politics

U.S., Japan, S Korea show united stance on N Korea

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

well, well, well. they've finally learned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peace through strength and dignity. Talk for the sake of talking to appease the mafia of NK and opportunistic self-serving communist China is going nowhere. Now, is the time for China to stop talking about peace and stability of the region; but doing concrete things thus make it happens. If price need to be paid, let be it. It is 21th century, and no justification for slavery of the mass like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good for South Korea and Japan. It's about time we stopped appeasing the North Korean dictatorship. And it's about time we put the onus where it really belongs, on China to control North Korea's unacceptable behavior.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if we all go back and remember the reason why the US went to war in iraq, it was because there was "evidence" that there were WMDs there. Also some may argue that Saddam was a dictator that killed tens of thousands of people, if not more. So the US attacked and decimated the country back to the stone ages.

here we have North Korea, a country which is killing its people by starving them of basic needs like food and fuel. Poverty and malnutrition are rampant. And add on top of that, there is no beating around the bush when it comes to the proliferation of their nuclear weapons program. They're practically waving it in the face of the world, saying 'Look at me! Look what we've done!' Don't mess with us!' There is no sugar coating when it comes to what they've accomplished with their WMDs.

So why is it that even after one of the US's biggest allies in Asia is attacked, repeatedly, with the sinking of the Cheonan, and then the bombing of Yeongpyeong, nothing is done? And when North Korea decides to float a missile over Honshu, the main island of the US's other strong ally, Japan, there are no retaliatory actions nor are there any consequences?

what was this meeting supposed to accomplish? seems like not a heck of a lot. 'We stand united.' well so f n what?

and btw, it says there were 3 at the meeting, why is it that only maehara (halfwit) and clinton are shown in the pic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What united stance? There is only American stance and the same stance the American dictates SK and Japan to take.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

iWorld....I concur

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sharpie, i thought everyone understood the severity of an A-bomb. That's the key for any weak nation to stand up to the super powers. It levels the playing field and thats what N.Korea has done! They have nothing to lose if war breaks out and so much to gain when they nuke japan and s.korea. I really thought this was obvious?? So Ya, the only part i agree with you is on the: "what was this meeting supposed to accomplish? seems like not a heck of a lot. 'We stand united.' well so f n what?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sharpie at 08:29 AM JST - 7th December So why is it that even after one of the US's biggest allies in Asia is >attacked, repeatedly, with the sinking of the Cheonan, and then the >bombing of Yeongpyeong, nothing is done? And when North Korea decides to >float a missile over Honshu, the main island of the US's other strong >ally, Japan, there are no retaliatory actions nor are there any >consequences?

Because just as South Korea and Japan have a defense agreement with the United States, North Korea also has one with China dating back to 1961. Hence a straight up attack risks a US-China war.

btw, it says there were 3 at the meeting, why is it that only maehara > (halfwit) and clinton are shown in the pic?

On what basis is FM Maehara a "halfwit" and what's your qualification to pass judgement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

iWorld at 08:34 AM JST - 7th December What united stance? There is only American stance and the same stance >the American dictates SK and Japan to take

Sure, Just like China's stance is North Korea's stance. So what's the problem?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sharpie at 08:29 AM JST - 7th December. So why is it that even after one of the US's biggest allies in Asia is attacked, repeatedly, with the sinking of the Cheonan, and then the bombing of Yeongpyeong, nothing is done? And when North Korea decides to float a missile over Honshu, the main island of the US's other strong ally, Japan, there are no retaliatory actions nor are there any consequences?

It seems so simple for South Korea to retaliate and bomb their NK nuclear faciltity or other targets. If you do this, NK has nothing to lose but much to gain. There is a possiblity that NK will launch a proven ICBM to the center of Seoul or Pusan, then what would happen? A mass economic chaos and start of a war in Korean Peninsula? Even though South Korea and U.S. shows force, they prefer to have peaceful solution because they have too much to lose. What South Korea and U.S. prefer to do is to have direct communication with NK rather than ineffective third party like China that rewards NK with humanitarian goods as a solution. This has to stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people here need to hear what the south koreans say, "we feed them and they kill us".

Kim say that it attacked because it was provoked by the military exercise of South Korea. If the official reason was discourage ROK from do it again, it backfired because ROK decided to made more exercises. If the idea was to force restart the six-party talks for demand more food, it completely backfired because ROK dont' want to reward violence and their allies feel the same because it encourage more attacks. Every time a Kim become a new "leader" they kill south koreans civilians. That is a sick way of legitimize their support with the military for keep starving the north koreans civilians for another 60 or 70 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"we feed them and they kill us"

So true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, so true indeed, it really is as simple as that, and as simple as y'all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike Iraq under Saddam , NK actually has WMD and maybe even capable to deliver it. Military option might have been feasible in early 90s, but that window of opportunity is gone. Back then almost everyone was 100% sure NK's days are numbered because we've seen how East Germany just disappeared in couple of months. More than 20 years passed and nothing happened. Why? Because China was keeping Kim regime alive all these years and will keep doing that for another couple of centuries if that serves their interests. Unless worldwide oil embargo against China is put in place, free oil will keep flowing to NK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US will never attack NK without the consent and cooperation of SK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sharpie thinks

if we all go back and remember the reason why the US went to war in iraq, it was because there was "evidence" that there were WMDs there

Wrong. There were 23 separate justifications outlined, as resolutions, and the threat of WMDs was but one of them. Furthermore, absence of said WMDs is not the same as saying none existed. A number of experts reported the existence of a WMD program was never in doubt.

But more to the point: North Korea is not Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a catch 22 situation, there are no easy solutions and each solution carries risk, but war would leave all losers, even the north.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How expedient it is for Japan to naturally pick the American side.

We ought to remember that it was because of Japan's sloppy handling of the war that Korea was partitioned. The US and the ROK government wouldn't give a crap about creating North Korean civilian casualties if that should bring about a win-win situation. However, Japan has a ongoing duty to balance conflicting interests between its former colonies, but this alignment with the South clearly implies that the DPJ has little or no re-collection of that duty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has a ongoing duty to balance conflicting interests between its former colonies...

I do not see the correlation between past colonization and an ‘ongoing duty to balance conflicting interests’ between the two Koreas. It seems natural that Japan should side more heavily with the United States and the South; they are both allies and democratic states. Additionally, the United States and the Republic of Korea do kidnap Japan’s citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do not see the correlation between past colonization and an ‘ongoing duty to balance conflicting interests’ between the two Koreas. It seems natural that Japan should side more heavily with the United States and the South; they are both allies and democratic states. Additionally, the United States and the Republic of Korea do kidnap Japan’s citizens.

that is the prevailing attitude amongst Japanese voters and exactly why this country will never be a respectable player on the global stage.

I'd hate to think that Japan would rather save one South Korean or Japanese for the sacrifice of two or more North Koreans, but unfortunately that is the equation we readily accept.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All agree that the' US' provocative behavior jeopardizes peace and stability in Asia...it seems to apply both ways

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd hate to think that Japan would rather save one South Korean or Japanese for the sacrifice of two or more North Koreans, but unfortunately that is the equation we readily accept.

You are putting words into other people’s mouths. I certainly did not say that the lives of North Koreans were of less value than any other people. Stop using eisegesis to interpret other people’s words and thoughts. I personally know North Koreans and have assisted them with humanitarian aid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites