As North Korea is selling weapons that threaten the UK and USA, my suggestion is that we annihilate the North Koreans as a warning. Whether the South Koreans like it or not.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 01/04/2003 6:04:50 AM PST by MadIvan
THE incoming South Korean president will ask the United States to promise not to attack North Korea in return for an abandonment of the communist state’s nuclear programme.
Yes, because the North Koreans can be so trusted to keep their promises. Anything bad they do can be traced to Kim Jong-Il having a mad dad. He should be on Oprah. /sarcasm - Ivan
Roh Moo-hyun’s attempt to end the Korean deadlock, outlined by the president-elect’s aides yesterday, will require a written security guarantee from the US Government if North Korea publicly renounces its nuclear activities.
Roh is an idiot. North Korea will publicly renounce, snicker and go back to building bombs to sell to the likes of Iraq and Al Qaeda - Ivan
But Washington swiftly rejected yesterday a new North Korean demand for a non-aggression treaty issued through Pyongyang’s ambassador to Beijing, and it remains doubtful whether either side is in a mood to compromise.
Choe Jin-su, the Ambassador, said that his Government would welcome talks with Washington provided that they were unconditional. The US has insisted that it will not reward North Korea with face-to-face meetings until it suspends its nuclear programmes, including the recently reopened Yongbyon reactor.
Mr Choe said: “If the US legally assures us of security by concluding a non-aggression treaty, the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula will be easily settled.
“Only when both teams sit together can there be a dialogue and, without dialogue, no one can talk about a peaceful solution.”
Here is my solution - busybody leftists in South Korea should grow up, and the West should grind Kim Jong-Il into powder - Ivan
Mr Roh’s compromise proposal is consistent with his bold ambition to serve as a mediator between Pyongyang and Washington. In the past, South Korean presidents have rejected suggestions that the US should negotiate without the participation of Seoul. But Mr Roh, who supports tolerant engagement with the North, is encouraging this.
America’s tough stance has been strongly criticised by China. In an editorial, the English-language China Daily said that the Bush Administration had to tone down its rhetoric.
“The rigid US policy towards the DPRK (North Korea) will only exacerbate tensions between the two sides,” it said.
“The United States should first give up its superpower mentality and sanction policy and then treat the DPRK as an equal sovereign state." Describing the US Government as hawkish, the paper said that military action against North Korea was not an option. “A military solution to the DPRK’s nuclear issue would not be accepted by Washington’s allies in northeast Asia, namely the Republic of Korea and Japan, not to mention China and Russia,” it said. Military intervention was obviously not a wise option, which Washington itself realised.
“A peaceful settlement through dialogue and the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, as advocated by China and other countries concerned, is in the interests of all parties,” it said.
“Common sense from both sides could help solve the crisis and achieve the goal of denuclearisation in the peninsula.”
A spokesman for Mr Roh, quoted by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency, said that the South may offer to mediate. “We are working on a mediation proposal that asks for a concession from both US President George Bush and the North Korean leader,” Lim Chae-jung, the chairman of Mr Roh’s transition team, said.
Yonhap said that the Government was considering offering mediation and asking North Korea to drop any nuclear weapons programme in return for an American promise to guarantee the North’s security.
The past few days have seen intense diplomatic activity over the Korean problem which will gather pace next week.
A senior South Korean diplomat travelled to Moscow yesterday for talks with the Russian Government, following a similar mission to Beijing.
On Monday and Tuesday, South Korea, America and Japan will discuss the problem in Washington and the International Atomic Energy Agency will discuss North Korea’s expulsion of its observers from the Yongbyon plant.
Mr Roh’s team will present his compromise proposal this month, about the same time that President Bush’s envoy, James Kelly, arrives in Seoul for talks.
As North Korea is selling weapons that threaten the UK and USA, my suggestion is that we annihilate the North Koreans as a warning. Whether the South Koreans like it or not.
Regards, Ivan
Well, why correct and decisive, the problem is not like it was in 1950.
Easy to be said but harder to do. What about the Chinee Ivan? The NKs pimp? Surely you know your history... don't you?
We have persuaded ourselves , on the basis of considerable evidence to the contrary that they are interested in freedom - which is akin to persuading oneself Hillary Clinton has no ambition other than to serve the people of NY.
Ho-kay ! This should be interesting...
We should stop suppying North Korea with food. This goes to the army. Perhaps, their friend in the South will feed the hungry Commies.
Increase the naval presence in the area. Sink all ships carrying weapons sold by the North Korean.
Lastly, rush the sale of submarines to Taiwan. How about selling them some extra fighter planes???
The reason, which no one seems to mention, that we've never given them this before is that we have said to the North Koreans that until they sign a peace treaty with the South, there will be no non agression pact from us.
Why the South Koreans of all people think this is unreasonable is stunning.
I would like nothing better than to leave the South to its own devices. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way that it would look like anything other than us cutting and running in the face of NKs nuclear weapons. We have to stay now, it's our credibility on the line, not South Koreans freedom. If they don't want it, fine, but we need to fight for our own interests.
The prospect of a U.S. military "shift" to the Far East later this year actually creates some problems for Pyongyang. Do they risk racheting up the conflict now, and derail any hopes of a diplomatic "deal?" Do they accelerate their military timetable, realizing that the U.S. could fight a holding action in Korea, then shift its focus to take care of Pyongyang once and for all? Or do they simply wait, realizing that virtually all of their military preparations must stop in late March, so the military can be mobilized for agriculture. Most outsiders don't realize that the DPRK military is essentially on hiatus during the spring and summer, when troops are sent into the fields and rice paddies to support the agricultural effort. If Kim Jong-Il keeps his troops on high alert, the 2003 harvest will be a true catastrophe, imparing his ability to launch military action later on.
As strange as it may sound, time is on our side in this crisis. BTW, the absence of a U.S. military reaction to events in Korea tells me that the on-going winter training cycle in North Korea is very much within normal limits, suggesting that Pyongyang has no real plans to use its military option.
Regards, Ivan
If we remove our 37000 troops, what will happen??? An invasion would give us the opportunity to wipe out the North once and for all.
1. We require that 1 million North Koreans per year leave the country for South Korea, in a peaceful and orderly manner, indefinitely.
2. If there is any shortfall in the number in any calendar year, we will destroy elements of the NK political leadership and military by conventional air attack, at our pleasure.
3. After two full years of people leaving over the quota, we might provide grain to feed those who remain in North Korea. If we feel like it.
4. If the NK military so much as twitches at any time, the strike that follows will arrive within two hours and will be measured in gigatons.
5. If the NK regime doesn't like the offer, they can eat rocks and die.
Hey, it is at least as reasonable as their own pretentious silliness. Isn't this fun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.