|
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 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Surely then now is the time to hit them hard, before they get one? |
I think China would take over North Korea before that would ever happen.[/quote]
Would they though? I get the feeling they could live alongside an armed NK. Nk serves a useful purpose as their guinea pig to torture the US with.
Their main fear is of Nk collapsing and resulting destabilisation. Which is why they're reluctant about sanctions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
[i]
(numbers are mine)
1. Engagement ONLY worked AFTER the U.S.S.R crumbled and the dictators were disposed. This is not the case in North Korea and will likely not be the case for a long time. And engagement with the regime in N.K always led to being stabbed in the back. Bush simply said enough is enough. Until N.K learns to grow up (honour its agreements) he was not going to deal with it. How many times does one have to get slapped in the face before the hand of peace is withdrawn? |
This is a very narrow reding of engagement. (And, saying engagement came only after collapse is simply incorrect.) But perhaps I should have been more explicit: I assumed the reference to the Sunshine Policy made it clear. When I say engagement, I mean on all levels. I mean the exposure to what was really going on in the "West", as opposed to conditions behind the Iron Curtain. I mean the participation in events like the Olympics. The Voice of America (Depending on one's perspective?). Not just the offical detente. I happen to believe that the "engagement", i.e. exposure to developed/democratic nations/societies was a rather large factor in the bringing down of the Iron Curtain. Not to mention basic human longing for comfort, freedom, etc.
| Quote: |
| 2. Yes N.K was circumventing it...which pretty much meant the treaty was dead in the water. If one side is NOT honouring the treaty how can you possibly say "it remained largely in place."? That doesn't make any sense. It wasn't being upheld in the first place...as even you admit. |
This partially depends on your reading of the treaty and their justifications. I had to admit they seemed to have found a loophole. That's our fault. We knew what they were at the time. However, one must concede three days to avert a war is really not much time to craft a perfect proposal. So, I say it remained "largely" in place because that portion that any andall could agree was explicitly covered WAS adhered to, AND, they were still open to negotiations. The IAEA was in place into Bush's term in office, no? (I could be wrong, don't want to bother checking. If you respond on this point, please link...)
| Quote: |
| 3. It got N.K. to the six party talks...for a while anyways which is more that most have done. |
I completely disagree. I can only see it as th opposite: the 6-party talks happened in spite of Bush's beligerence.
| Quote: |
4. Well one out of five isn't bad.
5. Make that two out of five. |
I'll take those as being as close to a compliment as you are ever going to get. Hat's off. |
|
| 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
