• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President canceled the meeting with North Korea

Conservative said:
Did Trump go to the American people for approval?
Click to expand...

No, but I was pointing out how at one point talking to North Korea was a bad idea for the conservative side but now it's a good idea even though the main reason originally cited (no talks without preconditions) have not been met this go around.
 
ElChupacabra said:
No, but I was pointing out how at one point talking to North Korea was a bad idea for the conservative side but now it's a good idea even though the main reason originally cited (no talks without preconditions) have not been met this go around.
Click to expand...

What conservative told you that talking to North Korea was a bad idea and why is that even an issue? Leadership is about taking responsibility and initiative doing what is right not what is popular. Why didn't Obama initiate this effort?
 
Conservative said:
What conservative told you that talking to North Korea was a bad idea and why is that even an issue? Leadership is about taking responsibility and initiative doing what is right not what is popular. Why didn't Obama initiate this effort?
Click to expand...

I was referring to Sean Hannity's critique of Obama's statement about talking to North Korea as well as the Fox News coverage reiterating that point. Obama initially was open to talking to them but did not pursue it due to North Korea's behavior at the time (2012/2013). His view was that he didn't want to talk to them if they were going to continue their missile tests and provocative rhetoric.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I was referring to Sean Hannity's critique of Obama's statement about talking to North Korea as well as the Fox News coverage reiterating that point. Obama initially was open to talking to them but did not pursue it due to North Korea's behavior at the time (2012/2013). His view was that he didn't want to talk to them if they were going to continue their missile tests and provocative rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Same Question, why didn't Obama do something like this during his term? You seem to care more about what others think and say vs. doing what is right. Obama had zero leadership skills but was likable and that seems to be all that matters to many
 
Conservative said:
Same Question, why didn't Obama do something like this during his term? You seem to care more about what others think and say vs. doing what is right. Obama had zero leadership skills but was likable and that seems to be all that matters to many
Click to expand...

I answered your question in the second half of my original response, which was during his second term. I was pointing out the double standard on the same issue by the right leaning media, which follows the same idea of supporting the individual they and their viewers prefer versus the issue itself.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I answered your question in the second half of my original response, which was during his second term. I was pointing out the double standard on the same issue by the right leaning media, which follows the same idea of supporting the individual they and their viewers prefer versus the issue itself.
Click to expand...

So then what changed that led NK to meet with SK when they didn't do it for the 8 years of Obama?
 
I don't recall.
 
Conservative said:
So then what changed that led NK to meet with SK when they didn't do it for the 8 years of Obama?
Click to expand...

I think a big catalyst was the collapse of Mantapsan which rendered it incapable of nuclear testing. I'd like to think Kim Jong-un is sincere, but I get the feeling this is more about biding time now that they can't develop the weapons they want while sanctions are in place. How much they'll budge on denuclearization will be a better gauge of Un's sincerity. The Obama administration tried to set up talks with the North Koreans but it didn't go through when one of the conditions was denuclearization. One other distinction between the two administrations is the level of sanctions under Trump were harsher, which combined with their inability to move forward on the nuclear front changed the scenario for the North Koreans. The question of weapons is going to be an interesting one because I don't expect North Korea to agree to eliminating their program in one fell swoop.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I think a big catalyst was the collapse of Mantapsan which rendered it incapable of nuclear testing. I'd like to think Kim Jong-un is sincere, but I get the feeling this is more about biding time now that they can't develop the weapons they want while sanctions are in place. How much they'll budge on denuclearization will be a better gauge of Un's sincerity. The Obama administration tried to set up talks with the North Koreans but it didn't go through when one of the conditions was denuclearization. One other distinction between the two administrations is the level of sanctions under Trump were harsher, which combined with their inability to move forward on the nuclear front changed the scenario for the North Koreans. The question of weapons is going to be an interesting one because I don't expect North Korea to agree to eliminating their program in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...

Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and one of appeasement starting with losing the Iraq peace and allowing ISIS to get a foothold in the country and then expand. There was the Arab Spring, Libya, and terrorist attacks all over Europe, there was the red line in Syria. Leaders around the world saw a weak President and took advantage of it. that isn't the case with Trump nor will it ever be the case. Trump's use of sanctions, the MOAB used in Afghanistan and the airstrikes in Syria send the right message. Looks to me like the summit may happen afterall
 
Conservative said:
Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and one of appeasement starting with losing the Iraq peace and allowing ISIS to get a foothold in the country and then expand. There was the Arab Spring, Libya, and terrorist attacks all over Europe, there was the red line in Syria. Leaders around the world saw a weak President and took advantage of it. that isn't the case with Trump nor will it ever be the case. Trump's use of sanctions, the MOAB used in Afghanistan and the airstrikes in Syria send the right message. Looks to me like the summit may happen afterall
Click to expand...

The Iraq withdrawal started with Bush (US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement) and completed under Obama as per the terms of the agreement; at some point the US forces were going to have to leave that country if it were to ever survive on its own. US presence there would go on indefinitely because the sectarian issues that existed were not going to be resolved by US military presence alone. What exactly were you proposing the US do about the Arab Spring? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had soured people's taste for foreign involvement in foreign conflicts given the extended duty many soldiers had to endure; extending the military even further by committing more ground forces in potentially lengthy conflicts was a questionable approach. It's interesting you cite Trump's strong arm tactics but their impact is questionable at best. The lasting effect of those actions are what matter and none of those actions have set the course for resolution to any of the conflicts you cited. The war in Syria continues, and Afghanistan is no closer to being a stable country than before. Essentially any leader at odds with the US has to weather a missile attack (or two) and sanctions; the latter of course depend on how many countries participate. It's interesting you see Trump as a person who doesn't project weakness, but being a one trick pony is its own form of weakness so time will tell if he develops into a person who knows when to apply pressure and when to negotiate; and by negotiate I mean to actually be involved and not just send leaders a list of demands.
 
ElChupacabra said:
The Iraq withdrawal started with Bush (US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement) and completed under Obama as per the terms of the agreement; at some point the US forces were going to have to leave that country if it were to ever survive on its own. US presence there would go on indefinitely because the sectarian issues that existed were not going to be resolved by US military presence alone. What exactly were you proposing the US do about the Arab Spring? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had soured people's taste for foreign involvement in foreign conflicts given the extended duty many soldiers had to endure; extending the military even further by committing more ground forces in potentially lengthy conflicts was a questionable approach. It's interesting you cite Trump's strong arm tactics but their impact is questionable at best. The lasting effect of those actions are what matter and none of those actions have set the course for resolution to any of the conflicts you cited. The war in Syria continues, and Afghanistan is no closer to being a stable country than before. Essentially any leader at odds with the US has to weather a missile attack (or two) and sanctions; the latter of course depend on how many countries participate. It's interesting you see Trump as a person who doesn't project weakness, but being a one trick pony is its own form of weakness so time will tell if he develops into a person who knows when to apply pressure and when to negotiate; and by negotiate I mean to actually be involved and not just send leaders a list of demands.
Click to expand...

There was absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevented Obama from negotiating a peace keeping team in Iraq but to satisfy his radical base he withdrew
 
Conservative said:
There was absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevented Obama from negotiating a peace keeping team in Iraq but to satisfy his radical base he withdrew
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that those in Iraq with the authority to make such a deal plainly stated they weren’t interested unless crimes committed were subject to Iraqi justice and for that you can blame the United States for failing to adequately hold those who committed war crimes accountable.
 
Napoleon said:
Except for the fact that those in Iraq with the authority to make such a deal plainly stated they weren’t interested unless crimes committed were subject to Iraqi justice and for that you can blame the United States for failing to adequately hold those who committed war crimes accountable.
Click to expand...

So you were part of the negotiations? The reality remains, Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace. You can try and defend Obama until hell freezes over but history will be the final judge and it won't be pretty
 
Conservative said:
So you were part of the negotiations? The reality remains, Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace. You can try and defend Obama until hell freezes over but history will be the final judge and it won't be pretty
Click to expand...
Lol Bush won no war.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
So you were part of the negotiations? The reality remains, Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace. You can try and defend Obama until hell freezes over but history will be the final judge and it won't be pretty
Click to expand...

The negotiations were covered extensively and the Iraqis were very public in their insistence that a renewed status of forces agreement would require the United States to abandon any thought of immunity for its troops and contractors. Bush may have won the war in an alternative reality but certainly not the one we live in.
 
Napoleon said:
The negotiations were covered extensively and the Iraqis were very public in their insistence that a renewed status of forces agreement would require the United States to abandon any thought of immunity for its troops and contractors. Bush may have won the war in an alternative reality but certainly not the one we live in.
Click to expand...

There obviously isn't anything that can be done to change your mind, I disagree and the results are there for all to see. Rhetoric is one thing that you always but then ignore behind the scenes negotiation which in this case were non existent.

Did you serve in Iraq? I had three family members there, the tell a different story than you
 
PeteEU said:
Lol Bush won no war.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted, when Bush left office ISIS had zero control of any area of Iraq but then again radicals live in an alternative universe
 
Conservative said:
There was absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevented Obama from negotiating a peace keeping team in Iraq but to satisfy his radical base he withdrew
Click to expand...

By 2007 and 2008, a large percentage of the US public had their fill of the Iraq war, so it isn't accurate to say Obama was appeasing "his radical base". Also, it wasn't just the people here by Iraqis themselves. At some point the US was going to have to leave the country to its own devices. The risk of keeping troops there was the rise of resistance to the occupation (IS being one of those groups), which in the long run could have meant a new escalation that drew more US troops into the country for another extended round. Memories of the Vietnam war still haunt the public and political psyche, which is why there was reluctance of growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; two conflicts with no clear solution in sight. Nation building is an interesting thing in that the country you want to build may not be the one you get. Time will tell what Muqtada al-Sadr's win will mean for Iraq.
 
Conservative said:
Your opinion noted, when Bush left office ISIS had zero control of any area of Iraq but then again radicals live in an alternative universe
Click to expand...
Where did I talk about ISIS? I said he won no war because that war still goes on in Iraq.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
There obviously isn't anything that can be done to change your mind, I disagree and the results are there for all to see. Rhetoric is one thing that you always but then ignore behind the scenes negotiation which in this case were non existent.

Did you serve in Iraq? I had three family members there, the tell a different story than you
Click to expand...

If you require endless occupation then you obviously haven’t won the war let alone achieved peace. And yes, there were behind the scenes negotiations between the Iraqi government, Pentagon, and White House. The Iraqis, however, did not keep their non-negotiable terms a secret. And of course not, it was an immoral war and occupation run by incompetent boobs. No self-respecting person would abandon free-thinking and become a chess piece for war mongers for $1,600 per month.
 
Conservative said:
So you were part of the negotiations? The reality remains, Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace. You can try and defend Obama until hell freezes over but history will be the final judge and it won't be pretty
Click to expand...

So your proposition was to keep troops there indefinitely? Nothing was going to be resolved with a US occupying presence because all of the underlying conflicts were going to remain. The growing pain for Iraq was resolving the power vacuum left by the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and one can argue that pulling US troops allowed the Iraqis to resolve it for themselves.


so anyway, back to North Korea...
 
ElChupacabra said:
So your proposition was to keep troops there indefinitely? Nothing was going to be resolved with a US occupying presence because all of the underlying conflicts were going to remain. The growing pain for Iraq was resolving the power vacuum left by the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and one can argue that pulling US troops allowed the Iraqis to resolve it for themselves.


so anyway, back to North Korea...
Click to expand...

Indefinitely? NO, 10 years, probably and that was the recommendation Bush gave Obama
 
Conservative said:
Indefinitely? NO, 10 years, probably and that was the recommendation Bush gave Obama
Click to expand...

From the same administration that said we’d be in and out in 5 months. But I guess, in the words of ‘ol Rummy, “stuff happens” and we have people who think we should still be there 15 years later...
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Indefinitely? NO, 10 years, probably and that was the recommendation Bush gave Obama
Click to expand...

Which again, was a speculative number based on goals no one was sure were attainable unless some leeway was given to let the Iraqis sort things out on their own. The power vacuum left by Saddam's ouster wasn't going to be resolved by continued US presence; especially when the Shia minority's awareness of a pro Sunni US stance in the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom