Uh Oh... N. Korea troubles

Condi Rice is on the case: That is so reassuring! North Korea is "choosing" isolation? This is news?

I noticed how Rumsfeld tiptoed around this question yesterday. Nothing has been confirmed. Well, I guess...

I would say the NK dictator is getting exactly what he wants: The respect of the U.S.

That's there version of soft power diplomacy, tip-toe through the tulips. Not that North Korean's "diplomacy" is any better. It's a Mexican standoff and if were truly are the superior nation we should be able to break through the confrontation as Kennedy did during the Cuban Missle Crises and, as wel all know now, that was done with concessions.

No respect for Mr. Hairdo. He's just so "ronery" LOL.

Hard to have respect for the goofball, but I don't find it that easy to respect GWB.

He's a cartoon character, all right, but one the Bush team seems to steering a wide berth around. It's v-e-r-y interesting.

Not to mention the fact that he may be the worst tyrant running a country at the moment. Where's the "freedom on the march" rhetoric from our Pres?

That's a bit innacurate. JFK stared Kruschev down and only made one secret concession at the very end. A concession without the firmness would probably only have emboldened the Soviets. They tended to understand the threat of force much better than the spirit of cooperation. We quite properly invaded Iraq to make sure that we would not end up in the state with Hussein that we now are in with NK. Having to placate an evil dictator with doomsday weapons into cooperation is not a very desirable state of affairs. Imagine what might have happened had Hitler developed working nuclear weapons or bioweapons.

What do you want Bush to say or do? I am sure that he does include the poor North Korean citizens in his policy of always favoring democracy. What do you expect him to do? What is it that you are criticizing him for not doing with regard to the citizens of North Korea? You do not think that Bush should have made the spread of democracy a notable part of his innaugural address? Isn't the support of democracy our responsibility as a powerful country?

Why all the saber rattling re Iran and the subtle approach to N. Korea? That's what I would like explained to me. Can you help, Brandon?

Yes, since it couldn't be more obvious, I think I can help. It makes no sense to rattle sabers to a nuclear power. What reprisals would we hint at? We are powerless now to effect any reprisals. It's too late. We can't invade NK or they could possibly obliterate South Korea or our troops or both in the first hour of the war. We invaded Iraq to insure that Hussein would not achieve this level of near invulnerability.

Ehem, I though, Iraq was invaded although they could nuke e.g. the UK within 45 minutes (at least it is said that this was the general opinon of all in those days).

No, we were pretty sure that Iraq did not yet possess working nukes.

No matter what anybody did or didn't say about it, I wanted Iraq invaded to insure that Hussein had destroyed his WMD and WMD programs. It was for this reason that Iraq had to be invaded. We could not take a chance that somewhere down the road either the weapons would make themselves known by killing a lot of people, or somewhere down the road Hussein would announce that he had enough WMD to do great damage and then use the existence of the weapons for international blackmail, as NK is doing now.

Kim probably knows in the end he will not win a global war with the US, China, and various other neighbors. He is using his Nuclear arsenal as a political scare to gain respect per-say and have their demands granted. Whoever made the comment earlier that the US "does not stand a chance" against the NK, this is probably wrong. In an all out war, we will probably remain victorious... but at a price, this is possible destruction of major cities / countries and huge death tolls if Kim releases nukes to keep himself in power. And we all know that our government does not want that, nor do they want to be blamed for that.

I figure its typical DPRK negotiatin' behavior; things ain't goin' their way, so get all huffy and storm outta the talks. I also figure this time its a big mistake on DPRK's part. I think it no coincidence there are indications of an internal power struggle there. This may well get real different real soon.

Looks like they caved. (Mulls....in this case means 'reverses')

N. Korea mulls return to talks

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- North Korean leader Kim Jong Il says he is ready to resume six-party talks on his country's nuclear weapons program if the United States shows sincerity and if certain conditions are met.

In the latest move in a series of heated accusations and rhetoric over the past two weeks, Pyongyang's state news agency quoted Kim as telling visiting Chinese diplomat Wang Jiarui that talks could resume if the United States "would show trustworthy sincerity and move (its stance)."

"We will go to the negotiating table anytime if there are mature conditions for the six-party talks thanks to the concerted efforts of the parties concerned in the future," KCNA news agency quoted Kim as saying on Tuesday.

While Kim did not give further details about what these conditions were, in the past Pyongyang has insisted on one-to-one talks with the United States, but Washington says a multilateral diplomatic approach is required, a call echoed by South Korea.

Since 2003, the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks with North Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards.

But no significant progress has been made in those talks, all hosted by China. A fourth round of talks in September did not take place when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.

The talks have taken on a greater sense of urgency after North Korea admitted publicly for the first time this month that it possessed nuclear weapons and it would not return to the talks.

Previously it had asserted its ability and right to produce nuclear weapons. In April 2003, U.S. officials said that North Koreans claimed in private meetings they had at least one nuclear bomb.

In what appears to be a conditional willingness to return to talks, Pyongyang said Tuesday its government "has never opposed the six-party talks but made every possible effort for their success."

Pyongyang "would as ever stand for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and its position to seek a peaceful solution to the issue through dialogue remains unchanged."

Responding to the news, U.S. ambassador to Korea and the top U.S. nuclear negotiator, Christopher Hill, said on Tuesday in Seoul that America was very much committed to making the talks work, and was awaiting details of future talks.

North Korea's future depends on their presence at the talks "and beginning a long road, a difficult road for them but an essential road for them, to return to the international community," Hill added.

On Saturday, U.S. and Japanese officials issued a joint statement calling North Korea's nuclear program "a direct threat to the peace and stability" of Asia.

"We share a concern about events on the Korean Peninsula," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the meetings.

North Korea responded the following day by accusing Japan of aspiring to rule a "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" beginning with an invasion of Korea with the assistance of the United States. (U.S., Japan 'plotting invasion')

North and South Korea never signed a peace agreement after the 1953 armistice that ended fighting in the Korean War, and the border between the two remains the most heavily fortified in the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/21/nkorea.talks/index.html

If they had oil, this wouldn't matter.

It's the same old story: they create the problem (in this case, by developing nuclear weapons and showing sympathy for those outlaw countries who support terrorism against the US); they blackmail the free world (you know how peaceful we are, unless you try to stop our megalomaniac, brutal regime), they get what they want( financial and humanitarian aid) . Then the aid is used to improve their military, leaving their people starving to death. Consequently dictatorship strengthens. So it's not surprising the return to talks: it is how the nk regime has managed to survive during the last 15 years.


So after a few years we'll have a BIGGER problem. And no solutions will be offered but negotiation, which will ultimately lead to another disastrous disarmament agreement with no means to ensure its effectiveness. And the cycle goes on…

An innovative view on the conflict is required. Let's have bilateral conversations and stop showing political weakness to NK, that will only encourage them: it's time to demand concessions: freedom for political prisoners, UN inspections and the dismantlement of nuclear facilities. Otherwise, they will have to face ABSOLUTE isolation: not a single package of humanitarian aid sent to NK. That's the only lesson Kim will understand.