OK understand your quip about Cyprus now, but if spineless management of foreign affairs is the issue doesn’t that pretty much rules out everone else involved in the Nork talks!

Indeed. But do we need more of ‘em?

As for pleasing the French, I don’t think that’s possible – they can’t please themselves on their own apparently, I can’t see outsiders please them. And as for the UK wanting to be only a little EU-pregnant, fear not, the Limeys’ throne as the EU’s contrarians will be soon enough taken over by either the Poles or any of the newcomers, who are way more spine, and hunger, than the founders. And that’s before a Turkish membership – although by the time they join I’ll be retired, dead or otherwise not paying taxes in the EU anymore.

Nonetheless I did think you were likely american, but that was because of the US slang usage such as “boondocks” and “limey”, [not a term I've ever heard used by a frenchman about "les ros bifs"].

Regardless of your knowledge or otherwise of UK the entry date, the point still stands that involvement in the EU doesn’t mean bending over backwards to please the french!!!

OK understand your quip about Cyprus now, but if spineless management of foreign affairs is the issue doesn’t that pretty much rules out everone else involved in the Nork talks!

Intelligent debate is obviously alive and well under your care.

The Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus is hardly evidence of the EU’s ability to manage itself having occurred some 30 years before Cyprus joined the EU.

Can’t locate on a map, bit rich from a place where the President can’t hold a school book the right way up, and considering many European nations fought in the Korean War.

The UK is involved in the EU it joined in 1973. Being involved doesn’t mean agreeing to every proposal put forward in the EU’s policy chamber’s. Did the Southern States resistance to racial desegration mean that they were no longer “involved” in the United States of America.

Whether Ford has anything useful to say is another matter entirely…

Strange how the UK’s ‘qualified’ to be interested when the US needs support on the issue of WMD’s in Iraq, but seemingly we’re not ‘qualified’ to be interested on the issue Nork WMD’s.

What made the whole anti-french thing particularly grotesque in the lead up to the iraq invasion was that the french were absolutely right in their assessment of the war and it’s justifications/implications (even if their motives were debatable)

From, Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong (PDF):

Other nations’ intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France’s President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right … in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (emphasis added)

Revulsion of the French was totally justified (even if ‘freedom fries’ was stupid); they knew and continued to feed the *known* threat.

The vast majority of U.S. funds spent on North Korea was food aid sent via the UN to ensure it was properly monitored and not distributed to the govt elite and the military (unlike no-strings aid from South Korea, which is in reality unmonitored). The U.S. was in fact the largest aid donor to North Korea for years.

Are most of you expats or are some of you immigrants to South Korea?

How many of you who have married into a Korean, have children who will go thru the South Korean school system to face the day of recknoning Le Bac style, to get into South Korean universities?

Or are most of you paying the private tuition bill for foreigners to eventually take the SAT and go to higher educaton in the states as US citizens?

Personally, I think it’s a no brainer.

Stick with expat status.

Also, what’s the avg duration of years you get to legally stay in South Korea, by choice or by legal limitations? Thank you. Wish you all Happy Holidays and a great year, wherever you go.

Here is what we know so far:

As the security guarantor for Japan and S. Korea, and as the apple of Kim Jong-il’s eyes (note all the demands for one-on-one talks), the USA obviosly needs to be there.
North Korea obviously need to be there (unless the other five decide to act as a group to get the North Koreans to comply with their wishes).
As a major power in the region and leading potential target for North Korean nukes, Japan needs to be there.
As North Korea’s main backer and another major regional power, China needs to be there.
Although South Korea is pretty much ignored by the other parties (especially the North Koreans) they should be there since they will be directly effected by whatever happens. BTW, the South Koreans are at least partially to blame for their being sidelined. They have chosen not be on the side of the US and Japan as one of the ‘grieved parties’ (the guys complaining about the Nork nukes) but instead want to act as a mediator. The problem with that is the North Koreans ignore them, which leaves them with little to do.
Although the Russians don’t really need to be there, having them on board ‘closes the circle’ which will help with compliance when/if a deal is reached.

In short, I am all for having six parties in the six party talks but the reality is that these are 4+2 talks.

If someone can tell me the EU’s interest in the area, I would glad to change my opinion on bringing them in. And ‘in the interest of world peace’ doesn’t cut it. Until I see EU troops slugging it out with Charlie in the Sudan, I don’t see any reason for them to start getting involved in a place that wasn’t even a former Euro-colony.

A division of EU peacekeepers posted along the Imjin River would do the trick.