Wow

POTUS has already accepted the offer.

Wow.

This is potentially good news, but we should remain cautious. NK's credibility is in the crapper, they've used talks to stall and advance their R&D in the past. We should also not accept any deal that removes the US as a presence from the Korean peninsula.

WSJ says the meeting will be in NK, I'm pretty surprised we accepted that tbh.

Good for Trump and good for the US. Let's hope it's a productive meeting.

I would not agree to NK. This talk should be at a nuetral site. This is likely a propaganda stunt to show Un can call Trump and have him come see him anytime.

HuMcK said:

---

This is potentially good news, but we should remain cautious. NK's credibility is in the crapper, they've used talks to stall and advance their R&D in the past. We should also not accept any deal that removes the US as a presence from the Korean peninsula.

---

I agree.

MDPRKGA ??!

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

Good Lord

---

She's not wrong, usually these kinds of talks occur after months if not years of gruntwork hammering out the devil-in-the-details kind of stuff by lower level diplomats, plus Trump is sort of famous for not being well read on policy issues. At this point in time we haven't had an ambassador to South Korea for over a year, and the diplomat we had assigned to NK retired last week. It's also worth noting that as late as midday yesterday, Tillerson was still saying we aren't ready for talks, so he's apparently not in the loop. Our entire diplomatic apparatus has been largely sidestepped on this issue it seems, and that makes me wary of how this could go down.

We've all seen the televised congressional "negotiating" sessions led by POTUS where he agrees to some sacred cow of the opposition only to renege on it afterward (e.g. a clean DACA bill, and Feinstein's AWB), and that should make us all very nervous. We already know that NK's word cannot by itself be trusted, imagine the firestorm that will ensue if Trump conducts himself in such a way that the world sees him (us) as being an unreliable bad-faith negotiator too.

yellow sweater chick with nice cans

assign star for that

One of the things we should be concerned about is preparedness. Trump doesn't like to prepare.

Kim Jung Un is in a position to make Trump an offer he can't refuse.

One thing is for certain. This would have never happened if Hillary had been elected (along with a whole lot of other great things that are happening and will be happening going forward).

MAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HuMcK said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

Good Lord

---

She's not wrong, usually these kinds of talks occur after months if not years of gruntwork hammering out the devil-in-the-details kind of stuff by lower level diplomats, plus Trump is sort of famous for not being well read on policy issues. At this point in time we haven't had an ambassador to South Korea for over a year, and the diplomat we had assigned to NK retired last week. It's also worth noting that as late as midday yesterday, Tillerson was still saying we aren't ready for talks, so he's apparently not in the loop. Our entire diplomatic apparatus has been largely sidestepped on this issue it seems, and that makes me wary of how this could go down.

We've all seen the televised congressional "negotiating" sessions led by POTUS where he agrees to some sacred cow of the opposition only to renege on it afterward (e.g. a clean DACA bill, and Feinstein's AWB), and that should make us all very nervous. We already know that NK's word cannot by itself be trusted, imagine the firestorm that will ensue if Trump conducts himself in such a way that the world sees him (us) as being an unreliable bad-faith negotiator too.

---

It's silly to suggest the president's meeting will be the end all be all for these negotiations. As with any negotiations, there is introduction, discussion on what each side wants, lots of back and forth, negotiating the details and then final agreement. This meeting is step one of what will be a very long process.

At this meeting, both parties may agree to high level ideas, but the devil is always in the details and nothing is final until everything is written down and a deal is signed. The same goes for the domestic negotiations that you referred to. Trump may have agreed to high level ideas, but the devil was in the details and he changed his mind when the details were laid out. Obama did the same thing. Bush did the same thing. Bill Clinton did the same thing. All politicians do it and anyone that negotiates anything does it. The devil is always in the details and it is just silly to suggest someone should be held to agreeing to high level ideas before the details are worked out.

BearinSoDak said:

---

This is the same invite that has been extended to every US president since Clinton. None have accepted thus far. In 2005 after years of negotiation, NK proclaimed they would pursue full denuclearization. 13 months later they tested their first nuclear weapon. Talks fell apart again after that over issues of stringent verification.

We literally will have negotiation between a country whose credibility is shot and a president who is a known liar. I hope that despite all this progress can be made. I'm not holding my breath though.

---

I would have preferred that accepting the invite had been preceded by some Nork concession. Instead we come when called.

Trump isn't a politician going in for some sweet talk on a deal that is already 90% done.

I'm guessing that he goes in and, more or less, says "your people are starving, your infrastructure is a joke. We can help you with those things. We'll even let you look like the one who did it all to and for your people. But, we're getting your nukes and We're getting inspections. If that's not cool with you, ther are some nice courses in SK I've not played. If it is cool, I brought along some guys to work out the details. By he way, don't stall because the deal is off if the details aren't done by xx/xx/xxxx. All of that said in diplo-speak.

This is nothing but good news and a win for Trump.

Of course the liberal left is trying to spin it as a failure while ignoring the fact that Obama made a deal with Iran over nukes.......

I guess the Orange Elephant didn't forget about the time ol' Rex called him a "fu(king moron". Tillerson is out this morning (Just in time to get preferential tax treatment on his severance package from Exxon...), replaced by Pompeo. Our State Dept was kneecapped by Tillerson and now it's going to undergo a leadership transition right before a potential summit between NK and the USA, what could go wrong?

Lol what a sniveling coward. So does this mean Tillerson was fired right after he blamed Russia for the UK chemical attack? 'Cause that's not a great look for this administration.

I wonder if he knows that when NK talks about "denuclearization" they mean the removal of all nuclear-weapon armed forces from the Korean peninsula (i.e. US forces)? Are their any diplomats or professionals left in the State Department to tell him? Would he even listen to what they say?

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

let's see here..... hmmmm........ Mattis, Pompeo and Bolton...? or HuCMk....

hmmmmmm???

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Pedantry aside, which I know you love, you would take a deal where NK promised to disarm if we left the area?

HuMcK said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Pedantry aside, which I know you love, you would take a deal where NK promised to disarm if we left the area?

---

First of all, you are asking a hypothetical. We have no idea what NK is going to ask from us in return. But if NK asked us to leave our military presence in SK, does that really change things? We still have nukes that can reach NK in a matter of minutes if they tried anything, and we still have a military that can be deployed on NK in a matter of hours, if not even quicker. If NK ever tried anything, they would still have a very small window before the American military would be right back.

With any deal like this, the devil is in the details. And we don't even know what the big picture requests will be, so there is no way for us to know what the details will be.

HuMcK said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But Drumpf is going to get us all nuked reeeeeeeeeeeee!

---

Un's father made the same pronouncements. Again, they are not talking about unilaterally giving up their nukes. When NK talks about denuclearization, they mean the removal of all nuclear-armed (NATO) forces from the Korean Peninsula, probably along with regime-safety guarantees and recognition. I'm sure they definitely wouldn't invade SK immediately after our forces left the battlespace, because NK has a history of trustworthiness and good faith negotiations. /s

---

IF NK wants NATO troops out of South Korea then we should totally agree to that.... because there are not NATO troops in South Korea....

there is however a UN mission there.....

---

Pedantry aside, which I know you love, you would take a deal where NK promised to disarm if we left the area?

---

I just love proving you wrong. You don't even know who has troops there or what organization they are from but you want to complain about a hypothetical.