UN says NK and US should talk

[Danny]

Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2916473.stm)

The UN states that the US and NK should talk individually in regards to the North's nuclear program.

My question is why should the US be the ones that have to talk to the North Koreans individually?

Nuclear Weapons are a world issue.

Maybe I am missing something here. I knwo the US brokered the initial deal that the NK balked on, but why should the United States be the only player in regards to this action by the North Koreans?

[ChinaLama]

Whether or not the US *should* be the only party to talk to NK in some philosophical abstract sense is not really that important, IMO. I think it depends on whether it's in our interests or not, and we should follow our interest. If Bush is refusing talks b/c of some stupid honor code, then he'd better get his head out of Sunday school and learn something from the school of hard knocks, because I'm not going to appreciate being drafted into the army to fight a war against NK.

[VV o n g B a]

world problem? sure. does bush have a point about not rewarding nk? sure. does ignoring nk solve the problem? no (unless this plan (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=6882&hl=&s=) is used). and thats the problem. nk has specifically said it doesn't want intereference by other gov'ts in this issue. it wants only to talk to the US.

if the US won't talk, nk gets to build up a significant batch of nuclear arms which it could sell to other countries. yeah, talking to them could be seen as a reward. but the alternative is proliferation or war. both of which seem less attractive than giving the n koreans some more oil.

[Danny]

draft is not going to happen to fight NK...

I just do not understand why the North Koreans are all hell bent on meetings directly with the United States. it makes no sense... The North Koreans want the US to sign a non agression pact, basically anything tha tthe NK's have signed means absolutely nothing. They have shown that from past actions.

There are calls from around the world that the United States should bow down and talk with North Korea, when I doubt anything is going to come of it... very simiiliar to how Saddam wanted to have a debate with Bush on television before the war... nothing is going to come out of it. The North Koreans want the US to sign a peace of paper that says they will not attack each other. By cowtowing to their demands wouldn't it seem that the United States is legitimizing Kim and his nation?

Would this not set a precedent for other countries that are either nuclear capable, or near nuclear capable to demand meetings with the United States. I am just confused on why this is a huge issue for North Korea.

[SunWuKong]

yeah i am unsure about the sincerity of kim jong il. i don't see how he would stop using the kind of political tactics that he's always used to squeeze what he wants out of the US and the UN.

[VV o n g B a]

ignoring nk also sets a precedent. the US suspected that iraq was only on the verge of nukes and invaded them. but the US suspects that nk does have nukes. if nk has nukes and bush avoids them like the plague while invading ones that are on the verge, then other nations inevitably see the only way to prevent unilateral US intervention is the successful acquistion of nukes. nk's actions make sense if it wants to get the US to promise not to invade it like the US invaded iraq.

i'm in no way saying that what happened in 1994 was the greatest deal on earth or that bush doesn't have a point in ignoring nk now. there isn't a clear easy remedy...

[Danny]

i do not think they are ignoring them, they want to talk, but not one on one.... they want to talk with NK as part of a coalition...

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by Danny@Apr 4 2003, 02:33 PM
Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2916473.stm)

The UN states that the US and NK should talk individually in regards to the North's nuclear program.

My question is why should the US be the ones that have to talk to the North Koreans individually?

Nuclear Weapons are a world issue.

Maybe I am missing something here. I knwo the US brokered the initial deal that the NK balked on, but why should the United States be the only player in regards to this action by the North Koreans?
The US also balked on their obligation to build reactors, so NK is not totally in the wrong, although they covertly continued their nuclear arms program after agreeng not to, when the USA was still going forward with plans to rebuild.

I think the only way that this can be resolved is if South Korea and North Korea actually recognize each other as countries. This would force the USA and Japan to do the same to the north.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Apr 4 2003, 10:44 AM
i do not think they are ignoring them, they want to talk, but not one on one.... they want to talk with NK as part of a coalition...
yeah but NK just wants to talk to the US.
the US doesn't trust NK and if Kim "acted up" again, it could possibly be seen as US's responsibility if it was the only country to talk. so i completely understand why the US doesn't want to do this.

[BeTheReds]

Well, everyone is saying that NK is the next target,

But that war is gonna be so much more difficult to win, and it will definately mean no more Seoul and possibly no more Tokyo, as well as turning north Korea into a parking lot.

The war will have severe casualties.

But sometimes you have to bite the bullet and be willing to accept that.


The Korean war was meaningless. I think it should have been finished, not this shitty ass truce that made everyone's fighting in vain. Korea is still divided more or less the way it was before the war started.

[SunWuKong]

i just don't understand why south korea didn't build its own force years ago and then tell the US it doesn't need its troops being actually in south korea anymore. i mean i understand that it's less expensive this way, but having US troops there was always supposed to be a temporary solution.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 4 2003, 11:06 AM
i just don't understand why south korea didn't build its own force years ago and then tell the US it doesn't need its troops being actually in south korea anymore. i mean i understand that it's less expensive this way, but having US troops there was always supposed to be a temporary solution.
Dude, South Korea has one of the most elite Army's in the world, The ROK Army helped train the ISraeli troops back in the late 70's early 80's... SK has some kick ass troops over there....

The reason that they kept the Americans there is becuase of the threat from China for so many years. Plus technologically SK's military is not on par with China, or at the time the Eastern Bloc....

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Apr 4 2003, 11:10 AM
Dude, South Korea has one of the most elite Army's in the world, The ROK Army helped train the ISraeli troops back in the late 70's early 80's... SK has some kick ass troops over there....

The reason that they kept the Americans there is becuase of the threat from China for so many years. Plus technologically SK's military is not on par with China, or at the time the Eastern Bloc....
oh i never said that south korea's army is inferior. so what's wrong with having a purely south korean force that uses US military equipment that south korea buys from the US?

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 4 2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Danny@Apr 4 2003, 11:10 AM
Dude, South Korea has one of the most elite Army's in the world, The ROK Army helped train the ISraeli troops back in the late 70's early 80's... SK has some kick ass troops over there....

The reason that they kept the Americans there is becuase of the threat from China for so many years. Plus technologically SK's military is not on par with China, or at the time the Eastern Bloc....
oh i never said that south korea's army is inferior. so what's wrong with having a purely south korean force that uses US military equipment that south korea buys from the US?
what is the problem with having 37000 additional troops in an area that benefits the economy?

I agree that SOFA needs to be rewritten, but I do not see anything wrong with having the troops in SK. The SK's have not really minded either for the last 50 years, until recently....

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Apr 4 2003, 08:00 AM
The Korean war was meaningless. I think it should have been finished, not this shitty ass truce that made everyone's fighting in vain. Korea is still divided more or less the way it was before the war started.
Us koreans are by far the most stubborn people in this universe, we'll rather drink the ocean with a spoon that accept we fucked up. NK is fucked up right now, and seems that kim jong il won't recognize that. Sometimes I get the feeling that what the US is doing is to stop help and negociations with NK so that people won't stand it anymore and take down kim by themselves.
People in NK are aware that the world is doing much better now, that's why so many try to escape to SK. I've also heard that there's been uprisings in some provinces, although I can't tell if the sources where I've gotten these news are very reliable

[BeTheReds]

Well when it comes down to the wire, Korean govt realizes that us troops goes hand and hand with foreign investment. If the USA leaves, the economy will turn to shit and Korea will long for them to come back, rather than deal with inflation and recession for 5 years or so. Also, to compensate, the mandatory draft is gonna have to be at least 6 months longer. Bad economy + longer mandatory draft = unhappy public, and is prime bait for the opposition to use in the next election to bring your party down. And with all the corruptness with the govt and the conglomerates, no politician is gonna want to fall from the top.

France and the Philippines had the balls to tell the USA to leave. South Korea should do the same.

[VV o n g B a]

sk and nk both want US troops to stay for now b/c they are hostages. in the event of a conflict, those 37k troops would be among the first to die. no US administration could take a hit like that very easily so south and north believe it gives stability. china feels the same way. the only gov't that really wants the US out is the US. that way they wouldn't have their hands tied when dealing w/ the nk's.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Apr 4 2003, 11:46 AM
sk and nk both want US troops to stay for now b/c they are hostages.  in the event of a conflict, those 37k troops would be among the first to die.  no US administration could take a hit like that very easily so south and north believe it gives stability.  china feels the same way.  the only gov't that really wants the US out is the US.  that way they wouldn't have their hands tied when dealing w/ the nk's.
actually i would say that the US wants to have its troops in south korea. it's an important and strategic military position in the pacific. one can almost say that the US doesn't want reunification, because it would lose its reason to have a base in south korea.

so, ok. basically south korea is keeping US troops there right now because of economic reasons. both because it's less expensive and because it brings in investment money. it makes sense, but i can't shake the feeling that reunification would be a lot smoother with a south korean force at the DMZ instead of a US force.

[VV o n g B a]

china finally seems to be making some moves on this issue. talk about lag time. :P

-------------------------------------------
China Urges N. Korea Dialogue
Beijing Sees Risk of Losing Influence in Area Vital to Security

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A16


BEIJING, April 3 -- The Chinese government has begun playing a more active role in pushing the United States and North Korea to settle their differences over the North Korean nuclear development program, according to Chinese government and Western diplomatic sources.

In a series of moves aimed at influencing both sides, the Chinese government has warned North Korea to stop provoking the United States, backing up the warning by closing an oil pipeline to North Korea for three days in late February, the sources said. At the same time, China has blocked U.S. attempts to use the U.N. Security Council to censure North Korea for withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has announced that China opposes sanctions against North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

"We have realized that we cannot let this situation alone," said a Chinese government official involved in foreign policy. "So we've decided to attempt to influence it, specifically by getting the two sides together." To that end, he said, China has transmitted more than 50 messages between Pyongyang and Washington. It also has held numerous meetings with diplomats from both sides. Government sources said a Chinese offer to host talks between the two sides still stands.

The initiatives are a result of a realization among senior Communist Party officials that unless Beijing begins participating in the search for a solution to the Korean crisis it risks losing influence in an area vital to its security, Chinese officials and scholars said.

China had been slow to react to the North Korean-U.S. dispute during the country's political transition last year. The 16th Congress of the Communist Party took place in November and it wasn't until then that President Hu Jintao, Vice President Zeng Qinghong, and Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing were assured of their positions.

full story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23256-2003Apr3?language=printer)

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 4 2003, 01:50 PM
actually i would say that the US wants to have its troops in south korea. it's an important and strategic military position in the pacific. one can almost say that the US doesn't want reunification, because it would lose its reason to have a base in south korea.
then how do you explain germany... there are still plenty of bases in germany. Iceland, Britian, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Japan....

Germany reunified and it has a military also...

i do not htink that reunification would be easier with an entire contingent of South Koreans manning machine guns than it would be with South Koreans and Americans manning machine guns at the DMZ... You still have a certified pyscho running a 5th world nation that may have the bomb.

Even if the DMZ went down and the country reunified... economically the troops there bring in money. That will not change. Money will make anyone cowtow...

Plus with China in a position to become on of the worlds greatest economic powers in the next two decades with also one of the largest militaries... the Bases in South Korea will be very pivotal in keeping tabs on them.

[SunWuKong]

it's my understanding that the major stumbling block as far as kim jong il is concerned is the fact that US troops are in south korea. of course, that guy is nuts, so it could just be an excuse.

and in my opinion, china is the real reason why US troops are in south korea.

[Danny]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 4 2003, 04:08 PM
it's my understanding that the major stumbling block as far as kim jong il is concerned is the fact that US troops are in south korea. of course, that guy is nuts, so it could just be an excuse.

and in my opinion, china is the real reason why US troops are in south korea.
NOW, yes I do not think anyone would doubt that... but there is no way in hell if South Korea was rid of AMerican troops Kim would be amiable to reunifying Korea... he would lose something that i do not yhink anyone would give up... total and absolute control.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Danny@Apr 4 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 4 2003, 04:08 PM
it's my understanding that the major stumbling block as far as kim jong il is concerned is the fact that US troops are in south korea.  of course, that guy is nuts, so it could just be an excuse.

and in my opinion, china is the real reason why US troops are in south korea.
NOW, yes I do not think anyone would doubt that... but there is no way in hell if South Korea was rid of AMerican troops Kim would be amiable to reunifying Korea... he would lose something that i do not yhink anyone would give up... total and absolute control.
yeah i don't think kim jong il would go for reunification either. maybe - and that's a huge maybe - if it was very very gradual. somebody up in there needs to stop him from making his son the heir to his throne, that's for sure. north koreans are just going to get more and more entrenched into the idea of absolute rule of his family line.