Summit Predictions

[3rdnlng]

Chucky Schumer just said the NK nuke agreement is "all cattle and no hat".

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Chucky Schumer just said the NK nuke agreement is "all cattle and no hat".

 

New York politicians should never try to turn a Texas phrase on the floor. It always ends in a gaffe.  

 

 

[K-9]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

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. 

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

New York politicians should never try to turn a Texas phrase on the floor. It always ends in a gaffe.  

 

 

The sad thing is he probably thinks that's a good thing.  

[Tiberius]

54 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

No, that's the difference with how it's being received. Obama got something done, Trump is just declare victory and you are just fawning over that "victory" 

 

pathetic 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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. 

 

So, in other words, if he makes a deal that actually suits US better than the euros, russia and china, he'll have done well.

 

Breaking news, that.

 

[Tiberius]

Schemer should said it was just all Bull Sh it 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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. 

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal. It was a payoff that betrayed this country at a fundamental level. 

 

I agree with the rest.  

[K-9]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

So, in other words, if he makes a deal that actually suits US better than the euros, russia and china, he'll have done well.

 

Breaking news, that.

 

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. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal. It was a payoff that betrayed this country at a fundamental level. 

 

I agree with the rest.  

Well, if that's true (it's not) then ANYTHING the racist President does would be better, ya? 

 

I think its its funny how you were lampooned by the right wingers here for your stupidity, now you are leading the parade 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, K-9 said:

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. 

 

The Iran deal is a mirage, K-9. We shouldn't be measuring any deal against it - future or past. It was a pay off to a terrorist state and did nothing to stop their nuclear progress. All it did was weaken our national defenses, sell out our allies in the region and the people of Iran. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal. It was a payoff that betrayed this country at a fundamental level. 

 

I agree with the rest.  

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. 

[B-Man]

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS… The peaceniks of the media suddenly deplore dialogue.

On Monday night, MSNBC assembled a panel of spiteful Trump critics to throw a wet blanket over the summit. The doves turned into hawks and spent much of the evening trying to peck at Trump. Most of the people on the panel are apologists for this or that communist thug—just go back and look at MSNBC’s fawning coverage of Fidel Castro’s death—but on Monday night they played hardliners. Rachel Maddow, furrowing her brow as usual, objected to Trump even holding a summit. She has finally found a communist leader she thinks America should ostracize. When Obama met with the Castro brothers, she burbled with enthusiasm. But she covered this moment of historic diplomacy like a funeral, shuddering at the thought of North Korea joining the “community” of nations.

 

MSNBC saw the summit as just one more occasion for obsessive anti-Trump fault-finding. The disgraced Brian Williams is still hanging around for some reason and looked like he wanted to give the summit the kind of newsy, anchormanish treatment of old, but he couldn’t pull it off in the company of jabbering Trump haters, for whom wild opining is all that counts. Plus, Williams is too reduced a figure for the cocksure Maddow to give any equal time. But Williams’s ego still asserts itself from time to time. On Monday night he fed it by asking one of the sham historians on the panel an arcane, look-at-what-I-know style question about the USS Pueblo, a ship the North Koreans captured in 1968.

 

The utterly contemptible Nicole Wallace, whose smugness and nastiness are beyond caricature, drove much of the shrill coverage. She was at her whiny, know-it-all worst, droning on about Trump’s lack of “preparation” and so forth. But Trump seemed perfectly at ease, getting a stiff Kim Jong Un to crack a smile. Trump had said it would only take “a minute” for him to sense if the relationship between the two countries could improve. By that measure, the summit appeared to start promisingly. Normally such friendly gestures between an American leader and an adversary would warm the hearts of liberals. Not this time. The MSNBC panel looked on coldly and muttered suspiciously about Trump’s body language.

 

 

That’s weak tea, and they know it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just now, K-9 said:

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. 

 

All the Iran Deal took to accomplish was a top-secret disclosure through the press of Stuxnet, $200b+ in payoffs, looking the other way while Hezbollah carved out a trafficking and narcotics network inside the United States of America, and giving Iran a work around to sanctions. 

 

In return, the United States got zero deterrence on Iran's nuclear ambitions, Hezbollah was strengthened, and one of the most successful SAPs was exposed which weakened the United States' ability to defend itself. 

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal at all. It was a payoff. 

Oh - and to get the deal secured, the previous administration spied on members of the press and their political opposition to keep dissenters quiet. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS… The peaceniks of the media suddenly deplore dialogue.

On Monday night, MSNBC assembled a panel of spiteful Trump critics to throw a wet blanket over the summit. The doves turned into hawks and spent much of the evening trying to peck at Trump. Most of the people on the panel are apologists for this or that communist thug—just go back and look at MSNBC’s fawning coverage of Fidel Castro’s death—but on Monday night they played hardliners. Rachel Maddow, furrowing her brow as usual, objected to Trump even holding a summit. She has finally found a communist leader she thinks America should ostracize. When Obama met with the Castro brothers, she burbled with enthusiasm. But she covered this moment of historic diplomacy like a funeral, shuddering at the thought of North Korea joining the “community” of nations.

 

MSNBC saw the summit as just one more occasion for obsessive anti-Trump fault-finding. The disgraced Brian Williams is still hanging around for some reason and looked like he wanted to give the summit the kind of newsy, anchormanish treatment of old, but he couldn’t pull it off in the company of jabbering Trump haters, for whom wild opining is all that counts. Plus, Williams is too reduced a figure for the cocksure Maddow to give any equal time. But Williams’s ego still asserts itself from time to time. On Monday night he fed it by asking one of the sham historians on the panel an arcane, look-at-what-I-know style question about the USS Pueblo, a ship the North Koreans captured in 1968.

 

The utterly contemptible Nicole Wallace, whose smugness and nastiness are beyond caricature, drove much of the shrill coverage. She was at her whiny, know-it-all worst, droning on about Trump’s lack of “preparation” and so forth. But Trump seemed perfectly at ease, getting a stiff Kim Jong Un to crack a smile. Trump had said it would only take “a minute” for him to sense if the relationship between the two countries could improve. By that measure, the summit appeared to start promisingly. Normally such friendly gestures between an American leader and an adversary would warm the hearts of liberals. Not this time. The MSNBC panel looked on coldly and muttered suspiciously about Trump’s body language.

 

 

That’s weak tea, and they know it.

The way Wallace broke out laughing at Trump's North Korea beach condo blathering, lol!!! 

 

Thank God we have a free media 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

All the Iran Deal took to accomplish was a top-secret disclosure through the press of Stuxnet, $200b+ in payoffs, looking the other way while Hezbollah carved out a trafficking and narcotics network inside the United States of America, and giving Iran a work around to sanctions. 

 

In return, the United States got zero deterrence on Iran's nuclear ambitions, Hezbollah was strengthened, and one of the most successful SAPs was exposed which weakened the United States' ability to defend itself. 

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal at all. It was a payoff. 

Oh - and to get the deal secured, the previous administration spied on members of the press and their political opposition to keep dissenters quiet. 

And and...don't forget Ellen is part of the Deep State!! 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The Iran deal is a mirage, K-9. We shouldn't be measuring any deal against it - future or past. It was a pay off to a terrorist state and did nothing to stop their nuclear progress. All it did was weaken our national defenses, sell out our allies in the region and the people of Iran. 

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. 

[BringBackOrton]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, that's the difference with how it's being received. Obama got something done, Trump is just declare victory and you are just fawning over that "victory" 

 

pathetic 

I'm pretty sure that deal is gone.  So Obama got "nothing" done.  ACA is next.

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

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. 

Worked for Castro and Obama.  

 

But they played a baseball game too.  I see your point.

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

All the Iran Deal took to accomplish was a top-secret disclosure through the press of Stuxnet, $200b+ in payoffs, looking the other way while Hezbollah carved out a trafficking and narcotics network inside the United States of America, and giving Iran a work around to sanctions. 

 

In return, the United States got zero deterrence on Iran's nuclear ambitions, Hezbollah was strengthened, and one of the most successful SAPs was exposed which weakened the United States' ability to defend itself. 

 

The Iran deal wasn't a deal at all. It was a payoff. 

Oh - and to get the deal secured, the previous administration spied on members of the press and their political opposition to keep dissenters quiet. 

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. 

[Deranged Rhino]

17 minutes ago, K-9 said:

A payoff to a terrorist state? 

 

Hezbollah is Iran. Iran is Hezbollah. 

 

Hezbollah and Iranian forces have more American blood on their hands - citizen and soldiers alike - than any other terrorist organization in operation today. The majority of fighting the past 17 years in the ME have been against Hezbollah and its proxies. This is undeniable. 

 

17 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The state that was getting much of their nuclear know how from our new best buds in NK? 

 

You're missing a few connective nation states in this chain of custody. 

 

17 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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.

 

We have been. Without question. You know that's been one of my major quibbles on this board for years. 

 

But there's never been a "deal" with such nations where we've given over $200+ billion dollars, $100b of that in unmarked cash, exposed a top secret defense asset (damaging our allies in the process), allowed said terrorists to openly operate inside the United States running drugs and human smuggling rings, spied on American citizens and journalists in order to suppress opposition - all to secure a deal that effectively did nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. 

 

This wasn't a deal. It was a direct payoff by a president who was more interested in optics and securing a legacy than he was in preventing a nuclear Iran. The deal, as we've seen since it's fallen apart and Iran's "suddenly, magically" already in the late stages of its enriching process, did NOTHING to prevent a nuclear Iran. 

 

It did plenty to make this country and it's allies in the region weaker. 

 

That's not opinion or speculation, those are facts. 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

 

17 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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 missed the part of this deal where we paid Kim anything. Or where we happily exposed our national security assets in place in his country. Or where Trump pressured the Justice Department to look the other as the DPRK's terror proxies sold narcotics and trafficked human beings inside the United States. Or where Trump spied on American journalists and citizens to quash dissent... 

 

We are in agreement on a lot of the question marks revolving the DPRK deal - but comparing anything to the Iran deal as if the Iran deal was a good deal for the country or world is just not factual. It's hype and spin pushed by the same people who covered up all those above facts while the "deal" was going down in the first place. 

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Got zero deterrence on their nuclear ambitions? The deal prohibits them from building nuke weapons in perpetuity.  

 

Five days. This doesn't happen unless this program was never shut down. And it wasn't. Because the Iran "nuclear deal" did nothing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly not in perpetuity. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-weapons-uranium-enrichment-five-days-donald-trump-us-deal-a7906276.html

 

"Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped." (they would, because we were told this deal prevented this very thing from being possible... we were lied to)

Edited June 13, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I'm pretty sure that deal is gone.  So Obama got "nothing" done.  ACA is next.

Worked for Castro and Obama.  

 

But they played a baseball game too.  I see your point.

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. 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Hezbollah is Iran. Iran is Hezbollah. 

 

Hezbollah and Iranian forces have more American blood on their hands - citizen and soldiers alike - than any other terrorist organization in operation today. The majority of fighting the past 17 years in the ME have been against Hezbollah and its proxies. This is undeniable. 

 

 

You're missing a few connective nation states in this chain of custody. 

 

 

We have been. Without question. You know that's been one of my major quibbles on this board for years. 

 

But there's never been a "deal" with such nations where we've given over $200+ billion dollars, $100b of that in unmarked cash, exposed a top secret defense asset (damaging our allies in the process), allowed said terrorists to openly operate inside the United States running drugs and human smuggling rings, spied on American citizens and journalists in order to suppress opposition - all to secure a deal that effectively did nothing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. 

 

This wasn't a deal. It was a direct payoff by a president who was more interested in optics and securing a legacy than he was in preventing a nuclear Iran. The deal, as we've seen since it's fallen apart and Iran's "suddenly, magically" already in the late stages of its enriching process, did NOTHING to prevent a nuclear Iran. 

 

It did plenty to make this country and it's allies in the region weaker. 

 

That's not opinion or speculation, those are facts. 

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

 

 

I missed the part of this deal where we paid Kim anything. Or where we happily exposed our national security assets in place in his country. Or where Trump pressured the Justice Department to look the other as the DPRK's terror proxies sold narcotics and trafficked human beings inside the United States. Or where Trump spied on American journalists and citizens to quash dissent... 

 

We are in agreement on a lot of the question marks revolving the DPRK deal - but comparing anything to the Iran deal as if the Iran deal was a good deal for the country or world is just not factual. It's hype and spin pushed by the same people who covered up all those above facts while the "deal" was going down in the first place. 

 

Five days. This doesn't happen unless this program was never shut down. And it wasn't. Because the Iran "nuclear deal" did nothing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly not in perpetuity. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-weapons-uranium-enrichment-five-days-donald-trump-us-deal-a7906276.html

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. 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You are going down rabbit holes I have no interest in.

 

With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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.  

 

And yet...

Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped.

 

That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. 

 

 

(My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar)

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Five days. This doesn't happen unless this program was never shut down. And it wasn't. Because the Iran "nuclear deal" did nothing to stop their nuclear ambitions. Certainly not in perpetuity. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-weapons-uranium-enrichment-five-days-donald-trump-us-deal-a7906276.html

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. 

[DC Tom]

Let's not forget one important difference between Iran and DPRK: 

 

Iran's a non-profliferation issue.  DPRK's a disarmament issue.

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. 

 

 

 

And yet...

Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped.

 

That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. 

 

 

(My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar)

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.

Just now, DC Tom said:

Let's not forget one important difference between Iran and DPRK: 

 

Iran's a non-profliferation issue.  DPRK's a disarmament issue.

Great point. But I'd still like to see them commit to a non-proliferation treaty all the same. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

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. 

 

I'm really not trying to argue or annoy you (hope you know that), just having a conversation about a very misunderstood and highly charged topic.  

 

But if they can do that in five days, they ARE in violation, and have been since the deal was signed. So what does that say about how much the deal was really worth? In the end all it amounted to was 200 billion dollars in the Mullah's pockets, a poorer Iranian population, more dead Americans in the ME, and gave Hezbollah a foothold inside the United States to run drugs and humans. 

 

That's the reality of what the Iran deal accomplished. 

[K-9]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

With full respect, those aren't rabbit holes. Those are facts and direct contributing factors to how and why the deal came together. They were criminally under reported while the deal was going down because the administration was leaning on reporters to keep it quiet. Ignoring their reality only makes it more difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the merits of the deal. 

 

 

 

And yet...

Mr Salehi said the US would be surprised by how quickly Iran could rebuild its stocks if the 2015 nuclear deal was dropped.

 

That's not supposed to be possible based on the language of the deal and how it was sold to the world. 

 

 

(My intent is not to say you're comparing the entire DPRK deal to the Iran deal... my intent is to show you that holding the Iran deal up as a goal or benchmark to reach is a very very low bar)

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!

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

No, they are rabbit holes as they have nothing to do with the precise language in the agreement they signed up to.

 

They do though, K-9. These things were done to bring Iran to the table. Obama exposed Stuxnet as quid-pro-quo. Obama called off the DOJ in Operation Cassandra because he feared it would anger the Mullahs and make them leave the negotiating table. 

 

You don't get any deal, let alone the precise language, without the above events taking place. They were integral. 

[DC Tom]

Just now, K-9 said:

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!

 

But no way to reliably deliver them.

 

Unless they do it by boat.  Or truck.  Hell, even having a school of albacore tow a nuclear warhead to the West Coast would be more reliable than North Korean rockets.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, K-9 said:

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!

 

They have threatened indeed. 

 

Iran has as well. But unlike the DPRK in the 21st century, Iran's taken hostile action against American forces and civilians alike. That should be factored in if we're comparing the two (which really isn't my intent/point).

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

But no way to reliably deliver them.

 

Unless they do it by boat.  Or truck.  Hell, even having a school of albacore tow a nuclear warhead to the West Coast would be more reliable than North Korean rockets.

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. 

[DC Tom]

54 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Hell, the safest place to be when he threatened Guam was Guam itself.

 

That was my line...

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That was my line...

What's your opinion of this whole Trump-Kim summit? 

[Deranged Rhino]

It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. 

We have learned a lot since then, Der 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

It can be found on page one of the thread, Gator. 

 

No it can't. You're intentionally lying again. 

 

@DC Tom opines on how the media will react to the summit but has yet to state his opinion on the summit itself.

[Deranged Rhino]

On 6/11/2018 at 4:30 PM, DC Tom said:

I predict that, whatever happens, Trump gets no credit and all blame.

 

Sorry, Gary. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sorry, Gary. 

 

Indeed. He gave his opinion on how others will react instead of his opinion on the summit.

 

What a shock.

 

Hey, look! DC Idiot even admits it

 

On 6/11/2018 at 8:25 PM, peace out said:

I also predict DC Tom complains more about the media's coverage of the summit than he discusses the summit itself.

 

On 6/11/2018 at 8:55 PM, DC Tom said:

 

The summit's two guys over a couple hours.  The media coverage is a boatload of idiots over a couple of weeks.  There's simply more to discuss.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

So... in other words, I was correct and not "lying". 

 

Here's a chance to prove what you said earlier about not being afraid to admit you were wrong... Let's see if you live up to your own words. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

So... in other words, I was correct and not "lying". 

 

Here's a chance to prove what you said earlier about not being afraid to admit you were wrong... Let's see if you live up to your own words. 

 

I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it.

 

Continue your gaslighting, Doofus Rhino. Keep it up so everyone can see the idiot you are.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, peace out said:

 

I still can't find his opinion on the Trump Kim summit. I found his opinion on the reaction to the summit but that's it.

 

Continue your gaslighting, Doofus Rhino. Keep it up so everyone can see the idiot you are.

 

Yeah. I'm the one being exposed with this exchange  

 

Tom made his opinion quite clear - on page one. And reinforced it in conversation since. You're trying to split hairs just to call me a liar. It's a bad look on you, but completely expected since you refuse to engage on any level of honesty on ANY topic.