The Korean war is over!!!

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299261,00.html

North and South Korea Sign Reconciliation Pact

SEOUL, South Korea ? North Korea pledged to detail its nuclear programs and disable all activities at its main reactor complex by year's end, then signed a wide-ranging reconciliation pact with South Korea Thursday promising to work for peace on the divided peninsula.

North and South Korea pledged to seek a permanent peace agreement replacing the 54-year-old cease-fire that ended the Korean War, a day after the North made its firmest commitment yet to nuclear disarmament.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun also promised to boost economic ties ? opening regular cargo railway service along restored tracks crossing their heavily armed border and creating a joint fishing zone on their disputed sea frontier.

The two leaders signed the wide-ranging agreement promising cooperation for peace after three days of summit meetings in Pyongyang, the second such meeting between the countries.

They shook hands and posed for the cameras. Roh then took Kim's right hand in his left and raised both their arms in the air like champion prizefighters before the two shared a champagne toast.

Under a separate multination agreement reached in February, Pyongyang was required to shut down and seal its sole operating reactor at its main nuclear complex, which it did in July after the U.S. reversed its hard-line policy against the regime. The second phase required it to disable the reactor and provide a full description of all its nuclear programs. Wednesday's agreement at talks in China called for that to happen by the end of the year.

The North said it would allow the U.S. to lead a group of experts to Pyongyang within two weeks "to prepare for disablement" of its nuclear facilities, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei said in Beijing. The U.S. wants the dismantling process to be so thorough that a nuclear facility could not be made operational for at least 12 months.

President Bush hailed the nuclear deal and said it reflected the "common commitment" of the talks to shut down North Korea's atomic weapons program. But the United States was secretive about what it promised in return.

The U.S. has agreed to lead disablement activities and provide the initial funding for them. Washington also reiterated its willingness to remove North Korea from a list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a key demand of Pyongyang.

No timetable was set for this action, but a joint statement said it will happen "in parallel with" the North Korean government following through on its commitment.

"The two sides will increase bilateral exchanges and enhance mutual trust," the statement says.

Besides the U.S. and China, three other countries ? Russia, South Korea and Japan ? participated in the talks with the North.

The five countries reiterated a commitment to deliver aid under the February disarmament deal granting the North the equivalent of 1 million tons of fuel oil. On Friday, in anticipation of the new agreement, the United States also announced it would spend up to $25 million to pay for 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil for North Korea.

This is not the first nuclear deal Washington has struck with the reclusive, communist regime. In a previous U.S. attempt to halt the North's nuclear weapons development, Pyongyang simply froze its arms programs under a 1994 deal.

The latest nuclear standoff began in 2002, after Washington accused the North of a secret uranium enrichment program ? in addition to its known plutonium-based facilities. Either material enriched to a sufficient extent can be used to make bombs.

The North then quickly restarted production of weapons-grade plutonium at its main nuclear complex, leading to its first-ever test nuclear explosion in October 2006. Experts say the North may have produced more than a dozen nuclear bombs.

Wednesday's agreement commits the North to make a "complete and correct declaration of all its nuclear programs" ? which the U.S. has said would include the uranium issue.

In the deal signed Thursday by Kim and Roh, the two Koreas "agreed to closely cooperate to end military hostility and ensure peace and easing of tension on the Korean peninsula."

But substantive progress on any peace treaty would require the participation of the U.S. and China, which also fought in the conflict. South Korea never signed the 1953 armistice ending the war.

The North and South also pledged to boost economic ties between the longtime foes, open regular cargo railway service along restored tracks crossing their heavily armed border and create a joint fishing zone on their disputed sea frontier.

And they will open an air corridor between Seoul and North Korea's tallest peak, Mount Paektu, a site sacred to all Koreans because it is the origin for the nation in its creation myth.

The two countries also said they would hold "frequent" summits, although no timing for such a meeting was given. Instead, the Koreas scheduled meetings between their defense and prime ministers in the coming months to build on progress from this week's summit.

Also Thursday, the North and South agreed that a joint cheering squad for the Koreas would travel to next year's Beijing Olympics via train. The countries have sought to field a joint team at international sporting events, but have differed over how athletes would be chosen.

In an issue deeply emotional to many aging Koreans, the sides also agreed to increase reunions between relatives separated by the border and hold such meetings "constantly." Since the first summit between the Koreas in June 2000, some 18,000 Koreans from separated families have met through face-to-face or video reunions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299261,00.html


The war is over!!
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Wow, this is quite incredible news. The first peace pact in the 54 years since the ceasefire? I'd like to be the first to say well done and congrats to this administration and every country that participated. This is truly something to be proud of. I hope North Korea becomes as much an industrialized nation as their Southern brothers.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Wow, George Bush has caused peace between the Koreas. He's a regular Jimmy Carter.

It's good to see the Koreas making this progress; you have to wonder how they'll reconcile much between a western-friendly modern democracy and an impoverished dictatorship.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

North Korea wasn't going to deal until they realized China no longer would back them. Six years ago China was still very much in their court. This was a simple exercise in political pressure put on North Korea by the US and it worked.

I would not doubt we are going to pay a lot for this, but buying peace only works when the other side is looking to sell. North Korea saw the collection of nations on one side of the table, arranged by Bush over the objection of all the so called experts here, and realized they were alone.

I am pretty sure we can find lots of forum posts here bemoaning Bush not having the US directly engage NK in talks and complaining about how stupid it was for him to use a coalition of nations to do so.

Sucks Narmer doesn't it, you just can't give them credit for doing something right. The Adminstration is not one man, or a few, its many. There are experts at all levels, some of them actually know what they are doing. Just like any other Administration.

Go figure.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its very difficult for me to trust Kin Jong Il. He fooled Bill Clinton and I have to wonder if he is hedging his bets with GWB. Also still mysterious is the Israeli bombing raid in Syria that still carries total censorship. But so rumor has, it was part of a Syrian N. Korea nuclear or missile program deal. Thus far no one is talking and all details seem to be under heavy censorship. But in semi unrelated news, Syria is still invited to the upcoming mid-east summit and demand talks include seized Syrian lands.

Meanwhile N. Korea can't feed its people and horribly lags the South in industrial productive capacity. While somewhat artificial because of a US led embargo against N. Korea, there is perhaps no starker contrast in nations with a common border in the world.
Even if N. Korea had all the embargoes lifted, it would take decades to even start being an Asian industrial power.

In a more ideal world S. Korea would simply take over the North and underwrite the costs
much like West Germany took on East Germany. I cannot see the ego of Kim Jong Il stretching that far but I can see the feel good showmanship we are now seeing.

I would like to have my pessimism pleasantly surprised but time will tell.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

North Korea wasn't going to deal until they realized China no longer would back them. Six years ago China was still very much in their court. This was a simple exercise in political pressure put on North Korea by the US and it worked.

I would not doubt we are going to pay a lot for this, but buying peace only works when the other side is looking to sell. North Korea saw the collection of nations on one side of the table, arranged by Bush over the objection of all the so called experts here, and realized they were alone.

I am pretty sure we can find lots of forum posts here bemoaning Bush not having the US directly engage NK in talks and complaining about how stupid it was for him to use a coalition of nations to do so.

Sucks Narmer doesn't it, you just can't give them credit for doing something right. The Adminstration is not one man, or a few, its many. There are experts at all levels, some of them actually know what they are doing. Just like any other Administration.

Go figure.

You have no idea what I'm talking about do you? Cause if you did, you wouldn't have written that garbage.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Uh, there has been a truce for 54 years. Now they have again declared a truce.
Whats the difference?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

I bet you are the type of person who could win the lottery and still find something to piss and moan about.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: techs
Uh, there has been a truce for 54 years. Now they have again declared a truce.
Whats the difference?

The only difference I see is NK now has nuclear technolog..... and free fuel oil.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Are we sure this isn't to ensure that the U.S. delivers that 50,000 tons of oil this month? I don't see another logical reason for Jong-Il to let this happen.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

I bet you are the type of person who could win the lottery and still find something to piss and moan about.

What I'm saying is that six years of drama could've been simply avoided if we assisted the North Koreans back in 2001. Hell, we could've just watched and let them do as they pleased. They wanted to set up an SEZ (special economic zone) and open up more to the world. The US poo-pooed the idea and made the Chinese arrest their foreign advisor on the project. That took NK back into their shell and six years later we have a deal that I strongly doubt will hold. It never held in the past and it won't hold now. IMHO, the North are probably just playing games with an exhausted Administration because they know that the next time they renig on a deal, the Bush Administration won't be so loud about it.

Face it, you cannot win everything on your term. Therefore it's better to entice the North with the lure of capitalism than threats and giving them aid. They were going to bite 6 years ago but Bush had better idea. lol. That didn't work out.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,229
136
I wonder how Syria?s reported nuclear technology from North Korea will play into this.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

I bet you are the type of person who could win the lottery and still find something to piss and moan about.

What I'm saying is that six years of drama could've been simply avoided if we assisted the North Koreans back in 2001. Hell, we could've just watched and let them do as they pleased. They wanted to set up an SEZ (special economic zone) and open up more to the world. The US poo-pooed the idea and made the Chinese arrest their foreign advisor on the project. That took NK back into their shell and six years later we have a deal that I strongly doubt will hold. It never held in the past and it won't hold now. IMHO, the North are probably just playing games with an exhausted Administration because they know that the next time they renig on a deal, the Bush Administration won't be so loud about it.

Face it, you cannot win everything on your term. Therefore it's better to entice the North with the lure of capitalism than threats and giving them aid. They were going to bite 6 years ago but Bush had better idea. lol. That didn't work out.

We werent winning anything from NK. They trampled the agreeement they signed with the Clinton administration. When Bush called them on it they cried foul. There is little point in pandering to regimes that break treaties they sign.

The bomb was developed through the 1990s. You cant develope a nuke in 1 year no matter how much you want to believe that.

What we should do is cutoff all supplies to that nation and starve them out. Why we prop that regime up with shipments is beyond me.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,229
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
What we should do is cutoff all supplies to that nation and starve them out. Why we prop that regime up with shipments is beyond me.

It is China's ravenous dog. Killing it would not bode well.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

I bet you are the type of person who could win the lottery and still find something to piss and moan about.

What I'm saying is that six years of drama could've been simply avoided if we assisted the North Koreans back in 2001. Hell, we could've just watched and let them do as they pleased. They wanted to set up an SEZ (special economic zone) and open up more to the world. The US poo-pooed the idea and made the Chinese arrest their foreign advisor on the project. That took NK back into their shell and six years later we have a deal that I strongly doubt will hold. It never held in the past and it won't hold now. IMHO, the North are probably just playing games with an exhausted Administration because they know that the next time they renig on a deal, the Bush Administration won't be so loud about it.

Face it, you cannot win everything on your term. Therefore it's better to entice the North with the lure of capitalism than threats and giving them aid. They were going to bite 6 years ago but Bush had better idea. lol. That didn't work out.

We werent winning anything from NK. They trampled the agreeement they signed with the Clinton administration. When Bush called them on it they cried foul. There is little point in pandering to regimes that break treaties they sign.

The bomb was developed through the 1990s. You cant develope a nuke in 1 year no matter how much you want to believe that.

What we should do is cutoff all supplies to that nation and starve them out. Why we prop that regime up with shipments is beyond me.

Why are you so obsessed with them having a nuclear bomb? Many nations do. What you should be more worried about is that they don't get desperate enough to sell it to others. That is where the SEZ could've helped. But Bush, proving his wide knowledge of the political world, poo-pooed the idea and became harsher towards NK. How did that all play out? Well, today we have NK promising to do the same things they said in the 1990s...except with nukes. So much for playing hardball.

People like you on this board and around the world seem to think that the private sector can do wonders. My question is why not believe in your own words. Is it because of a desire to triumph over others or because you are simply right in this political argument?

Hint: There is no right or wrong in politics.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
There is little point in pandering to regimes that break treaties they sign.

Oh, really?

Without going back to our native American treaties, would that be the treaties banning the development of a missile shield we signed and broke with the USSR? Perhaps it's the Geneva convention treaty we signed and broke? Or the very charter of the United Nations which the signatories agree to that bans them from war outside of certain conditions, none of which were met by our invasion of Iraq, leading the Secretary to declare our invasion illegal? These are not the only examples.

Ya, I didn't think you meant what you said. The good old righty double standard.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,054
55,548
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
What we should do is cutoff all supplies to that nation and starve them out. Why we prop that regime up with shipments is beyond me.

We prop up that country because we aren't insane. Do you have any doubt that they would start a war as opposed to collapsing in upon themselves?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer
This is six years and six months late. Bush fucked up big time. When the North Koreans wanted to join the family of nations back in 2001, Bush took a very aggressive stance against them and they went back into their shell and produced a nuclear bomb. Now this one agreement is supposed to change all that? Doubtful.

I bet you are the type of person who could win the lottery and still find something to piss and moan about.

What I'm saying is that six years of drama could've been simply avoided if we assisted the North Koreans back in 2001. Hell, we could've just watched and let them do as they pleased. They wanted to set up an SEZ (special economic zone) and open up more to the world. The US poo-pooed the idea and made the Chinese arrest their foreign advisor on the project. That took NK back into their shell and six years later we have a deal that I strongly doubt will hold. It never held in the past and it won't hold now. IMHO, the North are probably just playing games with an exhausted Administration because they know that the next time they renig on a deal, the Bush Administration won't be so loud about it.

Face it, you cannot win everything on your term. Therefore it's better to entice the North with the lure of capitalism than threats and giving them aid. They were going to bite 6 years ago but Bush had better idea. lol. That didn't work out.

We werent winning anything from NK. They trampled the agreeement they signed with the Clinton administration. When Bush called them on it they cried foul. There is little point in pandering to regimes that break treaties they sign.

The bomb was developed through the 1990s. You cant develope a nuke in 1 year no matter how much you want to believe that.

What we should do is cutoff all supplies to that nation and starve them out. Why we prop that regime up with shipments is beyond me.

Why are you so obsessed with them having a nuclear bomb? Many nations do. What you should be more worried about is that they don't get desperate enough to sell it to others. That is where the SEZ could've helped. But Bush, proving his wide knowledge of the political world, poo-pooed the idea and became harsher towards NK. How did that all play out? Well, today we have NK promising to do the same things they said in the 1990s...except with nukes. So much for playing hardball.

People like you on this board and around the world seem to think that the private sector can do wonders. My question is why not believe in your own words. Is it because of a desire to triumph over others or because you are simply right in this political argument?

Hint: There is no right or wrong in politics.

The bomb is irrelevant, they broke the treaty. That is why the response was what it was. There is no reason why we should have continued on our merry way if they werent holding up their end of the deal.

 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Narmer

Why are you so obsessed with them having a nuclear bomb? Many nations do. What you should be more worried about is that they don't get desperate enough to sell it to others. That is where the SEZ could've helped. But Bush, proving his wide knowledge of the political world, poo-pooed the idea and became harsher towards NK. How did that all play out? Well, today we have NK promising to do the same things they said in the 1990s...except with nukes. So much for playing hardball.

People like you on this board and around the world seem to think that the private sector can do wonders. My question is why not believe in your own words. Is it because of a desire to triumph over others or because you are simply right in this political argument?

Hint: There is no right or wrong in politics.

The bomb is irrelevant, they broke the treaty. That is why the response was what it was. There is no reason why we should have continued on our merry way if they werent holding up their end of the deal.


Really? Like when Bush broke the START Treaty after he came to power? Or when he broke the NPT by giving India nuclear technology? I see. So you won't be complaining when other nations break those treaties as well, right? Got it.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Narmer, regardless of its timing, how exactly is this new agreement a bad thing?

Please try to better articulate your major problems with the new agreement.