I would like to hear from the PO crowd on whether or not you think we should engage in bilateral or six party talks with NK. I happen to agree with the admin and condi on this one, we tried it, it didn't work...they blatantly violated the treaties they signed with us, and proceeded with counterfeiting and drug trafficking. Now they ignore warnings from the global community and threaten their neighbors. I happen to think that caving into their demands will only embolden Kim further....Here's Condi's view...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/rice.korea/index.html

What's yours??

and we can see how well that has worked for him.

even James Baker says we need to start talks. Do it with China, they have the most pull. Talk, hold your ground but talk. All silence really achieves messes like we are in today.

and we can see how well that has worked for him.

even James Baker says we need to start talks. Do it with China, they have the most pull. Talk, hold your ground but talk. All silence really achieves messes like we are in today.

Multiparty talks are the only way to go. If the talks are bilateral between the US and NK and they fail, the NKoreans will say that the US never intended to make concessions. Six party talks if nothing else provide witnesses to the negotiations. China has had enough and is pissed, their attendance at the talks will provide a forceful backup to the other Asian nations attending.

Multiparty talks are the only way to go. If the talks are bilateral between the US and NK and they fail, the NKoreans will say that the US never intended to make concessions. Six party talks if nothing else provide witnesses to the negotiations. China has had enough and is pissed, their attendance at the talks will provide a forceful backup to the other Asian nations attending.


agree with you, I mean even if the US DID make concessions, they will never stick to their end of the deal unless China and Russia enforce it with sanctions and embargos. Which is precisely why they don't want to deal with them in the diplomatic arena. I appreciate James Bakers opinion, and he's right, we do need to start talks....with all of the other nations in the area AND NK. That's the only way this will work. Some could consider his actions to be terroristic in nature, as he is attempting to hold the world hostage to his demands, as with any terrorist, dealing and negotiating SOLELY with them will only further encourage this behavior in the future. You simply can't do it.

Disagree. W really did not try diplomacy with NK. When he came into office he made it clear that he could not stand Kim. Relations have iced over since then. The Bush administration's stand on NK since day one has been regime change.

Diplomatically I think this administration has effed up yet another quadrant of the world.

ruh roh... and we know what these boys do when they want regime change ...

Disagree. W really did not try diplomacy with NK. When he came into office he made it clear that he could not stand Kim. Relations have iced over since then. The Bush administration's stand on NK since day one has been regime change.

Diplomatically I think this administration has effed up yet another quadrant of the world.


dupeyou rescinded the 94 agreement after it was demonstrated that Kim was flagrantly violating it with weapons purchasing, uranium enrichment, american currency counterfeiting and opium trafficking. Bush said ENOUGH, and stopped teh gravy train that Kim was relying on. He said that we were willing to talk, but only with China, SK, Japan, Russia, AND the US. Otherwise...no way. I think the tough rhetoric was pointless and inflammatory towards NK. This admin certainly hasn't helped the situation at all either, but this is not among GW's faults. This is entirely on Kim's shoulders.

and we can see how well that has worked for him.

even James Baker says we need to start talks. Do it with China, they have the most pull. Talk, hold your ground but talk. All silence really achieves messes like we are in today.


Yeah Baker said in an interview just the other day that talking isn't the same as giving in or rewarding their bad behaviour. It seems like you probably heard the same interview.


“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

“Too often the strong, silent man is silent only because he does not know what to say, and is reputed strong only because he has remained silent.”

-- Winston Churchill

taking him out in a comando like operation? why those things never happen except on james bond movies? too many unemployed special forces(ex USSR f.e.) finding jobs in wacko dictatorships make it hard for the "good guys"?

I would like to hear from the PO crowd on whether or not you think we should engage in bilateral or six party talks with NK. I happen to agree with the admin and condi on this one, we tried it, it didn't work...they blatantly violated the treaties they signed with us, and proceeded with counterfeiting and drug trafficking. Now they ignore warnings from the global community and threaten their neighbors. I happen to think that caving into their demands will only embolden Kim further....Here's Condi's view...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/rice.korea/index.html

What's yours??

actually, it was the Bush administration that didn't follow through on the agreed principles of the agreement that had them shitter their plutonium in exchange for fuel oil and light water reactor aid.

you know, not wanting to do anything the way the Clinton admin did, and all. make of that what you will.

Thought you all may find this of interest

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2026911.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2149113.cms

"didn't break an agreement" ???

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=322239&rel_no=1&back_url=

seems more than a few people are pointing fingers at Pakistan as being behind this - some ally.

dupeyou rescinded the 94 agreement after it was demonstrated that Kim was flagrantly violating it with weapons purchasing, uranium enrichment, american currency counterfeiting and opium trafficking. Bush said ENOUGH, and stopped teh gravy train that Kim was relying on. He said that we were willing to talk, but only with China, SK, Japan, Russia, AND the US. Otherwise...no way. I think the tough rhetoric was pointless and inflammatory towards NK. This admin certainly hasn't helped the situation at all either, but this is not among GW's faults. This is entirely on Kim's shoulders.

One of my problems is that he tried to enforce this new policy...with no real consequences except for military action. That's almost asking NK to create a deterrent, and they've been happy to oblige.

As much as NK has painted itself into a corner, so has the Bush administration...

Silas

One of my problems is that he tried to enforce this new policy...with no real consequences except for military action. That's almost asking NK to create a deterrent, and they've been happy to oblige.

As much as NK has painted itself into a corner, so has the Bush administration...

Silas

There is no international option without international involvment. Bush's refusal to deal with the NK problem without that involvment is obviously working. NK is violently opposed to it, why? Bush has not painted the US into a corner, he has refused to BE cornered or blackmailed. Involvment of regional powers that NK relies on will cause any agreement to be far more binding, violation will be offensive to entities vital to their economy and survival. Kim can continue spitting in the eye of the US and ignore any restrictions that might be agreed to with impunity if he retains the support of those regional powers and trading partners. Bush insists that he lose that option. It really isn't important militarily if NK has 6 nukes or 60. Even a complete lunitic knows the difference between that arsenal and that of the US military. He isn't completely nuts just yet.

We've arrived at the same conclusion again...this is in the hands of China, SK and Japan.

My question, why threaten and possibly provoke when we really don't intend to back it up?

Silas

The one thing most No. Koreans think of when they think of the Americans is the bombing they endured during the Korean War. The bombings have created a sort of hunkered down mentality amongst the No. Korean populace.

When Clinton was in office he told NK that we will leave you alone, we will not bomb or invade you so long as you do not pursue a nuclear program. This sat pretty well with NK. As a result there was a significant thawing of the Korean Cold war. The two Koreas got a lot chummier, they put a unified Korean team in the Olympics. And Madeleine Albright even visited NK near the end of the Clinton presidency.

Now when Cowboy George came into office the first and just about the only thing he said/did about NK was that he thought Kim Jong Il was a despicable human being. The posturing of the Bush admin since then has been all about regime change in NK.

How's a mildy paranoid guy like Kim Jong Il supposed to react to this sort of "diplomacy" from an American president? Well, Kim went ahead with a nuke program. After all everyone knows a country with nukes will never be attacked.

We've arrived at the same conclusion again...this is in the hands of China, SK and Japan.

My question, why threaten and possibly provoke when we really don't intend to back it up?

Silas

and Russia.

And someone better tell the Pakistanis to get the heck out of the middle of it all.

We've arrived at the same conclusion again...this is in the hands of China, SK and Japan.

My question, why threaten and possibly provoke when we really don't intend to back it up?

Silas

Silas, I think we're just going through the various stages and hoping that international pressure and diplomacy work. I think it is dangerous to assume that Bush has no intention of backing up his rhetoric.

Silas, I think we're just going through the various stages and hoping that international pressure and diplomacy work. I think it is dangerous to assume that Bush has no intention of backing up his rhetoric.

I'd be curious to see just what Congress authorizes him to do.

I'd be curious to see just what Congress authorizes him to do.

Why do I suddenly get the feeling all that rhetoric of defeatist 'cut and run' democrats & etc...has the very real possibility of causing the GOP to have to swallow the whole shoe industry?