Trump Right Again; Critics Wrong


After all the criticism and bashing of Trump by those who said he was making us less safe by pushing his luck with North Korea's leader, provoking a war on through tough talk, well, it looks like all that Trump bashing was a load of hogwash after all.

Apparently, just as Trump voters said all along, Trump knows better how to deal with bully leaders than all the peacenik armchair quarterbacks after all.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kim-says-he%e2%80%99ll-give-up-weapons-if-us-promises-not-to-invade/ar-AAwuppP?ocid=ientp

The title reads, "Kim Says He'll Give Up Weapons if US Promises Not to Invade."

Haha! Obama never achieved anything like this and never could have because he never had the gonads to stand up and call North Korea's bluff and make the credible threat of invasion. This is happening because Kim knows Trump will stomp his country into the stone age--something he knew Obama would never do.

Just like we said, the only way to deal with a bully like that is through bold strength and the credible threat we'll use our superior might.

Finally, we have a leader who knows how to deal with the maniacs and isn't afraid to do what needs to be done.

Well done, President Trump.




Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Last edited by gotchacovered
Replies

Originally posted by btodag

Can we all just agree to at least call him Supreme Leader Kim during further debate? Geez you guys!

BG


No! Never! smile I like Rocket Man and a few others.







Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth
[


I didn't answer your question because of your post read it again. First you state you won't respond, and then you ask a question? Didn't make sense to me, so I didn't answer. To answer it, no I don't think he has done anything to reign in Kim. Since Drumph, Kim has tested many missiles included much longer range ones. Appears things are progressing fine for Kim, and he got more attention.

RBF


Dude, you are answering the Totally obvious point of this whole issue!! But you still can bring yourself to admit Trump is doing good!

Can't you see that Kim needs to be stopped!! How did he get to the point of much longer range Country Destroying Nuclear Weapons!!! Because of the non action weak leadership of the past presidencies. Mostly the last 8 years!

Since Trump Kim has halted his Nuclear Weapon goals. Try a little singing, you can do it.

Watch some current news, Kim is basically begging for a new meeting.

You continuously dismiss Trump as doing nothing, actually he has done more to bring respect back to America Since Reagan.

Was Trump your choice? No, I know this, but at least have the reserve to admit the progress he has done. If Obuma would have done anything good I would have admitted to it.
Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth

https://www.fox4now.com/homepage-showcase/president-trump-cancels-planned-summit-with-north-korea

Drumph got played like a fiddle...

RBF

Silly comment. How was he "played"? All he did was stand his ground, draw a line in the sand, say we're going to kick NK's butts, and had NK saying they'd back down and asking for terms like no President has ever done. You think he "got played" somehow because NK's minister made a brash comment? Silly. Trump is doing the fiddle playing.

No leader has been played like Obama and Clinton were. Iran and North Korea played them to the point that I'm almost embarrassed for them. It was down right shameful to see two United States Presidents be that stupid.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


Bush 43 got the same treatment and results... Why did you conveniently not list him? Partisan politics as usual...

RBF

You mean like you omitted Clinton and Obama?

Uhm, no, sir.

You bashed Trump, partisan style, without mentioning either of the recent Democrat Presidents who did much worse on the same topic and, at best, "got the same treatment and results," so I filled in the missing blanks from the other party for you to balance the discussion and make it fair. You own the partisan label here.

My point about Clinton was that he created/facilitated the situation by making a foolish "deal" with North Korea before it had nukes--a deal he said would keep them from getting nukes but that people with sense knew/predicted would actually lead to, if not guarantee, a nuclear-armed North Korea. That happened--the exact opposite of what was promised.

Now that North Korea has nukes--thanks to Clinton's "deal"--Trump is trying to undo Clinton's mistake and defang a now-nuclear North Korea, as did Bush, under a situation that is obviously much harder than one with a non-nuclear North Korea like Clinton had, but folks like you try to ignore Clinton's folly and pretend that it's all on Trump. That's partisan politics.

My point on Obama was not about North Korea but about the way he repeated Clinton's inane North-Korea mistake in his shamefully inept Iran "deal"--nearly identical folly that will predictably lead to yet another nut case getting a nuke rather than preventing it. Trump has been trying to defang that deal before it leads to the same results as Clinton's.

Bush didn't make the "deal" with North Korea that led to them getting nukes. Clinton did. Bush gets some blame from me, however, because he did nothing to change it, although that would have been hard after Clinton had set the country up as he did. Also, later, Bush foolishly agreed to go along with a 6-nation panel, chaired by China, in making a deal to reverse North Korea's nuke program, but that was after North Korea had already developed the nukes that it did not have when Clinton made his deal, which made the situation much tougher, the options much fewer, and the pressure to act much greater.

There's not much that can be practically done once the madman gets the nuke. That's the point. Clinton basically handed the nukes to NK, and Trump and Bush have been dealing with the consequences. You want to blame Trump but apparently grant a pass to Clinton, who created the NK nuke problem with his inane deal in the first place.

But yes, I do think Bush flubbed his part with North Korea, along with Tora Bora for that matter, even though Clinton set him up for failure with such an inane deal, and I've said that before. Bush failed by trying to work with a madman when people with sense should know that madmen don't keep deals. They only use them to bind you to a deal that only you will keep while they gain ground on you. He'd have been better off doing nothing. So, your comments are inaccurate.

Again, Bush's foolish deal was to get rid of nukes North Korea already had--a much harder situation. Clinton's foolish deal was before North Korea had nukes, and instead of stopping North Korea from getting nukes, the Clinton deal effectively guaranteed a nuclear-armed North Korea by making a deal that anyone should have known would be kept only by our side while the other side used it as a tool to buy more time to make nukes.

So, my point was about who made the deal that caused North Korea to get nukes in the first place. That was Clinton. My second point was how foolish Obama's deal was with Iran, following the same footsteps of the failed Clinton policy toward North Korea. Obama should have learned from Clinton's mistake, but he didn't.

That's why I "left out" Bush--because I posted a counter-point to your purely partisan comments and because Bush didn't make the stupid deals that led to nuclear-armed North Korea--Clinton did. Obama repeated Clinton's foolish mistake with Iran, and that mistake will lead to the same results unless a strong leader does something that is now harder to do, thanks to Obama.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Last edited by gotchacovered
Originally posted by Richard Beer Froth

https://www.fox4now.com/homepage-showcase/president-trump-cancels-planned-summit-with-north-korea

Drumph got played like a fiddle...

RBF

Silly comment. How was he "played"? All he did was stand his ground, draw a line in the sand, say we're going to kick NK's butts, and had NK saying they'd back down and asking for terms like no President has ever done. You think he "got played" somehow because NK's minister made a brash comment? Silly. Trump is doing the fiddle playing.

No leader has been played like Obama and Clinton were. Iran and North Korea played them to the point that I'm almost embarrassed for them. It was down right shameful to see two United States Presidents be that stupid.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


Bush 43 got the same treatment and results... Why did you conveniently not list him? Partisan politics as usual...

RBF

You mean like you omitted Clinton and Obama?

Uhm, no, sir.

You bashed Trump, partisan style, without mentioning either of the recent Democrat Presidents who did much worse on the same topic and, at best, "got the same treatment and results," so I filled in the missing blanks from the other party for you to balance the discussion and make it fair. You own the partisan label here.

My point about Clinton was that he created/facilitated the situation by making a foolish "deal" with North Korea before it had nukes--a deal he said would keep them from getting nukes but that people with sense knew/predicted would actually lead to, if not guarantee, a nuclear-armed North Korea. That happened--the exact opposite of what was promised.

Now, Trump is trying to undo Clinton's mistake--as did Bush--but folks like you try to ignore Clinton's folly and pretend that it's all on Trump. That's partisan politics.

My point on Obama was not about North Korea but about the way he repeated Clinton's inane North-Korea mistake in his shamefully inept Iran "deal"--nearly identical folly that will predictably lead to yet another nut case getting a nuke rather than preventing it. Trump has been trying to defang that deal before it leads to the same results as Clinton's.

Bush didn't make the "deal" with North Korea that led to them getting nukes. Clinton did. Bush gets some blame from me, however, because he did nothing to change it, although that would have been hard after Clinton had set the country up as he did. Bush later foolishly agreed to go along with a 6-nation panel in making a deal to reverse North Korea's nuke program, but that was after North Korea had already developed the nukes that it did not have when Clinton made his deal.

There's not much that can be practically done once the madman gets the nuke. That's the point. Clinton basically handed the nukes to NK, and Trump and Bush have been dealing with the consequences. You want to blame Trump but apparently grant a pass to Clinton, who created the NK nuke problem with his inane deal in the first place.

But yes, I do think Bush flubbed his part with North Korea, along with Tora Bora for that matter, even though Clinton set him up for failure with such an inane deal, and I've said that before. Bush failed by trying to work with a madman when people with sense should know that madmen don't keep deals. They only use them to bind you to a deal that only you will keep while they gain ground on you. He'd have been better off doing nothing. So, your comments are inaccurate.

Again, Bush's foolish deal was to get rid of nukes North Korea already had--a much harder situation. Clinton's foolish deal was before North Korea had nukes, and instead of stopping North Korea from getting nukes, the Clinton deal effectively guaranteed a nuclear-armed North Korea by making a deal that anyone should have known would be kept only by our side while the other side used it as a tool to buy more time to make nukes.

So, my point was about who made the deal that caused North Korea to get nukes in the first place. That was Clinton. My second point was how foolish Obama's deal was with Iran, following the same footsteps of the failed Clinton policy toward North Korea. Obama should have learned from Clinton's mistake, but he didn't.

That's why I "left out" Bush--because I posted a counter-point to your purely partisan comments and because Bush didn't make the stupid deals that led to nuclear-armed North Korea--Clinton did. Obama repeated Clinton's foolish mistake with Iran, and that mistake will lead to the same results unless a strong leader does something that is now harder to do, thanks to Obama.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862



Nah, it started with Bush 41 when he agreed to remove the remaining nukes from South Korea....

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations

It also progressed the most under Bush 43 because Kim knew we didn't have the political backing to start another war while we engaged in Iraq, which was known to be a colossal failure to begin with...

100% agree with Drumph on that one...

RBF
Last edited by Richard Beer Froth
No, sir. It progressed the most under Bush 43 because Clinton had just made a foolish "deal" that basically hacked the weeds out of North Korea's path.

You should be able to admit this. I watched Clinton's deal get made and predicted that it would result in a nuclear North Korea. So did many other thinking Americans. Don't blame the results of Clinton's "deal" on the president who followed him.

As for where it started, I guess you could keep going back and say it started at various points, such as with Eisenhower's formation of the IAEA, or ultimately with the development and use of nuclear weapons by the United States during WWII, but all of that's sort of a specious argument when it comes to the specific situation with North Korea and the defunct diplomacy efforts with that nation by American presidents.

Before I go on here, I'll say this. I have always thought that the American pursuit of nuclear disarmament is foolish for the same reasons I outlined above about the Clinton and Obama deals--that is, because we will be the only ones to keep the treaties while the Russians and others keep stockpiling, leaving us the weaker power in the end with less deterrence capability.

However, the situation in North Korea didn't "start" with Bush 41's removal of nukes from South Korea. That was part of a global nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and other nations, initiated by Reagan, called the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It had nothing to do with North Korea in particular, with the exception that North Korea, along with other nations, agreed to it in 1985, 6 years before Bush pulled nukes from South Korea, and remained in league with it until 2 more years later, when the weak Bill Clinton took office.

One could try to say that by removing American nukes from South Korea, the deterring threat of nuclear retaliation was removed from over North Korea's head, emboldening NK to pull out of the treaty and build nukes, but that's simply incorrect because the United States could at that time, and still can, hit North Korea from various other locations, including from the United States mainland itself, and there are other powerful nuclear nations in the same treaty that could do the same. So, South Korea's disarmament wasn't the initiator--nor was it a concession specifically toward North Korea, for that matter. It was part of a deal primarily with Russia.

Also, remember, we're talking about who made stupid "deal" attempts that blew back in their faces.

The first "deal" between the United States and North Korea was by the Clinton administration with Jimmy Carter in the mix. That hampered us and handed ground to North Korea, which it used and abused to gain nukes while starry-eyed followers of Clinton swooned with false hope that he had saved us from North Korean nukes--only to later find that he actually guaranteed a nuclear-armed madman.

Again, I was alive and watching. I remember thinking how stupid Clinton was, and what a liar he was, as I murmured, "Now, they'll get nukes for sure while we sit by and do nothing."

Well, people like me were right about that. Now, Obama has repeated the same foolish mistake with Iran. We'll also be proven right about that, too, if the United States keeps following the Obama path.

Again, we are talking about who made the stupid deal that put a nuclear North Korea on the map. Clinton did that. Trump is trying to clean it up after the fact while Obama just created a new pathway to nuclear arms for Iran.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Last edited by gotchacovered
Originally posted by gotchacovered

No, sir. It progressed the most under Bush 43 because Clinton had just made a foolish "deal" that basically hacked the weeds out of North Korea's path.

You should be able to admit this. I watched Clinton's deal get made and predicted that it would result in a nuclear North Korea. So did many other thinking Americans. Don't blame the results of Clinton's "deal" on the president who followed him.

As for where it started, I guess you could keep going back and say it started at various points, such as with Eisenhower's formation of the IAEA, or ultimately with the development and use of nuclear weapons by the United States during WWII, but all of that's sort of a specious argument when it comes to the specific situation with North Korea and the defunct diplomacy efforts with that nation by American presidents.

Before I go on here, I'll say this. I have always thought that the American pursuit of nuclear disarmament is foolish for the same reasons I outlined above about the Clinton and Obama deals--that is, because we will be the only ones to keep the treaties while the Russians and others keep stockpiling, leaving us the weaker power in the end with less deterrence capability.

However, the situation in North Korea didn't "start" with Bush 41's removal of nukes from South Korea. That was part of a global nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and other nations. It had nothing to do with North Korea in particular, with the exception that North Korea, along with other nations, agreed to it in 1985, 6 years before Bush pulled nukes from South Korea, and remained in league with it until 2 more years later, when the weak Bill Clinton took office.

One could try to say that by removing American nukes from South Korea, the deterring threat of nuclear retaliation was removed from over North Korea's head, emboldening NK to pull out of the treaty and build nukes, but that's simply incorrect because the United States could at that time, and still can, hit North Korea from various other locations, including from the United States mainland itself, and there are other powerful nuclear nations in the same treaty that could do the same. So, South Korea's disarmament wasn't the initiator--nor was it a concession specifically toward North Korea, for that matter. It was part of a deal primarily with Russia.

Also, remember, we're talking about who made stupid "deal" attempts that blew back in their faces.

The first "deal" between the United States and North Korea was by the Clinton administration with Jimmy Carter in the mix. That hampered us and handed ground to North Korea, which it used and abused to gain nukes while starry-eyed followers of Clinton swooned with false hope that he had saved us from North Korean nukes--only to later find that he actually guaranteed a nuclear-armed madman.

Again, I was alive and watching. I remember thinking how stupid Clinton was, and what a liar he was, as I murmured, "Now, they'll get nukes for sure while we sit by and do nothing."

Well, people like me were right about that. Now, Obama has repeated the same foolish mistake with Iran. We'll also be proven right about that, too, if the United States keeps following the Obama path.

Again, we are talking about who made the stupid deal that put a nuclear North Korea on the map. Clinton did that. Trump is trying to clean it up after the fact while Obama just created a new pathway to nuclear arms for Iran.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


We'll have to agree to disagree... Having nukes right across the DMZ makes a lot of difference...

We all have to take into consideration the difference between the 90's and today...

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-kryptonite-former-dni-us-intelligence-could-topple-kim-jong-un-2018-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011

If Kim agrees to denuclearize, he will fall from power... He has sold the NK military and people on the "evil" US... Kim knows that an agreement with the US will be signing up for his own demise...

Kim knows he has more time by staying the course and wait until technology let's the people and military of NK know the truth about him and his lies... Kim essentially will be playing kick-the-can with his own life, and he can kick it further by not agreeing...

We'll see how it develops, but if there is some agreement, then no one should start bragging/celebrating until the last nuke is gone...

RBF
Originally posted by btodag

Can we all just agree to at least call him Supreme Leader Kim during further debate? Geez you guys!

BG

No, man, don't you mean that we should all bow down to him like humble servants? wink



To be fair, Trump lowered himself to shorter leaders so they could place medals of honor on his neck, and now, he dares call a national leader by his actual title--say it isn't so shock--but I'm sincerely going to have to call that "a display of mild respect" compared to Obama's literally bowing down like he was going to kiss his Saudi master's shoes or something.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Last edited by gotchacovered
Originally posted by gotchacovered

No, sir. It progressed the most under Bush 43 because Clinton had just made a foolish "deal" that basically hacked the weeds out of North Korea's path.

You should be able to admit this. I watched Clinton's deal get made and predicted that it would result in a nuclear North Korea. So did many other thinking Americans. Don't blame the results of Clinton's "deal" on the president who followed him.

As for where it started, I guess you could keep going back and say it started at various points, such as with Eisenhower's formation of the IAEA, or ultimately with the development and use of nuclear weapons by the United States during WWII, but all of that's sort of a specious argument when it comes to the specific situation with North Korea and the defunct diplomacy efforts with that nation by American presidents.

Before I go on here, I'll say this. I have always thought that the American pursuit of nuclear disarmament is foolish for the same reasons I outlined above about the Clinton and Obama deals--that is, because we will be the only ones to keep the treaties while the Russians and others keep stockpiling, leaving us the weaker power in the end with less deterrence capability.

However, the situation in North Korea didn't "start" with Bush 41's removal of nukes from South Korea. That was part of a global nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and other nations. It had nothing to do with North Korea in particular, with the exception that North Korea, along with other nations, agreed to it in 1985, 6 years before Bush pulled nukes from South Korea, and remained in league with it until 2 more years later, when the weak Bill Clinton took office.

One could try to say that by removing American nukes from South Korea, the deterring threat of nuclear retaliation was removed from over North Korea's head, emboldening NK to pull out of the treaty and build nukes, but that's simply incorrect because the United States could at that time, and still can, hit North Korea from various other locations, including from the United States mainland itself, and there are other powerful nuclear nations in the same treaty that could do the same. So, South Korea's disarmament wasn't the initiator--nor was it a concession specifically toward North Korea, for that matter. It was part of a deal primarily with Russia.

Also, remember, we're talking about who made stupid "deal" attempts that blew back in their faces.

The first "deal" between the United States and North Korea was by the Clinton administration with Jimmy Carter in the mix. That hampered us and handed ground to North Korea, which it used and abused to gain nukes while starry-eyed followers of Clinton swooned with false hope that he had saved us from North Korean nukes--only to later find that he actually guaranteed a nuclear-armed madman.

Again, I was alive and watching. I remember thinking how stupid Clinton was, and what a liar he was, as I murmured, "Now, they'll get nukes for sure while we sit by and do nothing."

Well, people like me were right about that. Now, Obama has repeated the same foolish mistake with Iran. We'll also be proven right about that, too, if the United States keeps following the Obama path.

Again, we are talking about who made the stupid deal that put a nuclear North Korea on the map. Clinton did that. Trump is trying to clean it up after the fact while Obama just created a new pathway to nuclear arms for Iran.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


We'll have to agree to disagree... Having nukes right across the DMZ makes a lot of difference...

We all have to take into consideration the difference between the 90's and today...

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-kryptonite-former-dni-us-intelligence-could-topple-kim-jong-un-2018-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011

If Kim agrees to denuclearize, he will fall from power... He has sold the NK military and people on the "evil" US... Kim knows that an agreement with the US will be signing up for his own demise...

Kim knows he has more time by staying the course and wait until technology let's the people and military of NK know the truth about him and his lies... Kim essentially will be playing kick-the-can with his own life, and he can kick it further by not agreeing...

We'll see how it develops, but if there is some agreement, then no one should start bragging/celebrating until the last nuke is gone...

RBF

When we have nukes that can easily strike North Korea all over the world, I don't see what difference removing a few from SK makes, and the removal of SK's nukes wasn't about NK. It was about Russia.

But that's beside the point. You can't admit that Clinton totally flubbed his "deal", which facilitated a path for North Korea to play us for fools and obtain nukes?

Refusal to admit that is obviously partisan, man.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Originally posted by gotchacovered

No, sir. It progressed the most under Bush 43 because Clinton had just made a foolish "deal" that basically hacked the weeds out of North Korea's path.

You should be able to admit this. I watched Clinton's deal get made and predicted that it would result in a nuclear North Korea. So did many other thinking Americans. Don't blame the results of Clinton's "deal" on the president who followed him.

As for where it started, I guess you could keep going back and say it started at various points, such as with Eisenhower's formation of the IAEA, or ultimately with the development and use of nuclear weapons by the United States during WWII, but all of that's sort of a specious argument when it comes to the specific situation with North Korea and the defunct diplomacy efforts with that nation by American presidents.

Before I go on here, I'll say this. I have always thought that the American pursuit of nuclear disarmament is foolish for the same reasons I outlined above about the Clinton and Obama deals--that is, because we will be the only ones to keep the treaties while the Russians and others keep stockpiling, leaving us the weaker power in the end with less deterrence capability.

However, the situation in North Korea didn't "start" with Bush 41's removal of nukes from South Korea. That was part of a global nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia and other nations. It had nothing to do with North Korea in particular, with the exception that North Korea, along with other nations, agreed to it in 1985, 6 years before Bush pulled nukes from South Korea, and remained in league with it until 2 more years later, when the weak Bill Clinton took office.

One could try to say that by removing American nukes from South Korea, the deterring threat of nuclear retaliation was removed from over North Korea's head, emboldening NK to pull out of the treaty and build nukes, but that's simply incorrect because the United States could at that time, and still can, hit North Korea from various other locations, including from the United States mainland itself, and there are other powerful nuclear nations in the same treaty that could do the same. So, South Korea's disarmament wasn't the initiator--nor was it a concession specifically toward North Korea, for that matter. It was part of a deal primarily with Russia.

Also, remember, we're talking about who made stupid "deal" attempts that blew back in their faces.

The first "deal" between the United States and North Korea was by the Clinton administration with Jimmy Carter in the mix. That hampered us and handed ground to North Korea, which it used and abused to gain nukes while starry-eyed followers of Clinton swooned with false hope that he had saved us from North Korean nukes--only to later find that he actually guaranteed a nuclear-armed madman.

Again, I was alive and watching. I remember thinking how stupid Clinton was, and what a liar he was, as I murmured, "Now, they'll get nukes for sure while we sit by and do nothing."

Well, people like me were right about that. Now, Obama has repeated the same foolish mistake with Iran. We'll also be proven right about that, too, if the United States keeps following the Obama path.

Again, we are talking about who made the stupid deal that put a nuclear North Korea on the map. Clinton did that. Trump is trying to clean it up after the fact while Obama just created a new pathway to nuclear arms for Iran.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


We'll have to agree to disagree... Having nukes right across the DMZ makes a lot of difference...

We all have to take into consideration the difference between the 90's and today...

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-kryptonite-former-dni-us-intelligence-could-topple-kim-jong-un-2018-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_2011

If Kim agrees to denuclearize, he will fall from power... He has sold the NK military and people on the "evil" US... Kim knows that an agreement with the US will be signing up for his own demise...

Kim knows he has more time by staying the course and wait until technology let's the people and military of NK know the truth about him and his lies... Kim essentially will be playing kick-the-can with his own life, and he can kick it further by not agreeing...

We'll see how it develops, but if there is some agreement, then no one should start bragging/celebrating until the last nuke is gone...

RBF

When we have nukes that can easily strike North Korea all over the world, I don't see what difference removing a few from SK makes, and the removal of SK's nukes wasn't about NK. It was about Russia.

But that's beside the point. You can't admit that Clinton totally flubbed his "deal", which facilitated a path for North Korea to play us for fools and obtain nukes?

Refusal to admit that is obviously partisan, man.

Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarineinsurance.com
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862


Geez, I voted for Ross Perot, not Clinton...

An Independent doesn't have a "party", they can identify with a "party", as I do with the Libertarians...

Never voted for a Democrat. Voted for 43 in 2000, and voted for McCain in the primaries. Then, he picked that lunatic Palin as VP, and I didn't vote in the GE. Haven't voted in the GE since 43, and won't again until I believe in the candidate... Again, I am not a vote whore like many... Gotta earn my vote!

As far as the removal of nukes from SK... Yeah, help Russia out by taking nukes away from Democratic nation with a "communist" one right across the DMZ... Seems to help communism, and proved as such...

RBF
Last edited by Richard Beer Froth
WOW! All that blabbering you did about Ol' Smokey, and you didn't even vote for him? That's genuine!