- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- North Korea tested a nuke
North Korea tested a nukeFollow
30 posts
We know this was going to happen. I honestly have no issues with other countries with nuclear power, as long as they do not create nuclear weapons with that power. Unfortunately, North Korea did just that. I suspect Gumbi will invade N. Korea now.
Hmmm... Want to readress this:
The two don't really compare in that context. In the former, we were looking for 'permission' to invade Iraq because we felt that an invasion was in order. We weren't looking to talk it out with Iraq or have any form of diplomatic discourse with Saddam; Bush just wanted to invade. When you're going to invade and then rebuild a nation, it makes sense to have as much international support behind you as possible. Bush shrugged this off in his desire to get what he wanted.
See. I agree with you that the two don't really compare. However, I think you've got it completely backwards.
Diplomacy is strengthened the more parties are at the table. And agreement between two nations is only binding between those two nations. If one choose to violate that agreement they're only upsetting one nation. Additionally, other nations have no reason to help prevent the violation since they weren't included in the agreement to start with. It's important to get as many involved in diplomacy as possible since that's the stage at which you're trying to *avoid* conflict while working out disagreements. The more people at the table, the more solid the agreement will be once one is reached.
War occurs when diplomacy breaks down. Somewhat by definition, only those who feel they were "harmed" sufficiently will feel the need/desire to go to war over the issue. The idea of "getting permission" to go to war is ubsurd. You either do it, or you don't. The US was not asking permission of the UN, we were trying to get the UN as a body to participate in military action against Iraq.
The point is that you start with multilateral diplomacy, and you break down to unilateral (or a smaller multilateral) military action if and only if that first step fails. In the case of Iraq, the initial agreement and cease fire was multilateral. In theory, this should have strengthened the agreement. Unfortunately, when Iraq failed to meet it's end of the agreement (brazenly violated it actually), most of the members of the original cease fire declined to take military action. That's their right of course, but so is military action the right of any nations who were part of that first agreement who choose to do so.
Starting from scratch with one on one diplomacy means that you and you alone are the interested party if things break down. Thus, we're forced into a position of either having to take action on our own, or letting the issue slide. Had we involved China, S. Korea, Russia, and Japan, NK would have been far more hesitant to resume uranium and plutonium enrichment since they'd have to face all 5 other nations for their violation.
The end result is that to the other 4 nations, this is a "new" diplomatic situation. They never signed on to anything that required NK to avoid enrichment, so they could not do anything when it did so. So instead of having X number of years to prepare a response and protest and deal in other ways with NK working towards building nukes, they're only starting to take any sort of action now that NK has built them.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but I personally find the idea of having one on one talks but only ever taking military action multilaterally somewhat counterintuitive. If for no other reason then if all of your agreements are unilateral, how on earth will you ever get a multilateral response to a violation? Seems like you're just constructing a process by which you're never allowed to ever engage in miltary action no matter what someone else does...
In both cases, the common thread of criticism is that Bush decided that he was going to make the call and damn those who might disagree.
As opposed to Clinton ignoring China, Japan, S. Korea, and Russia when he made the Agreed Framework with North Korea? He left them out of the bargaining table, meaning they had no interest or desire to assist in making sure that NK kept to the bargain. We can argue whether they would have agreed with a similar accord, or what actions they may have taken if they had and NK had violated them anyway, but at the very least, it seems less likely that China would have allowed their nation to be used to import key enriching materials if they'd been a signatory to an agreement that NK not enrich uranium or plutonium, don't you think?
I don't see it that way at all. I see it more that Bush is looking at the utter failure of the Agreed Framework, and realizing that the only way to make NK actually stick to any agreement is to get the other parties involved (especially China). In Iraq, we started with a multilateral agreement which at least gave everyone in the UN the "right" to be involved in a military action against Iraq, even if most of them choose not to. Had that been a bilateral agreement between the US and Iraq alone, we'd not even have had the option of going to the UN and asking other nations to join us.
I just think your approach on this is backwards. Of course, I'm sure it's not actually "your approach", but one you've heard others talk about that you think sounds great. I'll argue that they are wrong. And not just a little wrong, but *way* wrong...
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 6:08pm PDT by gbaji
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
With Iraq we're blamed for ignoring the international community as a whole and "going it alone". In NK, however, the same voices attack the decision to stick with the six party talks and insist that we should deal with NK directly.
See. I agree with you that the two don't really compare. However, I think you've got it completely backwards.
Diplomacy is strengthened the more parties are at the table. And agreement between two nations is only binding between those two nations. If one choose to violate that agreement they're only upsetting one nation. Additionally, other nations have no reason to help prevent the violation since they weren't included in the agreement to start with. It's important to get as many involved in diplomacy as possible since that's the stage at which you're trying to *avoid* conflict while working out disagreements. The more people at the table, the more solid the agreement will be once one is reached.
War occurs when diplomacy breaks down. Somewhat by definition, only those who feel they were "harmed" sufficiently will feel the need/desire to go to war over the issue. The idea of "getting permission" to go to war is ubsurd. You either do it, or you don't. The US was not asking permission of the UN, we were trying to get the UN as a body to participate in military action against Iraq.
The point is that you start with multilateral diplomacy, and you break down to unilateral (or a smaller multilateral) military action if and only if that first step fails. In the case of Iraq, the initial agreement and cease fire was multilateral. In theory, this should have strengthened the agreement. Unfortunately, when Iraq failed to meet it's end of the agreement (brazenly violated it actually), most of the members of the original cease fire declined to take military action. That's their right of course, but so is military action the right of any nations who were part of that first agreement who choose to do so.
Starting from scratch with one on one diplomacy means that you and you alone are the interested party if things break down. Thus, we're forced into a position of either having to take action on our own, or letting the issue slide. Had we involved China, S. Korea, Russia, and Japan, NK would have been far more hesitant to resume uranium and plutonium enrichment since they'd have to face all 5 other nations for their violation.
The end result is that to the other 4 nations, this is a "new" diplomatic situation. They never signed on to anything that required NK to avoid enrichment, so they could not do anything when it did so. So instead of having X number of years to prepare a response and protest and deal in other ways with NK working towards building nukes, they're only starting to take any sort of action now that NK has built them.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but I personally find the idea of having one on one talks but only ever taking military action multilaterally somewhat counterintuitive. If for no other reason then if all of your agreements are unilateral, how on earth will you ever get a multilateral response to a violation? Seems like you're just constructing a process by which you're never allowed to ever engage in miltary action no matter what someone else does...
Quote:
The CNS wrote:
Pyongyang has demanded bilateral negotiations with the United States, but the Bush administration flatly rejects them as "a concession" or "rewarding bad behavior." Bilateral and multilateral negotiations are not mutually exclusive, but the Bush administration has viewed the two options as a zero-sum proposition. In fact, they are complementary because they would bring North Korea back to the negotiating table at little or no cost to the U.S., and they would also increase the prospects for the institutionalization of the six-party framework for dealing with a number of other regional issues after settling the North Korean nuclear problem.
As opposed to Clinton ignoring China, Japan, S. Korea, and Russia when he made the Agreed Framework with North Korea? He left them out of the bargaining table, meaning they had no interest or desire to assist in making sure that NK kept to the bargain. We can argue whether they would have agreed with a similar accord, or what actions they may have taken if they had and NK had violated them anyway, but at the very least, it seems less likely that China would have allowed their nation to be used to import key enriching materials if they'd been a signatory to an agreement that NK not enrich uranium or plutonium, don't you think?
Quote:
In Iraq, it was the decision to invade despite international opposition. In N. Korea, it's a decision that no one is getting what they want until Bush gets what he wants first. It's not a question of "Here there was a lot of countries and here there's not!" but rather a question of Bush's conceit and unwillingness to expand his policies beyond his own desires.
I don't see it that way at all. I see it more that Bush is looking at the utter failure of the Agreed Framework, and realizing that the only way to make NK actually stick to any agreement is to get the other parties involved (especially China). In Iraq, we started with a multilateral agreement which at least gave everyone in the UN the "right" to be involved in a military action against Iraq, even if most of them choose not to. Had that been a bilateral agreement between the US and Iraq alone, we'd not even have had the option of going to the UN and asking other nations to join us.
I just think your approach on this is backwards. Of course, I'm sure it's not actually "your approach", but one you've heard others talk about that you think sounds great. I'll argue that they are wrong. And not just a little wrong, but *way* wrong...
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 6:08pm PDT by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Why are we stuck on policies that are years old wehn we are obviously dealing with a very.. uh... 'dynamically minded' Kim Jong Il?
If he is only willing to play ball by his rules, why don't we just do it; if it means winning the game
?
rhetorical question. we do it because we are like them and need to strut around with our ***** in our hands as well.
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 4:54pm PDT by Kelvyquayo
If he is only willing to play ball by his rules, why don't we just do it; if it means winning the game
? rhetorical question. we do it because we are like them and need to strut around with our ***** in our hands as well.
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 4:54pm PDT by Kelvyquayo
Kelvyquayo wrote:
If he is only willing to play ball by his rules, why don't we just do it; if it means winning the game?
Well, the obvious answer is that because the last time we "played by his rules", and agreed to bilateral talks directly between the US and NK, he took our money and our time and went ahead doing what he wanted, laughing all the while.
In otherwords, it *wont* mean "winning the game". It didn't work the last time. It would be like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy not to pull the football away like she did the last time...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
the obvious answer is that because the last time we "played by his rules", and agreed to bilateral talks directly between the US and NK, he took our money and our time and went ahead doing what he wanted, laughing all the while.
well.
maybe he's ready to talk this time? It shouldn't be a game of pride. Waht other choice is there?
I think they are really afraid of China.
Quote:
I'm sure you'll disagree, but I personally find the idea of having one on one talks but only ever taking military action multilaterally somewhat counterintuitive. If for no other reason then if all of your agreements are unilateral, how on earth will you ever get a multilateral response to a violation?
"Bilateral and multilateral negotiations are not mutually exclusive, but the Bush administration has viewed the two options as a zero-sum proposition. In fact, they are complementary because they would bring North Korea back to the negotiating table at little or no cost to the U.S., and they would also increase the prospects for the institutionalization of the six-party framework for dealing with a number of other regional issues after settling the North Korean nuclear problem."
Why would "all your agreements" have to be bilateral?
Quote:
Well, the obvious answer is that because the last time we "played by his rules", and agreed to bilateral talks directly between the US and NK, he took our money and our time and went ahead doing what he wanted, laughing all the while.
The stupidest thing is that North Korea was so freaking deliberate with each and every stage of this since Bush took office. "We're going to expel the inspectors! Ok, now we're expelling the inspectors! Now we're going to break the seals! We've broken the seals! We will now extract the plutonium!..." It's not as if any of this took place is secret and this test just snuck up on us. At any point there while N. Korea was saying "HINT!! HINT!!" we could have engaged in the bilateral talks they desired and... well, and saw what could be done. Doesn't mean that we had to agree that weekend to concessions. Doesn't mean we had to enter into agreements without consulting anyone else. Just found out what we could do instead of responding to every stage with "I can't hear you unless all my friends are here! LA LA LA LA!!!" because a bilateral talk would let him "win".
Edited, Oct 11th 2006 at 9:58pm PDT by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure you'll disagree, but I personally find the idea of having one on one talks but only ever taking military action multilaterally somewhat counterintuitive. If for no other reason then if all of your agreements are unilateral, how on earth will you ever get a multilateral response to a violation?
"Bilateral and multilateral negotiations are not mutually exclusive, but the Bush administration has viewed the two options as a zero-sum proposition. In fact, they are complementary because they would bring North Korea back to the negotiating table at little or no cost to the U.S., and they would also increase the prospects for the institutionalization of the six-party framework for dealing with a number of other regional issues after settling the North Korean nuclear problem."
Why would "all your agreements" have to be bilateral?
If all your talks are bilateral, then all your agreements will be. I was simply addressing the absolute silliness of insisting on bilateral talks to the exclusion of multilateral ones. I was also specifically countering arguments that the US should seek bilateral communication with NK instead of multilateral talks. I know that you said that we could do both, but that's *not* what most of the "Bush is ******** this up" crowd are demanding.
Also, your earlier statement is somewhat irrelevant. The Bush administration is correct. Historically, bilateral talks with NK have been a "zero sum" game with regard to multilateral talks with NK. Basically, if NK is talking directly to us, it damages the possiblity of having any kind of talks and agreements that involve all 6 parties.
Sure. There's nothing that precludes one from persuing both options. However, in the case of NK, it's pretty obvious that if the US essentially steps over the other 4 parties and deals with NK directly on this issue, it will cause any multilateral talks to fall apart and fail (as happened when the Agreed Framework was signed). Thus, while they aren't in concept zero-sum, in practice in this case, they are. You can't hold bilateral talks with NK and also expect any progress on multilateral talks (and vice-versa really). If NK thinks it can get goodies from the US without having to bind itself to agreements with its neighbors, it'll go ahead and do that. Why not?
Quote:
Quote:
Well, the obvious answer is that because the last time we "played by his rules", and agreed to bilateral talks directly between the US and NK, he took our money and our time and went ahead doing what he wanted, laughing all the while.
How about we wait 12 years and see how the success is?
This is actually one of the issues that kinda ticks me off about this whole thing. It just seems silly that people defend Clinton's approach, even to the point of demanding that we "return to what was working", when 12 years after the fact we've had the benefit of some time and history to see that those talks ended up being absolute failures. We gained nothing. By most estimates, NK never stopped enriching uranium and began enriching plutonium during the time period when this agreement was believed to be "working". But then, on the other hand, the same people bash Bush for a plan that "isn't working", when it's been barely more then 3 years since NK admitted it had violated the terms of the Agreed framework. So apparently, it's possible to determine with great accuracy the failure probability of a program that is still in operation and while the talks are still being hammered out, but it's impossible to say with any certainty that an agreement that has been over and done with for 12 years and which the other side had admitted publically it violated may have been a mistake...
Double standard? Yeah. I think so. Huge one in this case. After all Joph, if I'd told you back in 1993 that the Agreed Framework that the bilateral talks with NK were working towards were going to fail, wouldn't you have argued that I couldn't possibly know for sure? Wouldn't you have defended the talks? Heck. *I* probably would have defended them back then. Because at that time, I would have had no reason to assume that they would fail. Apparently, all the Liberals on this board have become selectively precognitive (they can only see the future when it involves a Republican doing something wrong).
Quote:
The stupidest thing is that North Korea was so freaking deliberate with each and every stage of this since Bush took office. "We're going to expel the inspectors! Ok, now we're expelling the inspectors! Now we're going to break the seals! We've broken the seals! We will now extract the plutonium!..." It's not as if any of this took place is secret and this test just snuck up on us. At any point there while N. Korea was saying "HINT!! HINT!!" we could have engaged in the bilateral talks they desired and... well, and saw what could be done. Doesn't mean that we had to agree that weekend to concessions. Doesn't mean we had to enter into agreements without consulting anyone else. Just found out what we could do instead of responding to every stage with "I can't hear you unless all my friends are here! LA LA LA LA!!!" because a bilateral talk would let him "win"
It's not about feeding Egos. It's about finding a method of diplomacy that NK will actually follow. Clearly, they did not respect the bilateral agreement we signed with them in 1994. And what's really funny is that you mention exactly *why* that approach was risky. While NK was slowly and deliberately doing each of those things, what exactly should the US have done? We could only act for ourselves since we had not included anyone else in the agreement. I think it was pretty obvious that NK was essentially using that entire process to try to effectively blackmail the US into giving them more stuff.
That's why two party talks was a really bad idea. It set us up to be in a situation where NK could blatantly refuse to follow the agreement, pull the exactly step by step process, each time sticking their hands out and effectively saying "give us money, or we'll do the next thing!". At some point, you have to stop playing that game. And the only way that's going to happen is to involve the other players in the region. If they're involved NK can't play those games. It must deal in good faith because it needs all of them. It can survive just fine without the US. But it can't manage with closed borders with Russia, China, Japan, and SK. It simply can't.
I just find it amusing that you see that process as a reason why we should have returned to bilateral talks, while I see it as the exact proof as to why bilateral talks were a mistake.
Edited, Oct 12th 2006 at 12:43am PDT by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I was simply addressing the absolute silliness of insisting on bilateral talks to the exclusion of multilateral ones.
I suppose it's easier to make up a defense when you're also making up the attacks.
Quote:
Basically, if NK is talking directly to us, it damages the possiblity of having any kind of talks and agreements that involve all 6 parties.
Quote:
How about we wait 12 years and see how the success is?
Not that I imagine they will, but if North Korea sets off a nuclear weapon in a year, do we still need to wait another eight years before saying Bush's plan didn't work?
Quote:
So apparently, it's possible to determine with great accuracy the failure probability of a program that is still in operation and while the talks are still being hammered out
Quote:
We could only act for ourselves since we had not included anyone else in the agreement. I think it was pretty obvious that NK was essentially using that entire process to try to effectively blackmail the US into giving them more stuff.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said North Korea should understand it had made a mistake but "punishment should not be the purpose" of any U.N. response.
What the Fuck is the U.N. supposed to be like the pre-school teacher scolding the snot nose 4 year old Nk that does not know any better?
I understand China is worried that North Koreans might flee to thier country, but give me a break. I hope noone actually believes that Kim goofeylookingmotherfcker did not know what he did was against U.N. policy.
Edited, Oct 12th 2006 at 1:15pm PDT by Proroc
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was simply addressing the absolute silliness of insisting on bilateral talks to the exclusion of multilateral ones.
I suppose it's easier to make up a defense when you're also making up the attacks.
Um. I'm responding to calls that Bush should not involve the 6 parties, but should talk directly to NK instead. I know that *you* are arguing that we could do both, but most Dems in Washington aren't
Quote:
A potential 2008 Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin issued a statement denouncing Bush for using the vehicle of six-nation talks involving China and Japan to try to persuade North Korea to forego its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Sunday’s nuclear test, Feingold said, showed “the weakness of the Six Party approach as well as the danger of this Administration's hands-off approach to North Korea.â€
Sunday’s nuclear test, Feingold said, showed “the weakness of the Six Party approach as well as the danger of this Administration's hands-off approach to North Korea.â€
That's hardly the only example. It's pretty ubiquitous. Democrats are not saying "Do what you're doing but *also* do some direct talking". The strategy seems to be to always say that what Bush is doing is wrong, and that includes condemning the 6 party talks. You can argue about what you think the position should be. I'm talking about what the actual politicians on each side of the aisle are saying and doing.
Quote:
Quote:
How about we wait 12 years and see how the success is?
Um. But those things happened as a result of the 1994 agreement falling apart Joph. Not because of anything that Bush did. The only thing Bush had to do with any of that was that he happened to be president when we discovered that NK had not been abiding by the terms of the agreement.
You seem to be taking the position that as long as we don't know the other guy is cheating us, everything is groovy, but that we should place the blame for being cheated on the administration who figures out that it's happening. Doesn't that place you in the position of arguing that we should not check up to make sure that people are actually abiding by the terms of agreements so that we can always pretend that they are and that they're successful?
Again. The only difference is that Bush actually realized that NK was lying to us and violating the agreement. Clinton apparently blissfully went along with it and called it a success. I guess I just can't ask this question enough: Is it success if you don't know you've failed? And failure when and only when you figure it out? Because that seems like a silly way of doing things.
Quote:
Not that I imagine they will, but if North Korea sets off a nuclear weapon in a year, do we still need to wait another eight years before saying Bush's plan didn't work?
Depends what the plan is. However, we can state *today* with absolute certainty that Clinton's plan to get NK to not develop nuclear weapons failed. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we? Or are you actually trying to argue that NK acquired all of the nuclear material, the facilities for enrichment, the materials for a bomb, and put it all together just since 2002? That's not even remotely possible. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that they continued working on their bomb(s) during the entire time they pretended to go along with the 1994 agreement, only revealing that they'd violated the agreement once they were near enough to completion that nothing except a military invasion could have stopped them. Isn't that obvious? I think so...
Quote:
What was the goal? Was it to prevent N. Korea from expanding their nuclear weapons program? Because I think we can safely call that a failure.
But it was a failure of the 1994 agreement. Bush is confronted with a totally different problem today, largely *because* of that failure. By 2002, when Bush discovered the NK had been violating the agreement, they'd already enriched enough materials (by several intelligence estimates) to make several bombs. At that point, you can't pretend that this hasn't happened and just go back to debating over furture enrichment. You have to deal with the material that's already been developed. That requires getting more people involved.
Quote:
Even if they magically said "no more" today, they now have more material refined, more nuclear weapons built and a test completed that they didn't have three years ago.
But they'd have had that even if they'd said "no more" 3 years ago Joph. The only difference is that you could have kept your head in the sand and pretended that they didn't. Again. Not knowing doesn't change the reality of the situation. Bush acted based on what NK was actually doing, not what it said it was (or would). Clinton made the mistake of believing them 14 years ago. That's what lead us into this mess in the first place.
Quote:
Once again, you're pretending that there's some sort of cover charge for entering Club Bilateral. Once again, you're pretending that the two are mutually exclusive and that, if two guys enter a room, they have to come out with an agreement signed and sealed. There's absolutely no chance of anyone saying "We'll get back to you on that" and discussing the two-party terms multilaterally to get input.
But you gain nothing with bilateral talks if you can't come to an agreement. Any talks will require negotiations. Negotiations that we can't be sure will be upheld if there aren't more people involved. If we promise them something in a bilateral talk, and then try to go to the multilateral talks and it turns out that this is incompatible with what the other 4 nations want, then we're in quite a pickle, aren't we?
I agree that there's nothing wrong with someone from the Bush administration talking directly with someone from NK's government. However, I really don't think high level negotiations are going to be a good direction to go. Any agreement we make without including the other 4 cannot be assured of success, and is likely to actually make the multilateral talks less likely to succeed as well. It's really not about ego or being in a special club. It's about not making deals with NK that no one else in the region will honor.
We're supposed to learn from past mistakes. Not repeat them.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Crazy as it sounds my advice to this whole NK nuclear/diplomacy bruhaha would be to largely ignore them. And when Kim Jong Il goes through the trouble to try to and make the world pay attention to him, loudly and publically laugh at him for his miserable failures. I'd then go to the UN and hold a farcical film festival featuring The Great Leader's greatest movie hits. I'd smuggle out of North Korea his former lovers (or just lie and hire actresses) who giggled and laughed as they revealed the dirty sexual secret that Kimmy is actually impotent and that several tons of ground rhino horn, bengal tiger balls, and newt's eyes just gave him shingles, but left him even more flaccid then he was before.
In short, make Kim Jong Il the global equivilent of that kid in junior high school who everybody gave wedgies to, placed upside-down in trash cans, and whom the girls snickered about not so quietly behind his back.
By doing what we (and everybody else in the world) has been doing has been giving him the legitimacy he so desperately craves. And what is the result? More of the same. It's a self defeating cycle for us and a win/win situation for Kimmy.
Totem
In short, make Kim Jong Il the global equivilent of that kid in junior high school who everybody gave wedgies to, placed upside-down in trash cans, and whom the girls snickered about not so quietly behind his back.
By doing what we (and everybody else in the world) has been doing has been giving him the legitimacy he so desperately craves. And what is the result? More of the same. It's a self defeating cycle for us and a win/win situation for Kimmy.
Totem
Totem wrote:
In short, make Kim Jong Il the global equivilent of that kid in junior high school who everybody gave wedgies to, placed upside-down in trash cans, and whom the girls snickered about not so quietly behind his back.
So you're going for a global Columbine thing, or.....
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
A potential 2008 Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin issued a statement denouncing Bush for using the vehicle of six-nation talks involving China and Japan to try to persuade North Korea to forego its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Sunday’s nuclear test, Feingold said, showed “the weakness of the Six Party approach as well as the danger of this Administration's hands-off approach to North Korea.â€
Sunday’s nuclear test, Feingold said, showed “the weakness of the Six Party approach as well as the danger of this Administration's hands-off approach to North Korea.â€
That's hardly the only example. It's pretty ubiquitous. Democrats are not saying "Do what you're doing but *also* do some direct talking". The strategy seems to be to always say that what Bush is doing is wrong, and that includes condemning the 6 party talks. You can argue about what you think the position should be. I'm talking about what the actual politicians on each side of the aisle are saying and doing.
"But I do think the North Koreans have to understand that, in the end, all options are on the table. We need to get back to an aggressive approach to bring the North Koreans into active participation in the multilateral talks." -- Sen. Feingold, Meet the Press June 25, 2006.
Again, people just aren't saying that the two are mutually exclusive or that you can't have one if you have the other. Yes, right now we see the weakness of the multilateral method because, well, it ain't working when N. Korea refuses to go to the table. If we can get them to the multilateral table then that's excellent. And starting with bilateral talks may just be a way to bring them there.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
What? Mocking him for all his missile errors and famines can't be any worse than pandering to NK as we have been for the past 40 years. On top of that we get to feel superior. And who doesn't like to feel superior, especially to people who are practically begging for it?
C'mon, coke bottle glasses, he's short, so on and so forth. It's not like anybody would defend him or anything.
Totem
C'mon, coke bottle glasses, he's short, so on and so forth. It's not like anybody would defend him or anything.
Totem
And he's got syphillis. Even if Kimmy doesn't it's not like he can plausably deny it. See how fun this could be?
Totem
Totem
Recent Visitors: 300
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (300)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- North Korea tested a nuke
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC