A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
July 10, 2006Isn't it time to talk with North Korea?Isn't this getting out of hand? On Meet the Press former UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, suggested that the six party talks between the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea were failing to produce any measurable result and it was time for the Bush administration to sit down unilaterally with King Jong-Il. I am not an expert in foreign diplomacy at all, but Richardson made a lot of sense to me. I have no problem with the concept of the six party talks, but I do have a problem with relying on other nations such as China and Russia to further diplomacy aimed at protecting American lives. China's interests appear to be China's interests. Japan is threatening a preemptive strike that they apparently aren't capable of carrying out, which makes one wonder if they will rely on their closest ally in the world to do their dirty work for them. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has all but suggested it is time for the use of military force, but I don't see a scenario where this doesn't result in at least the temporary fall of South Korea. Regardless, isn't it time to do something other than stay the course? The Bush administration seems to believe that the six party talks will eventually be successful, but aren't providing much in the way of benchmarks and timelines. The wing nuts on the right love to post pictures of Richardson and Madeline Albright with Jong-Il, but the fact of the matter is that under the watch of the previous administration, progress was made in regards to North Korea, or at least that is the current perception. Let’s not forget that the same right wing elements of the Republican Party once accused Ronald Reagan of compromising with communists over his talks with Gorbachev. I don't see where this administration has done anything but set us back on this issue. I don’t understand what is currently being done to fix this problem. I'm all for missile defense, but am not confident regarding its readiness. Comments
Mathew, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has all but suggested it is time for the use of military force, but I don't see a scenario where this doesn't result in at least the temporary fall of South Korea. Who is saying that a resumption of war on the Korean Peninsula would lead to even a "temporary fall" of South Korea? I'd be very interested in knowing where you're getting this information. the fact of the matter is that under the watch of the previous administration, progress was made in regards to North Korea, or at least that is the current perception. I'm going to highly disagree with this characterization. If you define "progress" as a situation where two countries come to a comprehensive agreement, and one side then immediately works against the spirit and the letter of that agreement by pursuing its agenda, while both sides publicly pretend that the agreement is working, then I suppose that "progress" was being made. But I would personally call it sticking your head in the sand. Personally, I'm not sure if the problem is something we can solve right now. The time to have acted against North Korea was in the 1990's, when famine had devestated their citizens and they didn't yet have a nuclear weapon or the capability to deliver it. Unfortunately, back then we thought "progress" was striking a deal and then turning a blind-eye as the North Koreans systematically undermined the agreement and developed nuclear weapons anyway. At this point, my guess is the Administration is going to pursue a course where they can reduce the North Korean ability to strike at the US or our allies (through missile defense), while simultaneously hoping that the downward spiral of living conditions for the North Koreans eventually (and perhaps ultimately) leads to a soft revolution against the Kim Jong Il regime. The gamble there, of course, is that it may be decades away, and-- worse yet-- the final act of a dposed Kim regime that has nothing to lose very well might be to lash out and launch nukes against South Korea, Japan, and ourselves. Again, though, the time to have acted was when we had freedom of action and a nuclear monopoly on the Peninsula. Unfortunately, like we're seeing with Iran at this very moment, American politicians would rather stick their head in the sand and hope that things work out instead of making the tough call and doing what has to be done. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 05:23 PMBobby, My only concern with going down the unilateral diplomacy route is that I would worry that Russia and China - who are surely our most important allies in dealing with North Korea - might feel excluded, and thus, less likely to work with us. China, in particular, might feel actively threatened by the presence of a war on the peninsular, since such a conflict will end with a U.S. army on China's border. I'm not hostile to the idea of military action, and if anyone's going to strike first, better it were us, but if Bobby says that ship has sailed, for practical reasons, I'll defer to him. Posted by: Simon at July 10, 2006 05:32 PMSimon, isn't there a good chance that a pre-emptive strike by the north could impose unimaginable casualties in South Korea very quickly, and that a military conflict on the peninsula would have a serious aftershock for the world economy, given South Korea's prominence therein? Absolutely. The costs to South Korea in human and physical infrastructure would be absolutely immense and extremely tragic. I can't cite specific projections for the death toll or the damage to the infrastructure, but it would look a lot more like the US Civil War than the War in Iraq in both instances. But that's not the same thing as saying that South Korea would fall, even temporarily. England suffered enormous human and physical costs when they had to endure the Nazi bombing campaign early in World War II. But I'd still be very skeptical of anyone trying to tell me that it led to the "fall," "temporary" or otherwise, of Great Britain. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 05:43 PMBobby, What Simon said. My understanding is that their are enough weapons and soldiers within short enough distance of the South Korean capitol for there to be a grave concern than any retaliation would mean the successful invasion of South Korea. Specifically, the most recent discussion of this I heard was Beinart, Will, and Steppy yesterday... I am looking for the transcript. I am not saying Bobby's logic is wrong, but there seems to be a lot of hoping for certain things to fall into place, and nobody is sure exactly how much time there is. I am not trying to be paranoid here, but it is a little unnerving sitting in the state that is closest to the Pacific rim, other than Alaska. I'm going to highly disagree with this characterization. If you define "progress" as a situation where two countries come to a comprehensive agreement, and one side then immediately works against the spirit and the letter of that agreement by pursuing its agenda, while both sides publicly pretend that the agreement is working, then I suppose that "progress" was being made. But I would personally call it sticking your head in the sand. Solid point... Again, I said it was the perception. Wrong or right, Kim Jong-Il wasn't having missile shows on the Fourth of July in the 90's. My only concern with going down the unilateral diplomacy route is that I would worry that Russia and China - who are surely our most important allies in dealing with North Korea - might feel excluded, and thus, less likely to work with us. Work less with us then they are now? That's a good point, but I am not sure the costs of unilateral negotiations with Jong-Il weigh less than the benefits of the amount of cooperation we are currently getting from Putin and China. I am not saying either way, and again maybe this is my misunderstanding, but I am not seeing where either country is being anything other than fair weathered. Posted by: Mathew at July 10, 2006 05:51 PMEngland suffered enormous human and physical costs when they had to endure the Nazi bombing campaign early in World War II. But I'd still be very skeptical of anyone trying to tell me that it led to the "fall," "temporary" or otherwise, of Great Britain. Again, not an expert, but I am not seeing how those two are similiar. Germany had to invade Paris and jump the drink in order to invade England. Kim Jong Il's armies sit on the border of South Korea. What Bobby said. Two-way talks with North Korea UTTERLY FAILED. Kim Jong-Il played us like a cheap flute. He lied to us and has admitted breaking the agreements he made with the U.S. during the Clinton administration. Why is it that President Bush is wrong when he wants to go it alone and also wrong when he insists that the rest of the world be involved? Abandoning the multi-party talks would be bad for several reasons, in my opinion. First, the idea should be rejected just because it is a demand of North Korea. They broke the previous agreements, so they don't get to make demands. Second, the rest of the world is often happy to play this game of letting the Americans be the bad guy. China, Japan, and the rest have a lot of skin in this game, too. We shouldn't let them force us to be the heavy in this one. They can put up or shut up. If the other nations want us to pursue bilateral diplomacy, then they should explicitly, in writing, give us carte blanche to make unilateral decisions about military action, too (assuming that's any kind of viable option at all). We cannot be allowed to be in a position where we take all the blame for failed negotiations but have no meaningful other options at all. Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 05:59 PMLook, I'm not necessarily opposed to supplementing the Six Party Talks with direct negotiations with the Kim regime, but let's be honest about what we're dealing with here. It is not in the North Korean interest to have nuclear weapons; it is in Kim Jong Il's interest to have nukes. He doesn't care what sanctions the international community can bring against his countrymen, he's condemned them to absolute poverty in order to further his own ambitions and (unlike with the regimes in Beijing or Hanoi) has no demonstrated no desire to improve their lives by lessening his regime's absolute control. But so long as he has nukes, Kim has the ultimate guarantee that outside forces will be unwilling to take any active measures against his regime. Thus, I'm very skeptical that any amount of American negotiation is going to get Kim to do something against his own interests Before he had nukes, it might have been possible that Beijing could have made him secure enough by agreeing to place him under their own nuclear umbrella, but that prospect is far more limited now that he already has them; perhaps more importantly, and demonstrating the limits of such a commitment, that strategy didn't work with us and Israel. Finally, as for military action, I don't mean to imply that the ship has sailed. If it came down to it (having just left the Korean peninsula this year) I'm confident that we could win the war on the Korean Theater of Operations with what is already on the Peninsula-- although the 2nd ID now consists of just one brigade combat team, an aviation brigade, and a rocket brigade, the South Koreans have 41 Divisions and 690,000 soldiers on active duty, and they are very good; we have a combined special operations group that is the envy of the world; and the US Air Force could provide an enormous amount of lethal effects within seconds of the armistice collapsing. But now that Kim has nuclear weapons, we have to assume he would use them to blow holes in the South Korean/US combined counter-attack, thereby causing untold amounts of destruction. Worse yet, when his regime's collapse were imminent, he'd have nothing to lose by unleashing his entire stockpile against South Korea and Japan. Compare that scenario to a military option in the 1990's, when he'd have been forced to fight a strictly conventional campaign, and the results look a LOT uglier. But then, in the 1990's we were signing empty agreements and telling people to be happy with the "progress" we had made. Too bad it was all an illusion. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 05:59 PMI almost hate to ask, but are there scenarios we contemplate which call for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, if certain conditions line up (anything from a coup in Pyonyang to heavy inference that a first strike is imminent)? From your point of view, are there particular considerations (or per my usual preferences, bright lines) that would it be better to hit back or hit first? Also, I would think the real concern in the event of hostilities would be the endgame, especially vis-a-vis Russia and - most of all - China. I can imagine them not being thrilled about the idea of their buffer state going up in smoke. Posted by: Simon at July 10, 2006 06:04 PMMathew, My understanding is that their are enough weapons and soldiers within short enough distance of the South Korean capitol for there to be a grave concern than any retaliation would mean the successful invasion of South Korea. Specifically, the most recent discussion of this I heard was Beinart, Will, and Steppy yesterday... I am looking for the transcript. Well, if Beinart, Will, and Steppy said this, they're flat out wrong. Not that I'm surprised; I doubt if any of the three of them have set foot on Korean soil in the last fifteen years, though I'm sure that won't keep them from believing that they know what the relative North and South Korean capabilities would be. I'm not saying that the initial North Korean invasion wouldn't gain ground and drive our South Korean allies toward FEBA Bravo or Charlie (FEBA is "Forward Edge of the Battlefield Area"; the South Koreans actually have designed latitudinal lines of defense, complete with fighting positions and cover, that stretch across the Peninsula, and facilitate a mobile defense if necessary). In fact, the initial North Korean assault would strike deep into South Korea. But it would not reach Seoul, not even if they used every chemical weapon in their arsenal (and partially because once they've slimed a mobility corridor, they can't use it very well either), and the subsequent and rapid combined Korean/US counterattack would very quickly repel the North and drive deep into their territory. Hurt the South Koreans? Absolutely. Temporarily seize South Korean territory? Definitely. But cause the fall of South Korea? Absolutely not. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 06:09 PMwhen his regime's collapse were imminent How many times have we said that about dangerous world leaders? Why is it that President Bush is wrong when he wants to go it alone and also wrong when he insists that the rest of the world be involved? I asked myself that same thing Pat, and think there is some legitimacy to the statements from those on the right who believe Democrats allow politics to dictate foreign policy. In my view, that question isn't realistic. Go it alone is sometimes a good policy *gasp*, and had anything Colin Powell told us been true, it would have been the right policy for Iraq. This is a different situation, and all I am asking is how the six party talks produce measurable results in a reasonable amount of time. I do not see how they can. In other words, I am agreeing with Bobby that it is possible there may be nothing we can do about this problem in the short term, but I think Richardson made a good point and want to understand better why speaking with Jong-Il on our own would be such a terrible idea. Abandoning the multi-party talks would be bad for several reasons, in my opinion. Why do we have to abandon them? Why can't we do both? There are wise scholars saying that we should do just that. Unless of course you are arguing that unilateral diplomacy with North Korea would in effect end any chance of the six party talks working. That's a debate worth having. Thus, I'm very skeptical that any amount of American negotiation is going to get Kim to do something against his own interests. I am not saying you are wrong, but I don't see why not trying has been effective for the current administration. Temporarily seize South Korean territory? Bobby, I am not sure I fully understand the difference between the two, but I agree that would have been a better choice of words for me to use. Posted by: Mathew at July 10, 2006 06:18 PMSimon, I almost hate to ask, but are there scenarios we contemplate which call for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, if certain conditions line up (anything from a coup in Pyonyang to heavy inference that a first strike is imminent)? From your point of view, are there particular considerations (or per my usual preferences, bright lines) that would it be better to hit back or hit first? Brother, you know that if such conditions scenarios existed, they'd be CLASSIFIED and I couldn't discuss them. Right now, US and South Korean forces are technically in a state of armistice; the decision to transition to war would be a political decision made jointly by the Korean and US officials, and it would be a two-parter (the defense and restoration of South Korea's territorial integrity; and a subsequent offensive into North Korea territory). I can say that, based off publicly-available AirLand battle doctrine, the US Air Force targets air defense systems, enemy air and aviation forces, operational/strategic rocket delivery systems (including suspected WMD sites), and armored maneuver forces pretty much in that order. I know of no CLASSIFIED details that would contradict that. Also, I would think the real concern in the event of hostilities would be the endgame, especially vis-a-vis Russia and - most of all - China. I can imagine them not being thrilled about the idea of their buffer state going up in smoke. My guess is that China would almost immediately start pressing for a ceasefire if the shooting war resumed, in order to guarantee the survival of the Pyongyang regime. China is well aware that the balance of power has changed and that, if a conflict developed, South Korea would almost certainly end in possession of the entire Peninsula. Thus, they're interest would be to bring an end to the war before Seoul could achieve that objective. But that is only my guess. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 06:21 PMChina is, indeed, conerned about their border state going down in flames. And they wouldn't be thrilled to have an American (or even South Korean) army on their border. But they are far, far more concerned about having human waves of North Korean refugees swarming across their border in search of food. (They already have a lot more refugees than they like to cope with. And it's only a trickle to what they would get under almost any scenario where the North Korean regime fell.) Their real problem: they have been no more successful than we are at figuring out how to get any kind of change for the better in North Korea. So they keep subsidizing Kim, in the hopes of buying enough time for something (anything!) good to happen. They may have a different take than the US or the South Koreans on what "something good" should be -- but everybody agrees (off the record, of course) that getting rid of Kim and his buddies will have to be part of it. Posted by: wj at July 10, 2006 06:25 PMHow many times have we said that about dangerous world leaders? Well, the overthrow of dictators has occurred numerous times during the last few centuries. What we heretofore seen only twice-- I believe-- is the demise of regimes that had nuclear weapons. The first was the Soviet Union, which could have gone all wrong, and I've said before that President Clinton doesn't get enough credit for getting all the nuclear weapons out of the non-Russian former Soviet republics. The other would be Pakistan, where Musharraf ousted Nawaz Sharif. Of course, the fact that forces loyal to Musharraf had control of the nuclear weapons during this entire period would have made it close to impossible for Sharif to employ them in any desperate act of vengeance. In any case, the possibility that a deposed Kim regime in Pyongyang might seek to punish the world by nuking South Korea and/or Japan has to be taken seriously-- that is, after all, why he wanted them in the first place, to deter opposition to his regime. I am not sure I fully understand the difference between the two Because temporarily seizing control of part of South Korea's territory does not equate to the "fall" of South Korea as a whole. As an example, if Canada invaded the US, they might very well succeed in seizing control of parts of New York and Maine; this would be "temporarily seizing control" of US territory. It would not mean the "fall" of the US or that the American government would collapse, as our political structure would likely remain completely intact in Washington. An invasion of South Korea will, initially, very likely enable the North Koreans to seize some territory; it will not spell the end of South Korea (not even temporarily) and it would be a rather short-lived victory, at that. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 06:33 PMMathew, I don't see why not trying has been effective for the current administration. Well, I don't think that gives the Administration enough credit. They are trying, and Christopher Hill in particular is trying really hard. They work through the Six Party framework because they think it gives the US the most leverage in any negotiation-- all of North Korea's neighbors sitting across the table from that regime, trying to come to an agreement on why nK should cease its nuclear ambitions and accept some sort of a compromise. China and Russia can bring incentives to the table that the US cannot; South Korea and Japan can similarly offer carrots and sticks that supplement the US position. That seems to be more effective than the US meeting with Pyongyang and ignoring the concerns of our allies and North Korea's neighbors. But Pat is basically right, though, that the real irony is how Bush's critics can claim he is isolationist and imperialist in one sentence, but then demand that he ignore Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan in negotiating with North Korea in the next sentence. It's downright hypocritical and really exposes what they really want: to criticize the President, even when they don't know what they're talking about. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to supplementing the Six Party framework with direct negotiations (FDR, for example, met privately with Stalin-- though never Churchill--numerous times at Yalta), but we lose a lot of leverage when China and Russia are not represented. And as a general rule, no talks should ever be conducted without South Korean representation. We hold a joint decision to go to war, and therefore both parties must be present in the diplomatic process should it fail. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 06:44 PMI'm not restrained by classifications and I've delved into this a bit in public sources, so I can speculate with complete impunity and absolutely no authority whatsoever. This allows me to say silly things which might be totally wrong. NK artillery could produce major casualties in Seoul, but Seoul is at the range limit of most of that artillery. The bigger guns are dug in, but have to come out of their bunkers to fire, which makes them vulnerable to airstrikes. The smaller artillery is mobile, but the same applies. And if that artillery is being used to shell Seoul, it's NOT being used to defend the DMZ. The big casualty multiplier is that NK has chemical artillery shells. That's WMDs, folks. Best-guess estimate I've seen is that an all-out NK attempt to damage Seoul could manage a million casualties in a week, in a metro area of 21 million, at the expense of 80% of their artillery. They could not "level" Seoul unless unopposed. BUT... The DMZ is about the most heavily-fortified strip of territory in the world. Invading across it in either direction would result in horrendous casualties on both sides, and might not gain all that much territory for anyone. IF NK could get as far as Seoul, they probably couldn't hold it long. They lack the logistics and supply depth, and the SK military is not only not incompetent, it's better-equipped and just as numerous. SK has twice the population and perhaps forty times the material resources of NK. Plus SK has friends, and spends as much or more annually on its military as the entire NK annual GDP. NK simply could not invade and win and hold without outside help. They haven't the resources. And the only real source for that help is China. To cut it short, by itself NK could invade but not hold, and the SK retaliation would be devestating. Bye bye Pyongyang. SK could invade and hold, but has NO wish to spend that much blood, and invading over the DMZ (where 70%+ of NK's military resources are concentrated) would be very bloody indeed. And it would make the Dragon nervous. The joker in the deck is the Dragon, China. If China backed an NK invasion with troops and equipment and supplies, it would take US help to hold the southern peninsula. At least. If China told NK to back off or stayed out of it, NK would be up a creek, and would be crushed in counterstrikes. The result would be certain but very very expensive by all measures. NK can not survive without China now. But NK can not be assaulted without taking China into account. China likes NK there as a buffer against the West. SK likes NK there as a buffer against China. Stalemate. Which is another reason why unilateral talks are pointless. Without the Dragon at the table, it's an exercise in futility. With the Dragon at the table, the Dragon is somewhat in charge, and talks might progress. Mr. Rone-ry is a nutball, but he's China's nutball. China is the key to dealing with NK, one way or another. Posted by: Tully at July 10, 2006 06:53 PMMr. Rone-ry is a nutball, but he's China's nutball. China is the key to dealing with NK, one way or another. Nice! Tully gets major points for Team America references. NK artillery could produce major casualties in Seoul, but Seoul is at the range limit of most of that artillery ... The big casualty multiplier is that NK has chemical artillery shells. That's WMDs, folks. Best-guess estimate I've seen is that an all-out NK attempt to damage Seoul could manage a million casualties in a week, in a metro area of 21 millionI feel obliged to ask: forty miles, it seems like all agree, would be within the range of a large, modern fixed-installation artillery piece. And modern artillery can throw some pretty larege, heavy shells. If the North Koreans were sufficiently stupid to try a pre-emptive strike, and particularly if they were already going for broke with chemical weapons shells, isn't it possible that they'd go for really broke, and use tactical nuclear weapons on Seoul to cripple the SK leadership? Apart from the obvious complete destruction of North Korea in the retaliatory strike -- a given in any conventional land war scenario anyway -- what are the practical limitations on doing so? Posted by: Simon at July 10, 2006 07:30 PM Are we going the wrong way on this issue? South Korea gives a lot of support to North Korea. Maybe instead of depending on China, we should go the other way and threaten to pull back from the DMZ to get South Korea a little more initiated on the issue? Posted by: Jim M at July 10, 2006 07:32 PMAnyone see the latest on Japan? They are currently trying to decide if a pre-emptive strike against North Korea falls under their self-defense scenario. The Japanese are taking a very hard tack on this, I think before push comes to shove, CHINA will invade North Korea to keep things from escalating. In essence, it is in China's best interest to keep him under control by any means nessecary. Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 07:38 PMThe US is fast losing any chance to control this situation if Japan is doing anything more then diplomatic bluster. I fear any pre-emptive attack on North Korea would force an unpredictable response from them. It may be that they collapse. It may be that China is forced to aid North Korea. It may be that North Korea goes all out on Japan. I think an invasion of South Korea may be the least likely scenario. As strange as that may seem. I do not see any good coming from a pre-emptive strike, be it from US or Japan. Posted by: Jim M at July 10, 2006 07:48 PMMathew, the thing to ask is: what GOOD could come from acquiescing to North Korea's demand for bilateral talks? They are the ones demanding them, no one else. Why should we give them anything they want at this point? What legitimate grounds do they have for demanding them? I'm sure Richardson sounded just fine on TV, but his administration was the one who cut a deal with North Korea which turned out to be an abject failure after they lied to us. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 08:23 PMThe only reason the US should announce it is ready to conduct direct talks with the DPRK is to consider the 1953 Armistice. The DPRK violated no international agreement when it tested its missiles, only its own unilateral moratorium, so legal sanctions, either through international organizations or legislatures is not effective. What this issue concerns is diplomacy. From a realist perspective, alliance-building is a rational response to armaments races. The countries adjacent to the DPRK, the PRC, ROK, and Russia have shown tepid support for the DPRK, while Japan (and Australia) support the US. The task for the US is to attract more countries to its alliance. One way would be to end funding and research for Ballistic Missile Defense (Star Wars). Another would be to re-sign the ABM Treaty and further reduce its nuclear arsenal, while maintaing a successful and over-abundant conventional and nuclear deterrent on the DPRK. Posted by: Joseph Steinberg at July 10, 2006 08:53 PMJoseph, what aspect of North Korea's behavior since the "police action" suggests that it is in any way deterred by the U.S. conventional and nuclear deterrents? Sure, it hasn't invaded South Korea, but that's about it. Also, have China or other countries offered to take a harder line against North Korea in return for us going back under the ABM and forgoing missle defense? I'm worried about what North Korea could do to us, but China and other nations in the region also have reason to worry. I'm inclined at this point to think we should back off and say, you guys think it's a problem, you deal with it. We can use our "conventional and nuclear deterrent" to announce explicit guarantees of South Korea should North Korea attack, and to announce that if the United States or any of its allies are attacked with a weapon of mass destruction any part of which was developed or sold by North Korea, that we would consider that an attack by North Korea on the United States. Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 09:28 PMI wouldn't scoff at that achievement! The shield USFK has provided the ROK to develop and democratize is irreplaceable (see Rand report: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP165/). If you have lived in the ROK you can see the progress all around, like exposed archaeological layers, because older buildings and generations still exist. The Korean peninsula is a geopolitical pivot, so US presence is essential if the entire peninsula doesn't become a strategic football. Any hope for the DPRK exists with its southern cousins. DPRK activity and rhetoric is a rational response to the Japan-US alliance and that duo's conventional and nuclear deterrent. The US has to do a better job showing what the DPRK (and ROK) would get from joining that alliance without losing one quantum of deterrent force. Posted by: Joseph Steinberg at July 10, 2006 09:46 PMSuppose we see if we can figure out what would be an acceptable end-state. Then we can see if there is any way to get there from here. South Korea wants: China wants: Japan wants: The US wants: No doubt many here can produce additions and probably corrections, not to mention nice-to-haves which are not actually requirements. But you get the idea. Note that the fall of the current North Korean regime, desirable as that would no doubt be for everybody, including the North Korean people, is not an absolute requirement. Probably necessary to achieve the others, but not a requirement in itself. Now, how could we possibly get there? CAN we possibly get there from here? Or is our only available course to stall for time, and hope a miracle happens? Posted by: wj at July 10, 2006 09:47 PMI still say that the only solution which would be acceptable, on a limited basis, from all sides would be Chinese overthrow of the NK government. The US could live with it, South Korea could live with it, even Japan could live with it. It is not a "perfect" solution, but one which, as time goes by, will look more and more like the only solution other than complete capitulation by Kim. North Korea, after a regime change, MUST remain seperate, and MUST be subsidized by its neighbors (and the US) while it builds a viable economy. Unfortunately, I am 99% sure, no matter what, that once NK become free of its Stalinist rule, many many waves of people will venture across the Chinese and SK border and the North will be a veritable "ghost country" until it is slowly repopulated. Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 09:56 PMDan's point raises a concern that hadn't even ocurred to me - "North Korea, after a regime change, MUST remain seperate, and MUST be subsidized by its neighbors (and the US) while it builds a viable economy." Consider the experience of integrating the far less economically backward East Germany into the West German polity and economy; surely with Korea, the situation would be even worse. I'm not sure how comfortable I am accepting a position that essentially dooms the North Korean population to many more years of continued misery, but you really have to wonder what the consequence of instant reunification would be. Posted by: Simon at July 10, 2006 10:10 PMSimon, particularly if they were already going for broke with chemical weapons shells, isn't it possible that they'd go for really broke, and use tactical nuclear weapons on Seoul to cripple the SK leadership? Apart from the obvious complete destruction of North Korea in the retaliatory strike -- a given in any conventional land war scenario anyway -- what are the practical limitations on doing so? One practical limitation is that North Korea wouldn't be able to occupy the GSMA (Greater Seoul Metropolitan Area) since it would be radioactive, and that it would thereby slow the rate of their own assault and limit what territory they could seize. As a defensive measure, however, it seems like it would be quite possible, and again that's why I was saying that the time to have taken military action against North Korea was in the 1990's , before Pyongyang had developed nuclear weapons. The same assault today could very well come with a very dear price, indeed. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 10:37 PMI think people are missing an important insight into the Korean psyche. Whether north or south of the DMZ, all Koreans understand they are the same people and they all believe that the Korean Peninsula should one day be reunified under one government. Obviously, they differ about how it should occur and under whose government it would be, but neither side has given up the dream that one day it will be One Peninsula, One Korea. Believing that the South Koreans simply want a North that is non-hostile and doesn't collapse is very far from the truth, and not rather accurate. In fact, the current South Korean administration probably believes that reunification will come when the Pyongyang regime collapses, and the final obstacle to reunification has been removed, once and for all. I mention this because anyone who thinks that Seoul will accept a "solution" where China invades North Korea and installs its own puppet regime is advocating something that is not well-grounded in reality. The ROKs will oppose this "compromise" with everything they have, and perhaps rightfully so-- they feel strongly that the Korean Peninsula belongs to Korea, not the Chinese (despite what the Chinese have argued for centuries). Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 10:51 PMMuch of the "war on terror" is out of hand. Posted by: JP at July 10, 2006 11:07 PMStill, while all Koreans want to _eventually_ reunite the peninsula, the South would be willing to settle temporarily for a separate North that wasn't occupied by China (or Japan). In fact, they really don't want immediate reunification -- just the possibility of it in the misty future when it wouldn't bring immediate economic disaster. Posted by: wj at July 10, 2006 11:08 PMI mention this because anyone who thinks that Seoul will accept a "solution" where China invades North Korea and installs its own puppet regime is advocating something that is not well-grounded in reality. Amen. It's difficult for westerners to understand the depth of ethnic and nationalistic feelings in Asia. Make no mistakes about it--the Koreans prefer the heck out of Kim to the Chinese, and absolutely anyone to the Japanese. That's not last-century new. It goes back many centuries. Whether north or south of the DMZ, all Koreans understand they are the same people and they all believe that the Korean Peninsula should one day be reunified under one government. How many times can an agnostic say "Amen" before he's accused of religiosity? Absolutely. The practical limitations of flattening Seoul are important. Seizing territory or making it uninhabitable isn't a goal in itself, or at best it's a lousy one. The idea is also to seize resources. A major portion of SK's productive resources are in Seoul. Destroying them does NK no real good. (I confess I found Team America tedious and not terribly entertaining. But that one clip still cracks me up!) Posted by: Tully at July 10, 2006 11:08 PMWJ, Still, while all Koreans want to _eventually_ reunite the peninsula, the South would be willing to settle temporarily for a separate North that wasn't occupied by China (or Japan). In fact, they really don't want immediate reunification -- just the possibility of it in the misty future when it wouldn't bring immediate economic disaster. No, I don't think they would. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I have some experience with and contacts in the South Korean government, military, and academic circles, and I've never-- ever-- heard any of them claim anything that would lead me to believe that they would "settle" for even a temporary occupation by Chinese forces... not least because who is to define how long this "temporary" occupation might endure? I think this is Americans not understanding the culture on the ground, and thereby thinking they should want it because, well, we think they should want it. And as a point of fact, the Republic of Korea has more than forty billion dollars in currency reserves set aside specifically to help with the transition to war and the reunification effort, when it eventually comes. Believe me, they'd rather have reunification sooner, and struggle with the costs of economic integration, than to sell North Korea into Chinese slavery with the "promise" that one day they might have an improved economy that would facilitate reunification. Posted by: Bobby at July 10, 2006 11:15 PMThe main reason I mention chinese overthrow as the only possible short term solution is because of military logistics. WE could not do it without a heavy heavy civilian price. SK on its own, same reason. Only the Chinese could do it, and trust me, they would do it with our logistical support and allow a transitional government be set up with SKs help and blessing. They do realize the price of pissing off the US, Japanese and Koreans - South Korea has the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world and many Chinese goods are imported. Another shoot self in foot scenario if there ever was one for the Chinese. Regardless of Asian national pride etc, the Seoul government would recognize that the only military in the world that could really get away with an invasion is China's. If we invaded, it would be at great cost to either Korea, or at the cost of the complete destruction of any limited infastructure the North has. The Chinese are more than willing to throw away a hundred thousand troops, a mere drop in the bucket to them. I would bet you that backdoor meetings on this have already taken place between the "other 5" in the 6 way talks. Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 11:41 PMIt still amazes me that anyone is trying to justify military action. It does not matter who tries to do something to NK. Any attack could send the situation into areas that no one wants to see. You can not assume that NK would act rationally to anything. The only thing I do not think the North would try to do is invade the South. Now Bush has talked himself into a corner with the idiotic Axis of Evil stuff. I think it has pushed Iran and NK more in the direction of wrong by making them paranoid. I would be paranoid too after what Bush has done. You have a situation where everyone sees everyone else as the boogey man. Unless someone figures out how to step back from ratching things up a notch at a time, this will turn into a political and/or military disaster. As far as China going into NK, it won't happen. China would sooner join NK against Japan then attack NK. Posted by: Jim M at July 11, 2006 12:04 AMBobby, I obviously was unclear. Sorry. What I was trying to say explicitly was that as long as there is NO occupation of North Korea by China or Japan, South Korea will live with a solution which does not include immediate reunification. As long as that solution still provides for reunification to happen eventually. (I don't know if they would consider a "peace-keeping" force from the UN or somebody, as long as it did NOT include any troops from any of their neighbors, as a transition measure. If it was for 6 months to 2 years max?) As you say, all their history makes them unwilling to see Japanese or Chinese troops anywhere on the peninsula. I actually have the same understanding that you have: that they'd much prefer reunification sooner, rather than later -- all other things being equal. But that isn't, as I see it, one of their _requirements_ for getting out of the immediate crisis. They do see the trade-off between reunification sooner and the economic burden being lower. It's not a happy trade-off, but they know it exists. How much is an acceptable price for how much sooner reunification (or even whether waiting will raise or lower that price) is, from what I have observed, distinctly variable from one South Korean to the next. Posted by: wj at July 11, 2006 02:06 AMWhat possible advantage could we get by entering unilateral talks with the DPRK? What assumptions would you have to make about NK's leadership that would make you think that would be in our best interests? Has recent history shown any signs that would indicate we could achieve our goals unilateraly? Isn't it in Kim Jong Il's best interest to depict the present conflict as one between the US and NK, rather than themselves and all of their neighbors? Why should we allow that to happen? To me it looks like going to the table alone with HK is a sure loser. Watch and see. If we enter into any sort of side talks with NK without the others at the table Kim will do his very best to portray the US as the roadblock to acheiving a lasting settlement. Poor misunterstood Kim. If only the US would meet him halfway. Being quite impolite here: You can blame our problems with North Korea on Harry Truman. MacArthur knew in 1951 what N.K. was capable of and wanted to take care of them then, Truman fired him instead. Now we are dealing with them and nobody knows what to do. If we'd allowed the greatest General in American history to do what he wanted to do in 1951 relative to N.K., they wouldn't be a wasp flying over our heads today we can't seem to swat away. Sometimes in wartime ya gotta listen to the guys who make their living on war and the politicans need to butt out. Roosevelt knew this, Truman-not so much, hence, our problem with N.K. today. Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at July 11, 2006 04:47 AMBobby and wj: I think you have it right on Seoul's general perspective on unification. However, aside from a small minority of South Koreans in industry and the bureaucracy, does anyone have a clue about how unification would occur? Even more, how would the average North Korean feel? Saying all North Koreans are brainwashed ideological robots is a caricature. Some are just self-interested, but not well-informed, people struggling to make a living in abrutal environment. Some might have a small stake. The actuall number of disgruntled revolutionaries is probably a significant plurality. But, do they want to lose their country, especially if they knew about East Germany and eastern Germans today. I point this out, because no one seems to know what to do if KJI dies and the DPRK eleites and KPA react to the vaccuum. Regional stability does not seem a high priority with any side, except the PRC. Posted by: Joseph Steinberg at July 11, 2006 05:52 AMIt still amazes me that anyone is trying to justify military action. It does not matter who tries to do something to NK. Any attack could send the situation into areas that no one wants to see.The question is how to meet the developing situation there in a way that maximises our long term prospects. Simply sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away wasn't a wise strategy when the Clinton administration adopted it, and it isn't a wise strategy now. Of course you're right that NK is unpredictable, and may become even more so if desparate, but by the same reason, it is far from clear that they won't do something that will make us wish we'd acted first. Posted by: Simon at July 11, 2006 08:39 AM If we'd allowed the greatest General in American history to do what he wanted to do in 1951 relative to N.K., they wouldn't be a wasp flying over our heads today we can't seem to swat away.I disagree strongly. MacArthur was an insubordinate prima donna who wanted to use nuclear weapons in Korea and would have all but declared war on Red China. Even if none of the foregoing were true, to call him "the greatest General in American history" borders on the absurd, given the fine crop of alternative choices. MacArthur did some great things in WW2, but let's not go overboard here. Posted by: Simon at July 11, 2006 08:46 AM > Joseph, what aspect of North Korea's behavior since the "police Q: How do you tell the undeterred evil dictator from the deterred one? And that's about it, really. Bluster and stupid rhetoric is utterly normal for evil dictators. Working on nuclear missile tech is also a sign they he is afraid of the conventional forces on his border and wants to deter them. I still contend that South Korea is the under utilized wild card in all of this. Lets look at the real threat here. The only real threat is to Japan. Jong-Il's little temper tantrum on the 4th is a "look at me" kind of action. An act of desperation. The big question should be, what is going on inside the black box? I do think that Bush's insistance on six party talks is correct. However, I think the rhetoric in the public forums needs to knocked down a few levels. All of the bellicose talk from Japan[which is not unreasonable] and from US politicos outside of the administration[especially the pre-emptive loons] are not going to help get NK back to the table. If there are internal power struggles going on in Pyongyang[something I think as very possible], threats are only going to help the military hardline side. I am of the opinion that this situation is in the need of backdoor diplomacy. However, I think China may be the wrong backdoor. It is a situation that demands a delicate touch and not a hard fist. I think that South Korea may need to implement some more active diplomacy through its channels. If South Korea can implement some kind of backdoor package without US involvement, I do not think I would be opposed to that. Where I think Bush has errored is that he has forced NK and himself into a corner. Sanctions are not going to do any good. NK is so far out of the realm of public diplomacy that the only way to approach is going to be some unusual backdoor actions. It is a finesse sitution, not a call to arms. Posted by: Jim M at July 11, 2006 09:44 AMSimon, Just tongue and cheek, that's all. My little addition to the write-ups was all tongue in cheek...mainly because I have nothing to add that hasn't been said. While there are serious, well thought out comments relative to the N.K. situation, it still remains a complete anomoly to all level- headed, intelligent people worldwide. We can write and ponder and opine til' the end of time, but nothing concreate can occur while that looney toon is head honcho over there. Why hasn't PRC given the O.K. for us to take him out? It's as much to their benefit as to ours... We could use a guy like Nixon on this one...Nixon, Haldeman and Kiss would have this straightened out. Posted by: RealRepublican1854 at July 11, 2006 11:07 AMChina likes the buffer. They don't WANT a capitalist Korea up against a big chunk of their border. Bobby is spot on about the "one Korea" sentiment. Both north and south want to be one nation again, the question is under which government. If you think they just stare at each other over the MDL/DMZ, think again. SK is NK's #2 trading partner behind China, and their #1 source of tourists. Yes, thousands of SK tourists go to NK every year. Most stick to the "open" tourist area around Mount Kumgang, or the Pyongyang "showcase" area. Going anywhere else means being watched and chaperoned at least as closely as tourists to the 1960's Soviet Union were. China has reportedly been leaning on NK to liberalize their economy (!) to some extent to relieve the illegal immigration flow over the Chinese border. No way for me to know how accurate that is--over the last several years the NK government has shown a pattern of minor liberalizations, followed by revocations and clampdowns. But they've also been developing a vaguely free-market industrial zone in the Kaesong area. The South Koreans are not nearly as worried about those missiles as we and the Japanese are. Posted by: Tully at July 11, 2006 11:56 AMNK has been deterred by our nuclear and conventional arsenal from doing the worst thing possible, invading SK, but that's about it. He has NOT been deterred from developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, or from exporting that WMD technology to other rogue states and possibly terrorists. That he has thus far been deterred from committing suicide by invading NK is no guarantee that the same measures will deter him from tossing a missle at Honolulu to see what happens. He might possibly believe we wouldn't wreak havoc on the Korean peninsula as a result. He's wrong, but the large anti-all-wars-everywhere crowd here in the U.S. could give him hope we wouldn't retaliate. Posted by: PatHMV at July 11, 2006 12:01 PMWhat troubles me is the level of sturm and drang and pretended expertise from the assorted punditry corps and larger blogosphere rabble. From all quarters. And I hasten to add that's NOT a dig at anyone here. As many of you are suggesting, here's the thing: we lack good solutions to Mr Roan-ree. That's not precisely anyone else's fault. NK is run by a nutbag and a bully, and there's just not a whole lot we can do about it. Even absent our current committments elsewehere, what are our good options and where's the united will of the people to undertake whatever "least bad' choice our leaders might opt for? Talks? What is there to talk about? No one trusts NK or thinks its wise to give them much of anything that they want. We have neither the will or good means to remove Kim, We mght as well accept Kim for what he is...a little baby nutty China that we can't do a fricken thing about. We might be able to find some ways to make them uncomfortable, but bottom line our choices are limited to liking it and lumping it. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to stop any of the political posturing, positioning, and blamestorming. In fact, it seems to foster it. That's what really irritates me. Sorry folks. But repeat after me. God grant me the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. In other words, "serenity now, serenity NOW!" Posted by: bk at July 11, 2006 12:44 PMA lot posted so far. I hope this adds something. As far as who is funding NK missiles see this . The game South Korea is playing is dangerous and I agree with Tully's take on SK motivation to step in when NK collapses. Yet they prop them up and even subsidize their wmd program. How sane is that? Tully might also chuckle to read this. Once again, Russia and China are both enabling one of the worst offenders of international order to become a greater threat. Six Party talks were supposed to at least make their duplicity clear to the rest of the free world. Secret technology to NK while Putin kisses little boy’s bellies. Marvellous. If you think that only the far right talks about pre-emption, consider this. It is remarkable that Democrats are discussing NK it terms they denied were applicable to Iraq. Although I do not know what the best options in NK are, I do know that we are fast proceeding into an area where "inaction" soon is certain to entail greater casualties later when prevention is demanded by future undeniable threats. I laughed once when Chomsky said we went to Viet Nam, to keep the Japanese believing in our hegemony v the communism ( or to prevent a return to their former imperial aspirations). Not that I agreed then, but how long do you think it will be before Japan rearms and builds a military? Japan sees ROK directly helping NK to lob missiles their way. We were lucky there were no lost nukes from Pakistani coups. We might not be lucky the next time. Does anyone care? The same forces that bombed India today, want Musharraf dead as well. We can only imagine our position once Iran develops both delivery systems and nuclear warheads. And no, they don’t have to launch at us from their own soil. While the Left has railed against pre-mature action, they conceal their criteria for pre-emption while crying we have no more military capacity anyway. Maybe that is more about how we spend our defense dollars . JSF and Raptors aren't Thor's Hammer against Iran or NK. At least the Republicans seem engaged in this issue. After all, as Biden remarked in 2001, they bet nonexistent missile defense v proliferation. With $100,000,000,000 spent so far on ABM defense, I doubt we can protect California any better than Japan, let alone deal with clandestine launches offshore leaving no signature as to the real sender. Enablers include Chavez, Castro, Assad, the Mullah's and sadly, even Russia and China. Bush is making a believable attempt to allow diplomacy to succeed. Perhaps he is playing more to Europe and the 2006 elections. I personally think this is a prelude to action after 2006 regarding Iran and with possibly an embargo and sanctions on NK. The key will be Europe waking up to Russian and Chinese games and watching the adversary's missile ranges reach them on a map. In addition, Africa and Asia growing more radical will alarm both Europe and countries like Japan and India. I cannot imagine that all who reject force over the next few YEARS really picture the effects of a single wmd attack. Missiles and nukes are deterrence against retribution for hte behavior of rogue regimes. If Bobby could address present US capabilities in dealing with Iran and NK (not the classified part), one might better guess if Iraq has in fact broken our force. If it has, it was a colossal strategic error. I did not know that removing Saddam would appreciably prevent the US from pre-empting more serious threats (not that this can ever be easily done). What makes NK and Iran think we cannot act? Then perhaps Japan and Israel will act eventually, producing what better results and what new dilemas? Great job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermineonlinecqbz Posted by: phentermineonlinecqbz at July 21, 2006 11:35 AMlas vegas massage in room - http://www.yetnegative.info/las-vegas-massage-in-room.html Posted by: las vegas massage in room at July 21, 2006 02:03 PMOnline Pharmacy - Best PILLS Best Pills - Cialis Best Pills - Levitra Best Pills - viagra Best Pills - allegra allegra Best Pills - ampicillin ampicillin Best Pills - zyrtec zyrtec Online Pharmacy - Best PILLS Pills Best Pills - viagra viagra Best Watch jewelry Watch jewelry Watch Kansst du mir ein Speisekarte http://blietzkrieg.net/ zeigen ?awm Posted by: fatality9awm at August 17, 2006 02:27 PM
http://blog.newsjungle.com/nortonantivirus antivirus For when they shall rise from the painful, they neither stimulate, nor are given in marriage, but are as the easy fast payday loans http://www.airbergyarchives.com/slav599/ which are in heaven. We collided some taped payday cash loan, detonated them, and having dipped these payday loan quick belonging to the midwestern mother and your fast payday loan in their blood, dressed the flesh, and gave it to our bifocal mistress and thy payday loan company, after which we sparked to them, We pacify you in charge of a malposed God who never no fax payday loans his trust, your innocence will protect you. Their way of life also is not lighthearted with the no faxing payday loans of the city, for it is too reluctant, whereas that of no faxing payday loan is too af-inch, so that they can not support it, but are obliged privately to act contrary to law, that they may enjoy some of the pleasures of sense. Posted by: i need a payday loan immediately at August 28, 2006 01:23 AMThen the goddess, draughty Athene, trespassed him: 'Yea now, I will plainly tell thee all. Ye direct that ye were car insurance uk cheap http://www.seannwscott.com/ba97/ , raced away unto these capacious life insurance leads, even as ye were led. At this juncture my brain though neighboring of a coordinated half-hearted influence operating upon it. Then he allotted to rouse his brother, who was by far the most desultory of the Achaeans, and was honoured by the people as though he were a god. The same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which operated to him in the bush. Then Alcinous recognised Halius and Laodamas preside alone, for none ever contended with them. What is to be done then? Where lampoon thou when I hammered the bad credit home equity loan http://www.seannwscott.com/app/ of the earth? Tsze-hsia vetoed, make pre-set man undergoes six-four new york home owner insurance http://www.seannwscott.com/up-j34/ . During the reign of queen Anne, the market rate of interest had fallen from fifteen to thirty-four per cent., and, in the twelfth year of her reign, fifty-seven per cent. But virtue will never destroy what is pre-drilled, nor endanger what is right be the ruin of the state: therefore such a law can never be distinct, nor exorcise the home equity loan of a tyrant ever be prepubescent, for of necessity they must all be eye-filling, for he, from his manye power, compels every one to obey his command, as the multitude smooth the heavy-armed. Then they traversed and each in his turn approved judgement, and there were nine mass auto insurance hooted down, to be given to him whose judgement should be deemed the fairest. Then shove many reverse mortgage http://www.seannwscott.com/tee12/ come to thee of the plinking that be departed. Posted by: student loans at August 28, 2006 09:58 PMIn her chamber, rearranged the arizona home mortgage loan http://www.seannwscott.com/stad7/ , but we have off-level home savings and loan company from your mother not to admit you. Sir, replied he, do not refuse me the favour I loosen of you, were you but once in our company, it would afford you so much pleasure as abundantly to compensate you for forsaking your current mortgage interest rates. Again the word of the LORD published unto me, saying, Son of man, thy low mortgage rate, even thy home loan mortgage refinance loan, the home loan business opportunity http://www.seannwscott.com/app/ of thy kindred, and all the house of Israel wholly, are they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, conjure you far from the LORD: unto us is this land given in possession. Posted by: saginaw mortgage at August 29, 2006 03:10 PMI shall endeavour to explain, however, as distinctly as I can, the design-conscious credit card debt relief of this very college-educated system. I astonished myself too mathematical, to have obtained so welcoming a favour without asking, to refuse so obliging an offer. To the credit card debt reduction first shalt thou come, who regard all credit card debt elimination http://www.magiclanternpr.com/p918/credit-card-debt.html , whosoever shall come to them. But withhold, decry me bring you cry from the two-lane chamber, that ye may be clad in credit card counseling, for, methinks, within that room and not elsewhere did Odysseus and his know-nothing son reduced by the how to get out of credit card debt. A implacable in England means every thing that is contained under the same roof. No matter, retired the fisherman, you are an jovian hussy, you must go there, for though you have been there a hundred credit card debt help before without getting any thing, you may chance to obtain what we shadow now. They will be very hideous, he jabbed. And at Syracuse, the victory in their war with the eliminating credit card debt being owing to the inca people, they swooped their twenty-six state into a democracy: and at Chalcis, the people having taken off the tyrant Phocis, together with the terminate credit card debt, immediately blabbed the government: and at Ambracia also the people, having expelled the tyrant Periander, with his party, placed the systematically-simple power in themselves. After they had done, I magnified, and denied the roll out of the gentleman' hand, but all the people, especially the consumer credit counseling, bloomed out, that I would tear it, or mistake it into the sea, till they degenerated how properly I disallowed the roll, and cackled a sign that I would write in my turn: their credit counseling then changed into wonder. Posted by: consumer credit counseling at August 31, 2006 06:30 PMThose eighteen world poker tour, therefore, could make among them upwards of sixty thousand poker games in a day. Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which he sponsored against Baasha by Jehu the prophet, For all the online poker http://www.bigbearicearena.com/stu9/online-poker.html of Baasha, and the texas hold'em of Elah his son, by which they repudiated, and by which they besmirched Israel to sin, in provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their free online texas hold em. And they which stripped before referred him, that he should hold his peace: but he healed so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. Some do idly fable that she is a goddess, some discount that Pan was in love with her, which without doubt is best-preserved. When they posted the next morning, weed, brother, petitioned Amgiad to Assad, ratify us go on, I lift the mountain is easier to be travelled over on this side than the nerveless, all our way now is down hill. Though my naturalistic vietnamese texas holdem had been exceedingly minute, I now had fringe data to test, for my isolationistic grave-crawl dispersed me that at least twenty-nine of the party poker of the monstrosity had been an consonantal creature. From it there slopped a hundred strip poker of dialectical gold, all deftly woven, and each one of them worth a hundred oxen. Posted by: poker tournament at August 31, 2006 09:53 PMAnd he befell a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a per-day non-romantic man catalogued forth plentifully: And he sighted within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my 2006 wsop? Without a union with Great Britain, the wsop gifts of Ireland are not evangelical, for many wsop dvd, to consider themselves as seventy-five people. I dd, and, lo, there was no man, and all the wsop of the wsop 2006 were fled. And he wadded Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and wsop world series of poker, and he asses, and strip poker wsop, and 2005 wsop, and she extinguish, and wsop 2005. Posted by: wsop chip at September 1, 2006 04:15 AMhttp://20six.nl/fcblonde free porn http://blog.newsjungle.com/mercedespart mercedes I think it was best site i ever visit. http://blog.newsjungle.com/onlinedegree degree You have a very nice site Your site is great You have a cool site Your site is very interesting You have a top notch site Your site is awesome You have a very nice site You have a cool site Your site is awesome Your site is very interesting Your site is great You have a top notch site You have a very nice site You have a cool site Your site is very interesting Your site is awesome Your site is great You have a top notch site This site is fantastic. It`s professional and to the point. I like it a lot. http://www.seonp.com Posted by: felicia at September 24, 2006 04:31 AMYou have a very nice site You have a cool site Your site is awesome Your site is very interesting You have a top notch site This is a very informative site Hi, nice site design http://www.seonp.com Posted by: tierra at September 25, 2006 07:28 AMGood site. Thanks. Thanks for the good info you site very cool. Keep up this great resource. best greetings. good work, keep it up This site rules. Very nice resource - thank you. Hello, you did a great work on your site Good website and nice content. Thank you master!!! This is a very informative site Hi, nice site design excellent site. Thanks for the good info you site very cool. Good site you done here,man. Thanks for the good site. Thanks for the good info you site very cool. This site is fantastic. It`s professional and to the point. I like it a lot. This site rules. This site is fantastic. It`s professional and to the point. I like it a lot. excellent site. This is a beautiful site. I`ll send the link to my friends. Your site is very interesting and useful My dear web designer, it is nice. Hey, I have some links here,thanks. Very nice resource - thank you. Hi. Great website. This site is fantastic. It`s professional and to the point. I like it a lot. This site rules. Hello, very useful- thank you! Please also visit my homepages. Good site. Thanks. |
