Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bi-Lateral Talks with North Korea (Question)
9/30/04 | christie

Posted on 09/30/2004 7:29:48 PM PDT by christie

I'm confused. Why does Kerry stress a coalition for the war on terror and going to war with Iraq but thinks we should have bi-lateral talks with Korea.

Can someone explain this?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: flipflop; korea
It seems that bi-lateral talks with Korea would be a great mistake. I don't understand the issue, perhaps.
1 posted on 09/30/2004 7:29:48 PM PDT by christie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: christie

You simply can't trust the North Koreans. They lied to President Clinton when they talked him into sponsoring their nuclear program. It's a simple truth, you can not trust communists under any circumstances. Their word, written or spoken, is worthless and they only do what they perceive to be in their best interest or what they are forced to do.


2 posted on 09/30/2004 7:34:37 PM PDT by jwpjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

Can someone explain this?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

yep. It is opposite what President Bush is doing.


3 posted on 09/30/2004 7:34:40 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (Concealed Carry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

I agree, you can't reason with a madman.


4 posted on 09/30/2004 7:36:18 PM PDT by Amish with an attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

perhaps he can give them more nuclear material for them to use peacefully?


5 posted on 09/30/2004 7:36:38 PM PDT by Tarl3.16 (are there Christmas trees in Cambodia?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER

Yeah, but he thinks we can't sneeze without the world's consent, but he wants us to go it alone with Korea.


6 posted on 09/30/2004 7:36:43 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: christie
Weakness. Clinton sent Carter for bilateral talks with Kim Jong Il, the genocidal terrorist military dictator. Those talks resulted in the purported "framework agreement" whereby North Korea decided to pursue enriching uranium instead of using plutonium for its nuclear energy programs. Like most of the starving country's other energy, this nuclear energy would be used for military purposes such as arming Islamic terrorists and launching nuclear missiles.

Bush wants to join with other nations to prevail upon North Korea to eliminate ALL of its nuclear weaponry. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to return to the blissful ignorance of the Clinton era, when we ignored the Korean nuclear crisis.
7 posted on 09/30/2004 7:38:50 PM PDT by dufekin (President Kerry would have our enemies partying like it's 1969, when Kerry first committed treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

Kerry is a moron.

When asked about bilateral vs multilateral he actually said you could have both- he also said he could have bilateral talks with North Korea and keep the Chinese on board. Which of course is not bilateral.


8 posted on 09/30/2004 7:41:25 PM PDT by visualops
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

First: I think President Bush missed a big rhetorical opportunity. He should have skipped all this 'bilateral' talk and said John Kerry wants to deal with North Korea unilaterally, I want to deal with NK multilaterally.

Second: The issue is this. In a multilateral (namely, China) NK has to abide the agreement or face serious consequences...they are heavily dependent on PRC. Thus, they have to be serious to make the agreement and they have to keep it.

If we alone make a deal with NK, they will say whatever we want them to say, get all kinds of dane geld, let Kerry come home and declare peace in our time, while the madman goes about doing whatever he wants. An agreement with us alone is worthless except that it sounds good to a domestic audience.


9 posted on 09/30/2004 7:41:41 PM PDT by blanknoone (Red + Yellow = Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

To determine Kerry's most probable position, just ask yourself what the most damaging policy for the United States' national interest would be.


10 posted on 09/30/2004 7:41:56 PM PDT by thoughtomator ("With 64 days left, John Kerry still has time to change his mind 4 or 5 more times" - Rudy Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

We had bi-lateral talks with North Korea under clinton and if failed miserably. The were fooled by the midget meister of North Korea.

Why Kerry wants us to do it now is anyones guess. Probably one of his advisors. I wish GW would have asked.


11 posted on 09/30/2004 7:42:52 PM PDT by IamJustright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

I can only think that Kerry believes that only the voice of The Almighty 'Contradicting' Kerry is enough to make N. Korea bow down and obey.


12 posted on 09/30/2004 7:43:34 PM PDT by Zhalchylde (Don't follow me...I think I stepped in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amish with an attitude
.
Given Kerry's track record, I hate the thought of Kerry in bi-lateral talks with Korea. He'd probably bring back their plan and present it to Congress, as he did in Paris with the Vietcong, and in Nicaragua with the Sandanista.

Additionally, Bush needs to get across the message that Saddam was harboring terrorist and sponsoring terrorism and that he was more vital to the war on terror than Osama bin Laden. Saddam may not have ordered the attack on 9-11, but he was up to his eyeballs with al Queda, in training them, etc.

He isn't doing it. So we need to do it.

Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
.

13 posted on 09/30/2004 7:44:27 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: christie

Kerry's sending the wrong message to the "coalition" that he says he wants for the War in Iraq by saying that invading Iraq was a mistake. And there is a coalition. The proportions sent by the various countries that are helping in Iraq shows the willingness of each of those counties to defeat terrorists.

There are already six-way talks with N. Korea regarding N. Korea's nuclear weapons--talks that President Bush prefers to continue to a hopeful solution. What does Kerry want to do with regards to the nukes in N. Korea? Would Kerry be willing to use any military solution? I doubt it.


14 posted on 09/30/2004 7:45:49 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

North Korea. Anyway, Kerry just likes to weaken the US whenever he has a chance.


15 posted on 09/30/2004 7:46:12 PM PDT by perfect stranger (The Hummer is a regular Pat Buchanan on wheels." PJ O'Rourke from C&D magazine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
NK has to abide the agreement or face serious consequencesNK has to abide the agreement or face serious consequences

The real issue is that China has far more at stake than we do. If the lunatic running N. Korea actually launched something and we had to flatten them in response China is downwind. The strategy to make the Chinese deal with this is the smart move.

16 posted on 09/30/2004 7:48:35 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: christie

The South Koreans, Japan, Russia, and China all want the NK's to drop their program.

These players are all in the region and SK and Japan and possibly Russia could be targeted by NK nukes.

Kim Jong Illness had insisted on bilateral talks with the US.

The US is saying, you need to meet with the players in your region and us.

It is a coalition thing and a brinksmanship game with the NK Illness. He thinks he is too important to meet with the rest. He wants to be a World player. We won't let him be one.


17 posted on 09/30/2004 7:49:31 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops
"he also said he could have bilateral talks with North Korea and keep the Chinese on board. Which of course is not bilateral."

There is no better way to alienate Russia and China than to enter into bi-lateral talks with North Korea.

18 posted on 09/30/2004 7:53:43 PM PDT by perfect stranger (The Hummer is a regular Pat Buchanan on wheels." PJ O'Rourke from C&D magazine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: christie

I have the same question!

Why does Kerry want a "summit" and the UN blessing for dealing with Iraq, yet he wants to toss aside the 6 Nation talks for bilateral talks with North Korea????


19 posted on 09/30/2004 7:54:15 PM PDT by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

Clinton had bilateral talks. He was burned. NK doesn't want to answer to China and Russia. Bilateral in NK's favor.

There were threads on Kerry's flipping on this issue before (a Rand Beers operation?). Early in 2003 he urged Bush for multilateral talks. When those were going, Kerry argued for bilateral talks. (Evidence was on his site). When caught, Kerry argued for Multilateral talks, with bilateral talks on the side.

That Bush wasn't prepared to pointedly note this other flipflopping is another failure of his team.


20 posted on 09/30/2004 8:00:18 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

I thought the same thing. You and I can't be the only ones that are thinking that....whhoooo as I was typing Hannity nailed him with this very point.


21 posted on 09/30/2004 8:15:44 PM PDT by rewrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
22 posted on 09/30/2004 8:19:06 PM PDT by Chummy ("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
23 posted on 09/30/2004 8:19:35 PM PDT by Chummy ("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie
"...I don't understand the issue, perhaps."

And neither does John Kerry. As long as his political opponent says one thing, John Kerry will support the opposite view, and over time will transmogrify through a number of different views that are contradictory to his own positions on the self-same topic.

On a bright, sunny day, tell John Kerry the sky is a lovely blue, and he'll tell you it was as dark today as it was when he was in Vietnam.

His nickname is not "Just For" Kerry for nothing.
24 posted on 09/30/2004 8:21:14 PM PDT by Chummy ("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chummy

Sorry about the multi-posts; posting of my comment went berserk like TahRAYsah when she meets someone opposed to Mr. PreDebate Manicure.


25 posted on 09/30/2004 8:22:58 PM PDT by Chummy ("I Rather Know when I See BS." RepublicanAttackSquad.biz: "A vote 4 Kerry is a vote 4 Osama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: christie

The common denominator in Kerry's foreign policy is this: Whatever the other country wants, that's what we should do.

This was in evidence several times tonight, viz.

1. North Korea wants bilateral talks, so we should go it alone with North Korea.

2. The UN/France/Germany wants a veto on our middle east policy, so we should give them a veto.

3. Other nations wanted more goodies from us in the leadup to the Iraq invasion, so "we should have sat down with them and asked them, 'what else can we give you?'" (my best recollection of his actual quote).

4. Some other example I can't remember at the moment.


26 posted on 09/30/2004 8:23:36 PM PDT by AB AB AB (Dan Rather: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwpjr

Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America. Multilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il has to hold a gun to the heads of five countries. Kerry is Carter II.


27 posted on 09/30/2004 8:33:36 PM PDT by matchwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: christie

Jimmy had bi-lateral talks with Korea and it got him the Nobel Peace Prize.


28 posted on 09/30/2004 8:34:56 PM PDT by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matchwood; All
All the responses are great. We need to make an issue of this.

Coaliton in Iraq -- Unilateral in N. Korea.

Kerry is wrong on all issues.

Kerry has sold us down the river too many times.

29 posted on 09/30/2004 8:45:32 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: christie

Wait, he will change his position tomorrow.
The RATS will advocate exactly opposite what Republicans are doing.


30 posted on 09/30/2004 9:00:24 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (Vote the RATS out!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matchwood
Bilateral talks mean Kim Jong Il extorts America.

Exactly correct.

They want the same deal they had with Clinton and Maddie, that won't fly with President Bush.

31 posted on 09/30/2004 9:06:58 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: christie

John McCain just said on MSNBC that to his knowledge NO American president has EVER agreed to bi-lateral talks with North Korea.


32 posted on 09/30/2004 9:07:53 PM PDT by Howlin (What's the Font Spacing, Kenneth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

We need to make an issue out of N. Korea!!!


33 posted on 09/30/2004 9:19:08 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: christie

bump


34 posted on 09/30/2004 10:54:44 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: christie
Only John Kerry casn explain it. No President has ever had bilateral talks with a nutcase like Kim Jong Il.

Of course we did have a President that supplied the nutcase with nuclear fuel for his reactors. Result, nukes.

We now have a candidate who wants to do the same for the whackjob mullahs in Iran.

35 posted on 09/30/2004 10:57:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (Ask not what you can do for your country, ask the country what it will do for you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie

Kerry doesn't realize that talks with N. Korea have to have Russia and China, N, Korea would just flat lie to the US only.


36 posted on 09/30/2004 11:09:12 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Kerry will do whatever it takes to weaken the U.S. It makes absolutely no sense to me for us to have talks with N. Korea unilaterally. Not only would they lie to use, but any negotiations would not be credible. China and Russia and Japan are neighbors and are at greater risk and have a greater chance of having influence.

Funny that Kerry doesn't think that France should be there. I guess there is no food for oil program to tempt them.

37 posted on 09/30/2004 11:22:34 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline - http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: matchwood
re: Kerry is Carter II

Amen! My wife must have yelled that at the tv at least 20 times during the debates!
38 posted on 10/01/2004 5:07:36 AM PDT by jwpjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: christie

We have to forget debate style and concentrate on points; Kerry's two most dangerous points were discussed here but to reiterate, they are:

Bilateral talks with North Korea, thus letting China, Russia, Japan and South Korea off the hook and we pay the bribes.

Kerry seeking "global approval" before taking pre-emptive action to protect America.



39 posted on 10/01/2004 7:36:11 AM PDT by matchwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson