• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Korean War Over

i'm sorry, what did trump do again? still haven't gotten an answer, even from the trumpshill
 
Trump had him at Rocketman, and then blew up the mountain at their testing site with his Eleven mind powers. The best mind powers.
 
RJKarl said:
Is this like saying you'll stop fucking your neighbor's wife now that she has a guillotine chastity belt and hubby is the only one with a key?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what this is like.
 
Several conservatives I see on facebook are grandly praising Trump today "for ending the Korean War", and using it to dismiss his bizarre rant on Fox & Friends as a nothingburger that liberals are using to distract from their glorious leader's peacemaking accomplishments. All of them are convinced that Trump is perfectly sane and reasonable, and it's his critics who are nuts. #MAGA
 
Highland Deac said:
Several conservatives I see on facebook are grandly praising Trump today "for ending the Korean War", and using it to dismiss his bizarre rant on Fox & Friends as a nothingburger that liberals are using to distract from their glorious leader's peacemaking accomplishments. All of them are convinced that Trump is perfectly sane and reasonable, and it's his critics who are nuts. #MAGA
Click to expand...

Yeah I wasn't being sarcastic earlier on this thread when I asked Lectro - I genuinely want to know what evidence conservatives are relying upon in giving Trump credit for this.
 
Regardless of who gets their head pat for this. It seems hard to argue that it’s not a good thing. I also thought the Iran deal was a good thing, but I’m told it was the end of life as we know it.
 
 
of course Trump did this. Ya can hate him, but ya can't deny his tactics work. #winning
 
WFUtoUSC said:
Can you set forth a list of policies, actions, talking points, or contributions that Trump made to reach this result?
Click to expand...

Really long, sorry:

Don’t have anything in front of me to create a complete list, but the policies appear to have mostly been harsh sanctions coupled with Costanza-type diplomacy from Trump. Literally doing the opposite of what we and most “smart people” all think reasonable diplomatic efforts should look like somehow got the US, South Korea, North Korea and China wherever we are, which appears to be in a position to end this thing if/when the US and NK actually sign a treaty to end this war.

As far as actions, Kim releasing an American student/prisoner that arrived in a coma and died shortly after for what, allegedly stealing a poster, told the US and the world that Kim’s regime was not ready to align itself at all with Western values on human rights.

Similarly, Trump’s attack on the Syrian airfield, as well as Trump, May and Macron’s coordinated effort to strike Syria sent a message to the world that the US and its allies will respond militarily where necessary. I will admit that I was not on board the allied strike because I wasn’t convinced Asad was responsible. I recall that Macron said he had solid evidence that he was, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here.

Talking points kind of goes along will all the twitter back and forth, Trump’s tweets and Kim calling Trump a “dotard,” etc. Among other examples, Trump going to the UN and giving a speech about Rocket Man on a suicide mission was certainly heated rhetoric that appeared designed to make Kim blink.

As far as contributions, the prospect of the leaders of the US and NK meeting face-to-face is obviously unprecedented. Say what you want about Kim wanting a photo op to “legitimize” his regime or whatever, but Trump sending Pompeo to meet with Kim, Kim visiting China about this issue, and the meeting in the DMZ appears to be meaningful progress.

This could all mean nothing as far as ending the war or denuclearization. As far as denuclearization goes, a sensible deal may not be reached, and why trust NK to do anything it agrees to do. The means by which we verify NK sticking to its promises if any deal is made is obviously paramount. Nonetheless, the partisan politics on both sides over this thing have been maddening to follow.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Regardless of who gets their head pat for this. It seems hard to argue that it’s not a good thing. I also thought the Iran deal was a good thing, but I’m told it was the end of life as we know it.
Click to expand...

No doubt it's great news (assuming it develops into something workable and long-term). I just have serious doubts as to Trump's actual or unique contributions to this event. I haven't heard much that's concrete, just a lot of bragging.
 
Biggus Deacus said:
Really long, sorry:

Don’t have anything in front of me to create a complete list, but the policies appear to have mostly been harsh sanctions coupled with Costanza-type diplomacy from Trump. Literally doing the opposite of what we and most “smart people” all think reasonable diplomatic efforts should look like somehow got the US, South Korea, North Korea and China wherever we are, which appears to be in a position to end this thing if/when the US and NK actually sign a treaty to end this war.

As far as actions, Kim releasing an American student/prisoner that arrived in a coma and died shortly after for what, allegedly stealing a poster, told the US and the world that Kim’s regime was not ready to align itself at all with Western values on human rights.

Similarly, Trump’s attack on the Syrian airfield, as well as Trump, May and Macron’s coordinated effort to strike Syria sent a message to the world that the US and its allies will respond militarily where necessary. I will admit that I was not on board the allied strike because I wasn’t convinced Asad was responsible. I recall that Macron said he had solid evidence that he was, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here.

Talking points kind of goes along will all the twitter back and forth, Trump’s tweets and Kim calling Trump a “dotard,” etc. Among other examples, Trump going to the UN and giving a speech about Rocket Man on a suicide mission was certainly heated rhetoric that appeared designed to make Kim blink.

As far as contributions, the prospect of the leaders of the US and NK meeting face-to-face is obviously unprecedented. Say what you want about Kim wanting a photo op to “legitimize” his regime or whatever, but Trump sending Pompeo to meet with Kim, Kim visiting China about this issue, and the meeting in the DMZ appears to be meaningful progress.

This could all mean nothing as far as ending the war or denuclearization. As far as denuclearization goes, a sensible deal may not be reached, and why trust NK to do anything it agrees to do. The means by which we verify NK sticking to its promises if any deal is made is obviously paramount. Nonetheless, the partisan politics on both sides over this thing have been maddening to follow.
Click to expand...

Which of these things was the world not aware of over the past few decades?
 
deactherunner said:
Which of these things was the world not aware of over the past few decades?
Click to expand...

First, sure the world has known about the brutality of that regime for decades, but it changes when the brutality arrives on America’s doorstep and involves an American citizen. World leaders are alarmed and sickened by events like this.

Second, among other examples, Obama’s “red line” comes to mind.
 
Biggus Deacus said:
First, sure the world has known about the brutality of that regime for decades, but it changes when the brutality arrives on America’s doorstep and involves an American citizen. World leaders are alarmed and sickened by events like this.

Second, among other examples, Obama’s “red line” comes to mind.
Click to expand...

The primary difference between Obama's Syria policy and Trump's appears to be that Obama didn't tweet about strikes before they happened.
 
birdman said:
The primary difference between Obama's Syria policy and Trump's appears to be that Obama didn't tweet about strikes before they happened.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this means. What I am sure of is that shifting responsibility to Russia to remove/destroy Syria’s chemical stockpile and claiming they were all gone when they weren’t wasn’t the nececessary response by the Obama administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top