North Korea urges EU to keep Bush at bay

[kskiska]

North Korea called on Europe to prevent the peninsula from becoming a "second Iraq" yesterday, as Pyongyang's scepticism grows about the credibility of six-party talks aimed at resolving its year-long nuclear standoff with the US.

In a rare interview with the overseas media, the foreign ministry spokesman, So Chol, expressed doubts to the Guardian about Pyongyang's participation in a round of negotiations scheduled for next month. He said US officials viewed the North as an "evil" country which must disarm without precondition.

He was referring to a speech in Seoul this month by the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who called Kim Jong-il a military dictator who ran an evil regime which starved its people. The North Korean media responded by calling Mr Rumsfeld a "political pygmy" who was worse than Adolf Hitler.

Mr So said the comments went beyond name-calling. "If these speeches show the official stance of the United States, I'm worried about whether the six-party talks will reopen again," he said.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1095749,00.html

[ConcernedCanuk]

1. "atomic bombs look like his best bet to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein"

. . NOt that I'm a great supporter of NK, but I can't disagree with Mr. Kim's analysis/fears.

. . From the Article:

. . " North Korea has swayed between bellicose threats to develop its nuclear deterrent and offers of peace talks. Divisions in the Bush administration have led the US to give out conflicting signals.

China, North Korea's closest ally, is exerting political pressure and offering financial incentives for it to return to talks. Diplomats in Beijing and Seoul say the most likely date for a new round of talks is December 17-19 - but Pyongyang-based observers say it is far from certain that North Korea will attend.

Neither side appears to be in any hurry to resolve the differences. President Bush has said he loathes President Kim and will never reward his nuclear blackmail, but with the US military bogged down in Iraq the Pentagon is opposed to the opening of a second front. To Mr Kim, atomic bombs look like his best bet to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein"

/snip/

Saddam was "stripped" pretty well Militarily,

and the USA blew the crap out of Iraq anyways,

so I can't blame NK's distrust of the USA.

[teryang]

2. There is a lot of bluffing going on here

...on both sides. The respective positions of the American side and the N.Koreans is weak. American invective could involve death and bloodshed primarily for the Korean people.

Korean rhetoric and bluffing is motivated by desparation. They are simply in no position to win a war. Cornering someone and giving them no way out is a very dangerous tactic by our junta. Since their idea of effective military operations is based on the remote controlled war in Afghanistan complete with Lawrence of Arabia tactics and the conflict we are losing in Iraq, one has to question their seriously defective judgement. The Japanese and American position has always been to keep the peninsula divided. The Chinese may come around to a new view.

I am beginning to perceive a situation in which American misjudgement results in a complete military or diplomatic victory by the mainland Chinese due to our junta's incompetence on Asian matters. Such a victory may be the result of war in which the Chinese are forced to intervene due to their strategic interests or it could occur without conflict in a crisis atmosphere. China could acquiesce to the diplomatic defeat and ultimate collapse of the north with Korean unification taking place under S.Korean leadership provided all American presence on the peninsula is terminated. In other words Korean unification would occur under mainland Chinese sponsorship, with the new enlarged Korea becoming a buffer state and the northeast Asian alliance system sponsored by the US to maintain the balance of power on the peninsula eliminated.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Certainly No Place * Cares About

> American invective could involve death and bloodshed primarily for the Korean people.

And some blue states on the West Coast. :-( :nuke:

[reknewcomer]

3. I wonder why

No matter which party is in the WH NK appears to want nukes for whatever reason. You and we both know that they will never be allowed enough nukes to persue the goals of the sick fuck running NK right now.