(09-10-2018 03:34 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...

maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"Denuclearization" does not, in North Korean diplomatic doublespeak, mean what anyone else in the world takes that word to mean. It does not mean disarmament. It does not mean verification with inspections. It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have. A deal along those lines would be worse (for the rest of the world) than no deal -- so of course Kim wants it before Trump exits the stage, as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.

"It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have."

You mean like the Iranian deal?

These negotiations, like any others between nations, will involve a long back and forth as the nations hide their true intentions and their true goals behind doublespeak and outright lies. Yes, it will take some time, and it is on us and our allies to make sure we get the kind of denuclearization we want. But you won't get anything by not talking, i.e., the Obama method. Ignoring them has not worked out so well.

...as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.

Your language is just boilerplate left wing agenda. The reason they will talk is that they finally have somebody who will talk with them, and the reason they want to talk NOW is that they are worried that if the Democrats succeed in electing a Democrat in 2020, the Democrats will once again enforce a curtain of silence. Kim knows the only chance to get something done is now. He may not be dangling the carrot of denuclearization in good faith, but that doesn't mean he will not end up offering more than he intends in order to get things he wants. Have you never bought a used car? Or sold one?

Maybe nothing will come of these talks. If something does come of them, it is a 100% slam dunk certainty that you and the left will not like the results, just because it was Trump who got them.

(09-10-2018 08:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 07:39 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kim wants ...
maybe we need to get this done before the Democrats succeed in their agenda, going back to studied indifference, while being decorus.

"Denuclearization" does not, in North Korean diplomatic doublespeak, mean what anyone else in the world takes that word to mean. It does not mean disarmament. It does not mean verification with inspections. It basically means they pinky swear not to build new nuclear weapons or use the ones they already have. A deal along those lines would be worse (for the rest of the world) than no deal -- so of course Kim wants it before Trump exits the stage, as he recognizes that he is not likely ever again to have such a manipulable, out-of-his-depth adversary to negotiate with.

As opposed to what it means in Iranian diplomatic doublespeak?

And you know this how?

Maybe you guys could try to keep your knee-jerk characterizations in check. I've been a conservative Republican for three decades.

I absolutely was against the Iran deal, both procedurally (never submitted for Senate ratification) and substantively. It literally consists of us giving them billions of dollars to upgrade their nuke program after a piddling ten-year pause, a blink of an eye if you have a thousand-year caliphate in mind (and we didn't even get strong inspection rights to verify that this worthless pause is even being honored). So all this whataboutism on Iran is wasted on me.

Apparently where we do differ, however, is whether two wrongs make a right. Boiled down, Obama gave Iran something for nothing. To be sure, the "nothing" was gussied up in all manner of pettifoggery and doublespeak so as to appear to be something, but it remained nothing. DPRK is going to run the same exact same play.* I hope whatever is left of your principles will allow you to appraise any deal objectively, and not just reflexively praise it because it was done by Trump and Not Obama (or Not Clinton).

* WSJ: Denuclearization Means Different Things to Kim and Trump, North Korean Defector Says

CNBC: North Korea committed to 'complete denuclearization' — but didn't define what that means

NYT: Trump and Kim May Define ‘Korea Denuclearization’ Quite Differently

As the negotiations continue, the differences in what each side wants will become clearer. Do you really think Trump and Pompeo et al will sign off on a deal that lets NK define what denuclearization means and how to enforce it? Seems odd for a President known for his negotiating and deal making. I don't see Trump being, like Obama, so desperate to get a deal that he gives the house away. Nor do I see Pompeo as a fool. But as you say, I will evaluate the deal when we have one, not now, before we have anything. It will not get my automatic seal of approval, as you suggest. Little does. But up to now, there is no deal to evaluate. Your evaluation seems to rest on your evaluation of Trump, not the deal.

It is a long journey between where we are and where we want to be. There is no guarantee we will get there or get anywhere at all, but I am encouraged that we are at least discussing it.

As for you, If it quacks like a duck... You certainly talk like a Democrat, even to using the same rhetoric to describe Trump. You even malign the principles and goals of anybody opposing you. Quack, quack, is what I hear from you. But If you say you are a Republican, I will take your word for it. Would you admit to being a NeverTrumper?