So I’m watching the debate and a glaring inconsistency occurs. (There’s a surprise)
Kerry first blasts Bush for not having any allies in the Iraq war, since we all know France and Germany are the only other countries on Earth. :rolleyes:
Then says he’ll use bi-lateral talks with Kim Jong mentally-Il to end their nuclear program. Bush counters this with the fact that right now it’s the US, Russia, South Korea, China and Japan all working together on it. Then Kerry later says again he’d use bi-lateral talks to handle the situation. Um, don’t those other 4 countries count as a coalition of allies? We’re now supposed to scrap these 4 Big Players to “go it alone”?
For a guy so concerned about handling international threats by getting other nations to sign on to the plan, why is Kerry so insistant on abandoning 4 countries so he can handle NK all by himself? 4 countries that have a very real stake in this.
Senator Kerry, there are other countries in the world besides France and Germany! :wally
I’m not sure who won that. DIdn’t Bush say something about the bilateral talks making it easier to hold the multi-national talks, and later say that bilateral talks wouldn’t work?
I think I heard that, but I’m not sure. Anyone else pick that up?
Bush said that he will continue to support multi-national talks and that bi-lateral talks are a mistake. I agree with him there…it would be a mistake, and its also strange that Kerry would bush on Bush for NOT going multi-national on Iraq (where we were essentially bi-national :)), then turn around and say he wants to drop the multi-national talks in favor of bi-lateral talks between the US and NK…wierd.
You know I have heard alot of people referring to Kerry’s alleged assertion that the Chinese and other countries should not be involved in the negotiations. I did not take it that way. What I heard was that Bush is talking to everyone except North Korea and that the cutting off of a dialog with N. Korea actually made the situation worse.
I remember that Bush even said he does not want to have dialog with N. Korea. He stated that plain and simple.
This is where I see the difference. Maybe I missed something big, but I think this was Kerry’s overall point, that Bush has cut off dicussion with N. Korea.
The validity of these opposing points is up for debate, but I do not think Kerry was advocating cutting out other countries.
Kerry said he would have bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks with the North Koreans. Bush asserted that having bi-lateral talks would cause the multi-lateral talks to “evaporate.” How exactly that would work, he didn’t say.
(as an actual question)
Did I miss something, or is Kim Jong Il not really interested in “multilateral talks”. I was under the impression that bilateral would be OK for them (him), just not multilateral.
If this is the case, I think we should engage in bilateral talks with Jong Il (to get the ball rolling, at least). Does this mean we should completely disregard the wishes of the countries that would be included in the multilateral talks? Of course not; what would stop us from meeting with the other countries (China, etc.) to collect their views on the NK situation, and then bringing those views with us to the bilateral talks?
If this isn’t the case, would someone please fight my ignorance? (Oh and subsequently ignore the above parable, since it would lose its relevance.)
Also, don’t you think it’s curious that Bush is content to leave our security in the hands of China? Gosh, I know I sleep better at night knowing that China is looking out for our interests on nuclear weapons in the hands of Kim Jong Il. BUt then again, I don’t live on the west coast.
:dubious: …erm… Russia, Canada, France and Germany, were/are strong allies in the war in Afghanistan. Kerry is right–you don’t just piss on your friends and expect to get anywhere in a fight. North Korea is a different situation where a bilateral agreement under Clinton effectively neutralized their nuclear threat–until Bush Jr. willfully refused to continue the dialogue.
Duffer, do you forget that our allies’ skepticism turns out to be correct? If we had listened to our allies we would have found out through inspections that there were no WMD in Iraq–a possibility which Bush Jr. and co. were unwilling to accept.
I interpreted Kerry’s statement to mean that he would reopen dialogue with North Korea, while still working with the other countries on that end to effect change. Bush, OTOH, refuses to have bilateral discussions with North Korea on the grounds that that would cause the other countries (or was it just China) to pull out of the process.
Where was this “glaring inconsistency” again?
When did Kerry say that? Seriously, did I miss that part?
Bush is exactly right on his North Korea strategy, and Kerry is dead wrong.
The reason you need China to deal with the problem is because China is the only country that has leverage on North Korea that doesn’t not involve military brinksmanship. China can cut trade. China can cut aid. China can do any number of things to influence North Korea that the U.S. can’t do.
If talks are between the U.S. and North Korea, they will simply boil down to threats of force and demands. That type of negotiation winds up with the kind of deal Clinton brokered last time - one that North Korea will simply break whenever it thinks it can go to the well again with more blustering and threats. And one day, the U.S. will have to call that bluff, and that day will be incredibly destructive.
China has the best chance of changing North Korea’s behaviour peacefully. Right now, it’s absolutely the best way to go.
Come on now. Negotiation is being pushed into China’s lap because they are the only ones with non-miliary leverage on North Korea. Given our increased strategic asset presence in the Pacific, it would be more than a bit ignorant to say we are farming out our ‘national security’.
Besides, what happened the last time we negotiated with North Korea? You remember, when Jimmy Carter announced that he struck a deal and Albright made her little trip? As I recall, that didn’t turn out so well.
Ah, you heeded my command and are continuing with your campaign of stupid one-liners. Good for you, my little minion!
First of all, we’re forgetting that there is a huge difference between talking to another country, and invading another country. Kerry blasted Bush because Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq without a real coalition. I don’t see any inconsistency in that; it’s simply not the same thing. Kerry hasn’t suggested a unilateral invasion of North Korea, has he?
Second, as already pointed out, I didn’t hear Kerry say he would cut off China; I believe that was Bush’s contention - that China doesn’t want us to talk to North Korea. But Kerry’s point was that the 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. And some pundit (sorry, forgot who) came on after the debate and said that, in fact, China wants us to talk to North Korea. And another pundit said that dealing through China make us appear weak. I don’t know who’s right, but it sounds like a difference of opinion, not an inconsistency on Kerry’s part.
