OT: Blood is on China’s hands

[briansd1]

[quote=KIBU]”the model should be how we dealt with Vietnam”

I would support a model like this if it is at all doable. But comparing NK to VN is like comparing orange and apple. VN was actively looking for improving relations with the US as much or more as the US was. NK has been doing the opposite, pretending to get US cooperation by threatening and open more conflicts.

[/quote]

Some good points… but, in this end, this is a Korean problem that Koreans must solve among themselves.

Kim Dae-jung was working for rapprochement to North Korea. So what if he wanted to bribe the North Koreans into a deal? The South Koreans were doing it using their own money.

The problem is that the South Koreans were working on a deal with the North without consulting us so Bush and our military leaders got in a tizzy. It wasn’t our idea so we got upset and vetoed it.

America occupies a huge military base on valuable real estate inside Seoul. The South Koreans want us out of Seoul so they can reclaim the valuable land (real estate in Seoul is some of the most expensive in the world).

I was in South Korea when Bush assembled the coalition of the willing for Iraq. There were huge public protest againts sending South Korean soldiers to Iraq. The government had to deploy thousounds of troops to control the protests.

So what did Bush do? He developed his Axis of Evil doctrine and vetoed the efforts of South Korea to broker a deal with the North.

In Iraq, Shock and Awe wore off and the country descended into chaos. The North Korean then felt confident that America had no wherewithal to attack them; so they played hardball. That led Bush to backtrack and call the 6-party talks.

America lost that diplomatic battle and the North Koreans and Chinese know it. There is a price for losing and we need to give the North Koreans something they didn’t have before; and China wants more influence.

The North Koreans and Chinese are intend on extracting some concession from us before moving back to the dialogue before North Korea was included in the Axis of Evil. In diplomacy, words have meanings and consequences.

[quote=KIBU]
NK also won’t be allowed by China to move closer to the US even if it is a geniune move.
[/quote]

That’s what we said about North Vietnam when it was an ally of China and the Soviet Union. It was one reason we fought the Vietnam War.

But surprise, surprise, after the North Vietnamese won in 1975, in 1979 they fought a War with China. Then they wanted to become America’s friend.

We should encourage the North and South Koreans to reunify. They won’t want to be swallowed by China so they’ll look to us, just like Communist Vietnam did.

[AK]

The “cash for summit” scandal didn’t produce diplomacy … merely diplomatic theatre. It’s the difference between a retired athlete or other celebrity showing up at your party because he’s a close personal friend, and the same celeb showing up because you booked him at great expense to represent himself as a “close personal friend.”

Anyway let’s take a look at the chronology of the six-party talks, to test the assertion that the U.S. resorted to negotiation only after becoming bogged down in Iraq:

—-

January 2002: “Axis of Evil” speech. Still, “Axis of Evil” is pretty mild compared to the everyday characterization of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea in official North Korean statements. But we’re grown-ups and we won’t hold that against them.

October 2002: US, Japan, and Republic of Korea jointly announce that DPRK nuclear program violates both the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Also several other international agreements, but I lost count.) U.S. pledges diplomatic approach.

January 2003: DPRK announces withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

February 2002: DPRK announces restarting of reactors.

March 2003: Start of Gulf War II.

April 2003: First round of trilateral talks between North Korea, U.S., and China. Trilateral talks lead to six-party talks. (It should be noted that leaving out South Korea wasn’t really nice.)

May 1: End of major combat operations announced.

July 22: First Iraq governing council founded.

August 27, 2003: First round of six-party talks.

August 29, 2003: Bombing of Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills 90, first widely publicized instance of large-scale sectarian violence.

—–

So the timeline clearly refutes the assertion that diplomacy with North Korea was a last resort, prompted only by the Iraq insurgency.

Next assertion?

[AK]

The “cash for summit” scandal didn’t produce diplomacy … merely diplomatic theatre. It’s the difference between a retired athlete or other celebrity showing up at your party because he’s a close personal friend, and the same celeb showing up because you booked him at great expense to represent himself as a “close personal friend.”

Anyway let’s take a look at the chronology of the six-party talks, to test the assertion that the U.S. resorted to negotiation only after becoming bogged down in Iraq:

—-

January 2002: “Axis of Evil” speech. Still, “Axis of Evil” is pretty mild compared to the everyday characterization of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea in official North Korean statements. But we’re grown-ups and we won’t hold that against them.

October 2002: US, Japan, and Republic of Korea jointly announce that DPRK nuclear program violates both the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Also several other international agreements, but I lost count.) U.S. pledges diplomatic approach.

January 2003: DPRK announces withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

February 2002: DPRK announces restarting of reactors.

March 2003: Start of Gulf War II.

April 2003: First round of trilateral talks between North Korea, U.S., and China. Trilateral talks lead to six-party talks. (It should be noted that leaving out South Korea wasn’t really nice.)

May 1: End of major combat operations announced.

July 22: First Iraq governing council founded.

August 27, 2003: First round of six-party talks.

August 29, 2003: Bombing of Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills 90, first widely publicized instance of large-scale sectarian violence.

—–

So the timeline clearly refutes the assertion that diplomacy with North Korea was a last resort, prompted only by the Iraq insurgency.

Next assertion?

[AK]

The “cash for summit” scandal didn’t produce diplomacy … merely diplomatic theatre. It’s the difference between a retired athlete or other celebrity showing up at your party because he’s a close personal friend, and the same celeb showing up because you booked him at great expense to represent himself as a “close personal friend.”

Anyway let’s take a look at the chronology of the six-party talks, to test the assertion that the U.S. resorted to negotiation only after becoming bogged down in Iraq:

—-

January 2002: “Axis of Evil” speech. Still, “Axis of Evil” is pretty mild compared to the everyday characterization of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea in official North Korean statements. But we’re grown-ups and we won’t hold that against them.

October 2002: US, Japan, and Republic of Korea jointly announce that DPRK nuclear program violates both the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Also several other international agreements, but I lost count.) U.S. pledges diplomatic approach.

January 2003: DPRK announces withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

February 2002: DPRK announces restarting of reactors.

March 2003: Start of Gulf War II.

April 2003: First round of trilateral talks between North Korea, U.S., and China. Trilateral talks lead to six-party talks. (It should be noted that leaving out South Korea wasn’t really nice.)

May 1: End of major combat operations announced.

July 22: First Iraq governing council founded.

August 27, 2003: First round of six-party talks.

August 29, 2003: Bombing of Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills 90, first widely publicized instance of large-scale sectarian violence.

—–

So the timeline clearly refutes the assertion that diplomacy with North Korea was a last resort, prompted only by the Iraq insurgency.

Next assertion?

[AK]

The “cash for summit” scandal didn’t produce diplomacy … merely diplomatic theatre. It’s the difference between a retired athlete or other celebrity showing up at your party because he’s a close personal friend, and the same celeb showing up because you booked him at great expense to represent himself as a “close personal friend.”

Anyway let’s take a look at the chronology of the six-party talks, to test the assertion that the U.S. resorted to negotiation only after becoming bogged down in Iraq:

—-

January 2002: “Axis of Evil” speech. Still, “Axis of Evil” is pretty mild compared to the everyday characterization of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea in official North Korean statements. But we’re grown-ups and we won’t hold that against them.

October 2002: US, Japan, and Republic of Korea jointly announce that DPRK nuclear program violates both the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Also several other international agreements, but I lost count.) U.S. pledges diplomatic approach.

January 2003: DPRK announces withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

February 2002: DPRK announces restarting of reactors.

March 2003: Start of Gulf War II.

April 2003: First round of trilateral talks between North Korea, U.S., and China. Trilateral talks lead to six-party talks. (It should be noted that leaving out South Korea wasn’t really nice.)

May 1: End of major combat operations announced.

July 22: First Iraq governing council founded.

August 27, 2003: First round of six-party talks.

August 29, 2003: Bombing of Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills 90, first widely publicized instance of large-scale sectarian violence.

—–

So the timeline clearly refutes the assertion that diplomacy with North Korea was a last resort, prompted only by the Iraq insurgency.

Next assertion?

[AK]

The “cash for summit” scandal didn’t produce diplomacy … merely diplomatic theatre. It’s the difference between a retired athlete or other celebrity showing up at your party because he’s a close personal friend, and the same celeb showing up because you booked him at great expense to represent himself as a “close personal friend.”

Anyway let’s take a look at the chronology of the six-party talks, to test the assertion that the U.S. resorted to negotiation only after becoming bogged down in Iraq:

—-

January 2002: “Axis of Evil” speech. Still, “Axis of Evil” is pretty mild compared to the everyday characterization of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea in official North Korean statements. But we’re grown-ups and we won’t hold that against them.

October 2002: US, Japan, and Republic of Korea jointly announce that DPRK nuclear program violates both the 1994 Agreed Framework and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Also several other international agreements, but I lost count.) U.S. pledges diplomatic approach.

January 2003: DPRK announces withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

February 2002: DPRK announces restarting of reactors.

March 2003: Start of Gulf War II.

April 2003: First round of trilateral talks between North Korea, U.S., and China. Trilateral talks lead to six-party talks. (It should be noted that leaving out South Korea wasn’t really nice.)

May 1: End of major combat operations announced.

July 22: First Iraq governing council founded.

August 27, 2003: First round of six-party talks.

August 29, 2003: Bombing of Imam Ali mosque in Najaf kills 90, first widely publicized instance of large-scale sectarian violence.

—–

So the timeline clearly refutes the assertion that diplomacy with North Korea was a last resort, prompted only by the Iraq insurgency.

Next assertion?

[briansd1]

AK, if the Chinese can’t be trusted with respect to North Korea, then why did we even reach out to them?

I’m not defending the Chinese, but here’s how it works in real life: if you ask me for my help, you need to take my ideas into consideration; otherwise, feel free to fix it yourself.

Today we have some interesting developments on Korea with Obama talking to Hu.

The Chinese don’t want to do much. And the Americans are escalating with military exercises off the Korean Peninsula.

I think that America is constrained right now, otherwise we wouldn’t wait for 13 days for China take our phone call.

What’s in it for each side? Who will crack first? Should be interesting to watch.

BEIJING —President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China talked by telephone on Monday about North Korea, culminating 13 days of effort by the White House to persuade China’s leaders to discuss a crisis that many experts fear could escalate into military action.

[briansd1]

AK, if the Chinese can’t be trusted with respect to North Korea, then why did we even reach out to them?

I’m not defending the Chinese, but here’s how it works in real life: if you ask me for my help, you need to take my ideas into consideration; otherwise, feel free to fix it yourself.

Today we have some interesting developments on Korea with Obama talking to Hu.

The Chinese don’t want to do much. And the Americans are escalating with military exercises off the Korean Peninsula.

I think that America is constrained right now, otherwise we wouldn’t wait for 13 days for China take our phone call.

What’s in it for each side? Who will crack first? Should be interesting to watch.

BEIJING —President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China talked by telephone on Monday about North Korea, culminating 13 days of effort by the White House to persuade China’s leaders to discuss a crisis that many experts fear could escalate into military action.

[briansd1]

AK, if the Chinese can’t be trusted with respect to North Korea, then why did we even reach out to them?

I’m not defending the Chinese, but here’s how it works in real life: if you ask me for my help, you need to take my ideas into consideration; otherwise, feel free to fix it yourself.

Today we have some interesting developments on Korea with Obama talking to Hu.

The Chinese don’t want to do much. And the Americans are escalating with military exercises off the Korean Peninsula.

I think that America is constrained right now, otherwise we wouldn’t wait for 13 days for China take our phone call.

What’s in it for each side? Who will crack first? Should be interesting to watch.

BEIJING —President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China talked by telephone on Monday about North Korea, culminating 13 days of effort by the White House to persuade China’s leaders to discuss a crisis that many experts fear could escalate into military action.

[briansd1]

AK, if the Chinese can’t be trusted with respect to North Korea, then why did we even reach out to them?

I’m not defending the Chinese, but here’s how it works in real life: if you ask me for my help, you need to take my ideas into consideration; otherwise, feel free to fix it yourself.

Today we have some interesting developments on Korea with Obama talking to Hu.

The Chinese don’t want to do much. And the Americans are escalating with military exercises off the Korean Peninsula.

I think that America is constrained right now, otherwise we wouldn’t wait for 13 days for China take our phone call.

What’s in it for each side? Who will crack first? Should be interesting to watch.

BEIJING —President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China talked by telephone on Monday about North Korea, culminating 13 days of effort by the White House to persuade China’s leaders to discuss a crisis that many experts fear could escalate into military action.

[briansd1]

AK, if the Chinese can’t be trusted with respect to North Korea, then why did we even reach out to them?

I’m not defending the Chinese, but here’s how it works in real life: if you ask me for my help, you need to take my ideas into consideration; otherwise, feel free to fix it yourself.

Today we have some interesting developments on Korea with Obama talking to Hu.

The Chinese don’t want to do much. And the Americans are escalating with military exercises off the Korean Peninsula.

I think that America is constrained right now, otherwise we wouldn’t wait for 13 days for China take our phone call.

What’s in it for each side? Who will crack first? Should be interesting to watch.

BEIJING —President Obama and President Hu Jintao of China talked by telephone on Monday about North Korea, culminating 13 days of effort by the White House to persuade China’s leaders to discuss a crisis that many experts fear could escalate into military action.

[briansd1]

March 2003 – Start of Gulf War II

May 1, 2003 – Mission Accomplished

Within a month, the Administration (and intelligence services around the world) knew that the Iraqis were not going to greet us like liberators with parades of flowers.

Bush, lacking Plan B, had to confront the fact that Iraq was not going to be a walk in the park, or pay for itself. An American military presence would be required long term in Iraq.

[briansd1]

March 2003 – Start of Gulf War II

May 1, 2003 – Mission Accomplished

Within a month, the Administration (and intelligence services around the world) knew that the Iraqis were not going to greet us like liberators with parades of flowers.

Bush, lacking Plan B, had to confront the fact that Iraq was not going to be a walk in the park, or pay for itself. An American military presence would be required long term in Iraq.

[briansd1]

March 2003 – Start of Gulf War II

May 1, 2003 – Mission Accomplished

Within a month, the Administration (and intelligence services around the world) knew that the Iraqis were not going to greet us like liberators with parades of flowers.

Bush, lacking Plan B, had to confront the fact that Iraq was not going to be a walk in the park, or pay for itself. An American military presence would be required long term in Iraq.

[briansd1]

March 2003 – Start of Gulf War II

May 1, 2003 – Mission Accomplished

Within a month, the Administration (and intelligence services around the world) knew that the Iraqis were not going to greet us like liberators with parades of flowers.

Bush, lacking Plan B, had to confront the fact that Iraq was not going to be a walk in the park, or pay for itself. An American military presence would be required long term in Iraq.

[Author]

Posts