Bush v Kerry revisited

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2005, 9:49 pm

We all know that North Korea recently announced that they had obtained a nuclear deterrent and would not be participating in any further six party talks.

During the first debate of the election cycle, Bush and Kerry had a disagreement on Korea. Kerry supported reopening direct, one on one talks with North Korea. Bush pushed for a resumption of the six party talks.

It is clear that pushing for the resumption of six party talks was not a successful strategy. It is not certain that one on one talks would have produced any better results, so we cannot claim that Kerry would have been 'better' than Bush in this regard. I simply want to point out that Bush's strategy was unsuccessful.

We had a discussion on this very issue when the debate occured, months ago.

Animale wrote:As for North Korea, the answer is simple. The Bush administration has refused to do 1 on 1 negotiations with the North Koreans. The Koreans (probably rightly) see this as a slap in their face as a sovereign, "modern" nation, and for them dignity and pretenses is about all they have left. A one on one discussion with North Korea would allow for reasonable discussion and compromise, whereas now its like the boyfriend and girlfriend who won't talk to one another trying to make it back together by talking to their one mutual friend. It just doesn't work very well. This is a major failure in diplomacy by the Bush administration in my opinion, we HAVE to deal with North Korea on a one on one basis, otherwise it just won't work.

Credit Animale for being right.

Looking through the old posts on the topic, I notice that, while a number of Bush supporters spoke up to criticize Kerry's suggestion (one on one talks) not a one spoke up to support Bush's proposals, nor did any indicate that they felt Bush's proposals would work.

So my question is: What's up with that? Did you guys ever think that the six party talks would work? Did you honestly think that Bush's policy was better than Kerry's? Were you really voting on the concept of "Bush is a failure, but Kerry would be even worse?" Were you willing to acknowledge that then, and are you willing to acknowledge it now?

Alternately, if you thought that these alleged talks would bear fruit, why didn't you speak up then and what happened to hijack the process?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 20, 2005, 9:55 pm

the strategy is also not over, done, or failed.. it is a continuing process which NK is resisting. one on one talks with north korea accomplishes nothing for the world, but north korea coming to the 6 party talks does.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 20, 2005, 10:16 pm

the US and NK are not the only nations involved and affected by the issue. Japan, China, SK, and Russia all have a right to have a say in the matter. the libs always whine about US "imperialism" and that we are trying to strongarm our influence everywhere but when we try to be fair and involve those other nations, who should have as much say as us, then we are "failing in diplomacy". giving in to North Korean demands to exclude the other nations would only serve to alienate Japan, China, SK, and Russia.

to quote Richard Boucher

The North Koreans should not be rewarded for causing difficulties in the reconvening of the talks

negotiations are like a tug of war, once you lose momentum, no matter how strong you are, you lose. NK is trying to call the shots. they want one on one talks for a few reasons but one is simply to be able to tell the US and the other nations what the conditions will be.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2005, 10:43 pm

Sueven wrote:We all know that North Korea recently announced that they had obtained a nuclear deterrent and would not be participating in any further six party talks.

During the first debate of the election cycle, Bush and Kerry had a disagreement on Korea. Kerry supported reopening direct, one on one talks with North Korea. Bush pushed for a resumption of the six party talks.

It is clear that pushing for the resumption of six party talks was not a successful strategy. It is not certain that one on one talks would have produced any better results, so we cannot claim that Kerry would have been 'better' than Bush in this regard. I simply want to point out that Bush's strategy was unsuccessful.

We had a discussion on this very issue when the debate occured, months ago.

Animale wrote:As for North Korea, the answer is simple. The Bush administration has refused to do 1 on 1 negotiations with the North Koreans. The Koreans (probably rightly) see this as a slap in their face as a sovereign, "modern" nation, and for them dignity and pretenses is about all they have left. A one on one discussion with North Korea would allow for reasonable discussion and compromise, whereas now its like the boyfriend and girlfriend who won't talk to one another trying to make it back together by talking to their one mutual friend. It just doesn't work very well. This is a major failure in diplomacy by the Bush administration in my opinion, we HAVE to deal with North Korea on a one on one basis, otherwise it just won't work.
Credit Animale for being right.

Looking through the old posts on the topic, I notice that, while a number of Bush supporters spoke up to criticize Kerry's suggestion (one on one talks) not a one spoke up to support Bush's proposals, nor did any indicate that they felt Bush's proposals would work.

So my question is: What's up with that? Did you guys ever think that the six party talks would work? Did you honestly think that Bush's policy was better than Kerry's? Were you really voting on the concept of "Bush is a failure, but Kerry would be even worse?" Were you willing to acknowledge that then, and are you willing to acknowledge it now?

Alternately, if you thought that these alleged talks would bear fruit, why didn't you speak up then and what happened to hijack the process?

Assholes like you complain we don't have anough countries involved when we do things, now you complain when the US making sure we have multi-nation involvement. Unreal.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2005, 10:44 pm

Midnyte: Please point out one instance where I inserted my personal opinion into this topic.

To everyone who's actually willing to discuss this:

So, basically, you disagree that the push for resumption of six party talks has been a failure?

You feel that:

1. The six party talks will resume sometime in the relatively near future, and
2. Some sort of substantive progress toward peace and stability will result.

Correct?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 20, 2005, 10:47 pm

What exactly was he "right" about? Do you think one-on-one talks would have caused N. Korea to give up their nukes?

I think Aaeamdar had it right:

Aaeamdar wrote:Korea - not sure. It's a bad thing that is happening, but I am not convinced either Candidate has a workable plan. N.K. already has a few nukes, so attacking them is not an option. The best thing to do is worldwide sanctions. If they want nukes they can go it alone. I don't see how talks are going to disued them of anything - multilateral or "one on one."

If it was up to Bush, I think we'd have UN sanctions on N. Korea, but that simply isn't an option right now. Maybe after we've CLEARLY used up every diplomatic route the world will be ok with sanctions, but it would just be another example of the "hawkish, go it alone Bush administration" if we tried that now.

Short of war and sanctions, I think only China has leverage to get N. Korea to halt their nuclear ambitions, which is the angle Bush has been taking.

Edit: And I wouldn't be surprised if China convinces N. Korea to return to the 6 party talks. It's not like N. Korea hasn't thrown these kind of tantrums before.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2005, 10:54 pm

Brotha wrote:What exactly was he "right" about? Do you think one-on-one talks would have caused N. Korea to give up their nukes?

Sueven wrote:It is not certain that one on one talks would have produced any better results, so we cannot claim that Kerry would have been 'better' than Bush in this regard.

Jesus, do any of you actually read what I write?

If you had read my first post, you would have noticed that I never supported Kerry's policy regarding Korea. I also posited that Bush supporters may have found Bush's policy unacceptable and Kerry's policy worse. I was interested in what Bush supporters thought about that policy then, and what they think about it now that it is in effect. I'm attempting to understand other peoples ideologies, opinions, and actions.

If you are interested, I do not think that one on one talks would have stopped North Korea from obtaining a deterrent. That, however, is an aside, and largely irrelevant to the questions I have been asking.

I ask you again if you agree with the two points I laid out in my former post.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 20, 2005, 10:56 pm

What was he "right" about then?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2005, 10:56 pm

I didn't say he was right about anything. Can you fucking read?

If you are referring to my endorsement of Animale's analysis, you will note that his analysis simply posited that North Korea would refuse to return to six party talks. He was right. That is the extent of my endorsement.

Now will you answer the question or do you have some more useless tangets to throw at me first?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 20, 2005, 10:58 pm

no, i believe talks in general will take quite a bit of time, six party or not. the reason imo that NK doesnt want 6 paty talks is b/c they know china will side with the US on the weapons issue and they are too close a partner. they would rather put the blame for failure to come together on the US than to say no to China, a valuable partner.

so to answer your questions:

1. i DO believe NK will come back to the table relatively near in the future.
2. peace and stability will resume as soon as NK changes their form of government and quits fucking around.

their regime will whither and die. they know they cannot hold on much longer and they are grasping at straws.

edit: typo

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 20, 2005, 10:58 pm

Edit: Nevermind you answered it with edit.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 20, 2005, 11:02 pm

Sueven wrote:If you are interested, I do not think that one on one talks would have stopped North Korea from obtaining a deterrent.

Why do you keep calling it a "detterent?" Do you buy into N. Korea's argument that the only reason they've ever wanted nukes is to deter a US attack?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2005, 11:02 pm

I'm calling it a deterrent because that's what it's generally being called right now. I'm choosing a general term because we don't know specifically what their nuclear capabilities are. If you would like to refer to it as a weapon or some other more aggressive term, feel free. The semantics don't bother me.

I find it very difficult to say why North Korea wants nukes. I'm sure that they are interested in the offensive military capability that they represent. I do believe that the deterrence aspect is a major reason for their desire, yes, but probably not all of it.

Now that this is out of the way, can we please go back to discussing the six party talks?

Nobody: So your argument is that

1. It will take a long time for North Korea to agree to any type of talks, six party or one on one. The amount of time it would take to get them to participate would be relatively equal either way.
2. The negotiations will not actually prevent North Korea's military development, but will keep them occupied while we wait for the regime to crumble.
3. China's participation increases pressure on North Korea to crumble.

And six party talks are preferable to one on one because of point number three?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 20, 2005, 11:06 pm

Don't get me wrong here Brotha cause I

'ed the simpsons download you posted but....

Um...The reason it's called a deterrent is because it is literally a deterrent.

And surely the same argument (is it just a deterrent or a physical threat) goes for any nation that builds WMD, nullifying any point to your question without a gaping hypocrisy ripping through the board.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 20, 2005, 11:08 pm

Sueven wrote:I'm calling it a deterrent because that's what it's generally being called right now. I'm choosing a general term because we don't know specifically what their nuclear capabilities are. If you would like to refer to it as a weapon or some other more aggressive term, feel free. The semantics don't bother me.

It's being called that by N. Korea, I doubt the US gov't feels N. Korea is developing it as a deterrent. I realize you didn't use the word "deterrent" for any purpose other than to refer to N. Korea's arsenal, but I think that's more than semantics.

I think I answered your 2 questions in one of my previous posts where I quoted Aaeamdar above.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » February 20, 2005, 11:15 pm

Sueven wrote:Midnyte: Please point out one instance where I inserted my personal opinion into this topic.

While you may not have said "This is my opinion"...you did write this in your initial post:

So my question is: What's up with that? Did you guys ever think that the six party talks would work? Did you honestly think that Bush's policy was better than Kerry's? Were you really voting on the concept of "Bush is a failure, but Kerry would be even worse?" Were you willing to acknowledge that then, and are you willing to acknowledge it now?

It doesn't take a genius to realize where you stand...and reading that paragraph..especially the last sentence...you really are stating your opinion in the form of asking questions.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 20, 2005, 11:16 pm

close:

i think it will take time for NK to agree to one party talks, not just any. they are buying time by demanding one on one talks. but the amount of time it would take to get them to be constructive would be relatively equal either way.

the negotiations WILL NOT prevent NK from being a threat. they have exibited a clear pattern that they are unwilling give in to anything. all they will do is appear to concede imo. but yes, talking will buy us time for their regime to continue its downward spiral.

China's participation will not increase pressure on NK to crumble but rather make concessions. China clearly does not want NK to have nuclear weapons but they also don't want a democratic free nation on their border either.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 20, 2005, 11:22 pm

my opinion is that NK really does see their weapons as a deterent. they don't plan on using them first b/c that would be suicide. however i wouldn't hold it against Kim to use them immediatly in the case of an invasion.

on the other hand we KNOW Lybia indirectly got enriched uranium from NK and even if Kim never personally pushes the button i garuntee he is willing to assist those that are.

so...it is both a deterent and it isn't.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 21, 2005, 9:45 am

Teenybloke wrote:Um...The reason it's called a deterrent is because it is literally a deterrent.

Again, a deterrent to what? Not one single country in the world cares in the least about NK. At most they're just waiting for the govt to die on it's own. Aid groups have tried to care for the people, the govt siphons the food and medicine off for the army. Much of that has ceased. If they thought they had any chance of winning, NK would invade a neighbor. I've little doubt on that score.

The only reason the regime wants nukes is to try and bully the world into making them appear relevant. The US agreeing to one on one talks would be a mistake in many ways.

*Edit - Kerry would have tried to appease them in 1:1 talks. They'd have taken our money and whatever else we were willing to give them, then ask (threaten) for more. Any pressue the US tried to exert would make us out to be the "big bully" like so many feel we are now. Getting other nations to the table, especially China makes a lot of sense.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2005, 10:10 am

They're in the "axis of evil", if I was KJI I'd want nukes to deter you too...

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2005, 10:19 am

the only reason they are in the axis of evil is because of their determination to acquire nuclear devices, and their likelihood of selling them to others.

you are an unbelievably foolish liberal weenie.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 21, 2005, 2:26 pm

Get a clue Fash.

Aabadino your argument has no relevance to the fact that NK would create Nukes to defend itself from an agressive US and for the simple fact that all countries *APPEAR* to want them.

Which is in itself inherintly retarded.

So we agree that nukes are bad.

It's just hilariously hypocritical that if NK wants nukes they are EVIL but if the US or other "good" (read: evil) countries want them it's fine.

Your arguments are based on the flimsiest of assumptions.

That is the problem yet again. How does the US plan to avoid this hypocrisy is (as in the case of Iraq) an equally valid question here.

And by that I mean the many members in the current administration who were happy to turn a blind eye when their interests were fine in Iraq in the 80's (and before).

Of course you will yet again no doubt ignore the massive relevance of this and prove yet again the US does not learn from it's mistakes. Which is the main reason some see the US as the bad guys. Actually.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 21, 2005, 3:26 pm

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry to say, the real world isn't always run by sane people.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 21, 2005, 7:30 pm

And who voted them in?

Nice work avoiding the question.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 21, 2005, 9:02 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

Seems North Korea has switched it's stance and reopened the possibility of six party talks. Also seems that Chinese pressure might have had something to do with it. There might be validity to the idea that China has the greatest capability to exert influence over KJI.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2005, 9:05 pm

eat crow

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 21, 2005, 9:16 pm

It's amazing how good you people are at inventing opinions that you think I hold.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2005, 9:20 pm

Sueven wrote:...
It is clear that pushing for the resumption of six party talks was not a successful strategy.
...
I simply want to point out that Bush's strategy was unsuccessful.

twice in one post

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 21, 2005, 9:26 pm

Yes. I made an assumption about other peoples beliefs in order to attempt to learn more about their opinions. Many people disputed this assumption, and we moved to a discussion of that assumption. You would have understood all of this clearly if you had read and comprehended the thread.

Additionally, six party talks have yet to occur. From an empirical perspective, the strategy is not/has not been successful.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 21, 2005, 9:39 pm

the strategy is 'pushing for the resumption of' six party talks, as referenced in your first post. we are pushing, and making progress.

it has been said that one on one talks are bad for everyone except KJI, and i've never heard a good counter-argument to that... leaving the only real option being multi-party talks...

it's not even just an option, or a strategy... It Will Happen.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 21, 2005, 9:42 pm

Brotha wrote:Edit: And I wouldn't be surprised if China convinces N. Korea to return to the 6 party talks. It's not like N. Korea hasn't thrown these kind of tantrums before.

Can I get a "credit Brotha for being right," Sueven?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 22, 2005, 4:18 am

consider it done

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 22, 2005, 2:48 pm

Sweet! I haven't looked back at the posts. Was I right or wrong or did I attempt to hijack the thread?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 22, 2005, 3:12 pm

Who is the John Kerry I keep hearing about?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » February 23, 2005, 11:58 pm

Cartalas wrote:Who is the John Kerry I keep hearing about?

Didn't he like defeat the whole North Vietnamese army single-handedly? Or was that his wife?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 24, 2005, 12:14 am

No, that would be the SOUTH Vietnamese. Along side Hanoi Jane.

VeeshanVault

Bush v Kerry revisited

Bush v Kerry revisited

Re: Bush v Kerry revisited

Re: Bush v Kerry revisited