Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Proteus_MST]

Trump the bigly negotiator of denuclearization in North Korea

Statement by North Korea:

But on Thursday North Korea accused the US of misleading the world over the outcomes of the June talks. It claims Pyongyang has always stuck to its old stance – that it needs nuclear weapons unless and until it no longer faces any American military threat.

"“The United States must now recognise the accurate meaning of the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, and especially, must study geography,” the statement said.

“When we talk about the Korean Peninsula, it includes the territory of our republic and also the entire region of (South Korea) where the United States has placed its invasive force, including nuclear weapons. When we talk about the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, it means the removal of all sources of nuclear threat, not only from the South and North but also from areas neighbouring the Korean Peninsula,” the statement said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8692031.html

I have to say that this is a sensible demand.
If I were faced with an unpredictable leader who may think about invading me and who has a history of not honoring his treaties, I would also want to make sure that the troops of said leader don't pose any threats anymore, before I give up my only effective weapons

[Broken_Erika]

Well, it still has to go through the senate .. which may be a littel bit more difficult

One has to wonder how many poor people could be fed, housed, or supplied with desperately needed medicine or medical procedures for a year, with 5.7B $

Knowing the US Healthcare system? Probably about 8 or so......

[Kidlicious]

Well, it still has to go through the senate .. which may be a littel bit more difficult

One has to wonder how many poor people could be fed, housed, or supplied with desperately needed medicine or medical procedures for a year, with 5.7B $

How big of a wall can be built if we stop subsidizing crony capitalists?

[-Jrabbit]

Dude, the entire Cabinet is a swamp of crony capitalism.

[pchang]

Trump is the one of the biggest crony capitalists there is.

[Jon Miller]

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000

December 20, 2018

Dear Mr. President:

I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.

I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model —gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions — to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.

My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.

Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability within the Department.

I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.

[Proteus_MST]

Finally someone who speaks clearly out what why he resigns from his position

At the same time it is a sad occasion ... another adult (who was respected by both parties) that leaves the Kindergarten that the WH has become.
And I am sure that his replacement won't be an adult, but rather on the mental age of development of Trump and his yes-(wo-)men in the WH

How many adults are left in the WH ... not a single one, isn't it?

[Dinner]

Trump the bigly negotiator of denuclearization in North Korea

Statement by North Korea:


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8692031.html

I have to say that this is a sensible demand.
If I were faced with an unpredictable leader who may think about invading me and who has a history of not honoring his treaties, I would also want to make sure that the troops of said leader don't pose any threats anymore, before I give up my only effective weapons

I am curious which treaty you wrongly think the US didn't honor? Remember the Iran agreement wasn't a treaty as the Congress never adopted it as required by the constitution. Now, I think Republicans are retarded and played politics where they should have done what was best for the country but the fact remains there was no treaty.

[-Jrabbit]

How about NAFTA? Paris Climate Accords?

[Proteus_MST]

I am curious which treaty you wrongly think the US didn't honor? Remember the Iran agreement wasn't a treaty as the Congress never adopted it as required by the constitution. Now, I think Republicans are retarded and played politics where they should have done what was best for the country but the fact remains there was no treaty.

I think of all the treaties/agreements out of which Trump pulled out because he didn't want them anymore ...like the Paris Agreement ... NAFTA ... the forging of this transpacific trade agreement ... also the threat to pull out of the century old postal agreement and so on.

Not to mention Trumps personal conduct before he became president ... when he just unilaterally withheld payment from craftsmen working on his tower (or his golf clubs) because for assumed faults in their work (which very probably were just invented claims because Trump didn't want to pay), knowing that the craftspeople wouldn't have the money to successfully sue Trump for their money

I have no doubt that Trump would have no scruples to also just quit any agreement with North Korea after NK had denuclearized ... if Donnie sees use in it (i.e. quitting the agreement)

I for my part wouldn't trust Trump enough to enter in any agreement/treaty with him, no matter how lucrative it may sound

[Dinner]

All of those treaties have instructions on how any signatories can withdraw. Again, I would prefer to stay in those treaties but only a true ignoramus would claim a treaty was "broken" when you follow the withdrawal procedures listed in the treaty.

Also, despite Trump's idiotic ramblings NAFTA remains with only exceptionally small, almost insignificant, changes. Typical all talk and no substance Trump.

Lastly, the TTP, which is a good idea if some corporate welfare nonsense is removed from it, was never adopted so how was that an example if breaking a treaty?

[Proteus_MST]

All of those treaties have instructions on how any signatories can withdraw. Again, I would prefer to stay in those treaties but only a ****** would claim a treaty was "broken" when you follow the withdrawal procedures listed in the treaty.

Also, despite Trump's idiotic ramblings NAFTA remains with only exceptionally small, almost insignificant, changes. Typical all talk and not substance Trump.

Lastly, the TTP, which is a good idea if some corporate welfare nonsense is removed from it, was never adopted so how was that an example if breaking a treaty?

Well, maybe I should state it otherwise:
Lets say Trumpistan and North Korea make a treaty:
NK destroys all nuclear weapons as well as all uranium/plutonium stockpiles anc in exchange for this, the USA promise to withdraw from South Korea and allow trade to pass freely into North Korea.

After North Korea has destroyed all stockpiles of nucleare arms and supplies, what would keep Trump from just saying:
I have lost interest in upholding the treaty ... our US troops go back to South Korea and we blockade North Korea till Kim resigns

[pchang]

The difference would be if the treaty were actually ratified by the US Senate. Then, it would would be illegal for the President to unilaterally abrogate the treaty. In none of the cases you mentioned were the treaties actually ratified by the US Senate. Until that happens, all those treaties are merely agreed to in principle that have no legal standing.

[Proteus_MST]

The difference would be if the treaty were actually ratified by the US Senate. Then, it would would be illegal for the President to unilaterally abrogate the treaty. In none of the cases you mentioned were the treaties actually ratified by the US Senate. Until that happens, all those treaties are merely agreed to in principle that have no legal standing.

Ah O.K. ...
I have to admit that, while the republicans in the senate often turned up to be accomplices to Trump,
they are, at least, a little bit more sane than Cadet Bonespurs and would, most likely, prevent that Donnie cancels the treaty just on a whim

[pchang]

There are a number legal questions with regards to US Treaty compliance that have not been answered. For instance, the Trump administration is claiming that Russia INF is in violation of the INF treaty and therefore the treaty is invalid. It is not clear if the US Senate must vote to agree with this. Back in 1979, the US unilaterally abrogated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty (defense treaty with Taiwan) and then recognized China instead. Some Republicans sued the President to stop this, claiming that the President needed Senate approval for this, but the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

[Dinner]

No, first Obama and then Trump (or rather Pentagon experts for both administrations) have pointed out that Russia has fielded land based intermediate range missiles which were banned under the INF treaty. Russia claims, yes, if fully fueled the missiles would violate the treaty but they claim they only fuel the missiles half full.

Every western military has concluded Putin has indeed broken the treaty. The US has spent four years trying to convince Putin to come back into compliance with the INF treaty but Putin has refused. So what should the U.S. do? Most of the experts agree the U.S. should legally exit the treaty as spelled out in the treaty and then field intermediate ranged nuclear missiles of it's own so as to even the balance of power which Russia is currently illegally breaking.

[Uncle Sparky]

Markets are collapsing. NASDAQ is full of bears.
Will Trump appoint Kanye as the new Defense Secretary?

[Dinner]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/24/trump-is-right-about-the-inf/amp/

You will notice Foreign Policy Magazine (the magazine for just about every old man in the diplomatic core) rarely says anything good about Trump, and for good reason, but do agree on this one. I honestly doubt Trump knows much about the issue but some professional somehow got him to pay attention to this issue at least long enough to tweet about it.