Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 That is exactly what they want you to believe. It is done on purpose to wear down the other negotiating partners and to force them into giving the DPRK more concessions. Again, there is no clear beginning, middle and end to the negotiations. There is no linear progression. They want you to think that you are starting all over again and that all of your efforts have been wasted. They want you to think that things are the same (if not worse) than when you started. 729499[/snapback] If the DPRK is "they" in this scenario of course that is what they want us to believe, and will believe it because it is true. They want us to believe they are calling the shots and they are, for all intents and purposes. Until China and Russia do something serious about it and they aren't going to as long as Bush is around, or in the near future, or until a new idea is brought to the table. At least IMO. Kim is crazy, and it's obvious this falls under the crazy-guys-aren't- scared-of-tough-guys theory. I think they're leading us on like they always have and always will, regardless of their little signs and nuances. You obviously follow this a lot closer and know 1000 times more than I, but I will bet you right now six years from now, if Kim isn't dead by natural causes or assassination, we'll still be getting jerked around by him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 If the DPRK is "they" in this scenario of course that is what they want us to believe, and will believe it because it is true. They want us to believe they are calling the shots and they are, for all intents and purposes. Until China and Russia do something serious about it and they aren't going to as long as Bush is around, or in the near future, or until a new idea is brought to the table. At least IMO. Kim is crazy, and it's obvious this falls under the crazy-guys-aren't- scared-of-tough-guys theory. I think they're leading us on like they always have and always will, regardless of their little signs and nuances. You obviously follow this a lot closer and know 1000 times more than I, but I will bet you right now six years from now, if Kim isn't dead by natural causes or assassination, we'll still be getting jerked around by him. 729507[/snapback] I'd have a hard time believing that the DPRK calls all the shots when pretty much all the money they have comes from outside handouts. If China truly came around to wanting them to completely stop jerking everyone around, it would be a lot more likely to stop. Personally, I view Ken's beliefs that China is getting on board (even though they may not be there) as very encouraging. Even though from a much more casual observer's perspective everything still looks screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 If the DPRK is "they" in this scenario of course that is what they want us to believe, and will believe it because it is true. They want us to believe they are calling the shots and they are, for all intents and purposes. Until China and Russia do something serious about it and they aren't going to as long as Bush is around, or in the near future, or until a new idea is brought to the table. At least IMO. Kim is crazy, and it's obvious this falls under the crazy-guys-aren't- scared-of-tough-guys theory. I think they're leading us on like they always have and always will, regardless of their little signs and nuances. You obviously follow this a lot closer and know 1000 times more than I, but I will bet you right now six years from now, if Kim isn't dead by natural causes or assassination, we'll still be getting jerked around by him. 729507[/snapback] They really are not calling the shots. Sanctions via the UN resolution, sanctions applied by the U.S. and Japan, the effects of PSI, cuts in aid by the ROK are all signs that they are not in control, along with numerous other thingies. Their refusal to attend talks has forced the other partners to take action against the DPRK, not just the U.S. Even though the DPRK refuses to attend talks, that has not stopped (an actually intensified) other avenues to resolve the situation. Expect to see additional actions out of the partners if this drags on further. The main thing is making sure that the DPRK is the one portrayed as the party unwilling to negotiate (and that is readily apparent right now). That requires patience. When Bush first started, the world opinion was that the U.S. was the one to blame for the problem. This was also a hold-over view from the previous unnamed administration and continued into Bush Part Deux. It was one of the items Bush focused on and it took a while to convince the international community that the U.S. was not to blame. Kim is not crazy. Crazy means irrational behavior. Their behavior is not irrational, but highly calculated. Sorry. Just a pet peeve of mine. China and Russia have already started doing things (and Bush is still in office). There has been a dramatic shift in their attitudes over the last several years. The sanctions applied by them over the last few weeks send a pretty good message to the DPRK that China and Russia are changing their tune. Combine that with the ROK cutting aid and the message is loud and clear. The DPRK is now calculating their next move. Sending a statement out of ASEAN would be the likely first step to test the waters for future actions by the DPRK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Great thread, great read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 I hope you're right. I am just cynical about them and the rest of the world's willingness to do the right thing, stick up for themselves, or help the US right now. Again, thanks for all the insight, and you're absolutely right about the highly calculated but not irrational manuevering. Frankly, however, if he wasn't crazy, I don't think he would have the balls to do a lot of the stuff that he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 US welcomes NKorea asset freezeWASHINGTON, July 26 (AFP) Jul 26, 2006 The United States said Wednesday it was encouraged by China's freezing some North Korean assets, hinting that Beijing was taking a harder line on Pyongyang because of US counterfeiting complaints. Asked whether he knew about the Bank of China's reported actions, White House spokesman Tony Snow replied: "Yes. It has to do with counterfeiting." "We think it's a dangerous thing to be counterfeiting currency and using that as a way to engage in drug trade, or arms trade. And we're encouraged by the fact that the Chinese government has taken affirmative steps -- the Chinese bank has," he told reporters. According to South Korean legislator Park Jin, the Bank of China has frozen North Korean accounts in response to a US-led crackdown on Pyongyang's alleged illegal financial activities. The move was tantamount to China's imposition of sanctions on its long-time ally, Park, a key member of the main opposition Grand National Party told reporters. "I understand North Korea is even more frustrated because it regards the freezing of its accounts in China as virtual sanctions," he said in an interview with the Munhwa newspaper that was published Monday. Snow noted that North Korea had refused to return to six-country talks with South Korea, the United States, Russia, China, and Japan because of a US-led crackdown on charges of counterfeiting. And he suggested that China and South Korea had "accepted some responsibility for the situation" with North Korea by taking stronger steps to pressure the Stalinist regime. "You've seen both countries starting to assert pressure on the government in Pyongyang because they want them to return" to the negotiations, said the spokesman. "They've got a real strong, vested interest in making sure the government of North Korea returns to the table so that they can start dealing with outstanding nuclear issues," said Snow. US welcomes NKorea asset freeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 I hope you're right. I am just cynical about them and the rest of the world's willingness to do the right thing, stick up for themselves, or help the US right now. Again, thanks for all the insight, and you're absolutely right about the highly calculated but not irrational manuevering. Frankly, however, if he wasn't crazy, I don't think he would have the balls to do a lot of the stuff that he does. 729539[/snapback] The stuff that he does is ingrained into their philosophies. These tactics go back to when Kim Il-Song first took over in 1948. These actions are perfectly rational to him and not out of the ordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 (Sorry, I'm sure I could find a lot of this on GG's site, 729416[/snapback] That'll be $0.02 please. I'll post wiring instructions, shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 The stuff that he does is ingrained into their philosophies. These tactics go back to when Kim Il-Song first took over in 1948. These actions are perfectly rational to him and not out of the ordinary. 729547[/snapback] Well Kim Il-Song was crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 US welcomes NKorea asset freeze 729544[/snapback] But diplomacy's not working!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 That'll be $0.02 please. I'll post wiring instructions, shortly. 729549[/snapback] ...but, does he still have to pay when he admitted that he DID NOT use your site? If anything, he should send the $0.02USD to me, because I did the work for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 ...but, does he still have to pay when he admitted that he DID NOT use your site? If anything, he should send the $0.02USD to me, because I did the work for him. 729556[/snapback] I'm sorry, but this is the new Internet. Even the mention of the GG site costs you $0.02. Why else is the stock over $400? If he pays, I may throw a few dividends to the Rochester Jeffersons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 ...but, does he still have to pay when he admitted that he DID NOT use your site? If anything, he should send the $0.02USD to me, because I did the work for him. 729556[/snapback] Well, Ken, although the answer was informative, since it wasn't nearly a disertation, I'd say it was worth $0.01. If I ever meet you, I'll be sure to bring it with me. As for Gerry, it probably wouldn't look good for me to get involved in a patent or copyright infringement suit, so I have already deposited 3 won in an account in his name in the 1st National Bank of Pyongyang. Now where are those dividends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 As for Gerry, it probably wouldn't look good for me to get involved in a patent or copyright infringement suit, so I have already deposited 3 won in an account in his name in the 1st National Bank of Pyongyang. 729573[/snapback] Good thing you did that. It'll be easier for us to track it (and you) thanks to our comrades at the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 27, 2006 Author Share Posted July 27, 2006 If there was a meeting of the 5, would you expect the DPRK to view that as an "oh, sh*t" occurrance or wouldn't it alter their stance substantially (or both)? 729438[/snapback] The latest I have heard is that it is looking like the six parties may meet on Friday afternoon at ASEAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 The latest I have heard is that it is looking like the six parties may meet on Friday afternoon at ASEAN. 729770[/snapback] Thanks for the update. I guess I owe you that other penny now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 John Kerry came across as a terrible candidate- he didn't waffle- he just said what each group in the democratic party wanted to hear, instead of what he actually thought. I shudder to think what would happen if he got elected- and I wasn't for Bush's reelection either. The Democrats need to find a candidate who will not be dragged around by the tired old party leaders- they need someone who will lead those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 28, 2006 Author Share Posted July 28, 2006 As predicted, China is starting to warm up to 5-party talks. Previously, they refused to participate in them, saying that it is 6-party talks or nothing. Now, they are "flexible" in participating in them. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, the 5-party talks "wouldn’t mean that we’re holding a new kind of negotiation, it’s just the way for everyone to exchange views about shared concerns." This is their attempt to soften the blow of holding talks without the DPRK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 John Kerry came across as a terrible candidate- he didn't waffle- he just said what each group in the democratic party wanted to hear, instead of what he actually thought. 729974[/snapback] Isn't that exactly the definition of waffling? What does John Kerry actually think? Who the hell actually knows? He's expressed every possible opinion on every issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 28, 2006 Share Posted July 28, 2006 Isn't that exactly the definition of waffling? 730666[/snapback] I think it is. But maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts