What is Digg?21 Comments
- fezzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thank goodness that interpreter saved us from honesty in politics.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5All of Korea would be under Kim Jong Il right now if it weren't for America. 36,516 Americans died in that war. Roh is nothing but a piss ant. His little media stunt is totally without substance, character, or consequence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war - ImpicuS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4This was all over the Korea blogs very quickly, and it did not take very long for Korean speakers to see the blunder made by the interpreter. We all love sanitized news.
- kp606, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4If inappropriate conduct could merit international delegates slapping each other on the faces, Bush wouldn't have much of a face right now. =P
- ImpicuS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Indeed, Kim Il Sung told his allies the war could be won in a matter of two weeks and a maximum of two months (see the Woodrow Wilson Virtual Archive on North Korea). It almost happened, but it did not.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not only did I not enjoy how the author took a pro-Bush, pro-slap more sanctions on North Korea, Anti-Roh slant, instead of a journalistic nuetral tone, but I also doubt that even the new translation can be believed when accounting for the number of lapses in English the author makes.
This is a stretch, and who couldn't be decidedly disgusted and testy with Bush's approach to the worlds nations' security. - vault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He did neither.
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, I just disagree that the translation on that page is really that rude. What's so rude about it?
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why should peace be dependent on North Korea giving up its nuclear program? If the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Iraq offered peace on condition that the US decommissioned its nuclear weapons would you support that?
Oh, and everybody has the right to push for a peace treaty. - Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA
http://english.chosun.com/media/photo/news/200701/200701090040_00.jpg
Did anybody else see...
NAAAH! - ukdave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Bush should have given him a slap
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This article is really reading into it even with the new translation...I would not say that is "far more rude."
Inaccurate. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Go back and read it again. Why should decommissioning be necessary to establish peace - and nobody, nobody, is exempt from the right to protest peace.
What you are saying is irrelevant. You don't have to find it in a history book or to have a majority committee vote to establish it as being so. I know this might not sit well with accepted convention but that does not negate it in any way, shape or form. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't think he's distrorting it. I think we're all promoting it. If the country next door is saying get on with it and suggests the US are dragging their feet then the US aren't being much of an ally to South Korea.
- Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're joking, right? Why have North Korea give up nukes - the foundation of the pace process for the peninsula since ~1991 - before being offered a peace treaty?
As facts go, you're also wrong about the peace treaty; the ROK was not a party to the 1953 armistice and thus does not have a part any peace treaty. Actually the UN does, but South Korea as a party does not. That's just an historical fact, you don't have to like or agree with it. - Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Bush said a peace treaty would be possible when North Korea verifiable gave up its nuclear program(s) and nuclear weapons, but Roh was pushing for a commitment that did not include that. That is the context. Also, Bush clarified after Roh asked the first time, asking again was redundant aside from being rude in pushing for something he should know will not happens until NK denuclearizes.
Actually, Roh doesn't have a right to push for a peace treaty as the ROK did not participate in the armistice in 1953.
You think waiting for North Korea to give up its nukes feet dragging? LOL. NK has broken agreements with the ROKG and the U.S. several times. They know what they need to do, the ball has been in their court for over a decade. - Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The South Korean President, Roh Moo-hyun, was amazingly undiplomatic. Like Bush or not, that level of jackassery was just plain wrong, especially at a televised meeting.
- Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0To recognize the accuracy of the article one would need to either trust the author, or have more knowledge of the background of the Korean issue, thus recognizing the significance of Roh essentially lobbying for Kim and dismissing the need to denuclearize before a peace treaty could be possible. The true translation is in fact a huge diplomatic gaffe, or would be in picked up on.
- Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're in denial.
- Omnivagus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I read Korean, the new translation is absolutely correct.
You're leting your dislike of Bush distort the fact that our supposed ally is lobbying for Kim Jong-Il and giving him a pass on nukes. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Why should he not point out that Bush is refusing to commit, he's not there to babysit Bush. The Korean president pointed out that Bush had not mentioned the Peace Treaty, Bush procrastinated, Roh said, "Same story (or talk). Same story, Chairman Kim Jong-il and the South Korean people want to hear the next step (or a different story)."
Roh has every right to push for a peace treaty and to point out when he considers somebody is dragging their feet. It is also his responsibility. The controversy is not that he said what he did but that it was not translated or reported accordingly.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 