Pentagon Could Restart War Drills with South Korea

[ThunderBlade + 231]

The U.S. doesn’t plan to suspend more joint military drills with South Korean forces, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said, amid reports that North Korea was rejecting American demands for Kim Jong Un to give up his nuclear warheads. “We have no plans at this time to suspend any more exercises,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday, adding that the Defense Department hasn’t made decisions about major annual drills expected next year. “We’ll make decisions on that in consultation with State.” Mattis said he was working in coordination with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s diplomatic efforts — “it’s all riding on Secretary Pompeo’s shoulders,” he said — but he also signaled that smaller-scale exercises are going ahead. In an apparent response to more routine training efforts, North Korea has stepped up criticism recently, saying American forces are conducting covert military rehearsals for an invasion.
 

[50 shades of black + 254]

Less than three months after shaking hands in Singapore....

[Pavel + 384]

I thought NK was no longer a nuclear threat
 

[damirUSBiH + 327]

60+ years haven't changed NK! Kim isn't a more or less democratic than his father or grandpa. He's dictator, and history have showed how they work....

[Pavel + 384]

So, Deal's in a danger, or dead Deal? Hmmm, maybe there was no Deal... 
 

[rainman + 263]

“Talks stall”...they were never a reality. So, enjoy the show because they have their seat at the high table now and they ain’t giving it back. Cheers.

[franco + 96]

Do the U.S. know what they want and what they can get from KJU? Nuclear talks between the U.S. and North Korea are going nowhere....

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

To all the contributors above... What is your opinion of the North and South Korea meetings?

 

It will be the third in-person meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The two first met in April, pledging to forge closer relations and work to formally end the Korean War in an agreement called the Panmunjom Declaration.

They then held an impromptu meeting in May at the demilitarized zone that divides the two Koreas.

Representatives from the two Koreas announced the September meeting after a round of high-level talks between officials from Pyongyang and Seoul at the DMZ Monday .   

 

linked article https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/asia/inter-korean-summit-intl/index.html

 

 

[Pavel + 384]

In my opinion it's pretty clear that South Korea is between the U.S. interests and politics on one side and their will to establish peace on Peninsula on the other side. Meanwhile they were together on Olympic and Asian games and their meeting in September (if held) probably will be best way for a long peace in future. But I'm not sure that they have enough strength to finish this job. I think that South Korea will listen the voice from the U.S. Indeed, they haven't got too much choice, and of course don't forget Japan and their disagreement with all process... 

[TXPower + 643]

Un is not going to change who and what he is.  A brutal, repressive dictator bent on his dynastic rule at all costs.

Unification is what “the people on both sides want.  The South wants to be united with loved ones from the North, not united with Kim.

We do not know enough about how people from the North truly feel about the “Dear Leader” because, well, no one is free to speak about him.  Unless of course they are praising him.  I would betcha though, if they could speak freely, they’d have much to say about him and it wouldn’t be nice.

The North can’t feed itself much less claim economic prosperity, with or without sanctions and truly is the 3rd World.

The people of the South can speak their mind concerning their leaders and compared to the North are a picture of modernity and economic prosperity.

So, unless the people of the South wish to take a giant leap backwards in terms of personal freedom, economic prosperity and standard of living, it seems simple which voices they should listen to.

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

11 hours ago, Pavel said:

is between the U.S. interests and politics on one side and their will to establish peace on Peninsula on the other side.

^Are you saying that U.S. interest is anything different than peace on the peninsula?

I think there might be the number one interest of protecting the S. Koreans, Japanese, and of course the citizens of the United States, but peace on the peninsula fits within these goals. We should let the desire of people wanting to re-unite be a great beginning.

I've said it before and will continue to say it, "You can't make someone do something."  All you can do is influence their decision.  You can use negative pressure of sanctions, war, and the threats of both.  You can also use positive pressure or rewards if you will.   

Kim is a ruthless killer, no doubt.  He deserves nothing, but I'm willing to let him live out his days as whatever the Koreans decide,,, as long as the people of North Korea can be reunited with their southern brothers, and join the modern world, contribute to society.  They deserve it, so do you, so do I.  

21 hours ago, rainman said:

“Talks stall”...they were never a reality. So, enjoy the show because they have their seat at the high table now and they ain’t giving it back. Cheers.

^There's no problem with anyone having a seat at a table.  When two people sit down together, anything is possible.  When they refuse to sit down is when it gets bad.

We do NOT stop our military exercises. Practice makes perfect, and it helps communicate to our friends and enemies our capabilities.   We never take our eyes of Kim, never forget his capabilities. Taking a country's nukes is not easy, might not even happen.  But if what I've stated above does happen, and it is progressing in that direction, does that constitute a failure on Donald Trump's part?  If you think so, please bring on the debate, but please note I'm looking for specific examples of failure, not unintelligent name calling.  Help me understand your point of view.

 

 

[Pavel + 384]

52 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

^Are you saying that U.S. interest is anything different than peace on the peninsula?

 

I think you came out of the context what I was talking about. I think I was clear enough - not what you made as an arbitrary conclusion. I wanted to say that SK as an American ally will take into account  the relationship between U.S.and NK, before entering in any deal with NK. Otherwise, it's not good when someone put other people's words in the wrong context ...

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

49 minutes ago, Pavel said:

I think you came out of the context what I was talking about. I think I was clear enough - not what you made as an arbitrary conclusion. I wanted to say that SK as an American ally will take into account  the relationship between U.S.and NK, before entering in any deal with NK. Otherwise, it's not good when someone put other people's words in the wrong context ...

I apologize, I didn't intend to pull your statement out of context.  I felt we were in agreement, but I was looking for a little clarity. Thanks

[Pavel + 384]

9 hours ago, Mike Marcellus said:

I apologize, I didn't intend to pull your statement out of context.  I felt we were in agreement, but I was looking for a little clarity. Thanks

Misunderstanding... In principle, we are talking about similar things. Perhaps, I should have clarified. But sometimes there is a lot to say with a bit of words. Thanks for being honest.