|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
| And what's happening to the nuke in the midst of all this horse trading? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
China controls the nuke, thats good because the Chinese are responsible custodians of the nuclear threat.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do the Chinese get out of it?
The bomb test worked just as much to warn China and their NE Asia Project as it did Japan/the US not to mess with KJI. If there is anything to this rumor, the Chinese will have to move fast, before the Norks can develop a usable bomb (if they haven't done so already).
It's hard to claim regional hegemony if your one ally ignores you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| NK will fall, and China will determine who governs the state thereafter. |
I agree, I just don't think it's gonna happen in the way that the Chosun Ilbo's "rumors" say it will, ie. China actively overthrowing KJI as part of a deal with the USA. |
Taft-Katsura. 'Nuff said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| And what's happening to the nuke in the midst of all this horse trading? |
The nuke is WHY China would act. If NK completes a workable *and* deliverable weapon, China has to worry about Bejing going poof! They will act before that happens, should KJI signal he is not going to curtail his ambitins. However, the recent bitchslap delivered by China may have already ended KJI's nuke ambitions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So that's the reasoning behind all of this theorizing?
That China is afraid of a nuclear NK?
Going to have to say BS to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| NK will fall, and China will determine who governs the state thereafter. |
I agree, I just don't think it's gonna happen in the way that the Chosun Ilbo's "rumors" say it will, ie. China actively overthrowing KJI as part of a deal with the USA. |
Taft-Katsura. 'Nuff said. |
Sorry, but I think you're gonna have to demonstrate that China has the exact same interest in annexing Korea in 2006 that Japan had in 1905, rather than just repeating the name of the agreement.
| Quote: |
Finally, regarding Korea, Katsura observed that Korea was a matter of absolute importance to Japan, as Korea was the direct cause of the just concluded Russo-Japanese War. Katsura stated that a comprehensive solution of the Korea problem would be the war's logical outcome. Katsura further stated that if left alone, Korea would continue to improvidently enter into agreements/treaties with other powers which created the original problem. Therefore, Japan must take steps to prevent Korea from again establishing the conditions which would force Japan into fighting another foreign war.
|
The last war that China fought over the Korean peninsula was fifty years ago, and I haven't seen much evidence as of late that they are interested in actively annexing the land. There is the Northeast Project, but in the absence of other evidence of Chinese land-hunger on the peninsula, I assume that the purposes of that project are largely defensive, ie. justifying intervention in the event of a North Korean meltdown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| China controls the nuke |
Explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cyrax
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: Re: Rumor: US out; China in |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
This rumor is reported in a Chosun Ilbo editorial:
| Quote: |
| A rumor is making the rounds of a deal between the U.S. and China that Washington will withdraw its forces from South Korea and put an end to its alliance with Seoul, and that Beijing, in return, will guarantee a nuclear-free North Korea by overthrowing the Kim Jong-il regime and establishing a pro-Beijing regime. |
This is probably just an idea cooked up by some paranoid's fantasy, but it does have some merit. A lot of merit, actually. It would stabilize the region for starters. China's ego would be bolstered; the US would save billions every year. I don't know if Japan would feel threatened. That's the weakness as I see it.
The whole editorial can be read here: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200611/200611240019.html |
Pure BS. Why would we want commy bastards to overthrow commy baastards just to make more..commy bastards? |
The same way US overthrows democratically elected govts and establishes dictatorships or 'favourable democracies'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
North Korea: The NEXT Tibet.
Neither Seoul, Tokyo or Washington would allow that however..
I'm going with The Lemon on this one:
| The Lemon wrote: |
| It plays to deep-rooted Korean insecurity that the big powers are once again deciding Korea's fate without consulting Koreans |
|
Speaking of TIBET, am i the only one here who sees the timing of the China's invasion followed then in June of 1950 by the outbreak of the Korean war as something just a little bit more than "coincidental"?
Bloody imperial GEO-politics, pure & simple.
Korea openly allow Chinese ( or for that matter ANY other foreign state entity's ) military forces to be stationed within its borders once the US relocates most of its troops over to the MIDDLE EAST?
Not without a fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| NK will fall, and China will determine who governs the state thereafter. |
I agree, I just don't think it's gonna happen in the way that the Chosun Ilbo's "rumors" say it will, ie. China actively overthrowing KJI as part of a deal with the USA. |
Taft-Katsura. 'Nuff said. |
Sorry, but I think you're gonna have to demonstrate that China has the exact same interest in annexing Korea in 2006 that Japan had in 1905, rather than just repeating the name of the agreement. |
I think we already visited the issue of evidence vs. proof on another thread, no? I do not need to demonstrate anything. It is all conjecture. Further, I in no way said the situtions were "exactly" the same. I have lost my tast for argument for its own sake. Please engage others if that is what you seek.
I have already stated what evidence there is for my conjecture, so why ask for a restatement? Research the Northeast Project, consider the US's willingness to let Korea have wartime control, consider why the US needs NK as a buffer when it has Japan, which is far more hospitable, and ask yourself what the US has to gain from Korea (nothing).
| Quote: |
| Finally, regarding Korea, Katsura observed that Korea was a matter of absolute importance to Japan, as Korea was the direct cause of the just concluded Russo-Japanese War. Katsura stated that a comprehensive solution of the Korea problem would be the war's logical outcome. Katsura further stated that if left alone, Korea would continue to improvidently enter into agreements/treaties with other powers which created the original problem. Therefore, Japan must take steps to prevent Korea from again establishing the conditions which would force Japan into fighting another foreign war. |
| Quote: |
| The last war that China fought over the Korean peninsula was fifty years ago, and I haven't seen much evidence as of late that they are interested in actively annexing the land. There is the Northeast Project, but in the absence of other evidence of Chinese land-hunger on the peninsula, I assume that the purposes of that project are largely defensive, ie. justifying intervention in the event of a North Korean meltdown. |
I'm sure that is part, but logic applies: Korea is a US ally, ostensibly. Better for China, and Chinas ego, if it comes back into more complete Chinese influence. After all, we have precedent with Tibet, which is not Chinese, yet is claimed on flimsy evidence. Less, Id say, than stands with Korea.
Again, this is supposition. You do yourself and the discussion a disservice to pretend theses are required to discuss these things on a BBS.
And, pray tell, where are your theses to show I and others are wrong?
Egad... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You do yourself and the discussion a disservice to pretend theses are required to discuss these things on a BBS.
|
Well, I would say there is a difference between asking someone to write a thesis, and asking them to provide reasons for why they subscribe to a particular idea. If you think my use of the word "demonstrate" sounded too academic or something, I apologize. It wasn't meant to sound that way, and in fact I am the least academic person you could imagine. I fell into my current style of writing early on in life, and haven't quite been able to shake it.
| Quote: |
And, pray tell, where are your theses to show I and others are wrong?
|
Just that I don't see what China gets out of all this alleged scheming. You say they're scared of NK nukes. Interestingly, that's not what the Chosun Ilbo article says. According to the Ilbo's rumor mill, China would overthrow KJI not because it's what they really want to do, but because it's the USA's precondition for a troop withdrawal. So for the Chinese, the toppling of Kim would be simply a means to an end, that end being the troop withdrawal. What I'm saying is that I don't think the troop withdrawal alone would be worth the potential bloodshed and instability that would result from a Chinese overthrow of KJI.
You could be right I guess, about China's fear of NK nukes. Personally, I'd really want to see evidence from some reputable China-watchers that this is a motivating factor in their calculations. I don't think I've heard much, if anything, about the Chinese worrying that NK itself will send a nuke their way. Not saying you have to provide said evidence, but if someone else reading this has something on that, I'd certainly be interested in reading it.
| Quote: |
consider the US's willingness to let Korea have wartime control, consider why the US needs NK as a buffer when it has Japan, which is far more hospitable, and ask yourself what the US has to gain from Korea (nothing).
|
Again, I have to wonder why, if the US has no strategic interest in its troops being here, they would make a troop withdrawal dependant upon the overthrow of KJI. If they're so indifferent to what happens on the peninsula, why not just stage a no-strings-attached pullout? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| China controls the nuke |
Explain. |
See the whole quote. Then refer to the previous entries then from the context of those if China controls NK they will then by proxy control the NK nuke.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone given any thought to South Koreas rsponse should this rumor, however unlikely, actually be true? Surely South Korea doesn't want China occupying Korean territory.
If this happpened wouldn't there be some sort of outcry or protest from the south?
Last edited by NAVFC on Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
