SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
North Korea warns it may cancel summit with Trump if it has to give up nukes
A senior North Korean official warned Wednesday that Pyongyang may cancel its summit meeting between Kim Jong Un and President Trump scheduled for June 12 in Singapore, if it is going to be pushed into giving up its nuclear arsenal.
If the Trump administration pressures Pyongyang to unilaterally abandon its nuclear weapons, North Korea would have to reconsider the summit, Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.
[...] The news came hours after the North canceled a high-level meeting with South Korean officials that was scheduled for Wednesday, citing a joint military exercise as the reason. In its earlier statement, KCNA claimed that the U.S. and South Korea's joint air drill, which began on Friday, was "a bid to make a preemptive airstrike at the DPRK and win the air."
See also:
- North Korea's Warning to U.S. Throws Trump Summit Into Doubt
- North Korea-US talks: Kim is in this for economic guarantees
- Why Negotiating With North Korea Was Never Going to Be Easy
- Frida Ghitis: North Korea is testing Trump
- For Pentagon, South Korea drills became a crucial but quiet endeavor
- North Korea Surprises Trump Administration by Acting Like North Korea Again
- How rival agendas threaten Trump's summit with Kim
- North Korea is dismantling its nuclear site, but is it abandoning its arsenal or hiding evidence?
Previously: Peace Dividend?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @03:23PM (16 children)
"they say NK is fickle"
You don't know what that means until you've seen what the U.S did through all its history. Make promises and then break them. Make your enemy think you made a deal, when it is only to buy you time until you can stab them in the back. Murrica, fuck yeah. Cheat, lie, deceive.
Can Pyongyang trust Washington? Ask Native American Chief Red Eagle [rt.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday May 17 2018, @03:43PM (10 children)
Russian state media saying you can't trust America for things done over a century ago is pretty absurd considering what the USSR did during its reign less than a hundred years ago.
Calling NK fickle does not mean the US is not also fickle.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @04:03PM (3 children)
The U.S is also a hypocrite, and a big one. Do you ever hear one of their speakers at some event talking of (it seems their speeches are written by wallstreet con artists, who have no creativity; the repetition is strong and nothing new is said):
- values
- shared values
- more shared values
When there are no values the U.S holds dear. Their word carries no weight. They make promises only to break them a while later. The U.S is not to be trusted. The U.S has no credibility.
N.K would do wise to not let their nuclear arsenal go, or they would be invaded and their people murdered. This is about self-preservation against a brutal enemy, in this case the "shared values" U.S.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:44PM
When I talk about our shared values, I'm talking about Gold and I'm talking about the U.S. Dollar. Together with our faith and our family, they are the bonds that unite us. God Bless America!!!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:45PM (1 child)
It seems a bit silly to worry about the US invading North Korea. Remember that we fought a brutal war with them - or a police action, or whatever the hell. We FINALLY had them pretty well whipped, and were moving in to finish the job, when CHINA. China doesn't need or want the US on their border. China isn't especially pleased that we have cordial relations, and bases, with Japan and South Korea. They aren't going to tolerate that kind of stuff in North Korea.
China sent warnings to North Korea in recent months. In effect, "If you start or provoke a war with the United States, you're on your own." It doesn't take much to read the obverse side of a coin. "If the United States attacks you, we have your back, brothers!" So, it all boils down to China's perception of the provocations involved in any future conflicts. But, no, we aren't going to invade North Korea. We *may possibly* try to provoke something covert, like a coup, or an assassination, but certainly nothing overt. The only way US Marines are going to put boots in North Korea is, they are legitimately invited by N.K, or, N.K. first attacks S.K. and/or the United States.
None of that is likely to change within the lifetime of anyone reading my post. None of it is especially likely to change for generations to come.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @10:23PM
Shit, we're going to war with NK :( Anytime someone makes such bold predictions they always seem to fail, especially when they come from someone known for their bravado style bullshit. If the mighty blowhard had said it I'd probably start building a bunker.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday May 17 2018, @04:23PM
It's an observation of the obvious. They are able to use hundred-year-old evidence because the chain of "can't trust that government" goes back that far.
Pointing out that the U.S. is untrustworthy does not mean that the U.S.S.R. was not also untrustworthy.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:23PM (4 children)
1988, I sent a note to Secretary Gorbachev -- they called him a Secretary in those days but he was like a President -- and Raisa. I said, I hear you're coming to New York, why don't you visit Trump Tower? I'll show you my apartment, I'll show you the Bonwit Teller store, the Abercrombie & Fitch, everything. We can have tea. And I'll tell you how to end the Cold War in a way that will be very nice for your Country. They told me "yes." The day comes, I'm waiting. But they don't show, they don't call, nothing. I felt VERY FOOLISH. But I was OK. I've been very successful. Right? But the USSR lost the Cold War very badly, the USSR was totally destroyed. And so was Bonwit Teller, unfortunately.
Let me tell you, I keep my promises. As everyone knows. I made an appointment with Chairman Kim -- they call him Chairman, he's like a President. June 12 in Singapore, I'll be there. Chairman Kim can come or not come. If he comes, he can have the terrific mango mousse. And we can make a beautiful deal. He doesn't come, very bad for his Country. And double dessert for me!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:55PM (3 children)
USSR lost the Cold War very badly? No. I'll tell you what would have been "very badly". As they teetered, in their final days, North Korea could have launched an invasion, while at the same time, China invaded. NATO would likely have been very worried that those two nominally "communist" countries would divvy everything up between them, then fall to fighting between themselves. So, NATO's response to those invasions, would have been to invade the USSR from the west.
Of course, there is a nice little tier of nations to Russia's south, who individually and/or collectively could have carved out huge swathes of Russian territory.
Russians COULD HAVE died in the tens of millions. Women and children raped, murdered, sold into slavery, or sent to gulags.
But, apparently, you've forgotten all about World War 2, the seige of the capital by the Nazis, and the loss of ~26 million Russian lives. And, that doesn't even take into account the other ~20 million killed by Russia's own communist government.
You can believe that Russia knows exactly how badly the collapse of the Soviet COULD have been. They've been there, and done that, within the past century.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:41PM
Let me tell you, they could have had a Trump hotel in Leningrad -- now St. Petersberg. And a Trump hotel in Moscow, overlooking Red Square. They could have had a first-rate Country, very classy. But that didn't happen. And perhaps it won't ever happen. Their loss!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @01:14AM (1 child)
Why are you always the one to respond to TRDT? And always 100% seriously... fucking weird. Maybe you really are a Russian shill??
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday May 18 2018, @03:01AM
Hopefully, he's a masochist, or arguing for the sake of it.
(I certainly hope he doesn't think he's talking to the President.)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @03:56PM (4 children)
Saddam Hussein agreed not to make WMDs and complied with all the inspection requirements. Then the US et al. invaded and killed him.
Muammar Gaddafi gave up WMDs for Libya. Then the US et al. invaded (and he died).
Kim Jong-un would have to be stupid to give up his country's nukes.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:49PM (3 children)
He's a smart cookie, believe me. When we (John Bolton, terrific guy) say we're doing the Libya model, he knows what we mean. Winning!!
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:09PM (2 children)
Telling the North Koreans that we plan on bombing the crap out of them even if they comply with the terms of the deal might not be the best negotiating tactic...
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday May 18 2018, @02:09AM (1 child)
Well, nothing has changed on North Korea that we know of. We have not been told anything, and if it does, that's fine. I think we'll probably have a very successful meeting.
But we have not been told anything. We're just reading stories like you are. We've heard certain things from South Korea.
But we'll see what happens. If the meeting happens, it happens. And if it doesn't, we go on to the next step.
I want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. I think that -- I can only say our people are literally dealing with them right now in terms of making arrangements for the meeting. So that's a lot different from what you read, but oftentimes what you read if it's not fake news, it's true. So we'll see what happens.
We are dealing with them now. We may have the meeting. We may not have the meeting. If we don't have it, that will be very interesting. We'll see what happens. The border is still quite strong.
I think things changed a little bit when they met with China. They met the second time. As you know, Kim Jong-un had a second meeting with China, which was a little bit of a surprise meeting. And we have many of the Chinese here today, as you know, big delegations negotiating trade, because the United States has been ripped off for many, many years by its bad trade deals. I don't blame China. I blame our leadership of this country from the past. We have been ripped off by China. An evacuation of wealth like no country has ever seen before given to another country that's rebuilt itself based on a lot of the money they've taken out of the United States. And that's not going to happen anymore.
But there has been a big difference since they had the second meeting with President Xi. With that being said, my attitude is whatever happens happens. Either way, we're going to be in great shape.
We'll see what happens. Look, you have to want to do it. With deals, that's what I do, is deals. And with deals, you have to have two parties that want to do it. He absolutely wanted to do it. Perhaps he doesn't want to do it. Perhaps he spoke with China. That could be right. President Xi, a friend of mine, a great guy, but he's for China and I'm for the United States, and that's the way it is, and I suspect it's never going to change.
But I will say this, we are continuing to negotiate in terms of location, the location that's to -- where to meet, how to meet, rooms, everything else, and they've been negotiating like nothing happened. But if you read the newspapers, maybe it won't happen. I can't tell you yet. I will tell you very shortly. We're going to know very soon.
Have you ever seen China negotiating in trade? Nobody's even seen anybody from our country even negotiate on trade -- trade with China and with other countries, I'm not just blaming China -- China's the biggest. But trade has been a total one-way street. Right outside of this nation, you take money out like it's you -- by the bucket loads into other. Whether it's the European Union, which you know so well, whether it's Japan or South Korea or -- I could name almost every single country in the world.
We had nobody representing us. And now you have somebody that's very good at this stuff, me, representing us. And China has taken out hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the United States. And I explained to President Xi we can't do that anymore, we just can't do that anymore. It's a much different situation.
But with all the years and all the years, you've never seen people come over from China to work on a trade deal.
Now, will that be successful? I tend to doubt it. The reason I doubt it is because China's become very spoiled. The European Union has become very spoiled, other countries have become very spoiled, because they always got 100% of whatever they wanted from the United States.
But we can't allow that to happen anymore. We're an incredible country. We have incredible potential. The potential we have is incredible.
But we lost $800 billion on trade last year, if you add it all up. Of which, China was around the $500 billion mark. So we lost $800 billion, can you believe that, is that an amazing thing to even think about? We lost $800 billion on trade -- we're not going to be doing that any longer.
ZTE was a company that I spoke to with President Xi. He asked me if I'd take a look at that because it was very harmful to them in terms of their jobs and probably other things. And I certainly said I would -- he asked me to do it and I would do that -- I would certainly -- out of great respect -- I like him, he like me, we have a great relationship. He asked me if I'd look at ZTE -- don't forget, it was my administration with my full knowledge that put very, very strong clamps on ZTE. It wasn't anybody else, it wasn't President Obama. It wasn't President Bush. It was me.
I put very strong clamps on ZTE. They did very bad things to our country. They did very bad things to our economy. The one thing I will say, they also buy a large portion of their parts for the phones that they make -- and they're the fourth largest company in terms of that industry -- they buy those parts from the United States. That's a lot of business.
So we have a lot of companies that won't be selling those parts. But the President of China, President Xi, asked me to look at it. I said I would look at it. But anything we do with ZTE is always -- it's just a small component of the overall deal.
I can only tell you this, we're going to come out fine with China. Hopefully China's going to be happy -- I think we will be happy. And, as the expression goes, when you're losing $500 billion a year on trade you can't lose the trade war, you've already lost it.
We've had horrible representatives in this country that have allowed other countries to get away with murder. And those days are gone, those days are over.
So we just want fairness for the workers of this country and for the United States. That's what's going to happen, OK? I'll let you know about, as time goes by, we'll let you know. As of this moment everything we know -- I mean North Korea's actually talking to us about times and everything else as though nothing happened.
Will it happen? Will we be going on that very special date and can some great things happen? You know, we're going to be looking at it very soon.
Well, the Libyan model isn't a model that we have at all when we're thinking of North Korea. In Libya, we decimated that country. That country was decimated. There was no deal to keep Qaddafi. The Libyan model that was mentioned was a much different deal.
This would be with Kim Jong-un something where he'd be there. He'd be in his country. He'd be running his country. His country would be very rich. His people are tremendously industrious. If you look at South Korea -- this would be, really, a South Korean model in terms of their industry, in terms of what they do. They're hardworking incredible people.
But the Libyan model was a much different model. We decimated that country. We never said to Qaddafi, "oh, we're going to give you protection, we're going to give you military strength, we're going to give you all of these things." We went in and decimated him. And we did the same thing with Iraq. Now, whether or not we should have, I could tell you, I was against it from the beginning, because look what we have right now. We have spent $7 trillion -- can you believe that -- $7 trillion in the Middle East, right out the window. You might as well throw the money right out the window. And we've done a lot of infrastructure. We just had airports approved. You saw that. A lot of things are happening. But we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, and look where we are right now. It's pretty sad.
But the model, if you look at that model with Qaddafi, that was a total decimation. We went in there to beat him. Now that model would take place if we don't make a deal, most likely. But if we make a deal, I think Kim Jong-un is going to be very, very happy. I really believe he's going to very happy. But this is just the opposite.
And I think when John Bolton made that statement, he was talking about if we're going to be having a problem, because we cannot let that country have nukes. We just can't do it. So that's the way it's meant. It's really just the opposite. Because if you look -- again, if you look at Syria, that was a total decimation.
I'm willing to do -- we're willing to do a lot. And he's willing to, I think, do a lot also. And I think we'll actually have a good relationship, assuming we have the meeting and assuming something comes of it. And he'll get protections that will be very strong.
Syria never had protections. If you look at Syria -- if you look at -- or if you look anywhere around the Middle East, you look at Iraq, you look at Libya, with Libya certainly they didn't have protection. They had the exact opposite. That was absolute decimation. And that's what we planned to do, and that's what we did.
We're going to say that he will have very adequate protection. And we'll see how it all turns out.
I think this, the best thing he could ever do is to make a deal. I have a feeling, however, that for various reasons, maybe including trade, because they've never had this problem before -- China has never had this problem with us -- it could very well be that he's influencing Kim Jong-un. We'll see what happens. Meaning the president of China, President Xi could be influencing Kim Jong-un.
But we'll see. That's just a -- look, if you remember a few weeks ago, all of a sudden out of nowhere, Kim Jong-un went to China to say "hello again" a second time to President Xi. I think they were dedicating an aircraft carrier, paid for largely by the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @03:00AM
Can we have a -1 Bloviating mod please?