tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post5440338561393963964..comments2023-10-30T09:23:42.803-05:00Comments on Some Assembly Required: SAR #9096Charles Kingsley Michaelson, IIIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04364694465614330540noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-61271829157207455132009-04-06T09:51:00.000-05:002009-04-06T09:51:00.000-05:00I do not disagree. But we don't live in a perfect ...I do not disagree. But we don't live in a perfect world.<BR/><BR/>I am biased here. I have a deep affection for the ROK. The Koreans have suffered so much through much of their history. The last 50 years (for the ROK) have been the most stable, most prosperous and all together 'best'. I'd like the DPRK not to derail that, and ultimately join.<BR/><BR/>The Chinese will have to pull the bottom cards out on KJI, and I suspect they will. Until then, the DPRK is a meaningful threat to stability in the region. <BR/><BR/>I know, I know. But what of America in Iraq etc. Yes, I agree. But North East Asia is different, and the American relationship with the region is different. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, I doubt we'll agree, and that is ok.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks greatly for this site.Brocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-42164679297986842552009-04-06T09:34:00.000-05:002009-04-06T09:34:00.000-05:00Brock - My position on nearly everything is a bit ...Brock - My position on nearly everything is a bit cynical. <BR/><BR/>In this instance, as in the matter of Iran's nuclear experiments (were there such a thing) or Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (had there been such a thing) is that it is more than a tad arrogant of the US to tell another nation what it might or might not do in the realm of developing a rocket. <BR/> <BR/>Yes, there is some concern that they may one day use it against a neighbor - but no one has elected us Bully. It is just another way of "preventive attack", perhaps cheaper than attacking Iraq but no less arrogant nor morally defensible.<BR/>- ckmCharles Kingsley Michaelson, IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364694465614330540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7806136543904112143.post-11544103728326774332009-04-06T08:24:00.000-05:002009-04-06T08:24:00.000-05:00Good morning,I greatly enjoy your daily updates an...Good morning,<BR/><BR/>I greatly enjoy your daily updates and thank you for your effort. I seldom find much to disagree with.<BR/><BR/>However, your position on North Korea is a tad cynical. While I do not believe that the United States ought to be deeply involved in the region (I lived in Korea for many years) it does not follow that the DPRK should be left a free hand. <BR/><BR/>The primary problem with the DPRK's belligerence lies in the Japanese response. Should the Japanese feel sufficiently threatened, they will (as would be reasonable) remove themselves from their American-imposed pacifist constitution and peruse nuclear weapons. This has the potential to severely harm "harmony" in the region, primarily with the Chinese. <BR/><BR/>Further, there stands today a serious risk of conflict in the Koreas. The balance of power must remain with the ROK. There are anywhere from 10-15,000 pieces of artillery on the DPRK's southern border aimed at Seoul-Incheon (a population of around 25 million people, equal almost to the entire population of Canada). The ROK does not have nuclear weapons, yet. Given the emotive animosities in the region, it is best that the DPRK is restrained by the "international community", even if that means Uncle Sam and Japan.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, thanks kindly for this site. I'd like to say it brightens my day....Brocknoreply@blogger.com