On June 13 2018 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Simply "declaring peace" wasn't really an option considering the US would go on to assassinate leaders, fund coups, and just bomb the hell out of other countries which refused to bow to US imperialism. All the US wanted was them to let their guard down.
Japan declared peace on the US. Italy declared peace on the US. Germany declared peace on the US. Austria too. Norway. The Vichy French. Declaring peace on the US has actually gone really well for the nations that have done it. Especially when compared with not declaring peace.
Italy was also mostly under allied control correct? Germany had wanted peace since 1944 to save their nation from ruin, Austria was technically German since the Anschluss anyway so i guess that makes sense, Vichy France fell pretty quick too. But most of these i'd say did so out of fear of having the nation destroyed rather than genuinely wanting peace. I mean hell look at Germany in WW1, no one wanted peace in that war but were eventually forced into it.
Though I do agree they came out better than letting their entire country be carved up by the Soviet Union(though the west obviously faired better than the east in that regard)
On June 13 2018 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Simply "declaring peace" wasn't really an option considering the US would go on to assassinate leaders, fund coups, and just bomb the hell out of other countries which refused to bow to US imperialism. All the US wanted was them to let their guard down.
Japan declared peace on the US. Italy declared peace on the US. Germany declared peace on the US. Austria too. Norway. The Vichy French. Declaring peace on the US has actually gone really well for the nations that have done it. Especially when compared with not declaring peace.
Italy was also mostly under allied control correct? Germany had wanted peace since 1944 to save their nation from ruin, Austria was technically German since the Anschluss anyway so i guess that makes sense, Vichy France fell pretty quick too. But most of these i'd say did so out of fear of having the nation destroyed rather than genuinely wanting peace. I mean hell look at Germany in WW1, no one wanted peace in that war but were eventually forced into it.
Though I do agree they came out better than letting their entire country be carved up by the Soviet Union(though the west obviously faired better than the east in that regard)
The clear point that I am making is that the idea that ceasing to be at war with the US sentences a nation to a thousand years of oppression and suffering is historically baseless. Ceasing to be at war with the US has a pretty good track record for those involved. Also since you mention it, Italy switched sides before it got occupied. It was promptly invaded by the Germans.
You could also use a history lesson on WWI but I have no interest in giving you one. Suffice it to say that the Germans very badly wanted peace, which is why they surrendered unconditionally.
nm... I get it you're from the UK so you guys have literally done this for a looong time.
But you seriously put:
The US mostly just wants to open sweatshops in your country and use your natural resources.
and
The idea that NK couldn't make peace because the US were dying to oppress them the moment the glorious people's army let their guard down is absurd.
In the same post...
As for China, we barely 'handled' the small countries where we attempted regime changes, not even the US was stupid enough to think they could do anything about China militarily. We've instead focused on the economic avenues to influence China and move them toward embracing capitalism. Problem is we're going to come to a moment before too long when the supremacy of the west is challenged and I don't think most of the the rest of the world thinks the US will not go to war to maintain supremacy abandoning any ethical or moral standards it demanded of any rising nation.
On June 13 2018 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Simply "declaring peace" wasn't really an option considering the US would go on to assassinate leaders, fund coups, and just bomb the hell out of other countries which refused to bow to US imperialism. All the US wanted was them to let their guard down.
Japan declared peace on the US. Italy declared peace on the US. Germany declared peace on the US. Austria too. Norway. The Vichy French. Declaring peace on the US has actually gone really well for the nations that have done it. Especially when compared with not declaring peace.
Italy was also mostly under allied control correct? Germany had wanted peace since 1944 to save their nation from ruin, Austria was technically German since the Anschluss anyway so i guess that makes sense, Vichy France fell pretty quick too. But most of these i'd say did so out of fear of having the nation destroyed rather than genuinely wanting peace. I mean hell look at Germany in WW1, no one wanted peace in that war but were eventually forced into it.
Though I do agree they came out better than letting their entire country be carved up by the Soviet Union(though the west obviously faired better than the east in that regard)
The clear point that I am making is that the idea that ceasing to be at war with the US sentences a nation to a thousand years of oppression and suffering is historically baseless. Ceasing to be at war with the US has a pretty good track record for those involved. Also since you mention it, Italy switched sides before it got occupied. It was promptly invaded by the Germans.
You could also use a history lesson on WWI but I have no interest in giving you one. Suffice it to say that the Germans very badly wanted peace, which is why they surrendered unconditionally.
You're arguing that joining the dominant group of militaristic capitalism and exploiting the weakest nations and allying against those who dare resist and threatening them with annihilation (subsided pretty much only be a mutual annihilation threat of some degree) works out better than fighting against them. I mean, your not wrong, just wrong
The idea that NK couldn't make peace because the US were dying to oppress them the moment the glorious people's army let their guard down is absurd.
In the same post...
As for China, we barely 'handled' the small countries where we attempted regime changes, not even the US was stupid enough to think they could do anything about China militarily. We've instead focused on the economic avenues to influence China and move them toward embracing capitalism. Problem is we're going to come to a moment before too long when the supremacy of the west is challenged and I don't think most of the the rest of the world thinks the US will not go to war to maintain supremacy abandoning any ethical or moral standards it demanded of any rising nation.
Two things
1) Sweatshops and the extraction of natural resources is actually a good thing compared to not doing that. That's why they happen. It's not coercive. Sure, it's not ideal compared to a Star Trek utopia or whatever, but it leads to significant improvements in the quality of life for the people there. People want sweat shop jobs because it allows them to buy rice which can be used to not die. While you may turn up your nose at the idea of sweat shops there are many people who quite like not dying.
2) The people of NK are already slaves working in slave labour camps. They're already about as oppressed and downtrodden as they can be. And they still don't have rice. Even if American oppression were a real thing for them to be afraid of, and even if jobs making electronics were torture, that'd still be an improvement.
Had NK made peace with the US at any point during the last 60 years literally nothing bad would have happened to the people of NK. Japan made peace and the US didn't turn them all into slaves and start sacrificing them as part of a sun worshiping cult. Italy surrendered to the US and the worst thing that happened to them was pineapple on pizza. The Korean war does not benefit the NK people. Keeping out American influences does not benefit the NK people. The only people who benefit from it live in palaces, have personal harems, and the first name Kim.
nm... I get it you're from the UK so you guys have literally done this for a looong time.
But you seriously put:
The US mostly just wants to open sweatshops in your country and use your natural resources.
and
The idea that NK couldn't make peace because the US were dying to oppress them the moment the glorious people's army let their guard down is absurd.
In the same post...
As for China, we barely 'handled' the small countries where we attempted regime changes, not even the US was stupid enough to think they could do anything about China militarily. We've instead focused on the economic avenues to influence China and move them toward embracing capitalism. Problem is we're going to come to a moment before too long when the supremacy of the west is challenged and I don't think most of the the rest of the world thinks the US will not go to war to maintain supremacy abandoning any ethical or moral standards it demanded of any rising nation.
Two things
1) Sweatshops and the extraction of natural resources is actually a good thing compared to not doing that. That's why they happen. It's not coercive. Sure, it's not ideal compared to a Star Trek utopia or whatever, but it leads to significant improvements in the quality of life for the people there. People want sweat shop jobs because it allows them to buy rice which can be used to not die. While you may turn up your nose at the idea of sweat shops there are many people who quite like not dying.
2) The people of NK are already slaves working in slave labour camps. They're already about as oppressed and downtrodden as they can be. And they still don't have rice. Even if American oppression were a real thing for them to be afraid of, and even if jobs making electronics were torture, that'd still be an improvement.
Had NK made peace with the US at any point during the last 60 years literally nothing bad would have happened to the people of NK. Japan made peace and the US didn't turn them all into slaves and start sacrificing them as part of a sun worshiping cult. Italy surrendered to the US and the worst thing that happened to them was pineapple on pizza. The Korean war does not benefit the NK people. Keeping out American influences does not benefit the NK people. The only people who benefit from it live in palaces, have personal harems, and the first name Kim.
I mean we have drastically different views of sweatshops and exploiting natural resources and how externalizing the horrible exploitative practices to more desperate people outside of your country isn't helping the people in the sweatshops but also exploiting them and so on, but I think even even if I accept your argument, my initial point stands.
That the US isn't obviously morally and ethically superior to North Korea. I say as obviously Donald Trump is a moral and ethical beacon in the world.
NK is the moral equivalent of the US in 1850. The US is the moral equivalent of the US in 2018. There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
We haven't declared a war since they started with WW, so take your picks from any of the millions of people we've killed or governments we've destroyed.
I'm not sure how much worse those "slave camps" are then someplace like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's old prison, when you compare the GDP per capita and such. But it's not like they are nearly as full as ours anyway.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
We haven't declared a war since they started with WW, so take your picks from any of the millions of people we've killed or governments we've destroyed.
I'm not sure how much worse those "slave camps" are then someplace like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's old prison, when you compare the GDP per capita and such. But it's not like they are nearly as full as ours anyway.
?
Were the millions of people you've killed in any of the nations mentioned above after a peace treaty? Because if not that would seem to be evidence on my side, that making peace with the US tends to be better than the alternative.
Were any of the governments destroyed after a peace treaty? Also if a bad government is destroyed, and let's be clear, Saddam was a fucking monster, isn't that a good thing? Governments aren't people.
Comparing literal slave camps where the political prisoners within are forced to work to death with Arpaio is pretty heinous. I don't like my job much and I think I'm underpaid but I can tell the difference between that and picking cotton on a plantation. That's about how far you're out with that comparison. And no, actually the NK prison is more full than the US prisons because NK is a prison.
Look, I get that you don't like American society very much, and that's fine because there's an awful lot not to like about it. But that doesn't mean you have to start up with this bullshit apologism for everyone else.
I'll give a simple example. America in 1940s was super fucking racist and they had internment camps for Japanese Americans but that doesn't mean we have to start bringing in moral relativism when looking at Auschwitz and asking ourselves who the real villains are. It's the Nazis. They were operating gas chambers. Definitely the Nazis.
The exact same thing applies with NK. You can disagree with capitalism and so forth and criticize America but at no point do NK stop being the real villains. They're running a Stalinist dictatorship where the entire population are treated as expendable slaves to be fuel for the glory of the leadership. They're worse than the American South was before the civil war.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
We haven't declared a war since they started with WW, so take your picks from any of the millions of people we've killed or governments we've destroyed.
I'm not sure how much worse those "slave camps" are then someplace like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's old prison, when you compare the GDP per capita and such. But it's not like they are nearly as full as ours anyway.
?
Were the millions of people you've killed in any of the nations mentioned above after a peace treaty? Because if not that would seem to be evidence on my side, that making peace with the US tends to be better than the alternative.
Were any of the governments destroyed after a peace treaty? Also if a bad government is destroyed, and let's be clear, Saddam was a fucking monster, isn't that a good thing? Governments aren't people.
Comparing literal slave camps where the political prisoners within are forced to work to death with Arpaio is pretty heinous. I don't like my job much and I think I'm underpaid but I can tell the difference between that and picking cotton on a plantation. That's about how far you're out with that comparison. And no, actually the NK prison is more full than the US prisons because NK is a prison.
Look, I get that you don't like American society very much, and that's fine because there's an awful lot not to like about it. But that doesn't mean you have to start up with this bullshit apologism for everyone else.
I'll give a simple example. America in 1940s was super fucking racist and they had internment camps for Japanese Americans but that doesn't mean we have to start bringing in moral relativism when looking at Auschwitz and asking ourselves who the real villains are. It's the Nazis. They were operating gas chambers. Definitely the Nazis.
The exact same thing applies with NK. You can disagree with capitalism and so forth and criticize America but at no point do NK stop being the real villains. They're running a Stalinist dictatorship where the entire population are treated as expendable slaves to be fuel for the glory of the leadership. They're worse than the American South was before the civil war.
Spoiler alert, the Nazi's weren't the only "bad guys".
You know the US expressly reserves the legal right to enslave people to pay their debts (to society) aka 'crime'. I know you know it. I know you know that the US has turned prisoners into modern slaves with minimal human rights. We put a bunch of them there for political reasons, hell even the evil North Korean despot lets people smoke pot, the whole argument is silly and this feels like one of those times I should learn to just drop it.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
We haven't declared a war since they started with WW, so take your picks from any of the millions of people we've killed or governments we've destroyed.
I'm not sure how much worse those "slave camps" are then someplace like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's old prison, when you compare the GDP per capita and such. But it's not like they are nearly as full as ours anyway.
?
Were the millions of people you've killed in any of the nations mentioned above after a peace treaty? Because if not that would seem to be evidence on my side, that making peace with the US tends to be better than the alternative.
Were any of the governments destroyed after a peace treaty? Also if a bad government is destroyed, and let's be clear, Saddam was a fucking monster, isn't that a good thing? Governments aren't people.
Comparing literal slave camps where the political prisoners within are forced to work to death with Arpaio is pretty heinous. I don't like my job much and I think I'm underpaid but I can tell the difference between that and picking cotton on a plantation. That's about how far you're out with that comparison. And no, actually the NK prison is more full than the US prisons because NK is a prison.
Look, I get that you don't like American society very much, and that's fine because there's an awful lot not to like about it. But that doesn't mean you have to start up with this bullshit apologism for everyone else.
I'll give a simple example. America in 1940s was super fucking racist and they had internment camps for Japanese Americans but that doesn't mean we have to start bringing in moral relativism when looking at Auschwitz and asking ourselves who the real villains are. It's the Nazis. They were operating gas chambers. Definitely the Nazis.
The exact same thing applies with NK. You can disagree with capitalism and so forth and criticize America but at no point do NK stop being the real villains. They're running a Stalinist dictatorship where the entire population are treated as expendable slaves to be fuel for the glory of the leadership. They're worse than the American South was before the civil war.
Spoiler alert, the Nazi's weren't the only "bad guys".
Yes, but when the Nazis stopped fighting the Americans that was a good thing, even if Americans weren't perfect. It wouldn’t make sense to suggest that resisting America would be better than peace with America because America is racist, given German citizens were being gassed by the Nazi government.
Same applies here. It doesn’t make sense to argue that the people of NK would be worse off if they made peace, given that they basically can’t be any worse off. Peace with the US would have objectively been better than what they currently have.
On June 13 2018 14:03 KwarK wrote: There is a very, very clear distinction that can be made between the two and if you can't see it at this point then you are being purposefully blind.
I mean I'd say the same after looking at the list of atrocities I mentioned the US is guilty of (all since the Korean war) and arriving at the conclusion you are.
Could you please repeat the list of atrocities that the US has committed against nations following the conclusion of a peace treaty since WWII? We're talking PRC, Vietnam, the Axis powers, and honestly that's basically it at this point. Because I'm honestly coming up with a bit of a blank.
I'm fine with an argument that the US is a bad enemy to have during war but that's not the argument that you're making. You're arguing that the real danger is when you make peace with the US and then they put a Starbucks on every street corner. I'm just not seeing it. That's certainly not worse than literal slaves working in literal slave camps which is the status quo.
We haven't declared a war since they started with WW, so take your picks from any of the millions of people we've killed or governments we've destroyed.
I'm not sure how much worse those "slave camps" are then someplace like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's old prison, when you compare the GDP per capita and such. But it's not like they are nearly as full as ours anyway.
?
Were the millions of people you've killed in any of the nations mentioned above after a peace treaty? Because if not that would seem to be evidence on my side, that making peace with the US tends to be better than the alternative.
Were any of the governments destroyed after a peace treaty? Also if a bad government is destroyed, and let's be clear, Saddam was a fucking monster, isn't that a good thing? Governments aren't people.
Comparing literal slave camps where the political prisoners within are forced to work to death with Arpaio is pretty heinous. I don't like my job much and I think I'm underpaid but I can tell the difference between that and picking cotton on a plantation. That's about how far you're out with that comparison. And no, actually the NK prison is more full than the US prisons because NK is a prison.
Look, I get that you don't like American society very much, and that's fine because there's an awful lot not to like about it. But that doesn't mean you have to start up with this bullshit apologism for everyone else.
I'll give a simple example. America in 1940s was super fucking racist and they had internment camps for Japanese Americans but that doesn't mean we have to start bringing in moral relativism when looking at Auschwitz and asking ourselves who the real villains are. It's the Nazis. They were operating gas chambers. Definitely the Nazis.
The exact same thing applies with NK. You can disagree with capitalism and so forth and criticize America but at no point do NK stop being the real villains. They're running a Stalinist dictatorship where the entire population are treated as expendable slaves to be fuel for the glory of the leadership. They're worse than the American South was before the civil war.
Spoiler alert, the Nazi's weren't the only "bad guys".
You know the US expressly reserves the legal right to enslave people to pay their debts. I know you know it. I know you know that the US has turned prisoners into modern slaves with minimal human rights. We put a bunch of them there for political reasons, hell even the evil North Korean despot lets people smoke pot, the whole argument is silly and this feels like one of those times I should learn to just drop it.
In NK they don't have legal rights. They also don't have people who aren't slaves. They have person who isn't a slave.
Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, held the summit and talks with Donald J. Trump, president of the United States of America, at Sentosa Island of Singapore on June 12, 2018 for the first time in the history of the two countries.
Thanks to the fixed decision and will of the top leaders of the two countries to put an end to the extreme hostile relations between the DPRK and the US, which lingered for the longest period on the earth on terms of acute confrontation, and to open up a new future for the sake of the interests of the peoples of the two countries and global peace and security, the first DPRK-US summit is to be held.
Singapore, the country of the epoch-making meeting much awaited by the whole world, was awash with thousands of domestic and foreign journalists and a huge crowd to see this day's moment which will remain long in history.
Kim Jong Un left his lodging hotel at 8:10 a.m. local time and arrived at Capella Hotel on Sentosa Island of Singapore, the venue of the talks.
Seen standing at the lobby of the venue of the talks where the two top leaders will have the first meeting were the flags of the DPRK and the US.
At 9:00 a.m. local time, Kim Jong Un, Supreme Leader of the Party, the state and the army of the DPRK, met and shook hands with US President Donald J. Trump for the first time.
The top leaders of the two countries came to take their first step toward reconciliation for the first time in the 70-odd-years-long history of standoff and antagonism since the division of the Korean Peninsula, and to stand face to face at the venue of dialogue.
Kim Jong Un had a souvenir photo taken with Trump. The two top leaders went to the conference room, having a familiar talk.
Tête-à-tête talks were held between the two top leaders.
Noting that it was not easy to get to where they were, Kim Jong Un made the meaningful words there was a past that gripped their ankles and prejudice and wrong practice covered their eyes and ears, but they overcame all that to come this place and stand at a new starting point.
The two top leaders had a candid exchange of views on the practical issues of weighty significance in putting an end to the decades-long hostile relations between the DPRK and the US and making peace and stability settle on the Korean peninsula.
The tête-à-tête talks were followed by expanded talks.
Present there from the DPRK side were Kim Yong Chol and Ri Su Yong, vice-chairmen of the WPK Central Committee, and Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho.
Present there from the US side were Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, United States National Security Advisor John Bolton and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.
There was a comprehensive and in-depth discussion over the issues of establishing new DPRK-US relations and building a permanent and durable peace mechanism at the talks.
Noting that he is pleased to sit face-to-face with Trump and the US side's delegation, Kim Jong Un highly praised the president's will and enthusiasm to resolve matters in a realistic way through dialogue and negotiations, away from the hostility-woven past.
Expressing conviction that the summit talks would lead to the improvement of the DPRK-US relations, Trump appreciated that an atmosphere of peace and stability was created on the Korean Peninsula and in the region, although distressed with the extreme danger of armed clash only a few months ago, thanks to the proactive peace-loving measures taken by the Supreme Leader from the outset of this year.
Noting that many problems occurred due to deep-rooted distrust and hostility existing between the two countries, Kim Jong Un said in order to achieve peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and realize its denuclearization, the two countries should commit themselves to refraining from antagonizing with each other out of mutual understanding and take legal and institutional steps to guarantee it.
He also underlined the need for the two countries to take practical measures actively to carry out the issues discussed at the talks and the joint statement at an early date.
He made an immediate agreement on Trump's proposal for recovering the remains of American soldiers and repatriating those already identified and gave an instruction to take a measure for settling it as early as possible.
Noting that the building of lasting and durable peace-keeping mechanism on the Korean Peninsula is of weighty significance in ensuring peace and security in the region and the rest of the world, he said that it is urgent to make a bold decision on halting irritating and hostile military actions against each other.
Expressing his understanding of it, Trump expressed his intention to halt the US-south Korea joint military exercises, which the DPRK side regards as provocation, over a period of good-will dialogue between the DPRK and the US, offer security guarantees to the DPRK and lift sanctions against it along with advance in improving the mutual relationship through dialogue and negotiation.
Kim Jong Un clarified the stand that if the US takes genuine measures for building trust in order to improve the bilateral relationship, the DPRK, too, can continue to take additional good-will measures of next stage commensurate with them.
Kim Jong Un and Trump had the shared recognition to the effect that it is important to abide by the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace, stability and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
That day, a luncheon was given in honour of the top leaders of the two countries and participants in the talks.
Exchanged there were views on further animating communication, contact and visit between both sides to cement the achievements made at the DPRK-US talks and remarkably develop the bilateral relations.
After the luncheon, the top leaders had a walk, deepening friendly feelings.
Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK, and Donald J. Trump, president of the USA, signed a joint statement of the historic Singapore summit talks.
Kim Jong Un said that today both sides came to sign the historic joint statement heralding a new start, passing the past over, stating that the world would witness an important change.
He had a meaningful photo session with Trump to commemorate the signing of the historic document and bid him farewell.
Kim Jong Un and Trump expressed expectation and belief that the two countries which have lived in the quagmire of hostility, distrust and hatred would pass the unhappy past over and dynamically advance toward an excellent and proud future beneficial to each other and another new era, the era of the DPRK-US cooperation would open up.
Kim Jong Un invited Trump to visit Pyongyang at a convenient time and the latter invited Kim Jong Un to visit his country.
The two top leaders accepted each other's invitation, convinced that it would serve as another important occasion for improved bilateral relations.
The DPRK-US summit talks held in Singapore with success amid enthusiastic support and welcome of the whole world come to be a great event of weighty significance in further promoting the historic trend towards reconciliation and peace, stability and prosperity being created in the Korean Peninsula and the region and in making a radical switchover in the most hostile DPRK-US relations, as required by the developing times.
On June 12 2018 15:09 Zaros wrote: Am I the only one who finds it repulsive that the so called leader of the free world will not only make a deal but a public deal and talk about their great relationship with a mass murderer with crimes against humanity?
It was indeed a missed opportunity for Kim Jong Un to raise the issue of mass murder and other human rights abuses committed by the U.S. and South Korea in very recent history against suspected sympathizers of the North Korean regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_South_Korea. Not sure about him being the leader of the free world though.
This is the hollywood movie trailer style video the White House made to show Kim Jong-Un at the meeting. It's... an interesting artistic choice.
'Two men, two leaders...one destiny. A story about a special moment in time, when a man is presented with one chance that may never be repeated. What will he choose, to show vision and leadership? Or not?'
But NK's propaganda is usually super corney too so maybe they thought it was great.
EPT
