Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
North Korea Changes Its Tune  
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

This is quite a vindication of the Bush Administration's policy of not talking to the DPRK one on one. I am glad that China has finally gotten religion on the situation:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/16/nkorea.talks/index.html

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSwissgabe From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5266 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1044 times:

N79969
What was the reason why the DPRK didn't want to talk to the USA and only wanted to go for bilateral talks?



Smooth as silk - Royal Orchid Service /// Suid-Afrikaanse Lugdiens - Springbok
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1034 times:

Swissgabe,

The reason that I read is that they sensed that pure bilateral talks would mean equality in diplomatic terms. The US deals with Japan, China, and South Korea on bilateral and multilateral terms in the normal course of diplomacy.

The US granted one concession- a willingness to talk despite the North's violation of the 1994 agreement. President Bush wisely refused to give them the next concession which would be bilateral talks and thus equality.

This is where I read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/international/worldspecial/16KORE.html


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1021 times:

North Korea is a dog who's bark is only as loud as China wants it to be. China gains considerable face in the coming two years if it can persuade Kim Jong Il to drop his nuclear program....China can say to the world community "See? What it takes the Americans war to do, we do with words."

The Bushies are only slightly less closer to the Chinese hierarchy than they are to the oil industry, so the tightening of the leash will be considerable . North Korea will serve only as a rhetoric bitch for the Administration to fire up its' hawkish core, teeth dripping with fresh meat and appetites whetted, on. Nothing more.

(Unless President Cheney has worked a deal with Kim to invade the South a month before election day next year. Wouldn't be surprised!)


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

"See? What it takes the Americans war to do, we do with words."

Perhaps, but don't think that China would not use force on DRPK if they had to and secondly, China will do what it takes to keep the foreign inve$tment$ flowing by showing how diplomatic moderate and "friendly" they are.

"Unless President Cheney has worked a deal with Kim to invade the South a month before election day next year. Wouldn't be surprised!"

Thogh I have major problems with "push, push in the Bush", Clinton was no better by whoreing and the old Europeanesque placation of DPRK with moola and glow in the dark "technology" to keep them quiet  Insane




[Edited 2003-04-16 20:37:16]

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 993 times:

HM,

The Clinton Administration was far more beholden to Chinese interests than the Bush Administration. Remember Bernie Schwarz at Loral, Johnny Chung, PLA money going to Democratic coffers? I would say that China had a bit of equity in the Clinton White House.

If anything, that Bush Administration has been downright antagonistic towards China (along with everyone else) and really pissed them off when he promised to defend Taiwan early in his Presidency. His statement was big news in Taipei.

I would be extremely surprised if China can get DPRK to disarm. Although the North needs China, the China also needs the North. The North is their buffer between them and US-influenced, democratic and free South Korea. They have an interest in preserving the North.



User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 981 times:

(ssscrrreaaam!) But Clinton!!!!.....jeez.

King Georgie II, & Clinton, and King Georgie I before him have just been mere peddlers of a three decade old addiction called 'the Chinese consumer'. We've proven a long time ago we'd rather profit off them than free them. Our jag for China goes beyond one man, even a President.

But I will say this; Bush I's reaction to Tianenmen Square was shameful. Those kids paid America one of greatest honors in our history by building their Goddess of Freedom statue in the rough likeness of our Lady Liberty. Chinese tanks squashed it...and them. We should have cut diplomatic relations and yanked every American business venture on the spot, and leaned on the 1st World to sanction China back into the teapot age. Instead they got pithy little 'denounciations' from Washington. .

Although the North needs China, the China also needs the North. The North is their buffer between them and US-influenced, democratic and free South Korea. They have an interest in preserving the North.

You got me with Bernie & Johnny, En...not so much with Taiwan, but this comment makes no sense. China dreams of 10 South Koreas in Asia, and it the bandleader. Robust capitalism is making a helluva lotta good Communists rich in China. North Korea is to the Chinese the equivelent of that annoying Aunt that decorum insists must be invited to the party only because she's family.

Indeed, that's one reason we're at where we're at. I think China is quite seriously fed up with the Mongolian Munchkin. Fed up feeding him, fed up powering him, fed up empowering him. China's ready for the 21st Century, and this chubby turd is the boulder around their regional neck.
He's the ugly chick at the Asian economic party, and China's sick & tired of getting him in .  Smile/happy/getting dizzy





User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 967 times:

"But I will say this; Bush I's reaction to Tianenmen Square was shameful. Those kids paid America one of greatest honors in our history by building their Goddess of Freedom statue in the rough likeness of our Lady Liberty. Chinese tanks squashed it...and them. We should have cut diplomatic relations and yanked every American business venture on the spot, and leaned on the 1st World to sanction China back into the teapot age. Instead they got pithy little 'denounciations' from Washington. . "

Do you realize that Tom DeLay could have written this very statement?

I agree with you to an extent. But I think there is method to our madness. If China were ever cut off from US markets, the resulting chaos would result in some kind of conflagaration. It might involve Taiwan or it maybe dometic but in any case it would be a mess. China has to maintain GDP growth of something like 6-10% just to create enough jobs to meet population growth. Money is and was absolutely, positively part of the equation but so is the issue of the stability of China.

"China dreams of 10 South Koreas in Asia, and it the bandleader."

Yeah sure but NIMBY. They don't want anyone of these ten kids on their doorstep. The problem with South Korea for them is the US influence and military presence. If North Korea folded and the South 'wins' so to speak, we would not be leaving right away. That scares China.




Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
China Throws In Its Weight On North Korea posted Thu Mar 6 2003 09:10:34 by Cfalk
Royal Navy Feared "Too Weak" Re: North Korea posted Mon Oct 16 2006 07:37:34 by AerospaceFan
John Kerry Plays Politics With North Korea posted Sun Oct 15 2006 17:09:28 by AerospaceFan
North Korea: Can Sanctions Work? posted Sat Oct 14 2006 23:21:30 by 9V
Did North Korea Pull A Mulligan On Us? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 23:07:40 by Jetjack74
Did North Korea Conduct Second Nuclear Test? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 02:00:19 by AerospaceFan
McCain Critical Of Clintons On North Korea posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:50:53 by AerospaceFan
What If North Korea Tests A Nuke And It Works. posted Tue Oct 3 2006 23:11:36 by Greasespot
North Korea Talks Fail posted Sat Jul 15 2006 06:10:09 by AerospaceFan
North Korea Defeats U.S. Easily - posted Fri Jul 7 2006 23:50:04 by BHXFAOTIPYYC