Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
KIBU
ParticipantWhen one looks closely at what NK has been doing, most people are puzzled as to WHY they did it and think it’s a crazy goverment who rather chase after conflicts and weapons while starving its large population. Many things they have done do not seem to profit their people or even the leadership. Similarly, when one looks closely at what the Khmer Rouge and Polpot did in Cambodia during their crazy and mad period, one couldn’t understand why one would do such thing to his own people.
But when you know that Polpot was following Maoist doctrine and under the influence and supports of Communist China for a very long time, then you would know why such smart and intelligent leaders of a country would kill and go against the interest of its people, chasing after conflicts and SELF DESTRUCTION for someone else interest.
ParticipantWhen one looks closely at what NK has been doing, most people are puzzled as to WHY they did it and think it’s a crazy goverment who rather chase after conflicts and weapons while starving its large population. Many things they have done do not seem to profit their people or even the leadership. Similarly, when one looks closely at what the Khmer Rouge and Polpot did in Cambodia during their crazy and mad period, one couldn’t understand why one would do such thing to his own people.
But when you know that Polpot was following Maoist doctrine and under the influence and supports of Communist China for a very long time, then you would know why such smart and intelligent leaders of a country would kill and go against the interest of its people, chasing after conflicts and SELF DESTRUCTION for someone else interest.
ParticipantWhen one looks closely at what NK has been doing, most people are puzzled as to WHY they did it and think it’s a crazy goverment who rather chase after conflicts and weapons while starving its large population. Many things they have done do not seem to profit their people or even the leadership. Similarly, when one looks closely at what the Khmer Rouge and Polpot did in Cambodia during their crazy and mad period, one couldn’t understand why one would do such thing to his own people.
But when you know that Polpot was following Maoist doctrine and under the influence and supports of Communist China for a very long time, then you would know why such smart and intelligent leaders of a country would kill and go against the interest of its people, chasing after conflicts and SELF DESTRUCTION for someone else interest.
ParticipantWhen one looks closely at what NK has been doing, most people are puzzled as to WHY they did it and think it’s a crazy goverment who rather chase after conflicts and weapons while starving its large population. Many things they have done do not seem to profit their people or even the leadership. Similarly, when one looks closely at what the Khmer Rouge and Polpot did in Cambodia during their crazy and mad period, one couldn’t understand why one would do such thing to his own people.
But when you know that Polpot was following Maoist doctrine and under the influence and supports of Communist China for a very long time, then you would know why such smart and intelligent leaders of a country would kill and go against the interest of its people, chasing after conflicts and SELF DESTRUCTION for someone else interest.
ParticipantThe fallacy is to assume that since play tough policy didn’t seem to work with NK, hence, cooperative policy should have worked. More likely, it’s the other way around that happened. Cooperative diplomacy couldn’t work, hence we have to play tough, which is just another facet of diplomacy. You don’t see anyone jumping to the 6 parties talk suggestion last week, do you???
Which party you belong to usually don’t have much influence on American diplomacy. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t blame him for the crazy North Korea’s actions or the American’s change of way to deal with NK.
The presence of American troops in SK is to protect South Korea from an aggressive north (a proven aggressor). The South Korean people need the presence of American power to protect them from the NK and China.
North Korea is the East German of China, some Chinese officials said in the past. Not a perfect analogy, but the fact is that China will never stand to let the Koreas to be unified because of its importance to China. China does not need to have troops in North Korea, it already achieved influence on the leadership of NK who depends on China for its survival while NK is playing its role very well for China.
ParticipantThe fallacy is to assume that since play tough policy didn’t seem to work with NK, hence, cooperative policy should have worked. More likely, it’s the other way around that happened. Cooperative diplomacy couldn’t work, hence we have to play tough, which is just another facet of diplomacy. You don’t see anyone jumping to the 6 parties talk suggestion last week, do you???
Which party you belong to usually don’t have much influence on American diplomacy. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t blame him for the crazy North Korea’s actions or the American’s change of way to deal with NK.
The presence of American troops in SK is to protect South Korea from an aggressive north (a proven aggressor). The South Korean people need the presence of American power to protect them from the NK and China.
North Korea is the East German of China, some Chinese officials said in the past. Not a perfect analogy, but the fact is that China will never stand to let the Koreas to be unified because of its importance to China. China does not need to have troops in North Korea, it already achieved influence on the leadership of NK who depends on China for its survival while NK is playing its role very well for China.
ParticipantThe fallacy is to assume that since play tough policy didn’t seem to work with NK, hence, cooperative policy should have worked. More likely, it’s the other way around that happened. Cooperative diplomacy couldn’t work, hence we have to play tough, which is just another facet of diplomacy. You don’t see anyone jumping to the 6 parties talk suggestion last week, do you???
Which party you belong to usually don’t have much influence on American diplomacy. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t blame him for the crazy North Korea’s actions or the American’s change of way to deal with NK.
The presence of American troops in SK is to protect South Korea from an aggressive north (a proven aggressor). The South Korean people need the presence of American power to protect them from the NK and China.
North Korea is the East German of China, some Chinese officials said in the past. Not a perfect analogy, but the fact is that China will never stand to let the Koreas to be unified because of its importance to China. China does not need to have troops in North Korea, it already achieved influence on the leadership of NK who depends on China for its survival while NK is playing its role very well for China.
ParticipantThe fallacy is to assume that since play tough policy didn’t seem to work with NK, hence, cooperative policy should have worked. More likely, it’s the other way around that happened. Cooperative diplomacy couldn’t work, hence we have to play tough, which is just another facet of diplomacy. You don’t see anyone jumping to the 6 parties talk suggestion last week, do you???
Which party you belong to usually don’t have much influence on American diplomacy. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t blame him for the crazy North Korea’s actions or the American’s change of way to deal with NK.
The presence of American troops in SK is to protect South Korea from an aggressive north (a proven aggressor). The South Korean people need the presence of American power to protect them from the NK and China.
North Korea is the East German of China, some Chinese officials said in the past. Not a perfect analogy, but the fact is that China will never stand to let the Koreas to be unified because of its importance to China. China does not need to have troops in North Korea, it already achieved influence on the leadership of NK who depends on China for its survival while NK is playing its role very well for China.
ParticipantThe fallacy is to assume that since play tough policy didn’t seem to work with NK, hence, cooperative policy should have worked. More likely, it’s the other way around that happened. Cooperative diplomacy couldn’t work, hence we have to play tough, which is just another facet of diplomacy. You don’t see anyone jumping to the 6 parties talk suggestion last week, do you???
Which party you belong to usually don’t have much influence on American diplomacy. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t blame him for the crazy North Korea’s actions or the American’s change of way to deal with NK.
The presence of American troops in SK is to protect South Korea from an aggressive north (a proven aggressor). The South Korean people need the presence of American power to protect them from the NK and China.
North Korea is the East German of China, some Chinese officials said in the past. Not a perfect analogy, but the fact is that China will never stand to let the Koreas to be unified because of its importance to China. China does not need to have troops in North Korea, it already achieved influence on the leadership of NK who depends on China for its survival while NK is playing its role very well for China.
ParticipantThe quick conclusion of some media on the wikileaks piece about China being “frustrated” with NK and would support a reunification of Korea really made me laugh.
I think that it is too soon to conclude or consider that China is “frustrated” with North Korea and would let a reunification of Korea occurs. We can not take what was leaked literally as the reality simply because of the various contexts or special reasons that these diplomats say things. I would stick to the fundamentals of geopolitics in this region and I believe:
-A reunification of Korea is clearly against China’s interest. Reunification means the US’s surrounding China policy is even more tighter, the sensitive yellow sea area of North Korea will be in South and US’s hand, even closer to Peking.
-North Korea is a card that China will play when they need to negotiate with US since only China could “influence” North Korea.
-North Korea will further be dependent on China as the primary political and economic supporter for its leader’s survival while China, playing the card, allow NK to act as a destabilizer dog in the region as negotiating bargaining chips.
-As the US is reasserting its interest in East/Southeast Asia after years of neglect (one big reason is to preserve the rights for its traditional sea lanes against China’s recent aggressive claims), with China being politically beaten down a bit now, I suspect China has decided to play its card to get the US to pay attention and perhaps appreciate the potential damages a wild NorthKorea can be (to world economy and regional stability). And hence will negotiations on other issues relating to China-US interests.
ParticipantThe quick conclusion of some media on the wikileaks piece about China being “frustrated” with NK and would support a reunification of Korea really made me laugh.
I think that it is too soon to conclude or consider that China is “frustrated” with North Korea and would let a reunification of Korea occurs. We can not take what was leaked literally as the reality simply because of the various contexts or special reasons that these diplomats say things. I would stick to the fundamentals of geopolitics in this region and I believe:
-A reunification of Korea is clearly against China’s interest. Reunification means the US’s surrounding China policy is even more tighter, the sensitive yellow sea area of North Korea will be in South and US’s hand, even closer to Peking.
-North Korea is a card that China will play when they need to negotiate with US since only China could “influence” North Korea.
-North Korea will further be dependent on China as the primary political and economic supporter for its leader’s survival while China, playing the card, allow NK to act as a destabilizer dog in the region as negotiating bargaining chips.
-As the US is reasserting its interest in East/Southeast Asia after years of neglect (one big reason is to preserve the rights for its traditional sea lanes against China’s recent aggressive claims), with China being politically beaten down a bit now, I suspect China has decided to play its card to get the US to pay attention and perhaps appreciate the potential damages a wild NorthKorea can be (to world economy and regional stability). And hence will negotiations on other issues relating to China-US interests.
ParticipantThe quick conclusion of some media on the wikileaks piece about China being “frustrated” with NK and would support a reunification of Korea really made me laugh.
I think that it is too soon to conclude or consider that China is “frustrated” with North Korea and would let a reunification of Korea occurs. We can not take what was leaked literally as the reality simply because of the various contexts or special reasons that these diplomats say things. I would stick to the fundamentals of geopolitics in this region and I believe:
-A reunification of Korea is clearly against China’s interest. Reunification means the US’s surrounding China policy is even more tighter, the sensitive yellow sea area of North Korea will be in South and US’s hand, even closer to Peking.
-North Korea is a card that China will play when they need to negotiate with US since only China could “influence” North Korea.
-North Korea will further be dependent on China as the primary political and economic supporter for its leader’s survival while China, playing the card, allow NK to act as a destabilizer dog in the region as negotiating bargaining chips.
-As the US is reasserting its interest in East/Southeast Asia after years of neglect (one big reason is to preserve the rights for its traditional sea lanes against China’s recent aggressive claims), with China being politically beaten down a bit now, I suspect China has decided to play its card to get the US to pay attention and perhaps appreciate the potential damages a wild NorthKorea can be (to world economy and regional stability). And hence will negotiations on other issues relating to China-US interests.
ParticipantThe quick conclusion of some media on the wikileaks piece about China being “frustrated” with NK and would support a reunification of Korea really made me laugh.
I think that it is too soon to conclude or consider that China is “frustrated” with North Korea and would let a reunification of Korea occurs. We can not take what was leaked literally as the reality simply because of the various contexts or special reasons that these diplomats say things. I would stick to the fundamentals of geopolitics in this region and I believe:
-A reunification of Korea is clearly against China’s interest. Reunification means the US’s surrounding China policy is even more tighter, the sensitive yellow sea area of North Korea will be in South and US’s hand, even closer to Peking.
-North Korea is a card that China will play when they need to negotiate with US since only China could “influence” North Korea.
-North Korea will further be dependent on China as the primary political and economic supporter for its leader’s survival while China, playing the card, allow NK to act as a destabilizer dog in the region as negotiating bargaining chips.
-As the US is reasserting its interest in East/Southeast Asia after years of neglect (one big reason is to preserve the rights for its traditional sea lanes against China’s recent aggressive claims), with China being politically beaten down a bit now, I suspect China has decided to play its card to get the US to pay attention and perhaps appreciate the potential damages a wild NorthKorea can be (to world economy and regional stability). And hence will negotiations on other issues relating to China-US interests.
ParticipantThe quick conclusion of some media on the wikileaks piece about China being “frustrated” with NK and would support a reunification of Korea really made me laugh.
I think that it is too soon to conclude or consider that China is “frustrated” with North Korea and would let a reunification of Korea occurs. We can not take what was leaked literally as the reality simply because of the various contexts or special reasons that these diplomats say things. I would stick to the fundamentals of geopolitics in this region and I believe:
-A reunification of Korea is clearly against China’s interest. Reunification means the US’s surrounding China policy is even more tighter, the sensitive yellow sea area of North Korea will be in South and US’s hand, even closer to Peking.
-North Korea is a card that China will play when they need to negotiate with US since only China could “influence” North Korea.
-North Korea will further be dependent on China as the primary political and economic supporter for its leader’s survival while China, playing the card, allow NK to act as a destabilizer dog in the region as negotiating bargaining chips.
-As the US is reasserting its interest in East/Southeast Asia after years of neglect (one big reason is to preserve the rights for its traditional sea lanes against China’s recent aggressive claims), with China being politically beaten down a bit now, I suspect China has decided to play its card to get the US to pay attention and perhaps appreciate the potential damages a wild NorthKorea can be (to world economy and regional stability). And hence will negotiations on other issues relating to China-US interests.
-
AuthorPosts
