Skip to comments.
Trump Says He Offered China Better Trade Terms in Exchange for Help on North Korea
Wall Street Journal ^
Posted on 04/12/2017 4:33:50 PM PDT by springwater13
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
To: springwater13
Trump—”You’re going to stop stealing our lunch, but if you take care of that crazy kid I’ll give you some of our potato chips.”
2
posted on
04/12/2017 4:41:56 PM PDT
by
Hugin
(Conservatism without Nationalism is a fraud.)
To: springwater13
it was more important to focus on cooperation with China on North Korea. I agree and IF China were to address NK it would be far less costly to us then if we had to go to war with NK. I just don't think China will do enough. I don't see that happening. I would love to be proven wrong.
To: springwater13
To: Hugin
Clean coal technology and purchase of US coal
We both win and the lefties will be SO happy!
5
posted on
04/12/2017 4:51:20 PM PDT
by
hoosiermama
(When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.DJT)
To: Parley Baer
Help? Take them out. That’s all they can do for us.
6
posted on
04/12/2017 4:52:10 PM PDT
by
DIRTYSECRET
(urope. Why do they put up with this.)
To: springwater13
You know were not going to let that [current trade deficit] go ahead, Mr. Trump said of his meeting last week with Mr. Xi
Well, except that it sounds like it will be continuing.
If North Korea is a problem to us and China then we and China should work together to solve it. Equal partners since it is our problem. No payments involved. If we are paying China by effectively allowing our manufacturing businesses and jobs to continue moving over there then China is not helping us. Exxon doesn't help me fill my tank - I pay them for the gas - a straight up trade. No mutual assistance involved.
Someone needs to rethink this "deal" or at least get someone to help him on explaining the "deal."
7
posted on
04/12/2017 4:52:21 PM PDT
by
Garth Tater
(Don't ask who John Galt is. Ask what he's doing now and how can you get started in that line of work)
To: springwater13
To: plain talk
North Korea has changed quite a bit from Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un. With the former, people starved but enforcement, etc., was more lax. With the latter, people don’t starve, but the enforcement is quite cruel. Something tells me that the upper echelon is not as happy with Kim Jong Un. All it takes is one bullet.
9
posted on
04/12/2017 4:54:29 PM PDT
by
struggle
(The)
To: Garth Tater
Already China scotched NK coal purchases, meaning they have increased purchases from us.
It was also revealed that their trade surplus with us has dramatically fallen. Right there you have two elements of the deal.
I have a feeling this will be just one of many “adjustments” with China to our benefit.
10
posted on
04/12/2017 5:06:43 PM PDT
by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
To: plain talk
” I just don’t think China will do enough. I don’t see that happening. “
worth a try, though. easy enough to tell if china isn’t living up to their end of things, and proceed with a different deal or no deal at all.
11
posted on
04/12/2017 5:13:32 PM PDT
by
catnipman
( Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
To: springwater13
“it was more important to focus on cooperation with China on North Korea”
Uniparty SOP for decades now.
12
posted on
04/12/2017 5:13:59 PM PDT
by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: Garth Tater
Someone needs to rethink this "deal" or at least get someone to help him on explaining the "deal." I agree, we should not be making trade concessions with China to entice them to help deal with NK. The two should have been kept separate, and if China is a responsible member of the world community, they should be willing to work with the US on NK with no special deals.
13
posted on
04/12/2017 5:15:15 PM PDT
by
Will88
To: springwater13
Got the agreement and immediately moved warships to ensure China is an honest trader.
If they are and help with NK then a deals a deal.
If they are at the margin of the agreement, then the deal is off.
Looks like we are going to resolve NK once and for all.
14
posted on
04/12/2017 5:17:58 PM PDT
by
Vendome
(I've Gotta Be Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-pk2vZG2M)
To: LS
“Already China scotched NK coal purchases, meaning they have increased purchases from us.”
Not even close to being true.
What they did was go way over their allotment of allowable purchase earlier this year after continuing to buy coal from them despite sanctions against it for about two years n
So earlier this year they pumped the Norks up with a billion dollars of coal purchase over a couple months so they can now pretend to stop (for a while).
I am not addressing their buying coal from us, which I am not saying is untrue.
15
posted on
04/12/2017 5:18:06 PM PDT
by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: LS
Yes, but President Trump said " But you want to make a great deal? Solve the problem in North Korea. Thats worth having deficits. And thats worth having not as good a trade deal as I would normally be able to make." which means we are giving up something we were promised (better trade deal with China) for something we don't owe.
If this is our mutual problem then nothing should have to be paid for China's help. They owe that help (without payment) as a responsible player on the world stage. And when you come right down to it they should be doing more than anyone else to solve this problem. First because they are the original cause of the problem. We didn't stop at the DMZ because North Korea stopped us. We stopped because China stopped us there. And second, this is their problem because they have been using North Korea ever since the Korean War as their little dog on a leash. Good for a distraction and maybe even a little ankle nipping now and then. But now the the fat boy's nukes are actually exploding and his ballistic missiles are not exploding on the launch pad that little yapping chihuahua is on the verge of turning into a badass Rotweiler. And the ones that are going to get mauled first are China and South Korea. They are the ones that should be paying the price for this deal. Not us.
16
posted on
04/12/2017 5:27:19 PM PDT
by
Garth Tater
(Don't ask who John Galt is. Ask what he's doing now and how can you get started in that line of work)
To: Hugin
I’ll trade you my cookie for North Korea.
17
posted on
04/12/2017 5:28:42 PM PDT
by
ichabod1
(I call Obama "osama" because he damaged us far more than Osama bin Ladin ever did.)
To: springwater13
Like the idea of trading something mostly impermanent for something permanent. If stopped the NK nuclear program will neber be restarted; trade policies change with the wind.
But the interesting story was that the Vinson carrier group sailed to Korea... right through the South China Sea.
18
posted on
04/12/2017 5:37:20 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
To: Will88
and if China is a responsible member of the world community, they should be willing to work with the US on NK with no special deals.
It always helps to get to the heart of the problem and I think you just did.
19
posted on
04/12/2017 5:38:09 PM PDT
by
Garth Tater
(Don't ask who John Galt is. Ask what he's doing now and how can you get started in that line of work)
To: Garth Tater
Perhaps, but there is the reality that Americans will have to come to grips with: when you deal with a quasi totalitarian country that doesn’t care about its citizens, then you are limited. Yes, they MAY have a stronger interest there, but what’s in it for them may be far, far less than what’s in it for us.
We might, for example, be able to crush Mexico like an insect for something they did, but for the Chinese to come to Baja and do it in our back yard would be much harder. Likewise, when you run on “no foreign wars,” yet the likelihood that this NORK nut wants a war means you might have to violate that, then you have to decide which is more important, a relatively better/worse trade deal or another foreign involvement.
George Washington and John Adams paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates because we didn’t have a big enough navy to challenge them and even when we did, we just had other priorities. For the time being, it was worth the price.
The price however always changes, and if the NORKs are put away, China knows that they cannot go back to the way they were.
But it’s easy to say “We want to crush the NORKS, yet have no boots on the ground, yet also get everything we wanted from China.” Won’t happen.
20
posted on
04/12/2017 5:38:40 PM PDT
by
LS
("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually" (Hendrix))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson