the website is protecting itself from me (as if I intended to attack them), but honestly that quote is more like a “we will continue doing what we’re doing” instead of "we will stop doing it if you treat us well. they’re saying that they won’t “put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table”.
the previous article you linked says
Tillerson said on Saturday during a trip to China that the United States was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs but that Pyongyang had shown no interest in dialogue.
so the US was trying to negotiate, but DPRK didn’t accept any negotiation. I don’t know how these are meant to confirm your previous claim.
thanks this one worked, what I understood is that apparantly no one knows if they are willing to negotiate or not because of their vague use of language.
That was unless the US give up their hostile policy and nuclear threat. how they say it doesn’t change what they meant.
“The only conversations that have taken place were that … would be on bringing back Americans who have been detained,” Sanders said. “Beyond that, there will be no conversations with North Korea at this time.”
they said they want “hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S.” to be “fundamentally eliminated”. that’s more like a threat honstly.
“The only conversations that have taken place were that … would be on bringing back Americans who have been detained,” Sanders said. “Beyond that, there will be no conversations with North Korea at this time.”
as far as I understood, there was some disagreement between the white house and state department, one of the guys is saying the US is willing but NK doesn’t want it, the other one’s saying it’s a waste of time and that US won’t negotiate.
It’s not a threat. It’s a request. If the US wants Korea to put down It’s nukes. then the US also have to do the same.
In the past month, that formulation has been repeated several times (at least five) in DPRK media. Significantly, it appeared in the August 7 Government statement responding to the recent UNSC sanctions. Government statements are not chopped liver. They are vetted, and possibly written, at the highest levels of the regime.
Ri Yong Ho has written that offer or as they called “formulation” at least 5 times, They are ignoring it.
on another note, Someone made an informative documentary about the truth of North Korean Defectors; Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul. It could be an eye-opener for some.
the website is protecting itself from me (as if I intended to attack them), but honestly that quote is more like a “we will continue doing what we’re doing” instead of "we will stop doing it if you treat us well. they’re saying that they won’t “put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table”.
the previous article you linked says
so the US was trying to negotiate, but DPRK didn’t accept any negotiation. I don’t know how these are meant to confirm your previous claim.
There is a korean source that’s also mentioned in the link I gave you https://www.38north.org if you can’t open it, then Idk.
thanks this one worked, what I understood is that apparantly no one knows if they are willing to negotiate or not because of their vague use of language.
That was unless the US give up their hostile policy and nuclear threat. how they say it doesn’t change what they meant.
they said they want “hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S.” to be “fundamentally eliminated”. that’s more like a threat honstly.
as far as I understood, there was some disagreement between the white house and state department, one of the guys is saying the US is willing but NK doesn’t want it, the other one’s saying it’s a waste of time and that US won’t negotiate.
It’s not a threat. It’s a request. If the US wants Korea to put down It’s nukes. then the US also have to do the same.
Ri Yong Ho has written that offer or as they called “formulation” at least 5 times, They are ignoring it.
on another note, Someone made an informative documentary about the truth of North Korean Defectors; Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul. It could be an eye-opener for some.