S Korea Warns U.S

[Guest Lottie]

South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun has warned the US not to drive North Korea into a corner by taking too aggressive an approach.

He voiced concern about influential US circles who, he said, were calling for regime change in North Korea.

Instead, President Roh urged a policy of persuasion and dialogue as a better way to get North Korea to change.

He was speaking in a BBC interview on the first state visit to the UK by a South Korean president.

"I feel that the more advisable course would be one that would not drive North Korea into a corner," he said.

His comments come at a delicate time in international efforts to persuade North Korea to rejoin talks on its controversial nuclear programme.

Nervousness

In the interview, the South Korean president said no one would tolerate a nuclear capability in North Korea and it was not that the US government had been aggressive.

"Let me assure you that the North Korean nuclear weapons capability will by no means, and under no circumstances, be tolerated," he said.

But he said some vocal circles in the US with considerable influence had been calling for regime change in North Korea, when the only way to induce it to embark on reforms was through dialogue.

It is not the first time South Korea has insisted that resolving the crisis over North Korea can only be done peacefully.

But these latest comments appear to reflect increased nervousness at what is being described as a tense moment in negotiations.

For months North Korea has refused to rejoin multi-party talks, blaming what it called a hostile US attitude and apparently waiting to see what would be the result of the US election.

Now this week it once again rebuffed attempts to restart a dialogue.

It seems South Korea's president is worried that unless rhetoric in the US is toned down, it may be difficult to get North Korea to change its mind.

Despite "considerable controversy" back home over his Iraq policy, Mr Roh said he will be looking to extend the duration of deployment of Korean troops.

Source

[twpdyp]

Please mister bully I promise not to do anything to annoy you.....

If it were my decision South Korea would be on its own in this matter.

[wunarmdscissor]

so u want freedom for Iraq but not south korea.

and when the iraqi govt starts to make decisions that the US doesnt quite agree with will u want to abandon them too?

Seriously though if ever the UN had a righteous mission and thr right to feel pride it was the strength it showed to drive the communists back out of south korea.

If macarthur hadnt so stupidly marched into north korea when he wasnt supposed to the peninsula may be one now

[twpdyp]

twpdyp Posted Today, 11:34 AM

  Please mister bully I promise not to do anything to annoy you.....

If it were my decision South Korea would be on its own in this matter.

wunarmdscissor Posted Today, 11:39 AM

  so u want freedom for Iraq but not south korea.

No that is not it at all, my remarks were aimed at the tone of the story, I am a strong supporter of freedom. I maintain that you cannot continue to appease a bully. Sooner or later the bully must be confronted. Appeasing a bully only makes him stronger and also weakens your resolve to fight against a bully. Thus continuing to make the bully all powerful in your eyes.

[wunarmdscissor]

but its not as simple as a playground bully analalogy .

Millions of Korean lives not to mention the rest of our lives are at stake.

This is the problem with bush's america.

Things cant be solved with playground bully analalogies.

So what wouldve happened during the cuban missile crisis had george bush been inpower and we used his playground analogy,

lets just say the world would be a VERY different place lol .

And not for the better.

[twpdyp]

From October 18th through October 29th 1962 then President John F. Kennedy did not appease the Cuban or the Soviet Union. He stood firm and faced off with a bully. He even went as far as not giving in to some of his military advisors who advocated a military intervention.

We were eyeball to eyeball and the other fellow just blinked.

Secretary of State

Dean Rusk December 8th 1962

This quote does not sound like appeasement, it does not have to end in conflict to stand up to the world's bullys. I am not endorsing violent measures but if the need arises we need to be prepared to use force. That is all I mean.

[wunarmdscissor]

and thats really how it went down lol.

and thats really what u mean by your analogy as well.

I mean come one , you dont believe there were concessions made by america , frantic negotiations.

Kennedy resisted his military in atatcking teh soviets.

The way your talking , you want us to attack n.k. now and to hell with negotiations.

Thats what your analogy mean neway.

[twpdyp]

and thats really how it went down lol.

Yes that is how it really went down. President Kennedy stood firm and with great resolve. Notice there are no nuclear missiles in Cuba.

I mean come one , you dont believe there were concessions made by america , frantic negotiations.

I don't believe that negotiating was Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's strong suit.

Kennedy resisted his military in atatcking teh soviets.

Yes several of his military advisors were advocates of a military invasion of Cuba to use force to remove the missles.

The way your talking , you want us to attack n.k. now and to hell with negotiations.

Not at all, I am advocating a strong stance. Let's not be the first to blink. That is my opinion. Yes negotiate, but firmly without giving in. Come on even China does not want North Korea to have or use nuclear weapons. If we stand firm and don't flinch then we can accomplish what we set out to do.

Thats what your analogy mean neway.

My analogy means nothing of the sort, it means we must stand strong and not give in to pressures applied from the other nations. It worked for President Kennedy, President Reagan, President Truman, President Roosevelt, President Lincoln, President Jefferson and even President Clinton.

[SilverCougar]

From October 18th through October 29th 1962 then President John F. Kennedy did not appease the Cuban or the Soviet Union. He stood firm and faced off with a bully. He even went as far as not giving in to some of his military advisors who advocated a military intervention.

And did we win the Bay of Pigs?

Bullying politics do not solve things at all.

[The Caspian Hare]

Actually, Kennedy did make concessions to remove American missiles based in Turkey.

[Stellar]

So what wouldve happened during the cuban missile crisis had george bush been inpower and we used his playground analogy,

lets just say the world would be a VERY different place lol .

And not for the better.

Hmm, let me thing... What exactly happened during the cuban missile crisis... let me try to remember... did it involve the president telling the USSR that they're bad people and the US will protest this action... or, instead of appeasement, did NATO assemble a task force to intercept the ship convoy and prepared for possible retaliatory strikes? Hmm, how did it turn out too?

Bullying politics do not solve things at all.

Neither does diplomacy. However, they do solve certain things..

Edited December 3, 2004 by Stellar