| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| China-Japan-Koreas | |||
| SKors upset about US criticism of NKors | |||
| 2005-06-22 | |||
SEOUL - South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon expressed regret on Tuesday at recurring US criticism of North Korea, saying the comments are unhelful in the current reconciliatory mood.
At a seminar hosted by the Hudson Institute on Monday, US Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky repeated Washingtonâs definition of North Korea as an outpost of tyranny alongside Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Cuba, according to reports here. âIt is not helpful for the current reconciliatory mood that a senior US official called North Korea an outpost of tyranny,â Ban was quoted as telling Yonhap news agency. âI find it regrettable.â
A high-level North Korean delegation arrived in Seoul Tuesday for four days of inter-Korean talks, during which Seoul hopes Pyongyang will set a date for its return to the talks involving the two Koreas, host China, the United States, Japan and Russia. They aim to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear weapons drive in return for security guarantees and economic benefits. North Korea has cited hostile US policy as its reason for refusing to return to the discussions.
| |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #36 I hope that GWB learned the lesson of trying to buy off the NORKS. The US put 1.35 billion into NORK over about 10 years with nothing to show for it. Don't count on it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-22 21:25 |
| #35 Aside from, and I agree it is a big issue, Japan's security and feeling secure, of what strategic value is Korea? So let's draw down more and make it clear that Japan has a security interest it is prepared to defend as well. We should tell the ChiComs we see your Nork and raise you 2 Nippons. Let the Chinese and Koreans worry about the Japanese being unleashed. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-22 19:59 |
| #34 I like Old Spooks idea. Looking at the geopolitical picture, we can't walk away from SKOR. We can, however, provide a deterrant, and a backup, with a lower profile. The SKors will provide the main defense. If they want to play footsie with Kimmie, then they can foot the bill, which will drain their economy, not ours. I hope that GWB learned the lesson of trying to buy off the NORKS. The US put 1.35 billion into NORK over about 10 years with nothing to show for it. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-06-22 19:05 |
| #33 Why maintain a heavy brigade and anAir Wing there along with ReForKor POMCUS depots, and a credible deterrent? Because the dislocation of S Korea or its findlanizationto CHina is an unacceptable level of risk for the US in the pacific. Also leaving forces there insures a deterrent effect against NKor, guaranteeing US involvement, which is enough to give even a madman like Kim pause. This last point is one you overlook. Deterrence is the most important thing here. The world economy coudl not survive a blow liek the loss of the korean economy - and Japans subsequent shift into a much more militaristic role. Simply put, the status quo in terms of the Koreas is a good enough result, and we should figure a way to maintain it at lower cost and with more strategic flexibility. The plan I have does that, and it was proven in Europe against the Soviet Union: string them out and push them economically until they collaps, being careful enough to supply enough "doubt" militarily to forestall any rash actions. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-06-22 18:23 |
| #32 --The irony is that the South Koreans are looking for reunification and there's actually no way Kimmie can let that happen in his lifetime-- Yellow man's guilt? Complementing white man's guilt? |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2005-06-22 13:28 |
| #31 NMM doesn't realize W is his daddy's son and Bolton is there to save that meeting place for the kleptos and thugs, not put us out of its' misery. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2005-06-22 13:21 |
| #30 Leading Husband, please rephrase the question. I have absolutely no idea what you mean. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-06-22 12:29 |
| #29 I don't see the value of continuing the current situation - we got involved in the 50's at a heavy price, and bought them time to get themselves established on the world stage. The real issue here is deterring China. The SORKs have become a sideshow to that more serious concern. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-06-22 12:14 |
| #28 The irony is that the South Koreans are looking for reunification and there's actually no way Kimmie can let that happen in his lifetime. So barring a premature death for Kimmie, the South Koreans are just going to give, give, give. I say let them do it. There's no way Kimmie could manage them anyway, even if he got the chance. Managing anything other than a hermit kingdom takes more skill than he will ever have. And any outside influences into the hermit kingdom are just going to destabilize it. Bring our troops home. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-06-22 11:21 |
| #27 To what countries do we owe the maintenance of freedom and democracy? Why only them? Do we owe it to them even if they don't want it, even if they reject it through democratic means? Do we owe it to this select few for ever or is there a dceadline for withdrawal? I'd rather leave now than to do so ignominiously as we did in the Philippines. The Koreans are more than capable of maintaining their own democracy. Let them do so. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-22 11:14 |
| #26 We have no choice but to ensure that S Korea remains free and democratic,.. I dunno, I don't see the value of continuing the current situation - we got involved in the 50's at a heavy price, and bought them time to get themselves established on the world stage. Now the SKors don't like our criticism of Kimmy and his minions, and the population is slowly taking on an anti-American tone. At some point in time,they're going to need to take charge of their own defense and security. They have to grow up sometime. May as well be now. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-22 11:03 |
| #25 Actually, SPOD, OldSpook, think about it this way - if the SKors go under and make one big anti-US Korean alliance, we've got first responders ... Or is my take (that keeping them there as a contingency) flawed? (If so, please tell how.) |
| Posted by: Omuse Sneatch5591 2005-06-22 10:55 |
| #24 NMM I am PRAYING that Bush turns Bolton loose on a recess appointment. It will send the Dems into a complete and utter hissy fit and crybaby Boin-a-bitch will be inconsolable. IMHO the Senate is wasting way too much time listening to the Dhimis bitch and whine about how Bolton acted when he was in Kindergarten, High School, College, etc. As far as the Intelligence Briefs are concerned, who friggin cares. If by chance they conclude that Bolton had an inept intelligence analyst fired or demoted so friggin what. After 9/11 you canât tell me that there are not any inept intelligence analyst? And if Bolton was in charge of a specific project does he not have the authority to use whomever HE chooses and not some bureaucracy appointed wonk that says no to everything he request? Yes that is whom they probably sent because the institutions are wrought with LLL idiots that have a weird slant on the world. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-06-22 10:43 |
| #23 I agree with Old Spook (from your keyboard to Rummy's eyes!). We can't afford to let S Korea go bare, the cost of a mistake would be catastrophic to us. We should act as the insurer of stability in the region. I'm not a military expert so I won't presume to mess with OS' table of units. I wonder if we couldn't station some of the units in Okinawa or Japan, or even Guam, and move them to Pusan if needed. But that's mere quibbling. We have no choice but to ensure that S Korea remains free and democratic, and that means making sure that the North never invades. Get our people away from the tunnels and artillery tubes, put them in places in Korea where they can do some good in a counter-attack, and make sure the air-lift is robust. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-06-22 10:41 |
| #22 ..and a further estrangement from our European Aliies because of it So phuquing what? Let them defend their own border. We will provide the "insurance policy". I'll go one better: yank all our assets and let them defend themselves. The expense of maintaining a U.S. presence there simply isn't worth it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-06-22 09:42 |
| #21 Because they are cheap cars though not as cheap as Ban Ki-Moon's worn Reunification Stomp bs! I think Mr.D. has a very good idea there. SKors need to carry the full burden of their own defense with us as mobile strategic backup. Memories of Inchon and the threat of a repeat should SK fold in a conflict should keep alot of NORK "reunification" formations camping out at the ports and beaches rather than directed south. Today's SK is well able to support the expeditures needed for it's own defense. Take off their leg braces and remove the crutches. SK can walk on it's own. All that's needed is a gentle little kick in the A*&. |
| Posted by: Tkat 2005-06-22 09:33 |
| #20 Maybe they could release the remaining POWs from the Korean War and we could sit down and make nice. |
| Posted by: Fun Dung Poo 2005-06-22 09:21 |
| #19 For once I disagree with Old Spook. I suggest we leave a platoon there as a trip wire and station two Trident subs in the Sea of Japan codenamed Yankee and Dixie. Whby is anybody buying a Hyundai today? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-22 09:13 |
| #18 Will be able to launch the necessary airstrikes against NK from Japan or Okinawa? If so, there is no point in keeping anything in SK. Or, for that matter, if SK is going to pull a Turkey, then we might as well leave now. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-06-22 09:12 |
| #17 Mikey,the U.N,will not clean itself of corruption without some harsh,abrasive cleanser.The"Queen of Clean"suggests Bolton-ami. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-06-22 08:28 |
| #16 I wonder do the SKors not care that the NKors are starving their people or are they actually in favor of the starvation policy. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-06-22 08:15 |
| #15 just for the record...it wasn't me ! |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-22 07:35 |
| #14 Trailing wife: jewish? :-) |
| Posted by: Leading Husband 2005-06-22 07:29 |
| #13 NMM cares more that people's feelings were hurt by true statements than he does for the millions starving and suffering under the misrule of one man. That is very sorry state of liberalism today. How f*&^% pathetic. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-22 07:25 |
| #12 Not Mike Moore: Just about every member nation of the UN, and the UN staff up to and including Mr. Annan, feel free to insult the U.S. at every opportunity, whether to our ambassador's face, to the media and the public, or in private. We have been polite about it for about half a century, and the rudeness has only gotten worse. Clearly a change of tactics is called for, and Mr. Bolton will accomplish that. Ed, I do hope you are right. What a triumph for the President's approach if so -- except for Aznar of Spain, a clean sweep by those who support his policies! And I like Old Spook's plan. If the South Koreans want to push us out, it is time to go. They are a First World country now, and fully capable of manning their own borders. No longer any need, as I've been told there was during the Viet Nam era, to rent soldiers to the U.S. at $500/person. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-06-22 03:53 |
| #11 I'm of the opinion that we shoudl basically pull back to Pusan, establish pre-positioned division sets of equipment (one Mech Infanty, one Armor), station an air wing there to keep open 3 bases, and station a heavy brigate there as a trip wire and defense for the airfields and Pusan perimeter. Add in a few forward corps elements. Rotate this heavy brigade with one at Ft Carson and Ft Hood. The other 2 brigades become Strykers (station Hawaii and Ft Lewis) and hop onto the Iraq rotation list, dropping the strain there a lot. But also being on standby as the main relief for the Korean units. In the event the baloon goes up, the stryker brigade thats stateside jumps onto planes and reinforces the heavy brigade there as area security and mobility. The 1st AD and 1st Infantry fly over and mate up with the gear, just like the old REFORGER plans. 10th Mountain deploys after that, and the Stryker brigades fill after the 10th is lifted in. The 82nd and 101 remain as strategic reserves. Additionally, the Marines would fill in with a division plus various amphib units, the navy with a few carrier battle groups. This gives the theater commander within a month a solid heavy US army Corps of 2 heavy divisions, one light division, and 2 independant combat brigades -- one heavy (the one in place) and one light (the strykers). With 3 brigades of strykers on the way. ALso in theater would be a marine divison on the ground in Pusan, and amphib elements to estabish beachheads (a'la Inchon), and a huge amount of US Navy and USAF firepower to fall all over the C3I & logistics of the Norks. All in all, a termendous amoutn of power coudl be put there in a relatively short amount of time. We don't need to garrison South Korea. Let them defend their own border. We will provide the "insurance policy". Secondary effects: gets US troops away from tunnels, artillery and air attacks up at the border. Also gets US troops away from the biggest protest areas in Seoul and the surrounding area. Time to do it is now. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-06-22 02:40 |
| #10 SKORS should be upset about US criticism of NORKS. They are now reading from the same playbook. The US needs to point out what an outpost of tyranny the NORKS are, they are destroying their people. The BIG BAD⢠US is the only country trying to hold the NORKS to the fire for their murderous government. The SKORS have to decide if they want to follow their appeaser president, or do they want to be an outpost of hope for their northern cousins. We have 32,000 troops that we could sure use elsewhere if they are not welcome in SKOR. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-06-22 02:21 |
| #9 if the United States âacknowledges and respectsâ it as a dialogue partner Kimmie's been watching way too much Oprah lately. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-06-22 02:19 |
| #8 Screw the Norks. The South is now run buy wussies. Get US the hell out. Thwe South is more interested in bending over for the north than true security. The NORKS will win in the end without firing a shot. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-06-22 01:50 |
| #7 Much like Germans, the South Korean voters are getting tired of Roh's antics. In April's by-elections, Roh's Uri party lost very race (6 legislative, all governer's, mayoral, and local council elections) and lost parlimentary majority. Roh is looking like a really unpopular version of Schroeder. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-06-22 01:45 |
| #6 NMM--what complete crap! Poor Steve W. and mucky are over here trying to help NMM who's got a bad case of posting diarrhea...So sad. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-06-22 01:04 |
| #5 I predict a recess appointment and a further estrangement from our European Aliies because of it |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2005-06-22 01:00 |
| #4 Keep trying, you'll get all the progressive memes in. They're wrong, of course, but keep trying. It's precisely because the UN needs to be bullied that I support Bolton. Best man for the job. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-06-22 00:50 |
| #3 Reform may be needed--but to start with someone who is hostile to the entire institution isn't a way to go about it--and WHAT is the White House refusing to release to Congress? He supposedly bullied intelligence analysts who didn't agree with his views--Niger Yellow Cake ring a bell? Downing Street Memo for dessert? |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2005-06-22 00:48 |
| #2 It is brilliant. The UN needs to be shook -- hard -- to fix it. The alternative is to remove the US from the UN. Face it, NMM -- the UN is broken. It doesn't work. It puts countries like Zim-bob-we on the UN human rights commission. It allows billions of dollars to be stolen from starving Iraqi children (and you thought Enron was bad). It permits UN 'peacekeepers' to get away with raping the local women. It doesn't want what even you want it to do. Bolton can start to fix that by pointing at things and talking loud and impolite. That's just what the UN needs. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-06-22 00:15 |
| #1 That's BRILLIANT! Bring Mr Bolton and his abrasive style to the UN-- even GOP Senators don't like his act--he will be a recess appointment |
| Posted by: NotMikeMoore 2005-06-22 00:09 |