OT: Blood is on China’s hands

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

Anyway, here is some news:

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=64586

[KIBU]

duplicate

[KIBU]

duplicate

[KIBU]

duplicate

[KIBU]

duplicate

[KIBU]

duplicate

[AK]

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

Yes indeed … Americans love to equate Korea and Vietnam … something that’s driven me bonkers all my life.

Let’s take a look at the results of economic liberalization in North Korea:

• Contract laborers sent to work in Siberia, mostly for Russian logging firms. Working conditions are horrible, suicide is rampant, and most of their pay is confiscated for the “party loyalty fund,” i.e. nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers.
• The aforementioned Mount Kumgang resort, built on a foundation of corruption. Generates a steady flow of hard currency for nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers. When the “cash for summit” scandal interrupts the flow of bribe money to corrupt officials (or is that a redundancy) NK first restricts operations and then shoots an old lady for wandering into a “restricted area,” something that even Disneyland wouldn’t do.
• Kaesong economic zone, Korea’s maquiladoras. Workers have the bulk of their paychecks skimmed for … nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, etc. At least they don’t have to go to Siberia for the privilege of being ripped off.
• Private enterprise in North Korea. Small-scale enterprise tolerated briefly, but marketplaces and private gardens shut down once again in 2009 as part of a disastrous “currency reform” that wiped out virtually all private savings and capital. NK economic czar Pak Nam Gi executed for “treason” in the wake of the botched “reform.” Presumed motivation: to wipe out the economic power of the nascent merchant class and pacify party loyalists, already disgruntled by the short supply of Hennessy cognac and Swedish hookers.

To their credit the Vietnamese communists turned out to be more pragmatic than ideological … recognizing, as Pham Van Dong himself said, that fighting a war is easy but running a country is difficult. The same can’t be said of the corrupt, murderous princes of the Kim Dynasty and their syncophants.

[AK]

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

Yes indeed … Americans love to equate Korea and Vietnam … something that’s driven me bonkers all my life.

Let’s take a look at the results of economic liberalization in North Korea:

• Contract laborers sent to work in Siberia, mostly for Russian logging firms. Working conditions are horrible, suicide is rampant, and most of their pay is confiscated for the “party loyalty fund,” i.e. nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers.
• The aforementioned Mount Kumgang resort, built on a foundation of corruption. Generates a steady flow of hard currency for nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers. When the “cash for summit” scandal interrupts the flow of bribe money to corrupt officials (or is that a redundancy) NK first restricts operations and then shoots an old lady for wandering into a “restricted area,” something that even Disneyland wouldn’t do.
• Kaesong economic zone, Korea’s maquiladoras. Workers have the bulk of their paychecks skimmed for … nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, etc. At least they don’t have to go to Siberia for the privilege of being ripped off.
• Private enterprise in North Korea. Small-scale enterprise tolerated briefly, but marketplaces and private gardens shut down once again in 2009 as part of a disastrous “currency reform” that wiped out virtually all private savings and capital. NK economic czar Pak Nam Gi executed for “treason” in the wake of the botched “reform.” Presumed motivation: to wipe out the economic power of the nascent merchant class and pacify party loyalists, already disgruntled by the short supply of Hennessy cognac and Swedish hookers.

To their credit the Vietnamese communists turned out to be more pragmatic than ideological … recognizing, as Pham Van Dong himself said, that fighting a war is easy but running a country is difficult. The same can’t be said of the corrupt, murderous princes of the Kim Dynasty and their syncophants.

[AK]

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

Yes indeed … Americans love to equate Korea and Vietnam … something that’s driven me bonkers all my life.

Let’s take a look at the results of economic liberalization in North Korea:

• Contract laborers sent to work in Siberia, mostly for Russian logging firms. Working conditions are horrible, suicide is rampant, and most of their pay is confiscated for the “party loyalty fund,” i.e. nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers.
• The aforementioned Mount Kumgang resort, built on a foundation of corruption. Generates a steady flow of hard currency for nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers. When the “cash for summit” scandal interrupts the flow of bribe money to corrupt officials (or is that a redundancy) NK first restricts operations and then shoots an old lady for wandering into a “restricted area,” something that even Disneyland wouldn’t do.
• Kaesong economic zone, Korea’s maquiladoras. Workers have the bulk of their paychecks skimmed for … nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, etc. At least they don’t have to go to Siberia for the privilege of being ripped off.
• Private enterprise in North Korea. Small-scale enterprise tolerated briefly, but marketplaces and private gardens shut down once again in 2009 as part of a disastrous “currency reform” that wiped out virtually all private savings and capital. NK economic czar Pak Nam Gi executed for “treason” in the wake of the botched “reform.” Presumed motivation: to wipe out the economic power of the nascent merchant class and pacify party loyalists, already disgruntled by the short supply of Hennessy cognac and Swedish hookers.

To their credit the Vietnamese communists turned out to be more pragmatic than ideological … recognizing, as Pham Van Dong himself said, that fighting a war is easy but running a country is difficult. The same can’t be said of the corrupt, murderous princes of the Kim Dynasty and their syncophants.

[AK]

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

Yes indeed … Americans love to equate Korea and Vietnam … something that’s driven me bonkers all my life.

Let’s take a look at the results of economic liberalization in North Korea:

• Contract laborers sent to work in Siberia, mostly for Russian logging firms. Working conditions are horrible, suicide is rampant, and most of their pay is confiscated for the “party loyalty fund,” i.e. nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers.
• The aforementioned Mount Kumgang resort, built on a foundation of corruption. Generates a steady flow of hard currency for nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers. When the “cash for summit” scandal interrupts the flow of bribe money to corrupt officials (or is that a redundancy) NK first restricts operations and then shoots an old lady for wandering into a “restricted area,” something that even Disneyland wouldn’t do.
• Kaesong economic zone, Korea’s maquiladoras. Workers have the bulk of their paychecks skimmed for … nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, etc. At least they don’t have to go to Siberia for the privilege of being ripped off.
• Private enterprise in North Korea. Small-scale enterprise tolerated briefly, but marketplaces and private gardens shut down once again in 2009 as part of a disastrous “currency reform” that wiped out virtually all private savings and capital. NK economic czar Pak Nam Gi executed for “treason” in the wake of the botched “reform.” Presumed motivation: to wipe out the economic power of the nascent merchant class and pacify party loyalists, already disgruntled by the short supply of Hennessy cognac and Swedish hookers.

To their credit the Vietnamese communists turned out to be more pragmatic than ideological … recognizing, as Pham Van Dong himself said, that fighting a war is easy but running a country is difficult. The same can’t be said of the corrupt, murderous princes of the Kim Dynasty and their syncophants.

[AK]

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

Yes indeed … Americans love to equate Korea and Vietnam … something that’s driven me bonkers all my life.

Let’s take a look at the results of economic liberalization in North Korea:

• Contract laborers sent to work in Siberia, mostly for Russian logging firms. Working conditions are horrible, suicide is rampant, and most of their pay is confiscated for the “party loyalty fund,” i.e. nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers.
• The aforementioned Mount Kumgang resort, built on a foundation of corruption. Generates a steady flow of hard currency for nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, and Swedish hookers. When the “cash for summit” scandal interrupts the flow of bribe money to corrupt officials (or is that a redundancy) NK first restricts operations and then shoots an old lady for wandering into a “restricted area,” something that even Disneyland wouldn’t do.
• Kaesong economic zone, Korea’s maquiladoras. Workers have the bulk of their paychecks skimmed for … nuclear centrifuges, Hennessy cognac, etc. At least they don’t have to go to Siberia for the privilege of being ripped off.
• Private enterprise in North Korea. Small-scale enterprise tolerated briefly, but marketplaces and private gardens shut down once again in 2009 as part of a disastrous “currency reform” that wiped out virtually all private savings and capital. NK economic czar Pak Nam Gi executed for “treason” in the wake of the botched “reform.” Presumed motivation: to wipe out the economic power of the nascent merchant class and pacify party loyalists, already disgruntled by the short supply of Hennessy cognac and Swedish hookers.

To their credit the Vietnamese communists turned out to be more pragmatic than ideological … recognizing, as Pham Van Dong himself said, that fighting a war is easy but running a country is difficult. The same can’t be said of the corrupt, murderous princes of the Kim Dynasty and their syncophants.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts