Oh, I read your second post. Isn’t that the one where you said:
I did not take that as a concession that your OP was a misstatement of Kerry’s position in an atttempt to smear him yet again. I took it as a reitteration of the disinformation you spread. And, lo and behold, you continue to do it in your most recent post where you, once again, state:
I don’t know how things work in your little world, but a “concession” to me requires that you don’t misstate Kerry’s position over and over. Kerry never, ever said he wanted to “handle this by ourselves.” What he said, once again, was that he would pursue BOTH multi-lateral and bi-lateral negotiations with North Korea. Once again repeating the lie by saying that Kerry wants to “handle this by ourselves”, makes me think that your “concession” was not a concession. All you have to do is simply state that your OP was wrong in it’s assertions about Kerry’s statements and that there was no “glaring inconsistency”. Then, perhaps, the debate could go into the best way to deal with North Korea, as oppossed to yet another baseless attack on John Kerry.
Ok, I understand your analogy now (thanks for clarifying).
But I think that, in all this talk of “Well, what’s in it for me?” (with regards to China), we are forgetting one crucial thing: it might prevent some kind of nuclear holocaust from taking place in their back yard.
Personally, I believe that China would be thrilled if we can get NK to agree to discontinue their nuke program. That is, I don’t think they’ll be heart-broken, if they don’t get “something else” out of it.
On a separate note, I can’t help but to think that people are focusing too much on Kerry’s comment about bilateral talks. He had said that he is for either (bilateral, multilateral), but that he would prefer bilateral talks. If it turns out that bilateral talks aren’t working, then he could go with multilateral talks.
Bush, OTOH, is dead set on multilateral talks. So, IMO, he’s not going to have “exhausted all of his options”, when he tells us “we tried everything. It came down to ‘this’…” (It’s that whole “Fool me once, shame on me… Fool me … ain’t gonna fool me again” thing.)
Sorry** Hamlet** cough Terry McAuliff cough for insulting your better sensibilities. I bow to your superiority and humbly ask to be spared when you smite us lessors. :rolleyes:
You sure are a class act, ain’tcha. You continuously spread partisian misinformation and then offer up a bullshit apology. The only thing you’ve gotten right in this whole thread is that you are, indeed, my lessor. Not that that is anything I’m going to be bragging about, since the bar is so low, but still, it’s a nice thought.
The dismantling of the North Korean nuclear weapons program and the war in Iraq are different situations. It is possible to want to engage unilaterally in one situation and multilaterally in the other, as Bush clearly shows. However, Bush, Kerry argues, has engaged in policy measures that make Pyongyang more pressured by other countries as well as the U.S. and has cut the DPRK from the direct communication that the U.S. engaged in with it in the bi-lateral talks under the Clinton Administration.
In effect, Pyongyang has become paranoid as hell that the U.S. / world is trying to bring down their government. Given the potential to create nuclear weapons, the DPRK reclaimed their weapons threat so that they had maneuvering power once again.
Now, no one really knows how to fix the nuclear situation in North Korea. However, the real problem is that the cutting off of bi-lateral talks with them was a strategic error. The U.S. severely underestimated the lengths the DPRK were willing to go to in order to be heard. The Bush administration’s policy of cutting off direct communication with the DPRK and bringing in additional outside pressure to force them to disarm has freaked out an already paranoid, volatile, and desparate government. They hastened the rebuilding of their nuclear weapons program in response to the Bush administration’s hawk policies they initiated after the DPRK admitted to secretly working on its nuclear program in direct violation of the agreements reached during the Clinton admin.
The Bush administartion failed to understand the psychology of the DPRK, and as a result the world is far less secure from nuclear threat than it was four years ago. Kerry wants to reengage in bi-lateral talks (he did not say that he wants to get rid of the multi-lateral negotiations) in order to try and repair the damage done by the Bush administration and calm the paranoias of the DPRK by communicating with them directly once again.
To be unilateral in some situations and multilateral in others is not contradictory. It shows that one is able to engage in multiple sorts of negotiations that do not adhere to some stupid ideology. It shows that one looks at the situation, not to their beliefs.
Wow, that sounds like not only was Bush wrong, but he way lying. But I’m wondering why Kerry didn’t know that China asked us to talk to North Korea, or if he knew it, why he didn’t mention it in the debate. That would have made it a slam-dunk for Kerry.
Well, I had a long post in response to Hamlets forays but unfortunately it was just eaten by the hampsters.
Lets see if I can recreate at least some of the thoughts.
buzzz Sorry, I don’t watch Hannity’s program, Hamlet…ever. Nice try though. It doesn’t take some kind of ‘right wing Republican hive mind’ to think that bi-lateral talks are a mistake…it only takes an honest read of the situation. I don’t know and don’t care what Hannity has to say on the subject…its probably Republican spin just to attack Kerry, as Hannity is SUCH a tool.
Basically, to boil down my thoughts from the eaten post, it comes down to keeping China fully engaged on the problem. If the US agree’s to bi-lateral talks with NK the emphasis will shift to those talks and away from the current multi-national talks. Kerry is smart enough to realize this of course…you should be too. China is smart enough to realize this as well, which is why they would like nothing better than for the US to do so. It would relieve them of having to step up and make some hard decisions, and let them wash their hands of the problem and still save ‘face’ about it. It would be the US’s problem then…and what pressure do you imagine the US could bring to bear? The only card we could play would be either war or sanctions…and sanctions wouldn’t exactly be effective to a nation that allows multiple millions of its citizens to starve to death, no? The talks would go no where, as the US really can’t bring the kind of pressure to bear that China can…so the talks would just go around and around with no real LASTING resolution.
The key to getting a LASTING resolution to this problem is (IMHO) with China, and it’s in the US’s best interest to keep them fully engaged. Its NOT in the US’s best interest to OFFICIALLY engage with NK in bi-lateral talks (instead of the backroom ‘sideline’ talks we are currently engaged in with NK…which are SOP for these kinds of talks).
This has nothing to do with the fact that Kerry wants ‘both’ kinds of talks (knowing full well that bi-lateral talks, if the US engages in them, will devalue and de-emphasize the current multi-national talks…and let China off the hook, again IMO) and Bush does not. Its my own evaluation.
Now, if you want to show me why my evaluation of the situation is wrong, please do so. But don’t resort to trying the blowero trick of attempting to lable me a ‘Bush supporter’ or that I’ve gotten all my information from a show I never watch (i.e. Hannity the Tool)…or some other bullshit. SHOW me why I’m wrong that keeping China fully engaged (even if its reluctant engagement on their part and they would rather have the US take charge), why it would be better for the US to disreguard the biggest chip in the game (i.e. China) and engage with NK in bi-lateral talks where we’d be at a disadvantage. Hell, show me why the US HAS to be the lead on this, and not in a supporting roll with China as the lead.
Well, I can’t speak for Hamlet, but I suspect that he didn’t label you as a Bush supporter because of your evalution of the situation, but rather for this:
Bolding mine. Kerry never said this, and it’s already going around in the Republican talking points that he did, in fact, say just that. Thus I’m not at all surprised that perhaps somebody would think that’s where you got it from…seeing as how Kerry never said that and all.
Your evaluation is sound, though. I’m not even going to pretend that I could come up with a good read of the situation.
Ah. Well, its true, Kerry never said that. I was reading between the lines and applying my own take on the situation to what the practical result would be…again, IMO of course. However, I can see where what I said could be interpereted that way, especially since I didn’t go into any detail about my thoughts. My appologies to Hamlet.
No apology needed. You explained your position well in your next to last post and, although I disagree about the value of bilateral negotiations with North Korea, yours is not a completely unreasonable position to take. As Spree pointed out, it was the misstatement of Kerry’s position and labelling of his position as somehow contradictory or flip-flopish, which Hannnity and his ilk have been doing (and continue to do) since this election started, that upset me. And let me apologize to you for intimating that you would rely on Hannity for your position. That’s a pretty low blow on my part.
Of COURSE China would love for the U.S. to take this problem out of their lap. They always have, and that’s exactly why the six-party talks will break down if the U.S. engages NK officially. Both China and North Korea want the U.S. involved - China, because they can then go on selling goods to NK and using cheap NK labor, and NK because they can threaten the U.S. and gain concessions, whereas with China it’s China that would be threatening NK. Give either of those parties any excuse at all to walk away from their own negotiations, and they’ll jump at it.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s China that can really solve the problem, and China must remain engaged. In fact, I believe the U.S. should do even more to force China to solve this problem - like, for example, pointing out to China that the ultimate result of a nuclear North Korea might well be a nuclear Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan. Then ask China if it really wants to be surrounded by nuclear powers. Not that the U.S. would condone it - in fact, it would strongly oppose such moves. But suggest that in the presence of a grave threat like a nuclear-armed North Korea, such moves may wind up inevitable in the long run.
As you said, no appologies needed. I WASN’T clear on my position and its understandable that if this is what Hannity is saying then it could be misunderstood. I always assume that people know my positions on things, as we’ve had several threads about NK and I’ve made my position known there. My bad.
Sorry if it ‘makes you sick’ but its one of your defining characteristics. “Don’t agree with me? Must be a Bush supporter!!”. I STILL like debating with you…when you actually debate. I was sick of the ‘you closet Bush supporter’ bullshit long ago though.
Still, I’ll give it a rest if it disturbs you that much.
