85 kilograms per month, suggesting a slight increase in efficiency. Iran has accumulated a stockpile of about 1,760 kilograms of LEU since enrichment operations began in 2006, according to IAEA estimates.

It amazes me that people can shit on the Iran deal (while being totally clueless about the actual deal) and it´s results while praising Trump for the NK situation.

Get back to me when Trump gets 1/10th of the results the Iran deal got

This shows how amazingly partisan you are. Who is defending Trump? If pointing out that simply continuing policy towards North Korea for 30+ years that crossed party lines isn't something to be critized for is "defending" him, then yeah, I'm defending him>

1/10th of what? Giving Iran a 15 year window to sell of it's nuclear material while allowing it to continue to produce more at the same rate it already was with no way to stop them other than war? Yeah pal, great deal.

 

[Prutfis]

I hate this bullshit tactic. When you can't actually defend your own position, just fall back on the old "MMkay, you know more than the experts, mmkay" position.



That's absolutely false. They had enough in 2015 to make at least 1 bomb. They had been enriching uranium at Nantaz for years. Speaking of Nantaz, do you know where the exact number of 5060 centrifuges in the Iran deal came from? It's the exact max capacity number of centrifuges at Nantaz. So how exactly does that prevent Iran from building a nuke?

https://www.armscontrol.org/print/3988





This shows how amazingly partisan you are. Who is defending Trump? If pointing out that simply continuing policy towards North Korea for 30+ years that crossed party lines isn't something to be critized for is "defending" him, then yeah, I'm defending him>

1/10th of what? Giving Iran a 15 year window to sell of it's nuclear material while allowing it to continue to produce more at the same rate it already was with no way to stop them other than war? Yeah pal, great deal.

So clueless about the deal it´s becoming pretty funny.

You are the one who uses "your feels" as an argument over experts. Sorry that you don´t like that being pointed out.

Iran actually had material for 10 bombs by 2015, before the deal was effectively in place, and could produce them in 2-3 months. After the deal started being implemented they were left with no viable weapons grade material and a timeframe of 2-3 years to even get the production facilities online.

The restructuring of the Natanz facillity (and Fordo) was an explicit part of the deal. The centrifuges they were left with were the oldest models not capable of producing enriched uranium anywhere near the amounts needed. Their stockpile was reduced to 300kg at 3.67% enrichment (you need over 90% for weapons grade). Can´t be exceeded before 2031.
The Fordo facility has been completely restructured.
Their heavy water reactor was destroyed, so they couldn´t produce weapons grade plutonium.

They didn´t get a 15 year window to sell nuclear material (most of it was shipped to Russia ASAP) with the only option being war, that´s just plain false and ignorant. There was a 15 year limit before Natanz can even change their centrifuges from the oldest models that they were left with. They have a 24 day window to comply with requests for access by the IAEA..

They have no working pathway to weapons grade Uranium.
They have no working pathway to weapons grade plutonium.

They are not producing more at the same rate, since they can´t fucking produce weapons grade materials anymore and the stockpile is reduced to 300kg of low enriched uranium.

You have the facts of the Iran deal completely jumbled. Be it willfull ignorance or partisan hackery combined with bad sources, it´s cringeworthy either way how badly you have the facts mixed up. You clearly don´t understand the Iran deal, the difference in producing nuclear energy vs weapons programs or pretty much anything to do with this matter.

But Trump should be defended for getting jack shit done in NK because hey it´s a new approach (one others were smart enough not to take)
While the Iran deal should be shit on despite it actually working so we can go back to warmongering. lol.