I don't see how you still don't get what Kerry said. As a last option he would use force. So would Bush for that matter, I never once heard him say he wouldn't go to war with N. Korea. And I disagree if they have nuclear power and are threatening then what? What happens if they use them? Im all for stopping disassters before they happen IF we have used up all of our other methods of stopping him. And I think EVERY surrounding country is in favor of this not just Kerry.

So you watched the debate to then? Then you will also note that Bush did not give a reason why having bilateral talks and six party talks will not work. He just said "trust me i know," yeah I think I won't trust me. China does not want N. Korea to have nuclear power. If US can fix this situation anyway we can, they will be happy about it. China already has influence and its only growing stronger, and I don't see how US talking to N. Korea and also six party talks will make things worse if we are open with what we are trying to do.


Do you know why China has a vested intrest in N. Korea? First I doubt we will go to war under Kerry's watch since he will only use it as a last resort. Second if he does go to war he will make sure he has the support of the OTHER six parties. That includes China. By having the support of all six parties I don't see why China would not help us out. They really don't want to see N. Korea with nuclear weapons.


You trust someone that sent us into a another country under false pre-tenses? Man do I have a car to sell you. I won't even get into the Saddam comment. Kerry voted for the president to have the "power" to go to war to use as leverage. We all expected Bush to go into Iraq as a last resort. Oh how wrong we were. Again show me where Kerry stated that he would go straight into attacking N. Korea. Is it that hard for you to understand that Kerry will do everything he can but go to war. And use war as a LAST resort, unlike Bush.

And here we go with the flip flopping statements again. If don't have a valid point to make against Kerry call him a flip flopper. Sorry to break it to you but Bush is a HUGE flip flopper. Bin Ladin anyone.

 

I never stated that it would be a good thing to attack N. Korea. I know exactly what they are capable of. I was again pointing out something to HellaDumb.

Why are you saying something that Kerry or MYSELF have never said. When did Kerry say he is just going to randomly attack N. Korea? When has he said he would not get weapons inspectors in there etc? Bush didn't bother looking deeper into the facts. On top of that Iraq never posed a threat to us, period. There was no doubt about it. How can you say that Bush didn't drop the ball on the war on Iraq and terrorism? He went from going after the right people to attacking someone that had no correlation to 9/11. Also he rushed in there so the facts didn't have time to get cleared up. Again he dropped the ball. And now we are trusted less than ever before.

"LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.

But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."

I just love this quote from the debate.
Kerry will not just jump into a war with N. Korea he showed he has a WAY better grasp about how the world works than Bush has or will ever have. I trust him dealing with global issues a whole lot more than Bush. And im suprised that you don't, especially you salty.

 

Alright, well, if he has a way better understanding of global issues...why is he potentially agitating north korea by talking about pre-emptive strikes to disarm the country (He did do that, it's in the article linked on this thread)?

Also, why doesn't Kerry seem to understand how damaging bilateral talks would be to relations with China?

 

Your still missing the point entirely. I don't know how many different ways i can tell you this. From the article.

[/quote]Asked if he would consider a first strike move if efforts to enforce diplomacy didn't work, and if he would use U.S. troops in a pre-emptive attack, Kerry told Diane Sawyer of ABC's Good Morning America, "I wouldn't rule out anything."

"I would consider whatever is necessary to protect the United States of America," he said in the interview, which was taped Tuesday, ahead of the U.S. presidential debate focusing on foreign policy issues.[/quote]

So I ask you again where in there does he say he will attack N. Korea dumbly and blindly? I don't see it do you?

Bush has agitated N. Korea already by going after Iraq. We scared them by going at it all alone and attacking a nation that had done nothing to us.

Again I don't see how bilateral talks would hurt relations with China. If N. Korea does have nuclear weapons, I bet you China would be more than happy if bilateral talks worked, and solved the issue. They do not want a war to break out.

 

Where did I say Kerry said he would attack "dumbly and blindly"? No, what I did say is that he is putting attack as a means of disaramanent on the table. Now what does that mean? Did he say that because he would never attack North Korea??? My point, and you don't seem to be getting it, is that ANY talk of attacking North Korea is insane. Bush and his administration flatly refuse to even consider the option, and for Good reason...it agitates the extremely dangerous regime in North Korea. North Korea does not care about Iraq, it is utterly unrelated to their diplomatic situation and Bush has made this entirely clear. Kerry, however, is talking about North Korea's WMD's, just like bush did about Iraq. You don't think they notice that?

And, again, I ask you to read my above explanation as to why the Chinese are involved in the six party talks. Please do that now, then read below.

Do you understand the problem with what you're saying now that you've read it again? The Chinese are not interested in solving the US's problem by just eliminating the menace to South Korea. They would much rather be the US of Asia for everybody, including south korea. This is China's ONLY incentive for participating in the talks; otherwise, they might as well let North Korea do what it wants to muddy up the United States' diplomatic relations with South Korea. So, if the US starts dealing with North Korea directly, China is going to see that as a threat to its influence in the region...it does NOT want anyone getting the idea that they should only deal with the US, and not China.

Now do you get it?

 

Yet you don't think they noticed how we handled Iraq? You don't think it matters to them how we handle other situations? And your joking about Bush never attacking N. Korea. Isn't N. Korea one of the "axis of evil." that included Iraq? And again I don't see how Kerry even said he was going to have premitive attacks against N. Korea in that article you posted. I see him saying the samething any president would say. "I would consider whatever is necessary to protect the United States of America," So im still not following where did he say he would pre-emptively strike N. Korea? He said as a LAST resort he would do that. Is it that hard for you to follow that? And that is a option Bush has also, and he would also take. Not sure if it would be his last resort though. Look at how he handled Iraq.


Actually you really should, since i explained it already to you.

Hmm, how is N. Korea US's problem and not China's also? Your fooling yourself if you think China does not have a vested intrest besides what you stated. What do you think will happen if N. Korea attacks S. Korea? Seriously, think things through a little more and read up on the history before you reply back to me. Also look at the economics of that area. I don't believe Kerry is a fool and I believe he knows more about this than either of us. Bush on the other hand does not know how to handle situations well. How good of a diplomat do you think he is with the speaking ability he has? For gods sake this is my THIRD language and I speak more clearly than him. Also the world does not trust Bush at all. And for you to fail to see this is, pretty scary.

 

Well, now that you mention that english is your third language, I'll forgive you for entirely missing the point. That doesn't explain everything, though.

Did you seriously ask How North Korea is not China's problem??? They are two of the last communist states on Earth. China funds north korea for a lot of things. China is ANTI-US influence in the region. So, North Korea provides a great opportunity for china to watch and laugh as the US falls into a quagmire over the North-South aggression. However, by including China in talks with other Asian states, China has an incentive to work to disarm North Korea. In that case, when China helps the US, it also helps itself...by being the main influence over Korea in the future. Mutual benefit, do you understand that? Bilateral talks mean no more benefit for China. That means, surprise, China being interested first in increasing its power...it's not going to bother trying to help us, because it won't get anything out of it.

Please respond to the POINTS there instead of repeating yourself next time.

Alright, about Bush on war...bush and his admin have flatly stated, several times, that War is NOT on the table with Korea. This has been repeated by Powell and Bush. Now Kerry is saying War is on the table. Which one makes North Korea more nervous? That shouldn't be too tough for you to answer.

 

It might be my third language but, its your first and your still not getting it. BUSH AND KERRY WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. ""I would consider whatever is necessary to protect the United States of America," he said in the interview, which was taped Tuesday, ahead of the U.S. presidential debate focusing on foreign policy issues." IS IT THAT HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?! Those are the words Kerry said. HE DID NOT SAY IM GOING TO ATTACK N. KOREA. Jesus are you stupid or something? Do you really think BUSH would not do WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY?! For **** sake man learn to read articles and instead of taking sound bites grasp the meaning of the entire article. Its like you see one phrase and your stuck on it and miss everything else, sad really. You must of failed english comprehension.

READ UP ON WHAT WHY N. KOREA IS ALSO CHINA'S PROBLEM. Are you stupid enough to think that if a war breaks out between S. Korea and N. Korea China won't enter it? Are you so blind as to think that China is not keeping close tabs on N. Korea. If any type of war happens in that area the market will crash. Get it through your thick dense skull, N. Korea attacks, China goes under. Simple as that. Kerry NEVER said he would STOP six party talks. HE SAID HE WOULD TRY BILATERAL TALKS. What a ****ing concept. Trying TWO different approaches insead of one! Your a fool, and close minded at that. IT IS IN CHINA'S INTREST THAT WE STAY THE **** OUT OF N. KOREA. IF BY TALKING TO N. KOREA WE ACCOMPLISH THIS THEN THATS GOOD FOR CHINA!! China will not leave the six party talks, they lose even MORE control if that happens. So your logic is not only retarded but flawed. And China has made no mention of pulling out as of yet. So again im lost on how you can conclude this. Oh right you take everything BUSH says face value.

Bush also stated flatly in the past that he would not as president commit troops. Guess what he did. Wow what a ****ing flip flopper. What would make you more nervous, a country developing new nuclear weapons and a president that has attacked one of the countries he grouped you in? (Ie the "AXIS OF EVIL") That had not threatened his country. Or a man that will use every thing he has available to solve the situation and as a last resort attack if he has too. (And incase you missed it in the article Kerry said he wasn't "ruling it out". Since unlike you Kerry can't tell the future and see how things will work out.) That should be a question EVEN you could answer.

Maybe, now you'll actually read and THINK about what I wrote before you respond.

 

Okay, I'm sorting through that, but it's tough. I think you need a refresher course in "English while agitated."

First of all, you're not responding to my points. You're just repeating yours, which makes me think you have a problem with your reading comprehension of English. I'll make it simple for you, all the basics will be in caps with easy grammar: BUSH SAY NO WAR NORTH KOREA. WAR WITH NORTH KOREA NOT POSSIBLE.

Now the other part:

KERRY SAY WAR WITH NORTH KOREA POSSILBE.

Now you may note that I never said Kerry INTENDS to go to North Korea right away. What I did say, and what the article says, is that Kerry has put use of force against North Korea in a pre-emptive strike on the table. Bush has several times said that there will absolutely NOT be a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Now, on the international relations question, you're right, if there is a war china is entering, and it's not going to be on the side of the US. There's another reason to think that it's stupid to talk about war with North Korea. Now, you totally didn't read or didn't understand the point about China's incentive to intervene. NORTH KOREA CREATING PROBLEMS HELPS CHINA, BECAUSE IT WEAKENS US AUTHORITY IN THE REGION. IN BROKEN ENGLISH: CHINA NOT CARE IF NORTH KOREA BOTHER US. If China leaves the six party talks, and stops telling North Korea how to deal with the U.S....there is virtually zero chance of any response from North Korea's psychotic political system.

China's only incentive to help the US with North Korea, is in establishing itself as the regional Hegemon. The word Hegemon is in common use in english but not in comic books or whatever it is you read all the time for your international relations info, so I recommend that you look it up.

Now, to address your insults: You're accuing me of several things that I did not do. One of them is say that Kerry wants to stop the six party talks; I didn't say that. What I did say is that Kerry has a plan that would make them moot. Read again.
You also said I accused Kerry of just wanting to go to war straight away; wrong again. The issue there is as simple as this: Bush has explicitly said that he will NOT launch a first strike on North Korea, for any reason. Kerry says he would consider it. So who's putting us closer to a war with North Korea?

Get some articles in your native language about the diplomatic relations between China, the US, and the two Koreas before you come back here accusing me of not thinking this through. That way, in your next post, you won't make such silly claims about how China is going to react to the US dealing with North Korea on its own.

 

Man I hate repeating myself over and over again. Maybe if I rephrase it in different ways you'll eventually get it. Well you never know pigs could fly some day too.

You really didn't read anything I said did you? You are reading way to much into what Kerry said. Again maybe if you read what I typed and what he had said you would understand this. Kerry will not rule out the POSSIBLITY of war, right? Ok, lets think on what this mean for a second. In addition he said, he would do whatever it takes to PROTECT our country, if that means war is our last resort in defending ourseleves then he would go to war. And since he can't predict the futre he will not say its not impossible. And Im sure if you asked Bush if N. Korea was a threat to the US and was about to fire a nuclear weapon at us he WOULD attack N. Korea. Any SANE leader would.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLE CONCEPT?

You still don't understand why its favorable for China to stay in the six party talk? I didn't think it was that hard of a concept to comprehend for someone that claims to be so educated on this area of conflict. Do you honestly think China wants to enter a war that could cause their whole economy to go to ****? And more than likely lose. All this for ego and further control of N. Korea? Please by all means back this up. Why is N. Korea important to both Russia and China? And why do they help N. Korea? Read up on why then get back to me why China would leave six party talks and Russia wouldn't. China has a vested intrest in staying in the six party talks. Even if Kerry talks to N. Korea alone. ****, thats like saying China shouldn't be talking to N. Korea on their own. And because they are everyone else should leave the six party talks because its only making China stronger by talking to N. Korea. Do you see now why your thinking process is flawed? China will stay in the talks, if they leave they only LOSE power. Maybe in your world thats a gain for China.

Do you have any idea how China can become the regional Hegemon of Asia? The only way is to get rid of the US correct? You following me still. Do you think if N. Korea attacks the US will have less of a presense there or more? It would go against what they want. What would be best for China to become regional Hegemon is if N. Korea and S. Korea became one again. (Like west and east germany) Hence no reason for the US to be in Korea. (Well valid reason) Making China the leading power of Asia. By having a war this all goes to **** and American stays the leading power in Asia. So try again.

Bush, has made them more agitated than Kerry has. Since he is the president that attacked one of the "axis of evil," which they are included in. Bush NAMED them as a source of EVIL that needs to be taken out. And Iraq was the first one he took out. Since you fail to grasp this concept, here is a nice little article for you to read. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1971852.stm ""States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD (weapons of mass destruction) must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort, but those that do not can expect to become our targets," he said." Guess what Bush just said they are a target! And he already took one of those targets out. If I was on that list I would be worried as hell. Did you even watch his state of the Union Adress when he stated all this? Here is the link for you to read. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020129-11.html

"But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.)

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. "

Of course by your logic a individual that says that they will try everything possible before going to war is the scarier individual. Really man you say I should I read articles in my native language. Yet either your memmory fails you on what our president has said or you plain don't understand. Which ever you are, I feel sorry for you.

 

To answer that one: Yes. How you can see this fact, and then say that cooperating with the US in bilateral (ie, excluding China) talks is China's best option, is beyond me. If the Chinese want the US gone, then what makes you think that they'll want to solve the North Korea problem for free? Why haven't they solved it already if the Chinese are afraid of war as much as we are?

Well, you're obviously relying on the "I'll just talk out my ***" method of figuring out international relations. Here's, again, the problem in a nutshell: Regardless of Bush's lines on evil and WMD's, he has specifically said he will not, I repeat, not consider a pre-emptive strike on North Korea. Powell said the same thing: War with North Korea is not an option.

Do you understand the difference between "I won't rule anything out" (Kerry) and "There will be no pre-emptive strike on North Korea" (Bush)? Can you please address the difference between those two lines specifically next time?

You see, what you've done so far is take general statements from Bush about terrorism and say that they would agitate North Korea. But Bush has specific statements about North Korea, just like Kerry does. So why don't we compare specific position to specific position? I can see why you won't...because then your point would look stupid. If you take both leader's direct statements about North Korea, Kerry is the only one of the two who includes pre-emptive strike as an option, while Bush specifically rules it out.

Now, on China, you're just flat wrong. China has nothing to gain from increased US influence in the region (and US influence will increase as a result of bilateral talks); it will only hamper China's super-power ambitions in the next century. China is growing and wants to have its own say in what goes on in World affairs. Now you said "By having a war in Asia America stays the leading power". Uh, how the hell did you get that? What if Chinese armies occupy both Koreas to stop the fighting? Then what? Do you think the US is just going to uproot millions of Chinese and Korean soldiers? It's ridiculous to think that a pan-asian war involving China and North Korea is going to leave the U.S. sitting pretty in the region. I'm not sure what else I can to prove that to you except to recommend a subscription to a decent reader like "The Economist." You've got a lot to learn there. China and North Korea both have extremely powerful militaries, and both want the US out of the decision making process for the region, so it's not too hard to guess what they're going to gamble for in case of a war. Even if the Chinese didn't enter such a war, the North Koreans would do more than enough damage to South korea (America's biggest partner there) to set US economic and military development back to nil. And that's not including the huge expenditure of troops (ie, young guys like you and me) from America it's going to take to shut the North Koreans down.

Finally, since I'm sure you will hard-headedly repeat yourself again...instead of just reciting the point, reference it in your above post, and then give me a realistic scenario for a war with North Korea, started by a pre-emptive strike, that leaves the US in good shape. Tell me who you think would get attacked, what would happen in North Korea, and what the Chinese would do when the war broke out. That should shed some light on it for you.

 

Before I start, did you bother to read both links? They aren't that long.

So let me point it out to you once again. America, will protect its intrest in Asia. To not do so would be retarded. Do you know the history of WHY we are involved in that area? You have still not answered this question in any of your post. By N. Korea attacking and China entering on their side is NOT what China wants. They KNOW we are the leading super power in the WORLD, not just Asia. They also know if they enter a war with us they WILL lose. It will cost a bunch of lives but that is the truth.

And I did not take GENERAL statements from Bush about terrorism. HE NAMED N. KOREA IN THE STATEMENT. He "KNOWS" their TRUE nature. Don't know how hard that is for you to understand. Or you going to tell me Bush did not say that N. Korea is a target, and that everyone in the US but you that saw during his address. Seriously who's your dealer I need some of that ****.

So lets try another angle for you then. Theirs this big bully and he said you and your friends are going to get it. He already beat two of them up. Is it safe to say he is coming after you too? Or would he just forget what he said and not attack? Don't know about you but that would make me hella nervous.

Another angle. Bush is flip-flopping because its election year and he is trying to say he isn't just going to attack any country on his "axis of evil" list. Well what does he plan on doing? Talk to them? He sure tried that with Iraq. Maybe its just the fact he can't speak well at all. Don't know about you but I don't trust a word that comes out of Bushes mouth about what he will or won't do.

Why, is it so hard for you to understand that China does not want a war to break out. Neither do they want N. Korea to have nuclear weapons. If N. Korea enters a war the economy of Asia is ****ed. Maybe instead of just having a subscription to "The Economist" you should actually read it. It is in China's intrest to have a UNITED KOREA. That would force the US to leave S. Korea. And do you know what happens if a nuclear weapon goes off? The side effects just don't stay in ONE centralized area. Here's a map of asia for you. http://www.travel.com.hk/region/asiamap.htm What country do you think will also be effected by nuclear fall out? So again tell me WHY China would play hardball just to gain a little bit more power, and if they lose they will have a WAR, a ****ed up economy and larger US presense than ever in Asia. (Maybe you don't get it, but we would PROTECT our intrest, hence a larger presense.)

Again it is in China's intrest to not have a war. Do we both agree? Do you think China will risk going into a war with the US. Because they might lose "a little" power? Which I really doubt thats the case but, for arguments sake I'll let it go. China is talking constantly to N. Korea between themselves, correct? Is this bilateral talks correct? Ok, so why isn't the US and the rest of the other parties not out of the six party talks?

Now to your final question. N. Korea is found to have nuclear weapons after inspectors have been in N. Korea. They refuse to do anything about them. They also are found to be moving them through satalite pictures, towards there south border. We start moving our forces and tell N. Korea to give in the nuclear weapons or face the wrath of our full forces. And we give them a time limit. China for some odd reason does not see this as a bad thing and sits back and lets it happen. So we start evacuation of S. Korea. (Should of already been started way before when we warned them about possible nuclear strike from N. Korea.) And start doing missile strikes on known areas where possible WMD are located. Before N. Korea has the chance to shot them off. After we attack N. Korea would start a missile and ballistic strike on S. Korea and Japan. Soel Korea would be destroyed in minutes. And S. Korea will have massive casualties. Japan will have a couple of thousand deaths if we don't catch enough of the missiles in mid flight. We then retaliate by using bombers and our carriers. Showering N. Korea with missiles. China then enters the battle by moving in on N. Korea land and fighting back vs the US. And huge missile strikes happen from both sides. Causing Asia's markets to go under and the rest of the world to go in economic downslide. N. Korea will no longer be independent since China now fully controls that area. "For defense of N. Korea." And S. Korea will be held by the US. We both the US and China will have lost tons of lives. And Billions of dollars. So as you can tell its not a "good" thing for either nation to enter. We both agree on this right? But I don't know if you missed this or not. We would be in S. Korea as protectors. And have WAY more troops than ever before in that area. Not something China wants. Also the economic stress this will cause China will be rather big. And at this point they can not out last the US. Especially since we are their biggest importers. So again why would China leave talks and cause a war to break out is beyond me. They don't gain anything they will LOSE more influence in that area. And on top of that since we are their biggest importer of their goods, they will lose untold billions of dollars. So why the hell would the Chinese leave talks over us just talking to N. Korea to get rid of the nuclear weapons? And the only way anything like this situation could ever happen is if China let it get to that level. And they are not even close enough to be ready to pull something like that anytime soon. Like stated before and I guess I will have to state again, the best thing for China would be if N. and S. Korea united.

Get my point yet?

 

You know, we both are just rehashing what we have been saying since the start.

You believe that bilateral talks will cause China to pull out of the six party talks. I disagree, since it would be against their intrest to do so in the long run.

You believe that Kerry is more threating to N. Korea because he won't rule out the possiblity of a pre-emptive strike as a last resort to defend our country. While I disagree, because the record shows to N. Korea that Bush thinks of them as an enemy. And they see to what lengths Bush went to take out Iraq and its leader, who happen to be in the "axis of evil" which Bush included N. Korea in. Yet now he claims to be taking a diplomatic approach to N. Korea. And Bush has not talked about what he will do if N. Korea does not give up their WMD to us.

Thats the jist of it?

 

That's almost it, except that Bush has talked about what his options are for North Korea: Talks, specifically excluding strikes. It's not like Bush is just not saying what he would do; he has specifically said on several occasions that a first strike against north korea is not an option.

Now, on the military situation: What makes you think it's clear the US would win such a war? Do you realize how many military resources china has to throw at the problem, right there, without having to ship it all over? And, your map is fine...but you need a winds map. Japan and South Korea are going to be most affected by Nuclear fallout in a war with North Korea, not China. That's where the winds carry fallout. Is Japan a big friend of the Chinese? No.

Now, even if the North Koreans did not win (let's assume China, seeing they won't win, stays out of it.) The Chinese are not militarily damaged. North Korea ravages South Korea. The US loses a major trading partner, and its military presence in the region has been decimated. Where does that leave china? Intact, and read to step into North Korea as its traditional sphere of influence.

The basic problem with your scenario is that you assume too much about the U.S.'s ability to fight such a war. This is NOT going to go like the Iraq war, with the battle over in a few weeks and almost no allied dead. It's not even clear that, if China were to enter, U.S. forces could repel them. Certainly, not the army that's in Korea could do it.

Now, on to the incentive for China not to have a war: Yes, they do make money off of US trade. But China is more than willing to threaten war over influence, to say otherwise makes no sense considering the constant rhetoric and military posturing over Taiwan.

So, here are your two basic scenarios: 1. North Korea responds to a first strike by wiping out Seoul and decimating U.S. forces in South Korea. The U.S. musters a huge military force to fight in Korea to repel the North Korean army and possibly to take over Pyongyang. That costs the U.S. billions, expends a tremendous amount of military resources, and leaves a major U.S. trading partner in pieces. China, the friendly neighbor, is right there to help rebuild. It's also untouched, because it didn't enter the war. How does this look bad for China?

2. China doesn't like the idea of the U.S. invading North Korea, so it weighs in...OR, it makes a move on Taiwan, knowing that the U.S. wont' take on China at the same time as it is desperately trying to stop the North Koreans from burning every inch of South Korea. This is a gamble, of course, but what makes you think it's one the Chinese won't take? It's a major political and economic victory if it pays off, and the Chinese military is more than capable of doing it. Or do you think a ten million man army would be easily wiped out by U.S. forces????

Now, back to the talks. China doesn't care if North Korea is a threat right now, because North Korea doesn't threaten China. It threatens Seoul, the U.S.'s partner. The only possible benefit that China can hope for in disarming North Korea is that in helping to disarm, China establishes itself as the regional hegemon over North Korea, so that in the future (after any changes or growth), China has first say on trade agreements and alliances. Now, if China isn't going to take this position because the US deals directly with North Korea, what incentive does China have to remove a threat to U.S. interests?

Basically, your thinking relies on the assumption that China is so terrified of a war, that it will concede all chances at an increase in its regional power to avoid it. Think about the kind of government China has, and then think about how plausible it is to assume that China wouldn't risk heavy military action to set itself up for a more powerful position in the future.

Specifically, in your scenario you mention more U.S. troops in South Korea. If South Korea is destroyed, which it will be, then whatever else happens that isn't going to bother China much. China will just be even more economically important to the region, because it will then be the only major industrial power. So who will get all of the business from the neighboring asian nations, which previously had worked closely with the U.S. via Seoul?

Here's what I think is leading to you coming up with the wrong idea about how North Korea impacts the U.S.'s role in the region: You assume too much that China would lose more than the U.S. in case of a war. As I've showed you above, that's not an asusmption that's sensible. Add to that the fact that China is not a battle-shy nation, and you've got a pretty good reason there to finally see why it is that China has no incentive to disarm North Korea apart from it gaining more influence over diplomacy and trade. It only gets that influence via the six way talks. If the U.S. deals with North Korea directly, what does the U.S. need China for? And if the Chinese aren't needed in the region to make negotiations work, then what power do they weild?

 

Becuase the ONLY way the US will leave that area is if N. and S. Korea unite. Do you agree to that? Even if they don't enter N. Korea conflict. The US will have a LARGE presense there than ever before. And not the entire of S. Korea will be destoryed. Seoul will be though. And not only that we will have Japan included as a base of support to Korea. Your giving to much credit to N. Korea in their ability to attack S. Korea as a WHOLE. And before that even happens we will have a force there by then if it gets to that level. We both don't know if China will pull out or not from the six party talks. We are both speculating on what they will do. We are also speculating what will happen if China does enter a war by attacking one of our allies.

China is the leading power of Asia besides us correct? Going into a war that they will lose. It will cost millions of lives but in the long run we out power them. The thing that scares me of this point is that we are BOTH nuclear powers.

It is in the intrest of China for the US to not get involved right? If N. Korea does not give up the nuclear weapons WE get involved. Thats not something China wants correct? I think we both can agree to that. We won't just attack blindly somethings would be done. I doubt if Bush or Kerry will jump into N. Korea. But I don't doubt that if N. Korea threaten's enough that either will hold back. "Bush is just not saying what he would do; he has specifically said on several occasions that a first strike against North Korea is not an option." This is what baffles me. Kerry is saying the same thing except, that if nothing works well then to protect us he will attack if we are threatened. What will Bush do if N. Korea does not listen to talks and pulls out? If they won't talk then what other option does Bush have to defend our country? Nothing, and he will let them nuke someone before we attack? Doubtful. See why what Kerry said is just logical and not stupid or threatening? Read this article we are not alone with pre-emptive strikes to N. Korea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm this a very complicated matter that neither of us has grasp of. Also if he threatens to nuke us once he has nuclear weapons do you think the US will just stand by and do nothing after he pulled away from the talks?

Also you do know we have had bilatertal talks before correct? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3705948.stm
"Analysts believe Pyongyang may be waiting to see who will win the November elections before it makes its next move. It has refused to take part in a fourth round of six-nation talks which was planned for this month." So now what?

You are right China does not want us to have bilateral talks. But I don't think they will leave the six party talks. "According to the U.S. official, China acknowledges that bilateral nuclear talks between the U.S. and North Korea are not only impossible but also unproductive." No where does it say China will pull out of the six party talks because of this.

Kerry will try both, I personaly think China will be more accomidating in the six party talks. I also think they will pressure N. Korea to stop talking to us in the bilateral talks. Will it happens we won't know. But Kerry isn't closing off that door.