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.
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.