Kerry visits tense SKorea amid missile test fears

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By BRADLEY KLAPPER

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in South Korea on Friday on an unusual diplomatic journey, traveling directly into a region bracing for a possible North Korean missile test and risking that his presence alone could spur Pyongyang into another headline-seeking provocation.

Kerry was kicking off four days of talks in East Asia amid speculation that the North's unpredictable regime would launch a mid-range missile designed to reach as far as the U.S. territory of Guam. Kerry also planned to visit China and Japan.

North Korea often times its provocations to generate maximum attention, and Kerry's presence in Seoul will provide plenty of that, even if the United States is engaged in intense diplomacy with China, the North's benefactor, in an effort to lower tensions. Another dangerous date on the calendar is April 15, the 101st birthday of North Korea's deceased founder, Kim Il Sung.

Kerry's trip coincides with the disclosure of a new U.S. intelligence report that concludes North Korea has advanced its nuclear knowhow to the point that it could arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. The analysis, disclosed Thursday at a congressional hearing in Washington, said the Pentagon's intelligence wing has "moderate confidence" that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles but that the weapon would be unreliable.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130412/DA5JQ0U02.html

---

A South Korean protester wearing a mask of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry poses for the media during a rally denouncing the military exercises and demanding Kerry to go to North Korea for peace talks near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, April 12, 2013. Hinting at a missile launch, North Korea delivered a fresh round of war rhetoric with claims it has "powerful striking means" on standby. Seoul and Washington speculated that it is preparing to test-fire a missile designed to be capable of reaching the U.S. territory of Guam in the Pacific Ocean. Kerry is traveling to Asia to meet with U.S. allies and visit here on the first leg of his three-nation Asian tour. The letters read "Stop, War exercises." (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man)

[TwilightGardener]

1. I hate the way the news media constantly suggests that every move the US makes

should be countered with some hyper-aggressive threat by NK. I don't think the media is causing this showdown shit necessarily, but it doesn't help. They can report that Kerry is in SK without implying that NK will retaliate or try to get attention.

[gordianot]

2. CNN was ultra hyping North Korea this evening.

Wolf Blitzer was spewing like the Cable News equivalent of the National Enquirer. Not exactly as partisan as Fox or MSNBC they take the side that will sensationalize the news. I was able to stand about 45 minutes.

[TwilightGardener]

3. CNN has been THE WORST for overhype and trying to fan the flames.

A lot of commenters on their NK stories seem to have noticed it, too--CNN must be getting a lot of viewership and web traffic on this whole deal and is milking it big time.

[Ash_F]

4. That South Korean protester is right

Well the caption is. Can anyone translate his sign?

[joshcryer]

5. Reverse image searched, it says, "Stop War exercises."

Source: http://foto.agerpres.ro/index.php?i=6892984

[Ash_F]

6. Also right about that.

PS - nice e-detectiving

[John2]

7. I read a piece

over the internet about an opposing view, that is hardly shown by the media. The argument seems to reflect what I have found concerning the facts surrounding North Korea.
The facts are North Korea has been at War with the United States, South Korea and Japan ever since the Japanese was defeated in World War II.

The defeat of Japan came about with the dropping of nuclear bombs on its population. Only one country had that technology at the time and it threatened to drop them on the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War. If General MacArthur had his way, that would have done, but it didn't happen because of International public opinion. That would have made the U.S. no different than Nazi Germany.

Russia and China moved very fast to gain their own nuclear technology as a deterrent against the U.S. The dropping of nuclear bombs changed warfare forever. The Genie was out of the Box. The article claims from the commenter claims there has been 2000 nuclear tests done with a total of 4 by North Korea yet they are the ones being banned. North korea lost millions of people in the Korean war from being bombed just like Vietnam. Americans do not mind bombing the hell out of civilian populations as long as it is not them. North KOrea's justification for getting nuclear weapons is the same as everyone else, including their critics, China and Russia, whom both did the same. Congress have a bunch of Warmonger ors in both parties. They would rather build and hold on to their bombs than feed their own people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Hillary Clinton set a high standard for travelling in service as Secretary of State. nt

[karynnj]

9. It is an insult to Hillary Clinton (and implicitly to Kerry) to use miles traveled as the metric

After all Condi Rice traveled more miles (though went to fewer countries). There is also no reason to compare John Kerry to Hillary Clinton. They each have their own merits and abilities. I would say that Kerry is the more natural diplomat and that he entered the job with more detailed information on the most troubled spots in the world due to his 28 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He also came in having succeeded in at least 3 very tricky diplomatic missions Obama trusted him with. (Afghanistan where he got Kharzi to follow his country's laws on elections, Pakistan where he handled the mess after Davis, a covert US agent killed Pakistanis - about 3 months before OBL was killed, and the Sudan - keeping the peace process going.) Note that those 3 diplomatic missions may have helped the US as much as all of the missions Hillary undertook. (By design, it seems that special envoys were assigned to most of the hottest hot spots in the first term.)

Hillary had and has far more media support and - obviously she came in with a name recognition due to being First Lady. Hillary may use her tenure as SOS in addition to the rest of her resume as a springboard to the Presidency - Kerry almost certainly will not as he can't both be SOS and run in 2016 - and in 2020, he will be a mere 77 years old. I think we already see the outlines of how HRC will frame her time as SOS - as the strongest advocate for womens rights and human rights. (That that is an issue that she can link her actions as First Lady (her speech in China), Senate ( one of the sponsors of Lily Ledbetter.) and her time as SOS makes this something where she can claim consistent action over 3 decades - not a small thing.)

Only time will tell who will have done more for the world as SOS. Although if the metric for being a good SOS is just to travel as much as Clinton, Kerry would have an easy time doing that. If the metric is changing the world for the better, only time will tell -- and even then the answer will be hazy as no one ever knows what alternative measures could have done.

From a Democratic point of view, I think you should hope that Kerry's skills can be used by Obama to tamp down some of the chaos and violence in the world. It takes nothing from Hillary if he succeeds. She will not be running against him - and the better the Democratic administration as a whole is viewed, the better Hillary (or whomever the Democrat is) will do in the general election.

The best of all worlds is if Obama succeeds on more international and domestic issues and is seen as one of the all time best Presidents - and Kerry is seen as in a class with the best SoSs - as he already is considered one of the best SFRC chairs. This helps, not hurts, a Democrat winning in 2016.

Note - I think the constant comparison of Kerry to Clinton - never on terms that favor Kerry - is annoying. I would prefer that people looked at what both of their strengths. However, I will make what I consider comparisons if people persist in making any thread of what Kerry is doing into an "wasn't Clinton great" - though I think it is premature to do so.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Your outrage is completely misplaced. Praising a person for one thing does not devalue their

Your outrage is completely misplaced. Praising a person for one thing does not devalue their other merits. Similarly, praising one person on one grounds is not automatically a slam against another person.

I was praising both Secretaries of State, Kerry and Clinton, by noting (implicitly) that Kerry is also traveling a lot, in response to a post that indicated he was traveling a lot.

I was too subtle for you, or you have anger issues. Your outrage is out of place. Go vent against somebody else.

[karynnj]

13. I am not the one to make two posts to one message - you may be the one with anger issues.

I did not say that you were attacking Kerry. I said that your off post that 1) brought up HRC as a role model and 2) Gave more weight to miles flown than I consider reasonable.

Do you think Dr Rice, who flew more miles than HRC, was better. I sure don't. I think that it is possible to hypothesize a SOS, who traveled a fourth of what HRC did, but managed to be a catalyst for a major world problem would be better than one who traveled as much as Rice or Clinton. Note this is NOT speaking of Kerry - it is generic and it is questioning the weight given to the number of miles flown. I have no idea the miles flown by George Marshall, but I think he is the best SOS of the last decade. It would be very hard for Kerry to be in his class - HRC isn't.

As to suble, you aren't - not in the least.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. There was not a single negative word in my post about Clinton's traveling (and Kerry's too).

Read carefully and do not turn positives into negatives. That kind of backbiting is self-destructive within the Democratic party. Leave it to the Ts and Rs.

[karynnj]

12. My point was that mileage flown is not a good metric - not for HRC, not for anyone

The fact is that there was no reason to make this about how many miles Clinton flew -- with the implicit assumption that 1) that was the important metric and that 2) Kerry, in some way, has to live up to Clinton. Note that that was an OPINION. If you think that miles flown or countries visited is important, that is your privilege.

Note I said nothing negative about either Clinton or Kerry - I listed a few obvious strengthens of each.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

14. If the U.S. is this scared, I can only imagine how scared they must be with all ours going off

daily


:shakes-head:

[In_The_Wind]

15. Hello ~ usGovOwesUs3Trillion

[img][/img]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

16. Thank you, In_The_Wind

[In_The_Wind]

17. Very cute baby panda. ;)