US Should Work With Others, Except in North Korea?

Why do the Democrats insist in dealing with North Korea alone?

from JoeUser Forums
This is something that surprised me. John Kerry, Jon Stewart, and other liberals who have criticized that Bush did not work enough with his allies in Iraq are now insisting that we deal with North Korea alone in bilateral talks between them and us. Is this supposed to make some sense? Is there a reason why the same people who say America shouldn't go around acting like a cowboy thinks we should brush aside the other nations and do our own thing with North Korea? Is there some benefit to keeping China, a major influence on North Korea, out of talks?
Or have liberals forgotten that they are the ones who want the US to work together with other nations?
democrat
8,212 views 14 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just another example of maroons speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Any idiot who thinks that talks, of any sort,
that don't give the N.K government everything they want, will be successful. Is higher than Tommy Chong.
The Whackaloons in power in north Korea really don't care if their citizens starve, as long as the swedish hookers are paid. What do we have to offer them?
Perhaps a choice of annihalation, or maybe instead, food and diesel fuel.
And if anyone other than Chipr, Greywar , SPC nobody or their type tells me I don't know anything about
North korea I will have to abuse them verbally.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
We need to pressure China into alliance with us, and until that is done, Kimmy boy will do as he pleases with his big brother watching him.

I agree with SSG Geezer.

- GX
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Citizen Messy Buu

Much like the Bushy, you're twisting what it was that Kerry said. The debate here is that the Bush administration refuses to talk to N. Korea directly and has put China (ahem, a communist nation not exactly to be trusted) in a clear leadership role in dealing with the N. Koreans. In ADDITION to china and others in the region, like S. Korea, Kerry would at least like to open a dialogue with the N. Koreans so that we can negotiate with them directly. The clearest path to disarming N. Korea is not a game of brinkmanship, but rather the carrot and the stick approach. They need FOOD, and other humanitarian aid. We give them some of what they need, they give up the nukes and if they don't, THEN we smack them with the stick, and others in the neighborhood put sanctions into place, but we absolutely need to be able to talk to them directly in order to put this strategy in motion.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm a bit weary about making more deals with North Korea. They don't have a history of holding up their end of the bargain.


Let's say we do decide that they give up the nukes or we annihilate them. What if China opposes our plan? If we do something to North Korea, we're going to deal with China. It'll be like the Korean War, except with a stronger North Korea and China.


Also, do other countries support sanctions, which will kill millions of people? I heard a lot of criticism about how it was America's fault that so many died in Iraq because of the sanctions.


Because North Korea actually has nukes as well as China on its side, I have a feeling going cowboy on this will bite us in the ass far harder than it did when we overthrew Hussein.

Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
The debate here is that the Bush administration refuses to talk to N. Korea directly and has put China (ahem, a communist nation not exactly to be trusted) in a clear leadership role in dealing with the N. Koreans.


Really you ain't that bright to forget history, ever heard of something called the Korean War, hmm if you remember right we did just fight North Koreans but China as well, and the gateway to getting Kimmy boy to listen to an reasonable demands is getting China (WHO IS KIMMY BOY'S ALLY) to pressure Kimmy into listening, seriously not getting China involved is a fool's diplomacy. That is the only way you can even make a deal with North Korea, food trick will not work with Kimmy after all the North has been low on food a long time but with China they somehow make it through.

- GX
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
OK, lets give then food so they can give it to their military and let their poeple starve, like they did with Clinton.

Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us twice, Kerry is an idiot that don't know anything about international politics.

Also we know China is a communist country, but that didn't stop Clinton from wanting to make it a Strategic Allie and forking over ICBM/Nuke Tech to them (links on request). He is the one who made China strong enough to where the US must deal with then now or face off with them if we do any military stike on NK. Good old Kim is hiding behind China's skirt.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Once again, NOBODY IS SAYING WE SHOULD EXCLUDE OTHER NATIONS FROM THE TABLE. Go back to the original debate transcript and read:


LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.


What is unclear about the word "Both"?
We didn't talk to N. Korea for 2 years and look what happened--The multinational talks headed by the Chinese have done such a great job that "Kimmy" now likely has several nuclear weapons and is well on to more.

Personally, I think W. is just as eager to outsource our diplomatic positions to China as he is our manufacturing jobs.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

So, Kerry wants multinational talks, but will settle for bilateral talks, which will leave out the one country that can actually influence North Korea? I wonder which one Kim will choose, since the choice seems to be up to him.


We didn't talk to N. Korea for 2 years and look what happened--The multinational talks headed by the Chinese have done such a great job that "Kimmy" now likely has several nuclear weapons and is well on to more.


When did Bush say he didn't want to talk to North Korea? From what I saw, he wants to deal with them, but only on a multinational level.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, is it just me, or does the plan to "Give North Korea stuff and make them promise to dismantle their nuclear weapons, and if they don't, sanction them until they do." remind anybody else of the whole situation with Iraq?
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah, that's a very good point; in fact, it does remind me of the situation with Iraq. And, the evidence now clearly shows that the strategy of how we dealt with Iraq--a strategy that was initiated by George HW Bush--worked. At the time that we invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the US or his neighbors.

Did I miss something here? Where did John Kerry say that anything would be up to the N. Koreans alone?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally I don't see North Korea ever ending their nuclear weapons program. It's not in their best interests to do so. It would be a great step as an international citizen, but I seriously doubt Kim Jong-Il cares about being a good international citizen. The NK administration's only hope of maintaining independence is to have nuclear deterrence. Without it they are vulnerable to military intervention, so the chances of them ever bowing to either US or Chinese pressure is minimal at best. Add to that the strained relationship between China and the US at the best of times and you do not have a recipe for peace.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: The Trellinator - 10/2/2004 9:18:21 PM
Yeah, that's a very good point; in fact, it does remind me of the situation with Iraq. And, the evidence now clearly shows that the strategy of how we dealt with Iraq--a strategy that was initiated by George HW Bush--worked. At the time that we invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the US or his neighbors.


Aaaahhhhhh but Sen. Kerry said he was a threat!
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
uh, anyone know whether every other country in the multilateral talks talked to nk and china wanted the us to talk to north korea?

Here's that report from Human Rights Watch.
"Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

"But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, that's a very good point; in fact, it does remind me of the situation with Iraq. And, the evidence now clearly shows that the strategy of how we dealt with Iraq--a strategy that was initiated by George HW Bush--worked. At the time that we invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was absolutely no threat to the US or his neighbors.


So, we should simply sanction them as we did with Hussein? And if refuse our inspections, we bomb them, and China will be all right with it?


Did I miss something here? Where did John Kerry say that anything would be up to the N. Koreans alone?


You mean John Kerry might actually be preferring bilateral talks to multilateral ones?


Personally I don't see North Korea ever ending their nuclear weapons program. It's not in their best interests to do so. It would be a great step as an international citizen, but I seriously doubt Kim Jong-Il cares about being a good international citizen. The NK administration's only hope of maintaining independence is to have nuclear deterrence. Without it they are vulnerable to military intervention, so the chances of them ever bowing to either US or Chinese pressure is minimal at best. Add to that the strained relationship between China and the US at the best of times and you do not have a recipe for peace.


When you think about it, there's no point to have any sort of talks with them.