| Author |
Topic:
The Two Koreas
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
10/28/06 6:25am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15450135/from/RS.1/
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korean military officials have observed activities at the North’s suspected nuclear test site that may be preparations for a second test, news reports said Saturday.
Yonhap news agency, citing several unidentified military officials, said Seoul is keeping a close watch on the movements of trucks and soldiers at the Punggye-ri site in the country’s remote northeast.
“It is clear there are movements at Punggye-ri after the (previous) nuclear test,” one military official was quoted as saying. “We are closely monitoring to see if these are preparations for a second nuclear test.”
Another official confirmed activities at the site, but said another test “is not believed to be imminent,” according to Yonhap.
It was not immediately clear how the military officials first spotted the activity at the site. However, the United States and South Korea generally share intelligence information from satellite images.
Meanwhile, more unidentified South Korean government officials said they are trying to confirm whether a new facility that has been built at the site could be part of preparations for a second nuclear test, the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported Saturday.
South Korea’s Defense Ministry said it could not confirm the reports, and the U.S. State Department refused to comment. A Pentagon spokesman, Air Force Maj. David Smith, said: “We don’t discuss intelligence issues as a matter of policy.”
This is not the first time that suspicious activity has been reported at the North Korean test site. But South Korean officials have said they have no intelligence suggesting another test is imminent.
Incoming U.N. chief meets with Chinese leaders
The reports came a day after the incoming U.N. secretary-general, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, met with Chinese leaders to discuss sanctions against the North over its Oct. 9 underground nuclear test.
Ban met on Friday with China’s President Hu Jintao, State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan and Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said they would discuss sanctions, but details of their talks were not immediately released.
Ban is visiting the five permanent U.N. Security Council members following his election as secretary-general this month. He pledged to make resolving the North Korea nuclear issue a key priority on his agenda as head of the international body.
The United States has been trying muster greater support for a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for sanctions in response to the North’s nuclear test.
Seoul and Beijing have been reluctant to enforce sanctions over the test for fear they might aggravate their unpredictable neighbor and destabilize the region.
China and South Korea are the North’s main aid providers and trade partners, and their participation is considered crucial for the success of the U.N. resolution, which bans the sale of major arms to the North and calls for the inspection of cargo entering and leaving the country.
-----signature-----
Neils Bohr:
prize-winning physicist,
Olympic medalist,
costumed superhero.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Viceroy_NuteGunray
Title: Viceroy of FanForce
Tasmania, AU
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
11/2/06 4:35pm
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Often North Korean illicit cargo goes through ports in China and South Korea (where evry few are checked) and Japan (where customs makes a bigger effort but it still remains inadequate for cargoes destined for non-Japanese ports). North Korean drugs are often disguised in crates labelled food or furnature where they are shipped around the Asia-Pacific and the world. At first they tried doing this in vessels of other country's but now they are trafficking the drugs in state-owned vessels to acquire catpial at a faster pace, such as the Pong Su incident in Australia in 2003. Bureau 39 in Pyongyangs 'party district' is in charge of such activities and was established to revivie the country's collapsing economy, and even finance the nuclear program.
But in the midst of this, one has got to admire the fighting spirit of the DPRK, even though their weaponry is outdated as this video shows.
DPRK Military Force!
-----signature-----
Trade Federation Cantina http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=21707417&start=21707855 "Marvellous thing democracy. Look at Manchester population 60,000, electoral role 3!" "Bonjour Monsieur" "SOD OFF!"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
11/5/06 5:57am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
- Date Edited:
11/5/06 6:27am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Alpha-Red
|
redxavier posted:
Aside from the fact that 'no nukes' violates sovereignty and 'madman' is still an entirely subjective and unsupported analysis of Kim Jong-Il, nukes in the possession of madmen, or at least those deemed irresponsible, is nothing new. The nuclear club has no one with the proper 'credentials' to have nukes. The Cold War demonstrates irresponsibility and madness on the part of both superpowers. India, Pakistan and Israel have circumvented the NPT and got the bomb. What makes one dictactor, Musharraf, any less responsible than another? What made Mao ZeDong, an equally self-obsessed head of a personality cult, acceptable with a finger near the button?
Perhaps you're argument is that one more madman might be one too many, but I think it highly unlikely (if NK isn't attacked first), that Kim Jong-Il would ever use or threaten to use nukes - because you can't threaten nuclear-armed powers with nuclear weapons.
All right, if you can show me that Mao ZeDong threatened nuclear war but ended up not doing so, then I guess you win this one =P
I feel I can call him a madman, because frankly, the people we have here in the States are pretty mad already. The Democrats and Republicans are already experts at twisting the truth to support their points of view, so do we really believe that North Korea does any better? The only thing that would invalidate my argument here is if everything the media has told us about that country is an outright and blatant lie, and I guess I'm not quite that cynical yet.
redxavier posted:
The US has no security issues with regards to North Korea, it's rather their interests and allies that they seek to preserve.
And the beef with the US goes far back beyond Clinton even, to 1945.
Of course North Korea has beef with us....by all means the the two-state separation made back at the end of WWII was meant to be temporary. It's just that the USSR and China decided their little new buffer zone was pretty nice, while we wanted to stick to the text of the treaty. Now it doesn't mean that by that treaty we're now obligated to wipe NK off the face of the Earth, but at the same time NK must be held up to better standards of human rights and non-proliferation.
In that regard, I would say that the conflict with NK is very different than the one back in '45. Back then the issue was over the continued existence of what we saw as an unnecessary state. Now we've accepted their existence, but if they insist on having an atrocious human rights record then we're not going to sit by and let it happen.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 7:31am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
- Date Edited:
12/6/06 7:52am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
U.S. Offers North Korea Aid for Dropping Nuclear Plans
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 6, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday.
What goes around comes around, I guess. Another nail in the coffin of the neocon foreign policy agenda, as the Bush administration offers to do what the last 6 years of its foreign policy have been built around not doing: rewarding North Korea for its open displays of nuclear ambition. The final collapse of the Bush/Cheney worldview. All that's really left is the dramatic reveal that nearly everything we've done in our pursuit of "the war on terror" has been wrong.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
redxavier
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 10:15am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Wow. It took more than 10 years for the Republicans to find themselves right back at square 1 - the same square they deliberately sabotaged as being beneath the US. Maybe I'm living in Middle Earth, but I imagine a bilateral non-aggression treaty between the US and NK would go along way in lowering the latter's nuclear ambitions.
And yes, such a move would undoubtedly quell any chance for the neocons to remake NK in their image, which I believe we all agree is the ultimate goal here.
-----signature-----
"You've just made me vomit in my own mouth."
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 10:44am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Jabba,
The second paragraph of that article continues on with:
But the offer, made last week during two days of intense talks in Beijing, would hinge on North Korea’s agreeing to begin dismantling some of the equipment it is using to expand its nuclear arsenal, even before returning to negotiations.
It then continues to describe the talks:
The combination of incentives and demands was the focal point of three-way meetings on Nov. 28 and 29 involving Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill; North Korea’s vice foreign minister, Kim Kye-gwan; and Chinese officials at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing.
The administration (or what is described as the "Hawkish elements" by the article) has resisted what it sees as "rewarding" North Korea for its nuclear program, but such a policy has never replaced negoiation with the country. The point has been to suspend talks if North Korea isn't sincere about following the agreements. This makes sense.
In fact, there have been many talks between North Korea and the US, with or without other countries, under this administration. The fact is that North Korea doesn't have the advantage here.
This series simply represents the latest round of such negoiation, and it certainly doesn't represent a failure of any agenda.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 12:26pm
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
- Date Edited:
12/6/06 12:27pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
|
It all boils down to paying N. Korea to dismantle its nuclear program - the approach formerly rejected by the Bush administration as coddling the axis of evil. One pathetic underground nuclear test later, you can see why they re-embraced it.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 12:37pm
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
- Date Edited:
12/6/06 1:14pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
But again, you're ignoring what is actaully happening and what has happened in the past. What you also didn't mention is that NK hasn't even accepted the proposal, and it's a proposal that was worked out with China.
The administration's position was that the wouldn't "pay" NK to do something that the NK government had no intention of following through with. "Not Coddling" here means to hold NK to its agreements, and the operative concept is good faith negoiation. Under this administration, I can count at least 3 multi-national talks that have taken place regarding NK, and there could quite possibly smaller ones that haven't garnered a lot of attention.
This administration has never abandoned meaningful negoiation, and this latest dialog most definately doesn't represent any sort of back peddling or radical change. Again, you can't take the paragrapgh that opens a multi-paragraph article out of isolation and pretend that it represents what is going on.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 6:48pm
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Sure, I think we can both agree that the Bush administration won't reward North Korea for its nuclear test unless North Korea agrees to be rewarded. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do. I'm just saying that bribing North Korea to halt its nuclear program after they've tested a weapon is not exactly where you'd thought we'd be today back in 2002, is it? I'm not surprised, but then again I wasn't the one lauding the Bush administration for its bold hardline approach vis a vis the axis of evil.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/6/06 7:51pm
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
While I realize it's a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know what criteria you are using to base your question on.
I can point to the fact that the administration has been in almost constant negoiation with North Korea and I can point to the active dialog that has taken place. After all, the first major six party talks were organized back in early/mid 2003, even before the Iraq invasion IIRC, but the way you worded your post, you made it seem like this was some sort of policy backtrack, or that the US has ignored NK up until now. This doesn't even cover the actions that the US has taken on its own, such as repositioning US troops in South Korea for the first time in 50 years, or giving a high degree of self-determination back to the South.
This is the specific concept that I also pointed out in the other thread. This administration has had many policy successes, but they almost don't even matter.
I'll just be glad when we have a new President- whoever that might be, so we can all move on from these alternating Bush=evil genius and Bush=dumb type of illustrations.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 7:19am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
I guess I'll have to take your position on this as noted: a nuke buyback program is the logical evoluation of our policy given the Bush administration's starting point on North Korea at the beginning of his first term.
The other part: Bush's term needs to end soon so we can get him out of harm's way from all the hurtful criticisms. Can't everyone see that Bush means well? That he's trying soooo hard? Does anyone think that being the leader of the free world is an easy job, especially for someone without any real credentials other than the hands on experience of fighting a losing war against the entire axis of evil?
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 7:41am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Any President should be subject to criticism, and I use the term in the classic sense. But there is a difference between criticism and distortion.
If you supplied the post that started this latest exchange:
(What goes around comes around, I guess. Another nail in the coffin of the neocon foreign policy agenda, as the Bush administration offers to do what the last 6 years of its foreign policy have been built around not doing:)
and it applied to the situation, then case closed. But the problem I had right away was that it wasn't even accurate. The intent with that post was to simply discredit Bush (or at the least the "neocon agenda") instead of actually critically examining the article. You're falsely assuming that I'm concerned with defending Bush instead of clarifying the situation. The two are related, of course, but I can point to the series of Six Party talks. I can point to the redeployment of US troops in Korea, and so on... Important steps have been taken besides labelling NK part of the Axis of Evil.
If this administration hadn't been almost constantly involved with negoiations with NK, you might have a point. But the focus was on North Korea even before Iraq was invaded. (And if you remember, this administration came into being focusing on China and North Korea) This latest round of talks doesn't represent anything substantially different than what the "neocon foreign policy" has always been.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 8:29am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
- Date Edited:
12/7/06 9:11am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
I'm simply judging six years of North Korean policy by their results: an underground nuclear test and a return to offering to buy out their weapons program.
And it does represent a wholesale collapse of Bush's foreign policy agenda. Today we are 1)doing nothing on Israel/Palestine, 2)paralyzed over Iran because 3)we're mired in a losing fight over Iraq which has 4)not exactly struck fear in the heart of Kim Jong Il, who has now been offered a nuke buyback program.
In fact, Bush's axis of evil speech can be said to be one of the proximate causes of North Korea withdrawing from the NPT which gave rise to the need for the six party talks. Korea's November agreement to resume talks can be seen as a triumphunt return with nukes in hand vis a vis the failure of Bush administration policy. The Bush administration has been cornered and forced back into the Clintonian stance of offering up cash and trusting in Il's goodwill.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 9:41am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
And it does represent a wholesale collapse of Bush's foreign policy agenda. Today we are 1)doing nothing on Israel/Palestine, 2)paralyzed over Iran because 3)we're mired in a losing fight over Iraq which has 4)not exactly struck fear in the heart of Kim Jong Il, who has now been offered a nuke buyback program.
1)As opposed to what? 50 other years of doing nothing? 2)paralyzed? If anything, Iran is backed in the corner against pretty much the rest of the world. If by "paralyzed," you mean "not invading" sure, but I don't remember anyone inside saying we were going to invade Iran. 3)Again, at what point were we mired? 4) And if you think Kim Jong Il would have acted any differently sans Iraq, I'd say you were intentionally glossing over how the North Koreans negoiate.
I'm saying that with every one of your points, there has been positives and negatives, no different than any other point in time.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
12/7/06 9:49am
Subject:
RE: The Two Koreas
|
Iran has been backed into a corner by what, precisely? By Hezbollah's win in Lebanon, by its mounting influence in Iraq, by a generalized unwillingness on the part of the rest of the world to impose meaningful sanctions. Maybe they're worried that the U.S. will boycott its Holocaust conference.
But that's another thread.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
