Trump bows to Un's Demands

Tony Stark said:
The UN vs Trump?Of course Im rooting for The UN over that lying con man scumbucket.
More...
It's not about The Un but about Kim Jong-Un demands on Trump. READ THE TITLE. Either way that fact that you would side with a murderous dictator that has killed even members of his close family instead of a' lying con man' according to you, is at the very least despicable, and says a lot about your true nature.
 
Optionpro007 said:
It's not about The Un but about Kim Jong-Un demands on Trump. READ THE TITLE. Either way that fact that you would side with a murderous dictator that has killed even members of his close family instead of a' lying con man' according to you, is at the very least despicable, and says a lot about your true nature.
More...

Many people are not happy with their leaders and try to delegitimize their standing. Both Kim ans Trump fall into this category. Innocent people have died, either directly or indirectly under both Kim and Trump. Under Trump, I'm talking about civilian casualty collateral damage as a result of military action such as cruise missle attacks.

The fact remains that Kim is the leader of North Korea and that is who we have to negotiate with.

Letting the talks begin and see where it leads seems to be a better choice to me than letting the bombs drop to see where that leads.
 
maximumpossiblesuffering said:
Many people are not happy with their leaders and try to delegitimize their standing. Both Kim ans Trump fall into this category. .
More...

Trump approval ratings are higher than Obama's or very similar and how can you compare civilian casualties caused by taking out ISIS, to the I guess, millions of people who have died at the hands of NK's government over the past three decades?
 
Tony Stark said:
Talking about Trump


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...344968-2932-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html

Middle East civilian deaths have soared under Trump. And the media mostly shrug.
By Margaret Sullivan

March 18, 2018 at 4:00 PM



The numbers are shocking — or at least they should be.

2017 was the deadliest year for civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, with as many as 6,000 people killed in strikes conducted by the U.S.-led coalition, according to the watchdog group Airwars.

That is an increase of more than 200 percent over the previous year.

It is far more if you add in countries like Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and many others.

But the subject, considered a stain on President Barack Obama’s legacy even by many of his supporters, has almost dropped off the map.

Obsessed with the seemingly daily updates in the Stormy Daniels story or the impeachment potential of the Russia investigation, the American media is paying even less attention now to a topic it never focused on with much zeal.


“The media has unfortunately been so distracted by the chaos of the Trump administration and allegations of the president’s collusion with Russia that it’s neglected to look closely at the things he’s actually doing already,” said Daphne Eviatar, a director of Amnesty International USA.

That includes, she said, “hugely expanding the use of drone and airstrikes, including outside of war zones, and increasing civilian casualties in the process.”

Trump, of course, was a candidate who promised to “bomb the shit out of ’em [Islamic State],” and has since declared victory over the terrorist organization, while continuing to drop bombs.

But at what human cost?

Eviatar, and others who monitor these issues, deplore not only the deaths of innocent people but also the government secrecy that has worsened significantly over the past year.

The Pentagon no longer reveals, she said, “even the legal and policy framework the U.S. uses to guide these lethal strikes.”

That makes the role of dogged reporting even more important.

A recent New York Times article revealed that the United States launched eight airstrikes against the Islamic State in Libya, but disclosed only four.

The story noted that military commanders have decided to reveal strikes only if a reporter specifically asked about them — the Pentagon even has a name for this policy: “responses to questions.”

Too often, the questions never come.

“Drone strikes are more prevalent than ever before, and we are hearing about it less,” said Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War project at Brown University.


Part of the reason, she said, is a kind of distorted, post-9/11 flag-waving, combined with a heavy dose of news fatigue.

“We all know there’s stuff going on in the name of fighting terror, but there’s not much interest in the details,” Savell said. “It’s considered unpatriotic to question what’s going on with the military.”

And so, front pages, cable TV pundit panels and network news shows are far more likely to probe the palace intrigue at the White House.

“As someone whose job it is to, essentially, read every article I can find on the U.S. drone war and the consequences, I can’t help but feel disheartened when some former campaign aide’s public breakdown garners drastically more coverage on the same day as a story about how the U.S. killed 150 civilians after they repeatedly bombed a school in Syria,” said Allegra Harpootlian of ReThink Media, a nonprofit communications organization.

Although aggressive reporting on drone strikes and civilian deaths is relatively rare these days, it can yield impressive results.

A BuzzFeed investigation, for example, led to the U.S. government reversing course and admitting responsibility for the deaths of 36 civilians in Mosul. The follow-up story reported that no condolence payments to the families of the victims had been approved — and, given current policy, probably never will.

And a New York Times Magazine investigation in November — “The Uncounted” — revealed that the vaunted precision of U.S.-led airstrikes is both overestimated and underexplained.


Other reporting suggests the U.S.-led coalition’s aggressive bombing of the Islamic State may have been successful, by some estimations, but there is a heavy price to pay in how the United States is perceived.

Widespread civilian casualties, reportedthe Intercept, are “transforming the coalition in the eyes of locals from liberator into aggressor.”

There is an important national debate to be had about this.

But given the administration’s secrecy and the lack of interest from a highly distracted public and media, that debate will not happen any time soon — certainly not while we have the Twitter feed of Stormy Daniels to occupy us.



For more by Margaret Sullivan visit wapo.st/sullivan
More...


This is a thread on North Korea and now we are jumping over to the mideast?

Looks like Tony the Tard's media matters package on North Korea ran out of material so now he just goes with whatever topic he received material on.
 
Even at cabinet level , no one knows what the other is doing !!!



South Korea Responds To Trump’s Sudden Cancelation Of Kim Jong Un Summit
“We are attempting to make sense of what, precisely, President Trump means.”


South Korea was at a loss for words Thursday after President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was scrapping next month’s planned nuclear summit with North Korea.

“We are attempting to make sense of what, precisely, President Trump means” South Korean presidential spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom said in a statement.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, testifying on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t comment on whether Trump’s letter blindsided the South Koreans.

The summit’s fate was thrown into question after North Korea backed away from the Trump administration’s demands to fully denuclearize. Trump then appeared to soften the demand, hinting first that he was flexible, but then saying there would be no meeting without full denuclearization.

Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence sparked further North Korean outrage with comments comparing North Korea with Libya.

Just hours before Trump pulled the trigger to cancel the meeting, North Korean officials called Pence a “political dummy” and threatened to pull out of the summit themselves.

“Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting,” Trump wrote in a letter to Kim shared with reporters on Thursday.
 
WINNING!!!


Trying to game the unpredictable is not an easy game.

If you gamed Obama, you know how the dance works.

Quick question for Little Rocket Man:

Can you spell "LIBYA," Little Rocket Man?

Big hug for you.
 
Optionpro007 said:
It's not about The Un but about Kim Jong-Un demands on Trump. READ THE TITLE. Either way that fact that you would side with a murderous dictator that has killed even members of his close family instead of a' lying con man' according to you, is at the very least despicable, and says a lot about your true nature.
More...
The fact you support a piece of shit like trump says a lot about your true nature.
 
Optionpro007 said:
Trump approval ratings are higher than Obama's or very similar
More...
No they are not.Trump has the worst approval ratings of any president to this point and is the the only president to never have a 51% approval in Gallup or aggregate polling since polling began in the 1930's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top