North Korea: What to do?

Ionus wrote:

Quote:

A partner?

Now Arty.......behave....

*scratches head* I'm missing something...

I had the honour of fighting a Korean in a martial arts tournament. He told me the foot patrols checking the fence regularly shoot at each other across the border. It is never clear who starts it as both sides blame the other. There is a lot of hate there.

FBM wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:

A partner?

Now Arty.......behave....

*scratches head* I'm missing something...

What? You mean you don't feel this chemistry? Oh, requited love! How cruel! I'm going to go listen to the Cure for the rest of the day and write on my blog.

A
R
T

Suicide! Wow. This is very sad. Certainly this conflict has had a dramatic effect on the national psyche. Is Korea like Japan at in terms of suicide? I mean, you said that multiple girls told you this. Is there any reporting done on increased suicide rates relating to this conflict there?

I hope that it does not come to this.

A
R
T

Do you mind if I ask which martial art you do?

failures art wrote:

Suicide! Wow. This is very sad. Certainly this conflict has had a dramatic effect on the national psyche. Is Korea like Japan at in terms of suicide? I mean, you said that multiple girls told you this. Is there any reporting done on increased suicide rates relating to this conflict there?

I hope that it does not come to this.

A
R
T

I haven't heard anything about an increase in suicide rates due to the current crisis. And multiple girls didn't tell me directly, my GIRLFRIEND told me what her classmates were saying about it.

China Told U.S. of Underwater Nuclear Plant in N.Korea
China obtained information in 2008 that North Korea has a secret underwater nuclear facility in its coastal waters, leaked U.S. diplomatic cables show.

According to a Sept. 26, 2008 cable from the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai disclosed by WikiLeaks, a North Korea expert in Shanghai announced this in a meeting about the six-party nuclear talks with Christopher Beede, the political and economic chief at the consulate.

The Chinese source said the nuclear declaration the North submitted to China, the chair of the six-party talks, in May the same year was "incomplete" and Beijing had information that the North had a secret underwater nuclear facility. "For this reason, a debate has emerged within the Chinese leadership" over the six-party talks, he added.

He said some Chinese leaders believed that "continued momentum in the six-party talks is critical to their success" and that "Washington must adopt a more flexible attitude." Others took the "incomplete nuclear declaration as evidence that the regime in Pyongyang is truly 'a ticking time bomb'" and regarded "Washington's tough stance on verification as a potential opportunity" to control the North.

But a senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday that the cable "is not true. If it were true, would participating nations of the six-party talks have kept quiet?"

WASHINGTON — The U.S. and South Korea have reached agreement on the largest trade pact in more than a decade, a highly-coveted deal the Obama administration hopes will boost American exports and create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.

After a week of marathon negotiations, representatives from both countries broke through a stalemate Friday on outstanding issues related to the automobile industry, which have been a sticking point in the talks.

The agreement would be the largest U.S. trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and would bolster U.S. economic ties with South Korea, the world's 15th largest economy. The deal is often referred to as NAFTA.

South Korea is agreeing to allow the U.S. to lift a 2.5 percent tariff on Korean cars in five years, instead of cutting the tariff immediately. The agreement also allows each U.S. automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea as long as they meet U.S. federal safety standards, and it allows the U.S. to continue a 25 percent tariff on trucks for eight years before phasing it out by the 10th year. South Korea would be required to eliminate its 10 percent tariff on U.S. trucks immediately. More

Looks like our military support has been purchased for another five years...

Looks like our military support has been purchased for another five years...

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. and South Korea have reached agreement on the largest trade pact in more than a decade, a highly-coveted deal the Obama administration hopes will boost American exports and create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.

After a week of marathon negotiations, representatives from both countries broke through a stalemate Friday on outstanding issues related to the automobile industry, which have been a sticking point in the talks.

The agreement would be the largest U.S. trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, and would bolster U.S. economic ties with South Korea, the world's 15th largest economy. The deal is often referred to as NAFTA.

South Korea is agreeing to allow the U.S. to lift a 2.5 percent tariff on Korean cars in five years, instead of cutting the tariff immediately. The agreement also allows each U.S. automaker to export 25,000 cars to South Korea as long as they meet U.S. federal safety standards, and it allows the U.S. to continue a 25 percent tariff on trucks for eight years before phasing it out by the 10th year. South Korea would be required to eliminate its 10 percent tariff on U.S. trucks immediately. More

Putting aside the question of whether or not there would be a South Korea without American military support, how much do you think it would cost them if they had to replace the military security now provided by the US and paid for by American taxpayers?

Probably worth some economic consideration in a trade deal, don't you think?

I suppose one could take the position that it is the duty of the US to provide military support to all the free nations on earth, but not many do, and if it isn't our duty to provide them with the support they desire why should we not expect some measure of quid pro quo?

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen (yet) assertions that somehow the US intentially instigated the NK attack in order to soften the South Koreans up on this trade deal.

Probably worth some economic consideration in a trade deal, don't you think?

I suppose one could take the position that it is the duty of the US to provide military support to all the free nations on earth, but not many do, and if it isn't our duty to provide them with the support they desire why should we not expect some measure of quid pro quo?

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen (yet) assertions that somehow the US intentially instigated the NK attack in order to soften the South Koreans up on this trade deal.

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen (yet) assertions that somehow the US intentially instigated the NK attack in order to soften the South Koreans up on this trade deal.

You won't hear them from me,