OT: Blood is on China’s hands

[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.

[KIBU]

Some interesting quotes from the Washington post’s article “Pyongyang’s Accomplice, The WikiLeaks cables reveal a China that abets North Korea’s WMD proliferation”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648473842565004.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote:

“China has also played a key role in abetting the North’s proliferation schemes. A November 2007 memo signed by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complains that shipments of North Korean ballistic missile jet vanes “frequently transit Beijing on regularly scheduled flights” but that the Chinese had failed to act on specific information provided by the U.S. and despite a direct appeal by President Bush to Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.

That pattern of behavior remains unchanged. An October report by the Congressional Research Service notes that the “seaborne cargo of North Korean arms seized in Dubai in July 2009 had visited several Chinese ports and was transported from Dalian, China, to Shanghai aboard a Chinese ship, again without a Chinese effort to conduct a search. Overland routes for procurement of WMD-related goods are reportedly also common, due to the participation of Chinese entities.”

The CRS report is also interesting for the light it sheds on how the Chinese prop up North Korea’s Kim dynasty. Resolution 1874, adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year after the North conducted its second nuclear test, forbids the sale of luxury goods to North Korea—goods Kim Jong Il uses to buy off his elites. Yet China exported $136.1 million worth of such goods to North Korea in 2009, including “160 luxury cars (made in China) to directors of provincial committees of the Korean Workers Party and to municipal committee secretaries.”

Why the warm embrace? In one of the most interesting of the leaked cables—a report of a conversation last year between Lee Kuan Yew and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”

Mr. Lee is right that Beijing must make hard-headed calculations regarding the North: China cannot escape its shared border, and the effects of the North’s collapse would be immediately felt on its side of the Yalu.

But the interests of “stability” cannot account for China’s role in facilitating the North’s proliferation of dangerous material to the rest of the world. Nor can China’s refusal to restrain the North from fomenting serial crises on the Korean peninsula be explained as the deeds of a power interested in maintaining a peaceful status quo. The Kim regime’s militarism is destabilizing in Northeast Asia and its proliferation is a source of global mayhem.

China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.

From what we can glean from the cables, it’s encouraging to see that the Obama Administration seems to have few illusions about North Korea and the abetting role played by China. Compared to Mr. Bush in his second term, this Administration has been relatively tough and realistic. But if China really is the key to better North Korean behavior, then Washington will have to confront Beijing more bluntly than it has dared so far”.

[KIBU]

Some interesting quotes from the Washington post’s article “Pyongyang’s Accomplice, The WikiLeaks cables reveal a China that abets North Korea’s WMD proliferation”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648473842565004.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote:

“China has also played a key role in abetting the North’s proliferation schemes. A November 2007 memo signed by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complains that shipments of North Korean ballistic missile jet vanes “frequently transit Beijing on regularly scheduled flights” but that the Chinese had failed to act on specific information provided by the U.S. and despite a direct appeal by President Bush to Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.

That pattern of behavior remains unchanged. An October report by the Congressional Research Service notes that the “seaborne cargo of North Korean arms seized in Dubai in July 2009 had visited several Chinese ports and was transported from Dalian, China, to Shanghai aboard a Chinese ship, again without a Chinese effort to conduct a search. Overland routes for procurement of WMD-related goods are reportedly also common, due to the participation of Chinese entities.”

The CRS report is also interesting for the light it sheds on how the Chinese prop up North Korea’s Kim dynasty. Resolution 1874, adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year after the North conducted its second nuclear test, forbids the sale of luxury goods to North Korea—goods Kim Jong Il uses to buy off his elites. Yet China exported $136.1 million worth of such goods to North Korea in 2009, including “160 luxury cars (made in China) to directors of provincial committees of the Korean Workers Party and to municipal committee secretaries.”

Why the warm embrace? In one of the most interesting of the leaked cables—a report of a conversation last year between Lee Kuan Yew and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”

Mr. Lee is right that Beijing must make hard-headed calculations regarding the North: China cannot escape its shared border, and the effects of the North’s collapse would be immediately felt on its side of the Yalu.

But the interests of “stability” cannot account for China’s role in facilitating the North’s proliferation of dangerous material to the rest of the world. Nor can China’s refusal to restrain the North from fomenting serial crises on the Korean peninsula be explained as the deeds of a power interested in maintaining a peaceful status quo. The Kim regime’s militarism is destabilizing in Northeast Asia and its proliferation is a source of global mayhem.

China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.

From what we can glean from the cables, it’s encouraging to see that the Obama Administration seems to have few illusions about North Korea and the abetting role played by China. Compared to Mr. Bush in his second term, this Administration has been relatively tough and realistic. But if China really is the key to better North Korean behavior, then Washington will have to confront Beijing more bluntly than it has dared so far”.

[KIBU]

Some interesting quotes from the Washington post’s article “Pyongyang’s Accomplice, The WikiLeaks cables reveal a China that abets North Korea’s WMD proliferation”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648473842565004.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote:

“China has also played a key role in abetting the North’s proliferation schemes. A November 2007 memo signed by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complains that shipments of North Korean ballistic missile jet vanes “frequently transit Beijing on regularly scheduled flights” but that the Chinese had failed to act on specific information provided by the U.S. and despite a direct appeal by President Bush to Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.

That pattern of behavior remains unchanged. An October report by the Congressional Research Service notes that the “seaborne cargo of North Korean arms seized in Dubai in July 2009 had visited several Chinese ports and was transported from Dalian, China, to Shanghai aboard a Chinese ship, again without a Chinese effort to conduct a search. Overland routes for procurement of WMD-related goods are reportedly also common, due to the participation of Chinese entities.”

The CRS report is also interesting for the light it sheds on how the Chinese prop up North Korea’s Kim dynasty. Resolution 1874, adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year after the North conducted its second nuclear test, forbids the sale of luxury goods to North Korea—goods Kim Jong Il uses to buy off his elites. Yet China exported $136.1 million worth of such goods to North Korea in 2009, including “160 luxury cars (made in China) to directors of provincial committees of the Korean Workers Party and to municipal committee secretaries.”

Why the warm embrace? In one of the most interesting of the leaked cables—a report of a conversation last year between Lee Kuan Yew and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”

Mr. Lee is right that Beijing must make hard-headed calculations regarding the North: China cannot escape its shared border, and the effects of the North’s collapse would be immediately felt on its side of the Yalu.

But the interests of “stability” cannot account for China’s role in facilitating the North’s proliferation of dangerous material to the rest of the world. Nor can China’s refusal to restrain the North from fomenting serial crises on the Korean peninsula be explained as the deeds of a power interested in maintaining a peaceful status quo. The Kim regime’s militarism is destabilizing in Northeast Asia and its proliferation is a source of global mayhem.

China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.

From what we can glean from the cables, it’s encouraging to see that the Obama Administration seems to have few illusions about North Korea and the abetting role played by China. Compared to Mr. Bush in his second term, this Administration has been relatively tough and realistic. But if China really is the key to better North Korean behavior, then Washington will have to confront Beijing more bluntly than it has dared so far”.

[KIBU]

Some interesting quotes from the Washington post’s article “Pyongyang’s Accomplice, The WikiLeaks cables reveal a China that abets North Korea’s WMD proliferation”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648473842565004.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote:

“China has also played a key role in abetting the North’s proliferation schemes. A November 2007 memo signed by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complains that shipments of North Korean ballistic missile jet vanes “frequently transit Beijing on regularly scheduled flights” but that the Chinese had failed to act on specific information provided by the U.S. and despite a direct appeal by President Bush to Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.

That pattern of behavior remains unchanged. An October report by the Congressional Research Service notes that the “seaborne cargo of North Korean arms seized in Dubai in July 2009 had visited several Chinese ports and was transported from Dalian, China, to Shanghai aboard a Chinese ship, again without a Chinese effort to conduct a search. Overland routes for procurement of WMD-related goods are reportedly also common, due to the participation of Chinese entities.”

The CRS report is also interesting for the light it sheds on how the Chinese prop up North Korea’s Kim dynasty. Resolution 1874, adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year after the North conducted its second nuclear test, forbids the sale of luxury goods to North Korea—goods Kim Jong Il uses to buy off his elites. Yet China exported $136.1 million worth of such goods to North Korea in 2009, including “160 luxury cars (made in China) to directors of provincial committees of the Korean Workers Party and to municipal committee secretaries.”

Why the warm embrace? In one of the most interesting of the leaked cables—a report of a conversation last year between Lee Kuan Yew and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”

Mr. Lee is right that Beijing must make hard-headed calculations regarding the North: China cannot escape its shared border, and the effects of the North’s collapse would be immediately felt on its side of the Yalu.

But the interests of “stability” cannot account for China’s role in facilitating the North’s proliferation of dangerous material to the rest of the world. Nor can China’s refusal to restrain the North from fomenting serial crises on the Korean peninsula be explained as the deeds of a power interested in maintaining a peaceful status quo. The Kim regime’s militarism is destabilizing in Northeast Asia and its proliferation is a source of global mayhem.

China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.

From what we can glean from the cables, it’s encouraging to see that the Obama Administration seems to have few illusions about North Korea and the abetting role played by China. Compared to Mr. Bush in his second term, this Administration has been relatively tough and realistic. But if China really is the key to better North Korean behavior, then Washington will have to confront Beijing more bluntly than it has dared so far”.

[KIBU]

Some interesting quotes from the Washington post’s article “Pyongyang’s Accomplice, The WikiLeaks cables reveal a China that abets North Korea’s WMD proliferation”:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648473842565004.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Quote:

“China has also played a key role in abetting the North’s proliferation schemes. A November 2007 memo signed by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complains that shipments of North Korean ballistic missile jet vanes “frequently transit Beijing on regularly scheduled flights” but that the Chinese had failed to act on specific information provided by the U.S. and despite a direct appeal by President Bush to Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao.

That pattern of behavior remains unchanged. An October report by the Congressional Research Service notes that the “seaborne cargo of North Korean arms seized in Dubai in July 2009 had visited several Chinese ports and was transported from Dalian, China, to Shanghai aboard a Chinese ship, again without a Chinese effort to conduct a search. Overland routes for procurement of WMD-related goods are reportedly also common, due to the participation of Chinese entities.”

The CRS report is also interesting for the light it sheds on how the Chinese prop up North Korea’s Kim dynasty. Resolution 1874, adopted by the U.N. Security Council last year after the North conducted its second nuclear test, forbids the sale of luxury goods to North Korea—goods Kim Jong Il uses to buy off his elites. Yet China exported $136.1 million worth of such goods to North Korea in 2009, including “160 luxury cars (made in China) to directors of provincial committees of the Korean Workers Party and to municipal committee secretaries.”

Why the warm embrace? In one of the most interesting of the leaked cables—a report of a conversation last year between Lee Kuan Yew and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”

Mr. Lee is right that Beijing must make hard-headed calculations regarding the North: China cannot escape its shared border, and the effects of the North’s collapse would be immediately felt on its side of the Yalu.

But the interests of “stability” cannot account for China’s role in facilitating the North’s proliferation of dangerous material to the rest of the world. Nor can China’s refusal to restrain the North from fomenting serial crises on the Korean peninsula be explained as the deeds of a power interested in maintaining a peaceful status quo. The Kim regime’s militarism is destabilizing in Northeast Asia and its proliferation is a source of global mayhem.

China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.

From what we can glean from the cables, it’s encouraging to see that the Obama Administration seems to have few illusions about North Korea and the abetting role played by China. Compared to Mr. Bush in his second term, this Administration has been relatively tough and realistic. But if China really is the key to better North Korean behavior, then Washington will have to confront Beijing more bluntly than it has dared so far”.

[briansd1]

[quote]China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.[/quote]

Interesting article KIBU.

I don’t think that China is mistaken. From their perspective, proping up North Korea might be the smart thing to do.

The US and India signed a nuclear accord. Communist Vietnam has become a reliable American ally providing a buffer against China and alternative production source for American corporations.

South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines and Australia are in the American sphere. Russia is China’s long time rival. In short, China is encircled.

The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security concerns consume the American government.

Robert Gates wants to downsize the American military but the situation in Korea might not allow that.

Partisanship in America used to stop at the water’s edge. But the Republicans won’t let Obama conduct foreign policy in the best interests of America. Obama cannot appear weak on defense.

If China can keep America occupied with defense issues, it can build up its economy while we are distracted. Our military adventures contribute to bankdrupting us, while we continue to borrow from China.

[quote]
Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”
[/quote]

In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for Bush to veto South Korea’s bribing North Korea into rapprochement. After all, the South Koreans were using their own money and resources.

Back in 2000, the South Koreans needed cheap labor for their growing corporations. They could have invested in North Korea and slowly bought off the North Korean regime. Instead South Korean companies ended up building factories in China and Vietnam.

The truth is that the North Koreans leaders need to be bribed. It would have been better had the South Koreans bribed their Northern cousins into peace. Instead we have a situation where the North Koreas are bribed by the Chinese into giving America into periodic headaches and reactions.

Kim Dae-jung’s policy of rapproachement with the North was not an American idea so we scuttled it because of bruised egos. That was a monumental mistake on our part.

[briansd1]

[quote]China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.[/quote]

Interesting article KIBU.

I don’t think that China is mistaken. From their perspective, proping up North Korea might be the smart thing to do.

The US and India signed a nuclear accord. Communist Vietnam has become a reliable American ally providing a buffer against China and alternative production source for American corporations.

South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines and Australia are in the American sphere. Russia is China’s long time rival. In short, China is encircled.

The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security concerns consume the American government.

Robert Gates wants to downsize the American military but the situation in Korea might not allow that.

Partisanship in America used to stop at the water’s edge. But the Republicans won’t let Obama conduct foreign policy in the best interests of America. Obama cannot appear weak on defense.

If China can keep America occupied with defense issues, it can build up its economy while we are distracted. Our military adventures contribute to bankdrupting us, while we continue to borrow from China.

[quote]
Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”
[/quote]

In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for Bush to veto South Korea’s bribing North Korea into rapprochement. After all, the South Koreans were using their own money and resources.

Back in 2000, the South Koreans needed cheap labor for their growing corporations. They could have invested in North Korea and slowly bought off the North Korean regime. Instead South Korean companies ended up building factories in China and Vietnam.

The truth is that the North Koreans leaders need to be bribed. It would have been better had the South Koreans bribed their Northern cousins into peace. Instead we have a situation where the North Koreas are bribed by the Chinese into giving America into periodic headaches and reactions.

Kim Dae-jung’s policy of rapproachement with the North was not an American idea so we scuttled it because of bruised egos. That was a monumental mistake on our part.

[briansd1]

[quote]China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.[/quote]

Interesting article KIBU.

I don’t think that China is mistaken. From their perspective, proping up North Korea might be the smart thing to do.

The US and India signed a nuclear accord. Communist Vietnam has become a reliable American ally providing a buffer against China and alternative production source for American corporations.

South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines and Australia are in the American sphere. Russia is China’s long time rival. In short, China is encircled.

The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security concerns consume the American government.

Robert Gates wants to downsize the American military but the situation in Korea might not allow that.

Partisanship in America used to stop at the water’s edge. But the Republicans won’t let Obama conduct foreign policy in the best interests of America. Obama cannot appear weak on defense.

If China can keep America occupied with defense issues, it can build up its economy while we are distracted. Our military adventures contribute to bankdrupting us, while we continue to borrow from China.

[quote]
Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”
[/quote]

In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for Bush to veto South Korea’s bribing North Korea into rapprochement. After all, the South Koreans were using their own money and resources.

Back in 2000, the South Koreans needed cheap labor for their growing corporations. They could have invested in North Korea and slowly bought off the North Korean regime. Instead South Korean companies ended up building factories in China and Vietnam.

The truth is that the North Koreans leaders need to be bribed. It would have been better had the South Koreans bribed their Northern cousins into peace. Instead we have a situation where the North Koreas are bribed by the Chinese into giving America into periodic headaches and reactions.

Kim Dae-jung’s policy of rapproachement with the North was not an American idea so we scuttled it because of bruised egos. That was a monumental mistake on our part.

[briansd1]

[quote]China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.[/quote]

Interesting article KIBU.

I don’t think that China is mistaken. From their perspective, proping up North Korea might be the smart thing to do.

The US and India signed a nuclear accord. Communist Vietnam has become a reliable American ally providing a buffer against China and alternative production source for American corporations.

South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines and Australia are in the American sphere. Russia is China’s long time rival. In short, China is encircled.

The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security concerns consume the American government.

Robert Gates wants to downsize the American military but the situation in Korea might not allow that.

Partisanship in America used to stop at the water’s edge. But the Republicans won’t let Obama conduct foreign policy in the best interests of America. Obama cannot appear weak on defense.

If China can keep America occupied with defense issues, it can build up its economy while we are distracted. Our military adventures contribute to bankdrupting us, while we continue to borrow from China.

[quote]
Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”
[/quote]

In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for Bush to veto South Korea’s bribing North Korea into rapprochement. After all, the South Koreans were using their own money and resources.

Back in 2000, the South Koreans needed cheap labor for their growing corporations. They could have invested in North Korea and slowly bought off the North Korean regime. Instead South Korean companies ended up building factories in China and Vietnam.

The truth is that the North Koreans leaders need to be bribed. It would have been better had the South Koreans bribed their Northern cousins into peace. Instead we have a situation where the North Koreas are bribed by the Chinese into giving America into periodic headaches and reactions.

Kim Dae-jung’s policy of rapproachement with the North was not an American idea so we scuttled it because of bruised egos. That was a monumental mistake on our part.

[briansd1]

[quote]China’s support for such a regime for so many years suggests that Beijing may see strategic benefit in the North’s behavior. It may want a proxy that discomfits its neighbors and makes South Korea and Japan wonder if they can trust the U.S. defense umbrella. Perhaps some in the politburo or People’s Liberation Army think this is a way that China can assert its regional authority and drive the U.S. out of the Northeast Pacific. If so, they are mistaken.[/quote]

Interesting article KIBU.

I don’t think that China is mistaken. From their perspective, proping up North Korea might be the smart thing to do.

The US and India signed a nuclear accord. Communist Vietnam has become a reliable American ally providing a buffer against China and alternative production source for American corporations.

South Korea, Japan and the Phillipines and Australia are in the American sphere. Russia is China’s long time rival. In short, China is encircled.

The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Security concerns consume the American government.

Robert Gates wants to downsize the American military but the situation in Korea might not allow that.

Partisanship in America used to stop at the water’s edge. But the Republicans won’t let Obama conduct foreign policy in the best interests of America. Obama cannot appear weak on defense.

If China can keep America occupied with defense issues, it can build up its economy while we are distracted. Our military adventures contribute to bankdrupting us, while we continue to borrow from China.

[quote]
Singapore’s Minister Mentor suggests an answer. “The Chinese,” he said, “do not want North Korea, which China sees as a buffer state, to collapse. [South Korea] would take over in the North and China would face a U.S. presence at its border.”
[/quote]

In my opinion, it was a huge mistake for Bush to veto South Korea’s bribing North Korea into rapprochement. After all, the South Koreans were using their own money and resources.

Back in 2000, the South Koreans needed cheap labor for their growing corporations. They could have invested in North Korea and slowly bought off the North Korean regime. Instead South Korean companies ended up building factories in China and Vietnam.

The truth is that the North Koreans leaders need to be bribed. It would have been better had the South Koreans bribed their Northern cousins into peace. Instead we have a situation where the North Koreas are bribed by the Chinese into giving America into periodic headaches and reactions.

Kim Dae-jung’s policy of rapproachement with the North was not an American idea so we scuttled it because of bruised egos. That was a monumental mistake on our part.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]The model should be how we dealt with Communist Vietnam. Since Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam their country has liberalized; there has been a decade and one-half of phenomenal growth and millions were lifted out of poverty.[/quote]
Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about here. When’s the last time you went to Vietnam? Average engineer there makes $200-400/month. A bowl of pho cost about the same as it does here. They destroyed all the farmlands and build resort housing that is currently still empty. I can go on and on but I’ll let you do your research. Try talking and observing average Vietnamese and tell me if you’re still sing the same tune.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]The model should be how we dealt with Communist Vietnam. Since Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam their country has liberalized; there has been a decade and one-half of phenomenal growth and millions were lifted out of poverty.[/quote]
Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about here. When’s the last time you went to Vietnam? Average engineer there makes $200-400/month. A bowl of pho cost about the same as it does here. They destroyed all the farmlands and build resort housing that is currently still empty. I can go on and on but I’ll let you do your research. Try talking and observing average Vietnamese and tell me if you’re still sing the same tune.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]The model should be how we dealt with Communist Vietnam. Since Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam their country has liberalized; there has been a decade and one-half of phenomenal growth and millions were lifted out of poverty.[/quote]
Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about here. When’s the last time you went to Vietnam? Average engineer there makes $200-400/month. A bowl of pho cost about the same as it does here. They destroyed all the farmlands and build resort housing that is currently still empty. I can go on and on but I’ll let you do your research. Try talking and observing average Vietnamese and tell me if you’re still sing the same tune.

[an]

[quote=briansd1]The model should be how we dealt with Communist Vietnam. Since Clinton normalized relations with Vietnam their country has liberalized; there has been a decade and one-half of phenomenal growth and millions were lifted out of poverty.[/quote]
Dude, you have no idea what you’re talking about here. When’s the last time you went to Vietnam? Average engineer there makes $200-400/month. A bowl of pho cost about the same as it does here. They destroyed all the farmlands and build resort housing that is currently still empty. I can go on and on but I’ll let you do your research. Try talking and observing average Vietnamese and tell me if you’re still sing the same tune.

[Author]

Posts