US 'appears to have drawn a line' at South Korea's push for end-of-war declaration

[TU Curmudgeon]

From The Korea Times

US 'appears to have drawn a line' at South Korea's push for end-of-war declaration​

Quickly developing discussions between South Korea and the United States on declaring a formal end to the Korean War appear to have hit a snag as Washington has made it clear that it cannot accept Seoul's proposal, at least at this time, according to diplomatic observers, Wednesday.

Since President Moon Jae-in once again floated the idea in a United Nations General Assembly speech in September, it has been gaining traction, as evidenced by six meetings occurring between South Korea's top nuclear envoy Noh Kyu-duk and his U.S. counterpart, Sung Kim, since August.

However, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan seems to have stepped on the brakes amid the Moon administration's push for an end-of-war declaration, Tuesday (local time).

COMMENT:-

The UN Resolution called for the countries of the world to ASSIST the government of the ROK to do two things [1] repel the invasion (which I think everyone can agree has been completed) and [2] stop the "war" between the two halves of Korea. If the two halves of Korea agree, between themselves, that the "war" is over that would complete the second half of the actions authorized by the UN Resolution.

So, exactly what position would the United States of America be in if its government insisted on maintaining an unwanted armed presence in the ROK (an independent and sovereign nation) after the terms of the UN Resolution had lapsed? The position would be that of an invading nation - wouldn't it?​

 

[Tigerace117]

From The Korea Times

US 'appears to have drawn a line' at South Korea's push for end-of-war declaration​

Quickly developing discussions between South Korea and the United States on declaring a formal end to the Korean War appear to have hit a snag as Washington has made it clear that it cannot accept Seoul's proposal, at least at this time, according to diplomatic observers, Wednesday.

Since President Moon Jae-in once again floated the idea in a United Nations General Assembly speech in September, it has been gaining traction, as evidenced by six meetings occurring between South Korea's top nuclear envoy Noh Kyu-duk and his U.S. counterpart, Sung Kim, since August.

However, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan seems to have stepped on the brakes amid the Moon administration's push for an end-of-war declaration, Tuesday (local time).

COMMENT:-

The UN Resolution called for the countries of the world to ASSIST the government of the ROK to do two things [1] repel the invasion (which I think everyone can agree has been completed) and [2] stop the "war" between the two halves of Korea. If the two halves of Korea agree, between themselves, that the "war" is over that would complete the second half of the actions authorized by the UN Resolution.

So, exactly what position would the United States of America be in if its government insisted on maintaining an unwanted armed presence in the ROK (an independent and sovereign nation) after the terms of the UN Resolution had lapsed? The position would be that of an invading nation - wouldn't it?​

Oh look, TU Curmudgeon was so desperately to demonize the US he missed the very next sentence in the article.

“ We may have somewhat different perspectives on the precise sequence or timing or conditions for different steps, but we are fundamentally aligned on the core strategic initiative here and on the belief that only through diplomacy are we going to really, truly be able to effectively make progress and that that diplomacy has to be effectively paired with deterrence," Sullivan said during a press briefing.

The U.S. stance is that North Korea should return to the negotiating table and in the process of nuclear talks, the end-of-war idea could be on the agenda, according to Park.”

The US doesn’t object to the idea; they just don’t think, given North Korea’s continued acts of aggression, that such a declaration is currently warranted.

Especially since...

“ North Korea has not responded to U.S. overtures since the Joe Biden administration took office in January, accusing the U.S. of harboring what it claims to be hostile intent toward Pyongyang. North Korea has also stayed away from direct, meaningful dialogue with the U.S. since early 2019.”

But hey, congrats on embarrassing yourself in your desperation to portray the US as a “invading nation”. Did you even read the article, or did you stop after the first three sentences?

 

[Grand Mal]

Oh look, TU Curmudgeon was so desperately to demonize the US he missed the very next sentence in the article.

“ We may have somewhat different perspectives on the precise sequence or timing or conditions for different steps, but we are fundamentally aligned on the core strategic initiative here and on the belief that only through diplomacy are we going to really, truly be able to effectively make progress and that that diplomacy has to be effectively paired with deterrence," Sullivan said during a press briefing.

The U.S. stance is that North Korea should return to the negotiating table and in the process of nuclear talks, the end-of-war idea could be on the agenda, according to Park.”

The US doesn’t object to the idea; they just don’t think, given North Korea’s continued acts of aggression, that such a declaration is currently warranted.

Especially since...

“ North Korea has not responded to U.S. overtures since the Joe Biden administration took office in January, accusing the U.S. of harboring what it claims to be hostile intent toward Pyongyang. North Korea has also stayed away from direct, meaningful dialogue with the U.S. since early 2019.”

But hey, congrats on embarrassing yourself in your desperation to portray the US as a “invading nation”. Did you even read the article, or did you stop after the first three sentences?

This won't end well for you...

 

[Tigerace117]

This won't end well for you...

I literally quoted from the article the OP provided, so not sure where you are getting that.

 

[tanj]

From The Korea Times

US 'appears to have drawn a line' at South Korea's push for end-of-war declaration​

Quickly developing discussions between South Korea and the United States on declaring a formal end to the Korean War appear to have hit a snag as Washington has made it clear that it cannot accept Seoul's proposal, at least at this time, according to diplomatic observers, Wednesday.

Since President Moon Jae-in once again floated the idea in a United Nations General Assembly speech in September, it has been gaining traction, as evidenced by six meetings occurring between South Korea's top nuclear envoy Noh Kyu-duk and his U.S. counterpart, Sung Kim, since August.

However, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan seems to have stepped on the brakes amid the Moon administration's push for an end-of-war declaration, Tuesday (local time).

COMMENT:-

​

The UN Resolution called for the countries of the world to ASSIST the government of the ROK to do two things [1] repel the invasion (which I think everyone can agree has been completed) and [2] stop the "war" between the two halves of Korea. If the two halves of Korea agree, between themselves, that the "war" is over that would complete the second half of the actions authorized by the UN Resolution.​

​

So, exactly what position would the United States of America be in if its government insisted on maintaining an unwanted armed presence in the ROK (an independent and sovereign nation) after the terms of the UN Resolution had lapsed? The position would be that of an invading nation - wouldn't it?​

hmmmm.... imagine a democrat controlled, democrat majority government putting themselves in the position of being an "invading nation".
sure, it is true that every president since the beginning of the conflict there is effectively in the same position, but when its a republican president it is the republicans to blame. and when its a democrat in office, it is the US to blame. Democrats never seem to take the blame for anything.
if democrats are so opposed to such things, why is Biden not cutting and running from ROK like he did from Afghanistan?

so, go ahead mr Biden. take some more bold brave action like you did in Afghanistan and let the chips fall (i.e. loss of human life) where they may. cave in to the nuclear aspirations of NK just like you caved in to China and Russia and the Taliban.

 

[Mycroft]

From The Korea Times

US 'appears to have drawn a line' at South Korea's push for end-of-war declaration​

Quickly developing discussions between South Korea and the United States on declaring a formal end to the Korean War appear to have hit a snag as Washington has made it clear that it cannot accept Seoul's proposal, at least at this time, according to diplomatic observers, Wednesday.

Since President Moon Jae-in once again floated the idea in a United Nations General Assembly speech in September, it has been gaining traction, as evidenced by six meetings occurring between South Korea's top nuclear envoy Noh Kyu-duk and his U.S. counterpart, Sung Kim, since August.

However, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan seems to have stepped on the brakes amid the Moon administration's push for an end-of-war declaration, Tuesday (local time).

COMMENT:-

​

The UN Resolution called for the countries of the world to ASSIST the government of the ROK to do two things [1] repel the invasion (which I think everyone can agree has been completed) and [2] stop the "war" between the two halves of Korea. If the two halves of Korea agree, between themselves, that the "war" is over that would complete the second half of the actions authorized by the UN Resolution.​

​

So, exactly what position would the United States of America be in if its government insisted on maintaining an unwanted armed presence in the ROK (an independent and sovereign nation) after the terms of the UN Resolution had lapsed? The position would be that of an invading nation - wouldn't it?​

It doesn't matter.

NK doesn't call the shots. China does. And China won't agree to anything unless it's to their advantage. No agreement on calling an end to the war. No agreement on nuclear talks. There is absolutely nothing the US...under the Biden pukes...can do to get China to do anything.

China is more likely to keep things going as they are so they have bargaining/intimidation power.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

hmmmm.... imagine a democrat controlled, democrat majority government putting themselves in the position of being an "invading nation".
sure, it is true that every president since the beginning of the conflict there is effectively in the same position, but when its a republican president it is the republicans to blame. and when its a democrat in office, it is the US to blame. Democrats never seem to take the blame for anything.
if democrats are so opposed to such things, why is Biden not cutting and running from ROK like he did from Afghanistan?

so, go ahead mr Biden. take some more bold brave action like you did in Afghanistan and let the chips fall (i.e. loss of human life) where they may. cave in to the nuclear aspirations of NK just like you caved in to China and Russia and the Taliban.

Well, for one thing, Mr. Biden doesn't have to deal with an agreement that Mr. Trump entered into.

IF, and please note that the word "if" implies a conditional, the government of the ROK decides for itself that it wants to "end the war" (mainly by publicly acknowledging that it ended more than 50 years ago) and wants the US forces out of the ROK (or at least out of the command of the ROK military), then the US would be able to conduct an orderly redeployment from one friendly country to another friendly country. Not only that, but the government of the DPRK is not as stupid as most Americans seem to think that it is and is well aware that those US troops (plus forces from other countries as well) would be back in Korea in short order if the DPRK government tried invading again.

PS - There is no need to "cave in" to "the nuclear aspirations of NK" since the DPRK already has nuclear weapons. As far as "caving in to China" is concerned, that isn't the correct term "inability to compete" describes the situation more correctly. As far as "caving in to Russia" is concerned, my understanding is that Russia LOST "The Cold War". As far as "caving in to the Taliban" is concerned, the US government simply (finally) faced up to the reality that the Afghans DID NOT WANT what the US government attempted to force them to accept and that the Afghans were prepared to accept ANY "domestic" government over any "foreign" government.

PPS - If my sources of information are correct, the current state of the Taliban leadership is that of (essentially) wandering around with their heads in their hands moaning "Why did we ever win and get ourselves into the position where WE had to take care of the problems of Afghanistan and deal with the terrorists what we REALLY don't want here?".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It doesn't matter.

NK doesn't call the shots. China does. And China won't agree to anything unless it's to their advantage. No agreement on calling an end to the war. No agreement on nuclear talks. There is absolutely nothing the US...under the Biden pukes...can do to get China to do anything.

China is more likely to keep things going as they are so they have bargaining/intimidation power.

While you may be correct (although that would come close to being a first), it is the US government that is publicly admitting that it is blatantly interfering with the internal affairs of an allied country.

PS - I rather suspect that the PRC would be more than happy to have the current ROK as a "special economic zone" within a unified Korea. Should that happen, then you can bet that the development of the current DPRK would be greatly expedited in order to prove what a success even such an economically backward country as the former DPRK was can enjoy under the benefits of "good relations" with the PRC.

PPS - You should also consider the importance of "face" in this situation.

IF "A" tell "B" publicly that "B" may not do something that "B" wants to do, THEN "B" loses "face" if it doesn't do it (the US/ROK situation). This decreases the chance that "B" will do what it is told to do.

however

IF "C" privately tells "D" that it may not do something that "D" wants to do (and makes it quite clear that it will crush "D" and install "E" in their place if "D" does it), THEN "D" does not lose "face" if it doesn't do it (the PRC/DPRK situation). This increases the chance that "D" will do what it is told to do.
​

The government of the PRC seems to have a much clearer grasp of that than the government of the US does.

 

[nvflash]

War is easy, diplomacy is hard.

 

[TomFitz]

It doesn't matter.

NK doesn't call the shots. China does. And China won't agree to anything unless it's to their advantage. No agreement on calling an end to the war. No agreement on nuclear talks. There is absolutely nothing the US...under the Biden pukes...can do to get China to do anything.

China is more likely to keep things going as they are so they have bargaining/intimidation power.

You don’t know much about Korean politics if you believe that.

Moscow is North Korea’s traditional ally, not China. Indeed, the North Korean state owes its existance to Stalin.

And before Kim Jung Un departed for trump’s pageant in Indonesia, he took the long ride on the Trans Siberian Railroad to confer with Putin on how to handle Trump. Putin explained that all you had to do was appeal to trump’s colossal vanity, take advantage of his total ignorance and indifference to his actual job, and make sure he gets on TV. Then trump will do anything you want him to do.

 

[tanj]

Well, for one thing, Mr. Biden doesn't have to deal with an agreement that Mr. Trump entered into.

IF, and please note that the word "if" implies a conditional, the government of the ROK decides for itself that it wants to "end the war" (mainly by publicly acknowledging that it ended more than 50 years ago) and wants the US forces out of the ROK (or at least out of the command of the ROK military), then the US would be able to conduct an orderly redeployment from one friendly country to another friendly country. Not only that, but the government of the DPRK is not as stupid as most Americans seem to think that it is and is well aware that those US troops (plus forces from other countries as well) would be back in Korea in short order if the DPRK government tried invading again.

PS - There is no need to "cave in" to "the nuclear aspirations of NK" since the DPRK already has nuclear weapons. As far as "caving in to China" is concerned, that isn't the correct term "inability to compete" describes the situation more correctly. As far as "caving in to Russia" is concerned, my understanding is that Russia LOST "The Cold War". As far as "caving in to the Taliban" is concerned, the US government simply (finally) faced up to the reality that the Afghans DID NOT WANT what the US government attempted to force them to accept and that the Afghans were prepared to accept ANY "domestic" government over any "foreign" government.

PPS - If my sources of information are correct, the current state of the Taliban leadership is that of (essentially) wandering around with their heads in their hands moaning "Why did we ever win and get ourselves into the position where WE had to take care of the problems of Afghanistan and deal with the terrorists what we REALLY don't want her

who mentioned any trump deal? if south korea wants us out and we don't leave, that is purely on the shoulders of Biden. for all his attempts at dealing with n. korea in attempts to get to a settlement, the left had nothing but criticism and derision for trump on the matter.

the US was perfectly capable of carying out an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, but we all see what Biden managed to do to that...
I very much doubt that Biden would ever send troops back after a withdrawal. his political base absolutely hates such actions and we have already seen with Afghanistan that he is perfectly willing to ignore any chaos left in his wake since there are still americans left in afghanistan despite his insistence that there are not.
china is only where it is now because they have been stealing our technology for years.
biden flat out gave afghanistan to the taliban by inexplicably closing bagram before the withdrawal.
the withdrawal wasn't the problem it was the way that Biden botched it. Trump had already planned on a withdrawal, but they violated the terms of the deal that was made.
that is why biden was not bound to any prior agreement. the deal had been voided already.

Obama was right: never underestimate Joe's ability to foul things up.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Poor South Korea, so reliant on the United States that they can't even decide if they're at war or not unless they run it past the United States.

 

[TomFitz]

who mentioned any trump deal? if south korea wants us out and we don't leave, that is purely on the shoulders of Biden. for all his attempts at dealing with n. korea in attempts to get to a settlement, the left had nothing but criticism and derision for trump on the matter.

the US was perfectly capable of carying out an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, but we all see what Biden managed to do to that...
I very much doubt that Biden would ever send troops back after a withdrawal. his political base absolutely hates such actions and we have already seen with Afghanistan that he is perfectly willing to ignore any chaos left in his wake since there are still americans left in afghanistan despite his insistence that there are not.
china is only where it is now because they have been stealing our technology for years.
biden flat out gave afghanistan to the taliban by inexplicably closing bagram before the withdrawal.
the withdrawal wasn't the problem it was the way that Biden botched it. Trump had already planned on a withdrawal, but they violated the terms of the deal that was made.
that is why biden was not bound to any prior agreement. the deal had been voided already.

Obama was right: never underestimate Joe's ability to foul things up.

Except Obama never said that. Some guy in your AM radio made it up and right wingers were dumb enough to believe it.

 

[braindrain]

Except Obama never said that. Some guy in your AM radio made it up and right wingers were dumb enough to believe it.

You should probably recheck your sources before calling anyone else dumb. Otherwise it could have you making some claims that make you look rather dumb.

 

[tanj]

Except Obama never said that. Some guy in your AM radio made it up and right wingers were dumb enough to believe it.

and yet it seems to be so very true.

 

[tanj]

Except Obama never said that. Some guy in your AM radio made it up and right wingers were dumb enough to believe it.

also searching on snopes turns up nothing. surely they would have something on the issue.
a similar web search turned up nothing refuting it as well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

who mentioned any trump deal? if south korea wants us out and we don't leave, that is purely on the shoulders of Biden. for all his attempts at dealing with n. korea in attempts to get to a settlement, the left had nothing but criticism and derision for trump on the matter.

the US was perfectly capable of carying out an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, but we all see what Biden managed to do to that...
I very much doubt that Biden would ever send troops back after a withdrawal. his political base absolutely hates such actions and we have already seen with Afghanistan that he is perfectly willing to ignore any chaos left in his wake since there are still americans left in afghanistan despite his insistence that there are not.
china is only where it is now because they have been stealing our technology for years.
biden flat out gave afghanistan to the taliban by inexplicably closing bagram before the withdrawal.
the withdrawal wasn't the problem it was the way that Biden botched it. Trump had already planned on a withdrawal, but they violated the terms of the deal that was made.
that is why biden was not bound to any prior agreement. the deal had been voided already.

Obama was right: never underestimate Joe's ability to foul things up.

Your post reminds me of the American military assessment of the Japanese prior to 07 DEC 41, and that was that

[1] the Japanese aren't capable of building equipment as good as the American equipment

[2] even if they could, they couldn't build enough of it to be useful

[3] even if they could, they couldn't plan a campaign against the American defences

[4] even if they could, they couldn't actually organize that campaign against American defences;

[5] even if they could, the Japanese are physically incapable of carrying out that campaign

[6] even if they could, the Japanese would be physically outclassed by the Americans

[7] even if they weren't, the Japanese training would be inferior to that of the Americans.

THEREFORE

[8] there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
​

IOW - rather detached from reality.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Except Obama never said that. Some guy in your AM radio made it up and right wingers were dumb enough to believe it.

It was reported by Politico, about as left field as reasonable reporting it gets. How do you not know this? Or did you know that, and posted a lie deliberately?

 

[Metric Mouse]

also searching on snopes turns up nothing. surely they would have something on the issue.
a similar web search turned up nothing refuting it as well.

‘The President Was Not Encouraging’: What Obama Really Thought About Biden

Behind the friendship was a more complicated relationship, which now drives the former vice president to prove his partner wrong.

www.politico.com

He was just making up bs.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

‘The President Was Not Encouraging’: What Obama Really Thought About Biden

Behind the friendship was a more complicated relationship, which now drives the former vice president to prove his partner wrong.

www.politico.com

He was just making up bs.

Or passing along _[till in the blank]_ hand BS.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I very much doubt that Biden would ever send troops back after a withdrawal.

Well I should hope not.
That really wouldn't be much of a "withdrawal" if he did that would it?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Or passing along _[till in the blank]_ hand BS.

I think that poster is pretty well-known for that.

 

[tanj]

Your post reminds me of the American military assessment of the Japanese prior to 07 DEC 41, and that was that

​

[1] the Japanese aren't capable of building equipment as good as the American equipment​

​

[2] even if they could, they couldn't build enough of it to be useful​

​

[3] even if they could, they couldn't plan a campaign against the American defences​

​

[4] even if they could, they couldn't actually organize that campaign against American defences;​

​

[5] even if they could, the Japanese are physically incapable of carrying out that campaign​

​

[6] even if they could, the Japanese would be physically outclassed by the Americans​

​

[7] even if they weren't, the Japanese training would be inferior to that of the Americans.​

​

THEREFORE​

​

[8] there is absolutely nothing to worry about.​

​

IOW - rather detached from reality.

how does that apply to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan?
not seeing the parallel, all I see is that it is prelude for your last line calling it detatched from reality.
so, what is it about my statement that you quoted back was detatched from reality? that the US was capable of an orderly withdrawal? that the taliban had already violated agreements made by trump making the timeline invalid?

 

[tanj]

‘The President Was Not Encouraging’: What Obama Really Thought About Biden

Behind the friendship was a more complicated relationship, which now drives the former vice president to prove his partner wrong.

www.politico.com

He was just making up bs.

who is he? the democrat sourced for this from the linked story?
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes from Obama kept appearing through the race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president warning, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to **** things up.” Speaking of his own waning understanding of today’s Democratic electorate, especially in Iowa, Obama told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

 

[Metric Mouse]

who is he? the democrat sourced for this from the linked story?
"Yet searing, anonymously sourced quotes from Obama kept appearing through the race. One Democrat who spoke to Obama recalled the former president warning, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to **** things up.” Speaking of his own waning understanding of today’s Democratic electorate, especially in Iowa, Obama told one 2020 candidate: “And you know who really doesn’t have it? Joe Biden.”

No, TomFitz.