John Bolton said Trump was never serious about stopping North Korea from building nuclear weapons

sure there is, just like criminals in our own country can't own guns

 

I wonder if john Bolden is selling out or this is the collective hoping he does.

 

I am sure 3 billion dollars may have helped the North Korea nuclear program.

Clinton gave North Korea 3 billion dollars to stop their nuclear program.

 

Clinton's celebrated 1994 agreement with NK launched their nuclear program. We trusted them. So naive.

 

That is one country saying what it's citizens can and cannot do. We are talking about one sovereign nation telling another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do in their own country.
Vast difference.

 

I mostly agree with John Bolton, and I can't believe I'm agreeing with a Neo-con, but it was observable as far back as 2012 that North Korea was an antagonist country, using its so-called "hunger" and "sanctions" to carry a stick against the US, meanwhile in preparation for a military assault. We should assume that since that time in 2012, that weapons testing has been contant, carried out in secret and probably perfected to a degree.

This testing, and these not-so-thinly veiled threats, has been the response to our diplomacy. It's now clear that North Korea is a belligerent nation that intends to harm us militarily. We should in no uncertain terms warn the North Koreans of two things:

1) A test violates the agreements made between the administration and North Korea, and thus sanctions will apply immediately.
2) An attack is an invitation to all out war, and nothing less than deposing Kim Jong and the North Korean military rule. As far as China's involvement? That's up to China in light of its economic problems in Hong Kong.

 

Didn't read whole thread. OP is conflating a difference of policy opinion between Trump and Bolton into a claim that Trump's true intent was different than his stated intent. Fallacious, typical given the biased, partisan source in the OP.

 

You two are on it. Bolton is not just a hawk, but really, an extreme hawk. So if Trump is not talking war, or threatening war, or initiating war, Bolton is going to say we are not exerting enough pressure. War and the threat of war is the type of "pressure" Bolton believes in. His track record is unmistakable and not debatable.

I'm glad he's not advising the President anymore.

 

Nailed it!

 

Agreed, but I don't trust NK at all even knowing they are China's proxy. I don't like to be taken for a fool, so I'm watching these "christmas" developments carefully. I'm not saying I won't disengage with North Korea, I am saying that it's up to NK how that engagement plays out. Diplomatic, or not so diplomatic. The choice is theirs.

 

In times of sanity you would not be going after trump and supporting people like the neocon bolton so you can say something about trump.

I believe you guys would invade nk so you could rightfully claim trump was insane. That is how awful such dems have become.

What strange bedfellows dems will bed down with!

 

Oh yes, I agree with that too. I actually think, early in his presidency, when NK was shooting missiles all over the place (Japan, threatening Hawaii, etc), Trump was serious when he said to "Stop threatening my country" and threatening "Fire and fury like the world has never seen." At the time, I thought we were on the path to war. And then everything changed when Trump made his overtures directly to the NK leader, and things have been fairly calm since then.

I don't trust NK either. There is no reason to trust them. But, at the same time, I have supported Trump's attempt to engage NK's leader on a personal level and to try to get him to see a new and better paradigm. I, too, will be watching to see what happens next.

 

No, I'm just reporting that Trumps former NSA disagrees with Trump on his NK policy...

Bolton is the one who's stated Trump's true intent was different than his stated intent.

And he'd be the one in a position to know...

 

So, how did this help North Korea to develop nuclear weapons?

President Bill Clinton took the podium on October 18, 1994, with aspeech that reads like a sigh of relief—the announcement of a landmark nuclear agreement between the United States and North Korea. “This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” he assured the nation. Called the Agreed Framework, it was designed to put the brakes on North Korea’s nuclear program, and it promised to put an end to years of increasing nuclear tension, including a near war, to a halt.

“This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” Clinton said. “It does not rely on trust.” In exchange for North Korea ending its nuclear weapons program, the United States agreed to normalize relations with the nation—and both agreed to pursue “formal assurances” not to use nukes against one another.

The agreement—forged against all odds in an environment of fear and worry—seemed bulletproof. So why did it fail just a few years later? The reasons why are rooted in behind-the-scenes negotiations and international mistrust.

...​

:-/ Seems to me it was designed to do exactly what Trump has been childishly and obviously unsuccessfully pursuing. Given this, what do you think Clinton should have done differently? Because whatever it is, it will apply to your hero also.

 

I meant the article OP, not OP as in you. But the article I read detailed a difference of opinion, not Trump holding different views than he has stated.

 

I'm no fan of John Bolton. Yet the story of America's foreign policy over the past forty years, or so, is incomplete without John Bolton's role.

Over the past few months Bolton has hinted of things he wants to say. I also hear he has signed a book deal. He was upset over Trump abandoning the Kurds. In the impeachment hearing testimony, it was Bolton who was telling everyone to talk to the lawyers. And he quit, or was fired, the day before the Ukrainian scandal blew up. I think it would be quite interesting to hear what Bolton has to say. One way or the other. But I'm sure he sees Trump as an obstacle to US power abroad. He most likely also sees how counter productive Trump's Iran policy is. With the treaty we had access, and a little control. Now we have neither. The long range plan had been to soften up Iran, infuse our cultural ideas into. theirs To weaken the power of the clerics. The current violence, as is in Iraq and Iran, in that part of the world tends to result in despotic leaders.

The failure to form functioning democracies in the Middle East, Africa Russia, and Central America has a lot to do with the culture of the people. It takes time to convince people, that self government is a workable concept. That one does not have to be ruled over. Iran's culture is closer to a Western democracy than other 2nd world countries. Throw a little American pop culture into the mix, a little German techno, and suddenly the Ayatollah isn't so important anymore.

Not long ago Kim made a statement, something about the meeting with Trump just being a photo-op. Said he walked out of the second one because Trump didn't have anything to give him.

 

If Kim Jong really is that petty that he needed a 'photo op', it shows exactly what we're dealing with(in the sense of the word that dealing can be used with regards to an incompatible partner) and how a resilient response is the right one. It was an open hand to the North Koreans, not so much of a photo op. This isn't high school, this is high stakes diplomacy. That Jong doesn't understand that, is a direct result of living inside his military coddled bubble.

We've given enough 'photo ops', and we've stressed enough of our patience. Either the North Koreans move back into compliance, or we should start sanctioning immediately and at the highest levels.

In the case of the Kurds, I am far less concerned. Kurdistan is not our problem, that is their problem. It's their future. They will have to negotiate directly with the players on the ground, to establish their own country. Kurdistan isn't America to us being France. We have very little pull in the middle east, and that was before Trump.

To have pulled the Turks bear naked and exposed them to the EU/Western World, how long do we expect the ceasefire to really last? Not really. It's up to the West to show a united front against Turkish ambitions. But Kurdistan is just a happenstance, and it's primarily a EU problem anyway. Not ours, not our men and women. The mission in Syria is a foolhardy one.


So I approve of the president's actions there, to reveal Turkish aggression, to secure a ceasefire and what happens next is up to EU/Kurdistan.

 

So to be clear, are you advocating war or some sort of military first response? And if not, what aspect of Bolton's military threatening are you endorsing?

 

Bolton wasn't the only one with such a hard policy. He was following pretty much the general trend of past policies, with some minor exceptions.

 

None... Bolton is simply saying Trump's methods are incorrect, and he's lying to the American public..

I don't have the answers to NK, but I'm equally sure neither Bolton or Trump do either...

 

Bolton's answer is to attack. He's been pretty explicit about this, so if you are taking Bolton's side on this, as you seem to be, it's hard to not draw the conclusion that's your intention as well.

 

There are 3 sides.. Trumps side, Boltons side, and the correct side.. whatever that turns out to be...

 

So you are on the side that you know nothing about!!

Funny, but this thread is specifically about Bolton's critique of Trump's North Korea policy. We all know what his policy is and since you are the OP who started this thread with that very argument, it doesn't make much sense to now claim some other, unknown argument. You started this being on Bolton's side.