Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jhaelin]

[Hater Depot]

I think you're assuming that the North's government wants an official end to the war. I think it is much more likely that they are not much interested in a peace treaty; it would be too likely to put to bed the foundation of the "military-first" policy which is keeping Kim Jong-il in power. His own internal political needs dictate that he keep the population fearful of an attack and the military satisfied that it is essential. A peace treaty could jeopardize all that.

The North's repeated rejection of multilateral treaty negotiations is evidence for this.

And over the decades it's certainly not as if North Korea's behavior has been very conducive to making South Korea feel secure about its sovereignty. That street goes two ways.

[jhaelin]

sure i'm assuming that north korea wants to end the threat of another korean war...
just like you're assuming that the kim regime needs the threat to maintain his hold on his people...

here as always, differing interpretations will be based on differing sources of propaganda.

but are you perhaps, unconsciously, projecting the situation at home (with our commander in chief having maintained his hold on power through the manufactured terrorist threat), onto the n.korean domestic power structure?

besides, if the threat was kim's way of maintaining power, wouldn't the most effective means for regime change be for the US to normalize relations, and reduce the threat?

[Ya-ta Boy]

[jhaelin]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[jhaelin]

hey yata,

do you even bother to read the refs i attach?
they provide all the examples you seek.
and didn't the paragraph that you take the quote from provide specific examples:
a) US stationing nukes in S.Korea (the refs list over 900 at the time: 1980's)
b) The "Team Spirit" military/nuclear Attack exercises.

and btw the burden of proof rests on both arguers so where are your refs?
as I recall you've yet to provide anything aside from relaying the usual spin that i get from fox and cnn at home!

[Ya-ta Boy]

When were the nukes taken out?

[jhaelin]

hey yata
you obviously can't read,
so let's try something different.
you show me how north korea is responsible for the crisis and not Bush & Co.
i'm tired of showing proof which you disregard.

so let's see your proof and argument (with refs)!

lol

[Ya-ta Boy]

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialed on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides to test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy, or use nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the IAEA, as it had pledged to do in 1985 when acceding to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the U.S. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-South Korea Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the U.S. held direct talks with the D.P.R.K."

[jhaelin]

i could cut and paste too, but you have yet to actually make your case.
what is your case? what is your argument?

are you implying that N.Korea is responsible for the destabilization/missle crisis in East Asia, because:

[mateomiguel]