Skip to comments.Bi-Lateral Talks with North Korea (Question)
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?
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.
Can someone explain this?
yep. It is opposite what President Bush is doing.
I agree, you can't reason with a madman.
perhaps he can give them more nuclear material for them to use peacefully?
Yeah, but he thinks we can't sneeze without the world's consent, but he wants us to go it alone with Korea.
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.
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.
To determine Kerry's most probable position, just ask yourself what the most damaging policy for the United States' national interest would be.
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.
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.
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
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.
North Korea. Anyway, Kerry just likes to weaken the US whenever he has a chance.
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.
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.
There is no better way to alienate Russia and China than to enter into bi-lateral talks with North Korea.
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????
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.
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.
Sorry about the multi-posts; posting of my comment went berserk like TahRAYsah when she meets someone opposed to Mr. PreDebate Manicure.
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.
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.
Jimmy had bi-lateral talks with Korea and it got him the Nobel Peace Prize.
Coaliton in Iraq -- Unilateral in N. Korea.
Kerry is wrong on all issues.
Kerry has sold us down the river too many times.
Wait, he will change his position tomorrow.
The RATS will advocate exactly opposite what Republicans are doing.
They want the same deal they had with Clinton and Maddie, that won't fly with President Bush.
John McCain just said on MSNBC that to his knowledge NO American president has EVER agreed to bi-lateral talks with North Korea.
We need to make an issue out of N. Korea!!!
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.
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.
Funny that Kerry doesn't think that France should be there. I guess there is no food for oil program to tempt them.
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.
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.