K-9

This is upsetting. As it should be. And I don’t mean that towards you personally at all because your decisions on how to present yourself to your friends comes from a place of deep empathy and respect, imo. But you touch upon upon a subject that my sister and other educators in inner city school environments often lament and that is the deliberate lack of effort and classroom participation by obviously bright and gifted students because they didn’t want to be rejected by a less talented peer group or worse, ostracized, bullied, or worse. I can’t imagine that kind of pressure on a kid already pressured by the sheer environment he’s in. Was that an issue for you growing up?

DR is giving his opinion of what’s in Tump’s mind, and based on what Trump has said, DR are is correct; Trump thinks N Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. He came right out and stated that after all. Where DR and I really depart ways is that I think that’s a total crock while DR has more respect for the president’s opinion.

Packers fan I see. Nice.

If you read the entire exchange between DR and I, which is lengthy and easy to miss certain points within, you’ll see the context in which he made that comparison.

You would think so, but there are people on the right who won't watch a Penn, Deniro, or Streep movie just as there are those on the left who won't watch a James Woods, Dennis Miller, or Mel Gibson movie STRICTLY because of their political views. Short sighted and stupid? Yes. But people conflate actors and their roles all the time. Sad but true.

A throw made with anticipation? Be still my heart.

Precisely why I can’t believe Gregg would stretch so far to make such a false equivalency in the first place.

France, Great Britain, Russia? How about China or Israel? Or Pakistan? Why not list EVERY country that has nukes? If that's the standard, why are we even bothering about N Korea in the first place? That's rhetorical, btw. I can't believe someone of your intelligence would seek to make such a false equivalency. Why don't we just agree to disagree and hope for the best. This is too exhausting. Beer back at ya.

Question: if N Korea has nuclear weapons, are they a nuclear threat or not? The answer is obvious. Trump clearly stated they are no longer nuclear threat. He is wrong about that at this time. Hopefully, the reality will catch up with his rhetoric. Here's his tweet from five minutes earlier in this Chicago Tribune article where he clearly states "nuclear" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-twitter-north-korea-nuclear-threat-20180613-story.html Here's his entire twitter string from today and it's there as well: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Also with respect, I don’t buy it. He was very specific by saying no longer a “nuclear” threat and that’s plain wrong. As long as they have nuke weapons, they are a nuke threat. Simple as that.

Never said they were the same thing. Not even close. I said that Trump had a sudden change in tone and my OPINION is that’s because China started talking about sanctions relief immediately after the summit. And I find that a bit concerning. Why else would Trump suddenly declare N Korea no longer a threat? Also, that “evidence” of denuking may take years. Given N Korea’s previous history, I’d be shocked if they waited that long.

Because words are important for the honest brokers in the world. And they allow for a basis of accountability moving forward. Words serve as the framework for treaties to be abided by. They can’t prevent a bad actor from breaking their pledge, but that doesn’t make them unimportant.

Today Trump said N Korea is no longer a nuclear threat. I can link it if you like, but it’s all over the news. I found that concerning coming only a day after alluding to sanctions staying in place until they fully denuclearize. If they aren’t yet denuclearized, how can they now suddenly be considered a nuclear threat? IMO, it’s because China immediately called for sanctions relief after the summit was over.

Andy Levitre is gonna be pissed!

Lots of good points here, several of which I agree with wholeheartedly. I doubt, as you suggest, that we know the extent of China’s and Russia’s and even S Korea’s influence prior to the meeting. Regardless, if it took much at all or not, it was only to get to a meeting to sign a four point agreement to have more meetings in the future. What’s the incentive moving forward, to get them back to the table and dealing in good faith? IMO, it’s the removal of sanctions and the influx of the billions of dollars that represents. And that’s why I’m convinced Trump changed his own tune so quickly after China immediately called for the lifting of sanctions. And while it’s a different topic for another thread, Trump is tied to China for his own financial gain and that’s not lost on me.

Another good point. Hell, the safest place to be when he threatened Guam was Guam itself. Which is why I never took his bloviating seriously. But he can do extensive damage to the peninsula in the meantime.

I'd add that we should all take a course in bloviation and empty rhetoric. N Korea threatened to burn the USA to ashes. And they HAVE nukes!

No, they are rabbit holes as they have nothing to do with the precise language in the agreement they signed up to. And that's all I'm willing to argue vis a vis Iran and North Korea. I'd be happy if N Korea made the same commitments on paper and joined up for the same. And I'll just let it go at that. Great point. But I'd still like to see them commit to a non-proliferation treaty all the same.

Then they will be in violation, the agreement will be voided, sanctions reinstated on the regime, and the threat of military action becomes a reality for them. But if you REALLY want to get down to the essence of it, NOTHING ANY COUNTRY SIGNS UP TO IS WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON. That's the unfortunate bottom line when it comes to geopolitics as we've seen countless times.

And worked for Bush and Putin, too. Point is, we need actual SUBSTANCE before making any pronouncements. A framework for future talks is a good start, but that's all it is. And, given Trump's reversal regarding sanctions, I'm concerned. You act as if I'm comparing EVERY aspect of Iran and N Korea. Please confine the discussion to the language a deal might contain. If we can get the same guarantees from N Korea as from Iran, if N Korea signs on to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, agrees to not build nuclear weapons in perpetuity, and allows for wide access inspections, including military installations, will that be a good deal or not? You are simply wrong about not curbing Iran's ability to develop nukes. There are no sunset provisions on the prohibition to build weapons. Sure, they can always renege as scumbag leaders have in the past. But their commitments, what they've signed on to, clearly prohibit them from building weapons. Will N Korea be an honest broker? I hope so.

You are going down rabbit holes I have no interest in. Confine the discussion to what that deal did STRICTLY in terms of curbing Iran's ability to develop weapons. Got zero deterrence on their nuclear ambitions? The deal prohibits them from building nuke weapons in perpetuity. They are a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. They have committed to the IAEA's Additional Protocol in 2023, which grants inspectors even wider access for inspections than the JCPOA Sunset provisions for the acquisition of materials phase in after 10, 15, and 25 years. But, again, they are prohibited from building weapons in perpetuity. The point is that the scumbag leadership in Iran signed up and had their nuke weapons program contained in perpetuity. Will N Korea do the same. We have see NOTHING in the four point agreement they signed the other day to suggest that, other than they agree to have further talks at some point in the future. If they agree to all the things Iran did, we should be happy. In the meantime, ignoramuses like Larry Elder should better acquaint themselves with the actual language and structure of a deal before spouting off.

A payoff to a terrorist state? The state that was getting much of their nuclear know how from our new best buds in NK? Yes, they export terrorism but let's not act like we haven't been in bed with other purveyors of terrorism throughout the years. Like Saudi Arabia for starters. And let's not act like we can't work on parallel levels concerning nuclear threats. Like we are currently doing with the North Korean regime whose dictator murders his relatives, lets his people starve, and has untold 10s of thousands locked up in gulags. But hey, Donald looked him in he eye and sees a man of his word, so it's all good.

I can't agree with that at all. Were the other permanent members of the UN security all in on the payoff as well? Never mind.

Based on their past history and dealings in these matters, we will be hard pressed to convince N Korea to make such a deal. For instance, will N Korea become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which pledges the never to develop nuclear weapons like Iran did? Will N Korea agree to no sunset provisions on the prohibition to build nuclear weapons like Iran did? I'd love to see it but until they walk a different walk than in the past, I can't believe it.

Larry Elder needs a better understanding of the Iran deal; an understanding that China, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany seem to possess. If Trump and Co. can deliver a deal with no sunset provisions on the building of nuclear weapons as is specified in the Iran deal, we will have done well. Elder's tweet is indicative of the ignorance many have regarding the deal.