I thought this might lead to an interesting discussion, so I started a new thread in order not to derail the Who won one. The following is DaytonRocker's point, followed by my response:





1)Are multilateral or bilateral talks appropriate in this situation? Please explain.
2)Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?

1) China shares a border with N.Korea and has had good relations with them for some time. It would be unthinkable to hold talks without them. We had bilateral talks...ask Clinton...and they didnt work. We have to get China involved because it is in their interest to see that N.Korea does not become a nuclear powerhouse.

2) Hypocritical? This doesnt make any sense. I think there is a misconception with Bush's stance on the UN. Bush wants the UN involved. He wants allies to come in and help with the effort. He has never 'rejected' the UN. The thing is that the UN never wanted to help...so Bush said fine, we will do it ourselves and enforce YOUR resolutions. Now with N.Korea, again he wants more nations to help with the effort. There is nothing inconsistent about this at all.

What is inconsistent is Kerry wanting bilateral talks and more allies in Iraq. That is a stance i do not understand. In all likelihood, Kerry just took the opposite of the president's view. And i stress again, what allies does Kerry want to bring into Iraq? What friendships were lost? If your answer is France, germany, and Russia, then you are surely kidding yourselves to think that they would help under any circumstances that did not directly affect themselves. It is no secret that they held vital and illegal economic interests in Iraq before the war and they probably didnt want to spoil it.

As I previously stated, this is beyond hypocritical.

The last resolution before the UN security council authorizing military intervention in Iraq (because 1441 did not specifically authorize military force) failed, but Bush went to war anyway. Contrary to a previous posters comments, Bush rejected the UN completely and called them irrelevant.

Bush's reason was clear. He preemptively invaded Iraq because Saddam was a "grave and gathering danger". Even though we have not found WMD, no WMD production facilities, and no operational links to Al Qaida, Bush claims we are safer with Saddam removed from power (even though we've not ever found one iota of a threat. Safer from what? Inspection paperwork paper cuts?).

Bush's claim has been (and according to the debate, still is) that we cannot put our security in someone else's hands. Bush ridiculed Kerry for putting our security in the hands of the world in the debate.

But when Kerry asserts that we need to deal directly with North Korea to deal with a true threat to our homeland using all diplomatic means, Bush rejects that idea in favor of 6 way talks with North Korea - including China.

China is a communist nation run by a dictator who would be at war with us in a New York minute if Taiwan declared it's independence (motto: we don need no steenkeen democracy there!). The human rights violations are astounding. They shoot down innocent airliners. We buy stuff cheap from them because anybody older than an infant is put to work for nothing.

However, we are putting the life of our entire west coast in the hands of China. North Korea has nukes. North Korea has tested it's multi-staged missiles that can reach our homeland. North Korea is the biggest supplier of WMD technology in the world. Bush somehow thinks that letting 5 other countries help handle this is a good idea. All of these countries - including China - have asked for us to deal directly with North Korea. Bush rejects that notion and clearly lied in the debate about the current negotiations (i.e it's North Korea's demand to upset the others involved).

The hypocrisy lies in the fact that he would not let the UN help with the Iraq issue or our global war on terror, but is relying on some of the most notorious despots of the world to help us with someone who actually is a threat.

I'm not sure why more people are not talking about this. Especially Kerry.

Then you're missing out on a very critical difference between the issues...that being that we are intimately involved in the war on terror, but a side party to the N. Korean issue. N. Korea has no reason and nothing to gain from attacking us. They are a much bigger threat to their own geopolitical area. Therefore, China has much more at stake in the conflict than we do...and also more sway in the negotiations. N. Korea was trying hard to get the United States to negotiate bilaterally, because that was advantageous for them. They stood to gain more that way. Bush did an excellent job in putting that off without escalating the situation, and in getting the multiparty discussions going. I don't think anyone can argue that that isn't the best way to achieve a long term solution to the problem.

As to whether Bush is hypocritical in his stance...no. However, I think Kerry certainly falls into that camp for his position, if one wants to push the discussion. I wouldn't go there initially, though...rather, I think it was more just a case of an opponent criticizing the stance of the incumbent, regardless of what it was.

This is completely ignoring the current situation.

First, what did Saddam have to benefit by attacking us? He knew he would be destroyed, hence he never did. By the way, if you're going to use the no-fly zones, those zones were implemented and controlled by the US and Great Britain - not the UN. In over 40,000 sorties, not one plane was ever shot down. These events were not hardly attacks. Right or wrong, they were a response to our provocation.

Secondly, North Korea is the leading supplier of WMD in the world. This is directly related to the war on terror and completely inconsistent. Now, Iran may be getting nuclear capabilities, has a history of truly sponsoring terrorism, and we're hamstrung because nobody will believe anything our government says. If Bush has Iran in his sites, we're going it alone and only with die-hard republicans that can't lift their lips off the kool-aid glass. Because nobody, and I mean nobody will trust our intelligence. That is the result of allowing our intelligence services take the fall for Bush's incompetence. In February of 2001, Powell and Rice were stating exactly what we know now to be true - Saddam was contained, had no weapons capabilities, and was not a threat to his neighbors. Do the math.

Lastly, the logic is completely flawed. Stating that "North Korea has no reason to attack us" completely invalidates our efforts.

Does Iran have a reason to attack us? No. So, do we let them go nuclear? Libya? Pakistan? How about the other 25 or so countries developing those capabilities?

Kennedy took us to the brink because Cuba could strike us and that threat was not acceptable. We came within hours of being vaporized because Kennedy, a democrat of all things, refused to pander away our security.

I don't even know who my party is anymore because it's completely put politics over principle. It's sad day when a Kennedy had more cajones than a republican in ensuring our safety.

And Cuba never had a reason to attack us either.

1)Are multilateral or bilateral talks appropriate in this situation? Please explain.

I think multilateral talks are appropriate here. Everyone in the region has something to fear from Kim Jong-Il acquiring real nuclear capabilities. China has cities with millions of people in them, as does Japan. South Korea has the fear of an invasion with the nukes being used as the ultimatum that could possibly keep the US out of the conflict.

Kim Jong-Il is unbalanced. He does not make rational decisions. The US's bilateral talks with him during the 1990s wound up with the US actually providing the means that allowed North Korea to be this close to nuclear weapons. North Korea has shown to be duplicitous and willing to break their word.

It seems obvious that North Korea, having already broken its agreement with the US, would do so again. Our only hedge is to get some of North Korea's neighbors, particularly China, involved. North Korea has a good relationship with China and would perhaps keep its word to them.

Bilateral talks were tried (and succeeded, if you want to call it that ) under Clinton. The results were disastrous.


2)Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?

Regardless of the spin, the US did not "go it alone" in Iraq. We went to the UN and got their approval to give Saddam an ultimatum. When he failed to comply (granted, by our standards, not necessarily everyone's standards), we moved towards war. Some in the UN joined us, others did not. There was absolutely nothing unilateral about how we approached the Iraq situation. There was no "rush to war".

In effect, we had multilateral talks with Iraq. They had already agreed to certain stipulations. They then openly broke their agreements. The only thing is, some participants in the multilateral negotiations did not agree what "serious consequences" were. So be it. Enforcement of 1441 was still not "unilateral".

I think the situations in Iraq and North Korea are being approached similarly by Bush. First, start out discussing the situation and trying to find a solution via international negotiation. If that fails, however, Bush is not averse to using whatever means necessary to enforce the multinational agreements, regardless of which negotiating partners choose to come along with us.

1)Are multilateral or bilateral talks appropriate in this situation? Please explain.
My approach to this is in line with Kerry's, and that answer is both. Multi-lateral talks have value and should not be discouraged. The US *should* participate in them. Bush approached Kerry's argument as if unilateral and multilateral talks were mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact they are complementary.

One of the biggest reasons N. Korea developed nuclear weapons is that it wants to be recognized & considered a "player" (for lack of a better term) in the international community. The US plays a unique role in that pursuit as we are the worlds only economic and military superpower. Up until now, the refusal of the US to talk directly reflects an ambivalence about N. Korea's pursuits and may have indirectly encouraged it. This should stop now.

Much of the multilateral talks will be focused on the geopolitical aspects of N. Korea's ambitions, but I believe only the US can adequately address the economic aspects (as any aid package would likely carry heavy US input).


2)Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?
Not really. I think there is a different dynamic at play here. While I don't agree with Bush's linkage of Iraq to the WoT, the US was placed in the role of global policeman in that matter and that logic would be consistent with his own positions. I don't agree with it, but I don't think its hypocritical.

Doc

I agree that this is the way it should be. Unfortunately, the North Korean government rejected multilateral talks regarding their nuclear ambitions until the US refused bilateral negotiations. Bilateral talks can be held within the framework of those multilateral talks, but negotiations must be made in front of witnesses. I think that's reasonable considering the DPRK failed to honor the bilateral negotiations we made with them in the past.

Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?

I think Bush has approached the N Korea situation in the way I had hoped he would have approached Iraq. I wouldn't say it is hypocritical, because the variables are much different, and the stakes higher.

The U.S. does NOT want the DPRK regime to collapse. Even ignoring the vast military risk, it would have to foot a tremendous bill for the North's reconstruction, and would rather have the wealthy South handle the payments. To rehabilitate that economy will require immense financial help. The North's economy is so horrific, it make’s Iraq look like a booming metropolis.

There is very little to Bush's governance that I agree with, either foreign or domestic; but I don't see any hypocrisy here. The simple fact is that the situation in North Korea is ENTIRELY different than that facing Iraq. I opposed the War in Iraq, and I don't like his handling of North Korea, but that does little to change the fact that the two are seperate nations with seperate dynamics and rightly or wrongly he is handling them different.

1)Are multilateral or bilateral talks appropriate in this situation? Please explain.



Because China is one of the parties in the talks Bush favors, I don't trust the outcome. I remember, before we actually went into Iraq, we bombed some of Iraq's defensive weaponry on a Chinese holiday to prevent killing Chinese workers.

What does this tell you about China? I think they probably helped N. Korea with their nuclear program in the first place. Therefore, I'm pro-multilateral talks. I'm not sure either will be effective, though, given that we've invaded Iraq, who did get rid of its weapons, and therefore, N. Korea would probably be wise to continue on with their program as quickly as it can, while we are busy with Afghanistan and Iraq. Same goes for Iran.







2)Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?


Bush has no consistant stand to speak of. He has objectives, however, and he's acting and speaking in accord with them. That doesn't mean these objectives are good for America, they're certainly not good for Iraqis, and I doubt they're good for N. Korea's long suffering population.

What should happen is S. Korea should lead the way in multilateral talks that involve, quite frankly, paying N. Korea an incredible amount of money (call it extortion or tribute or whatever) while praying N. Korea's tyrannical leader dies before he gets tired of it all and nukes Seoul.

Are multilateral or bilateral talks appropriate in this situation?

Yes. That is to say, both are appropriate in tandem - which happens to be John Kery's position.

Is the difference between Bush's stand on UN involvement in Iraq, versus multilateral talks with N Korea hypocritical?

No. For once, the Bush administration is behaving with a modicum of reason, acknowledging that different approaches are appropriate for different situations. That I - or anyone else - disagree with both approaches is irrelevant.

What is hypocritical, though, is Bush attempting to criticize Kerry for doing exactly the same thing his administration is doing: proposing different solutions to different problems.

Realistically it would be impossible to keep China out of the talks.

Whether North Korea obtained nuclear capabilites from Pakistan's black market or from China, China is in a position to supply North Korea with sophisticated weaponry. If the US and North Korea arrived at a deal without China's approval, then China could easily just supply equipment to North Korea if they felt it was in their interest (e.g. to scare Japan). Better to include them - especially as they effectively hold North Korea's leash through being its main provider of resources.

I don't see hypocrisy in using different approached to different situations. I would be more worried if Bush used the same approach to different situations!

In the debate Kerry said he would start bilateral talks with North Korea. Bush said you cannot have bilateral talks with North Korea because China would step down. What about North Korea?



It seems that Bush was right. Korea has stopped talks with the Asian group and has backed out of any deals it made with the group, in hopes of a Kerry election. North Korea has backed so far out of the deal that North Korea "was preparing to conduct a missile flight test in violation of its self-imposed testing moratorium. However, the preparations appeared to be part of a North Korean effort to test U.S. sensors."

I don't see how you can read that article and say "Bush was right". This doesn't prove anything, Yehoshua. In fact it is a very similar pattern to what is going on in many countries right now. No one wants to do anything till the election is decided because they don't want to be dealing with the guy that loses and many of these countries don't like Bush.

The article does nothing to suggest that multi-lateral or bi-lateral talks would be more effective. It appears that the only thing the article does state is that N. Korea is receptive to the idea of starting talks with a new president. This also appears to be a common pattern.

You must have miss the point about the missiles. I'll repeat it: "[NORTH KOREA] was preparing to conduct a missile flight test in violation of its self-imposed testing moratorium. However, the preparations appeared to be part of a North Korean effort to test U.S. sensors."

What is important about this statement is that durning the multi-lateral talks North Korea offered a self-imposed testing moratorium, which it inturn violated when, after rejecting any further talks form the mmultilateral force because of the "administration has adopted "hostile" policy positions toward North Korea," North Korea prepared to test missiles.

I understood that Yehoshua, but I fail to see how you are making the logical leap that somehow this makes Bush correct, it is after all his fault if we are to blame anyone. In fact it seems to suggest that Kerry would be more efective in dealing with N. Korea, maybe they don't like Bush's "axis of evil" comment. Who knows. My point is, what you are quoting and citing from your article doesn't back up your point.

Bush's Fault? Do we have to rehash history. Who gave the North Korean's nuclear technology? And how did this President communicate with North Korea? What did North Korea promise this President they would not do in bi-lateral talks, then turn around and did? When this was found out by the Bush Presidency, Bush dropped all support for North Korea and holding a multi-lateral conference with which countries that were effected by the nuclear technology provided by this President.

In the past, bi-lateral talks with North Korea have failed. In the past, multi-lateral talks with North Korea have improved.

Based upon the article I have shown, we have seen how in the hopes of introducing bi-lateral talks with North Korea, North Korea has dropped all multi-lateral talks and has begun to prepare to test weapons.

What makes you think Kerry would not fail where other Presidents in the past have? The multi-lateral talks have been successful, why change that to a failed form of communication with North Korea?

There are two prime reasons why multilateral talks are more beneficial. First, they would get those countries most affected involved, and also those countries most able to leverage real pressure on N. Korea to comply. We really don't have any way to enforce anyt agreement reached bilaterally (note the failure of the bilateral agreement negotiated by Clinton. Second, we should also avoid bilateral talks precisely because N. Korea wants them....to give them what they want is to validate the blackmail they are conducting. Doing so would just encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons just so they could join N. Korea at the feeding trough...errr, negotiating table. Why do you think N. Korea favors a Kerry election? Because they think they stand a better chance of getting something...that's the only reason any country favors any negotiating position. That alone should show why we shouldn't engage in bilateral talks--if N. Korea wants them, its because they feel they have an advantage in that environment.

Ever think that maybe the N.Koreans think they might get a better shake if Kerry was elected? It isn't necessarily a good thing that they want to wait. Fact is that nobody knows their agenda. You may be right and they want to talk to kerry but of course they may think that Kerry is a softie so its unfair to make such an assumption.

Furthermore, WE HAD BILATERAL TALKS already...under Clinton. They did not work. Know how i know? Because they were able to continue to develop nuclear weapons. I think the N.koreans see bilateral talks as a method to stall on the rest of the world.

Multilateral talks are the best option since so many nations have interests. Japan and South Korea have the possibility of a nuclear weapon being detonated over their cities...that puts them in the game. Russia and China are two powers who, with the United States could put pressure on N.Korea. Also, China and S.Korea do not want the N.Korean economy to buckle because that would create an ocean of refugees in the region.

Furthermore, aggressive bilateral talks are more likely to lead to a military confrontation between our two countries. Neither side trusts the other and neither side looks like they are willing to move an inch.

Get China,. Russia, Japan, and S.Korea at the table and lets all sit down and have the issues discussed. Then, even if the negotiations go bad and N.Korea becomes aggressive...it is 5 nations they have to deal with, not just one.

Just to add something, Bush has approved of bilateral talks but only on the sidelines of multi-lateral talks.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._9/ai_107467433

Kerry is not smart in advocating the torpedo of multi-lateral talks. I dont see how it can be argued otherwise.

From Pat Buchanan's Reform Party acceptance speech August 12, 2000.



The fact is we are arguing about nuances. Ask the question, "Why would North Korea attack us?" Ask the question "Why were we attacked on 9/11?" What gain to our security comes from being the world's policeman. Why should we, anymore than Italy, France or New Zealand, be engaged in talks with North Korea? We have no interests in Korea that are worth jeopardizing American lives. At least there is oil in the Middle East. Though I agree with Pat that they would be selling oil to us regardless if we have a presence in the Middle East. There is no need for us to engage in talks with North Korea at all. Let China and South Korea worry about North Korea. We are not the indispensable nation.

The fact is the neocon agenda is only a slight increase in aggressiveness from standard post-WWII foreign policy.

It's called communism. We are still technically at war with NK I might add. They do have the capability to hit the west coast of the United States and if NK did attack SK you can assure that we would come to their aid and now that NK has the ability to strike our homeland it is well within our interest's to talk with NK. Also they could very well sell "the bomb" to a terrorist organization, they are after all the worlds leader of exporting fine missile goods to whom we do not consider "friendly".

[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Oct 3 2004, 03:26 PM]
I thought this might lead to an interesting discussion, so I started a new thread in order not to derail the Who won one. The following is DaytonRocker's point, followed by my response:

[quote=DaytonRocker,Oct 3 2004, 08:17 AM]I'm not sure how anyone could objectively conclude that Bush "won" this debate. Bush's simple task was to defend his record. He couldn't do it. Our commander-in-chief had to explain to America that he knew Osama Bin Laden attacked us. He got busted big time for attempting to blur the Iraq/9-11 issues - again. If the purpose of a lie is to deceive, what's the difference in attempting to mislead?

Anyhow, the biggest hypocritical subject I witnessed has not been discussed by anyone. Kerry was firm in his belief that there needed to be bilateral talks with North Korea to start eliminating the threat of nukes. Bush rejected that with a flat out lie. China has asked the US to have these types of talks - counter to what Bush implied during the debate.

But the hypocrisy is, he took Kerry to task for wanting the UN involved in the global war on terror as (para-phrasing here) "putting our security in the hands of a third party", but wants China and 5 other countries to deal with the North Korea issue.

CHINA?? Please...this makes my stomach turn. It is unbelievable to me that Bush rejects the UN and puts our fate in the hands of China.

[/quote]

***claps to daytonrocker** finally someone who sees the hypocrisy of Bushes view of north korea