Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2052
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:58 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:13 am

As you know, better than I do, face is important to Asians. Moon was just saving Trump's face by giving him credit for something he never wanted happening. Maybe like that Trump would be a tiny little bit more willing not to wreck the North-South talks. While at the same time giving Trump the impression that he wasn't being left out by the two Korean leaders.
Naughty but very likely true!

Cass, you cannot always take what politicians say (not even Asian ones) at face value. They use words to get things done: not to state eternal truths!
The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by Sertorio » Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:46 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.
The notion that calling Kim Jong-un, Fatty Kim, will enhance the value of your arguments is childish.

The notion that Kim Jong-un would need - or even accept - any pressure from the US sounds pretty ignorant.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2052
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:40 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:46 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.
The notion that calling Kim Jong-un, Fatty Kim, will enhance the value of your arguments is childish.

The notion that Kim Jong-un would need - or even accept - any pressure from the US sounds pretty ignorant.
The sanctions are hurting. Dictators only understand the use of force. Somehow, Trump managed to get the Chinese to go along with the sanctions and put the screws on Fatty Kim. That's something other Presidents failed to do.

neverfail
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: what price for Chinese cooperation?

Post by neverfail » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:09 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:40 am

The sanctions are hurting. Dictators only understand the use of force. Somehow, Trump managed to get the Chinese to go along with the sanctions and put the screws on Fatty Kim. That's something other Presidents failed to do.
Possibly because what the Chinese demanded from other presidents in return was unacceptable.

I wonder what secret concessions Trump made to the Chinese to get them on board?
Last edited by neverfail on Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

neverfail
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: what was/is the price tag for Chinese cooperation?

Post by neverfail » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:10 am

deleted

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by Sertorio » Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:20 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:40 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:46 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.
The notion that calling Kim Jong-un, Fatty Kim, will enhance the value of your arguments is childish.

The notion that Kim Jong-un would need - or even accept - any pressure from the US sounds pretty ignorant.
The sanctions are hurting. Dictators only understand the use of force. Somehow, Trump managed to get the Chinese to go along with the sanctions and put the screws on Fatty Kim. That's something other Presidents failed to do.
The insistence on using the expression "Fatty Kim" places you at the lower kindergarden intellectual level. That's probably why you like Trump so much...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by Milo » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:16 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:59 pm
I am now convinced that NK's nuke site did collapse and this is face saving: diplomacy at its best.
North Korea's nuclear test site will close in May, the South Korean president's office has said.
A spokesman said the closure of the Punggye-ri site would be done in public and foreign experts from South Korea and the US would be invited to watch.
Face saving or arse saving, Milo?
Indeed!

It looks like NK has their own Chernobyl.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2052
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:43 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:20 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:40 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:46 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.
The notion that calling Kim Jong-un, Fatty Kim, will enhance the value of your arguments is childish.

The notion that Kim Jong-un would need - or even accept - any pressure from the US sounds pretty ignorant.
The sanctions are hurting. Dictators only understand the use of force. Somehow, Trump managed to get the Chinese to go along with the sanctions and put the screws on Fatty Kim. That's something other Presidents failed to do.
The insistence on using the expression "Fatty Kim" places you at the lower kindergarden intellectual level. That's probably why you like Trump so much...
Saying that my intellect is at the kindergarten level does not contribute to the discussion and is childish.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by Sertorio » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:45 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:16 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:50 pm
Milo wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:59 pm
I am now convinced that NK's nuke site did collapse and this is face saving: diplomacy at its best.
North Korea's nuclear test site will close in May, the South Korean president's office has said.
A spokesman said the closure of the Punggye-ri site would be done in public and foreign experts from South Korea and the US would be invited to watch.
Face saving or arse saving, Milo?
Indeed!

It looks like NK has their own Chernobyl.
What would the world be, if there weren't people always ready to think the worst possible things about what others do or say?... If there is a hell, I'm sure it will have a special section for such people...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Fatty KIm: N Korea no longer needs nukes

Post by Sertorio » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:48 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:43 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:20 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:40 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:46 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:13 am

The notion that Fatty Kim would have wanted to talk peace to the South if not for US pressure sounds naive.
The notion that calling Kim Jong-un, Fatty Kim, will enhance the value of your arguments is childish.

The notion that Kim Jong-un would need - or even accept - any pressure from the US sounds pretty ignorant.
The sanctions are hurting. Dictators only understand the use of force. Somehow, Trump managed to get the Chinese to go along with the sanctions and put the screws on Fatty Kim. That's something other Presidents failed to do.
The insistence on using the expression "Fatty Kim" places you at the lower kindergarden intellectual level. That's probably why you like Trump so much...
Saying that my intellect is at the kindergarten level does not contribute to the discussion and is childish.
It's meant to explain why a discussion is not possible with you... If Kim Jong-un was a thin person, what would you call him?...

Post Reply