For starters, I do not recall any worthwhile news service talking about Nuclear war with NK.. He does not yet have an arsenal.. But many were/are concerned that he is crazy enough to
send one missile at the US and it could possibly find a target.

Why does this happen now?? Only now does NK have a genuine threat to the US.. Now Kim has the leverage that he did not have or his father had in 94, if you have no power at all
you have no lverage.

So, this seems that we can repeat the work done in 94, if we keep our end of the bargan this time and add the possiblity of an actual treaty to end hostilities on the Korean penensila,
perhaps we can come to a real down turn in war prospects..

It does require that trump does not mess it up..


http://theconversation.com/why-the-uss-1994-deal-with-north-korea-failed-and-what-trump-can-learn-from-it-80578


But on its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through.

Falling short
The light-water reactors were never built. The US-led consortium tasked with constructing them was in severe debt; senators accused Clinton of understating their cost while overstating how much US allies would contribute to funding them. Hawkish Republicans in Congress derided the framework for supposedly rewarding aggressive behaviour.

Heavy fuel shipments were often delayed. Rust Deming, assistant secretary of state, told Congress that “to be frank, we have in past years not always met the fuel year deadline”. Meanwhile, Robert Gallucci, a diplomat who had negotiated the framework, warned that it could fail unless the US did “what it said it would do, which is to take responsibility for the delivery of the heavy fuel oil”.

North Korea was not removed from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism until 2008, though it had long met the criteria for removal. A limited number of US sanctions were eased, but not until 2000 – six years later than pledged in the Agreed Framework. According to Gallucci, Congressional scepticism about the deal led to “the minimum interpretation of sanctions lifting”. As he told a congressional committee: “the North Koreans have always been disappointed that more has not been done by the US.”


Bill Clinton meets Cho Myong-nok, a North Korean special envoy, in 2000. Wikimedia Commons
Most importantly, no action was taken to formally end the Korean War – which was never technically ended – by replacing the 1953 ceasefire with a peace treaty. The “formal assurances” that the US would not attack North Korea were not provided until six years after the framework was signed. In the meantime, the Clinton administration unhelpfully persisted in labelling North Korea a “backlash” or “rogue” state, and throughout the 1990s, US military planning was based on the concept of fighting a simultaneous two-front war against Iraq and North Korea.

This only worsened under Washington’s next regime: in 2002, the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review listed North Korea as one country the US might have to use nuclear weapons against, while its 2002 National Security Strategy listed the north as a “rogue” regime against which the US should be prepared to use force. To this day, the US has 28,500 troops stationed across 11 US military bases in South Korea, and the two countries continue with their joint annual military exercises off the coast of the Korean Peninsula.

As abhorrent as the North Korean regime is, it’s not hard to see why the ruling clique might have concluded that Pyongyang remains in Washington’s crosshairs and that the US was never truly committed to the Agreed Framework. Still, as subsequent negotiations have shown, North Korea remains desperate for fuel, and its regime still exhibits a paranoid, self-serving obsession with security. Its past actions strongly suggest that the nuclear programme is a bargaining chip that Pyongyang is prepared to give up under the right circumstances.

The benefits of a new, more robust peace agreement are obvious: an end to the threat of nuclear war in East Asia, and a boost to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The story of the 1994 framework proves this is far from impossible, but also that it will demand both careful, determined diplomacy and a commitment to honouring any promises made. Sadly, the Trump administration so far seems capable of neither.

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in Saturday's Pentagon briefing that there has been a "2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours," following the coordinated strike against Syria on Friday night.

The bottom line: The problem of Russian actors generating division and conflict among Americans isn't going away. As Axios' Sara Fischer and David McCabe reported last year, they aim to sow confusion and capitalize on political divisions. Senator Ben Sasse said in a statement on Saturday that this illustrates what "the wars of the future will look like...The fog of war will not be limited to our situation rooms and battlefields."

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in Saturday's Pentagon briefing that there has been a "2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours," following the coordinated strike against Syria on Friday night.

The bottom line: The problem of Russian actors generating division and conflict among Americans isn't going away. As Axios' Sara Fischer and David McCabe reported last year, they aim to sow confusion and capitalize on political divisions. Senator Ben Sasse said in a statement on Saturday that this illustrates what "the wars of the future will look like...The fog of war will not be limited to our situation rooms and battlefields."

ghost, I don't know who is a Russian troll, but I can name two posters that never criticize Russia. In fact they defend that Putin run hell hole. The first is Carol Seer. She is the biggest supporter of Putin. She has called him a great leader several times, and claims she knows him intimately. When I call Putin what he is , a thug, she put me on her ignore list.
The second apologist for Russia and Putin, is more of a Trump supporter, but has not criticized Russia. He is a regular contributor to OPP. I won't mention his name, because I don't think he is a Russian troll, just a guy that never met a strange conspiracy theory he doesn't like. Hint, he identifies with the avian world.

" The Russians may have been oppressed but at least they were aware of it (which is why they had to be disarmed). Soviet propaganda ultimately failed to control their minds. In contrast, American media has been far more successful in controlling the minds of the American population (to the point where it doesn't even matter if they do have guns). "

Soviet Propaganda controlled their minds well enough to keep them from revolting for 70 plus years. That was backed up by internment camps and executions and the suppression of free speech. Almost like when Democrats tried to shutdown Talk Radio.

" Trump is the one willing to meet with fat boy, Obama never considered it, so if anyone is "appeasing" fat boy, it's Trump, not Obama. As for Iran, Obama worked with the UK, Russia, France, China AND Germany to force Iran to agree to limits on their nuclear program. Whether or not you trust Iran to hold up their end of the deal, it's still better than anything Trump has done, which so far amounts to tweeting his opinions about it... yeah, Donny, beat them into submission with your tweets that'll work. "

Meeting or not meeting with Kim Jong-un is not the question. Trump is negotiating from strength, which even other Republicans have not done.

" If you're talking about foreign policy, Reagan didn't really change anything that significant. He was following the same neoliberal (free-market) blueprint that all the presidents from Truman to Obama followed. "

Not accurate. President Jimmy Carter faced budgetary, energy, and economic stagnation. He took a very Soviet style approach to these severe troubles. Central control solutions the way the Kremlin would have done it. He raised taxes to close the budget gaps and he put all kinds of regulations on everything. It all sounded great and it was great. Problem was it didn't work because America is not Russia. We are a collection of individuals seeking our own best interests. Capitalism does not respond to Central Control.

He did cut taxes and he did cut regulations... I suppose a simple mind won't notice all the other variables that play into economic recovery but most economists with slightly more capable brains can't confirm to what extent tax cuts actually played a role. But that doesn't matter to the simpleton sheep, all they need to hear is the rah, rah, of the Holy Republican Church reciting the ever-so-simple mantra "tax cuts good".

The other thing you won't understand even if I explain it to you, is that when the economy did grow, Wall Street stepped in and butted the American workers out. So while we can debate whether Reagan's tax policy can claim any credit for any recovery, the trickle-down that Reagan was trying to sell to the American workers failed miserably. The American workers that already degraded themselves by kneeling down with their mouths open and waiting for the waste-water to drip through the spigots at sump pan of capitalism got nothing. Instead all the trickle-down went to Wall Street and that's probably Reagan's crowing achievement.