...and Multilateral talks to immediately follow
I sure hope that NK bellies up to the table or this situation could quickly escalate.
CkG
I sure hope that NK bellies up to the table or this situation could quickly escalate.
CkG
Another round of trilateral talks with NK...
- Thread starter CADsortaGUY
- Start date
This issue is getting ridiculous, its like no one worries about it? THEY HAVE SAID THEY HAVE NUKES AND WANT TO USE THEM ON US and our current administration wants to play cowboy. Now, I don't agree that we should do bilateral talks with NK and we certainly shouldn't issue a nonagression treaty, however I'm sure it is possible to save face and still diffuse the situation. The current administration is quickly seeming more and more inept...
Did you read the article? Or did you just use this as a little place to vent your hate? Seems like Bush is doing the right thing, letting diplomacy take it's course, ofcourse I hope it doesn't get drawn out for 12 years like other "diplomatic" solutions did elsewhere.
CkG
I love how the media uses the term "blackmail". Not that I am defending NK, I am just curious on how they are "blackmailing" the U.S. Do they know something we don't and they are "blackmailing" us to our mommies? I fail to understand this.
To me, the issue at hand is this: NK knows we'll beat the crap out of them and that they cannot rely on China forever, especially since China is becoming more and more pro-western. So, naturally, they decide to pop out a few nuclear weapons here and there, to beef up their weight in argument. It almost seems to me as a self-defense measure, not an aggressive one. The NKs are losing leverage in their peace talks, so they see nuclear measures as a means to an end.
IMHO, I offer 3 reasons NOT to attack NK. (Note: I am not an anti-war "liberal", I just call things as they are)
1. We do not want to piss off China and other countries right now, especially with all this heat over Iraq.
2. NK has no resources for us to steal.
3. Always think twice before attacking Asians. They WILL fight back.
To me, the issue at hand is this: NK knows we'll beat the crap out of them and that they cannot rely on China forever, especially since China is becoming more and more pro-western. So, naturally, they decide to pop out a few nuclear weapons here and there, to beef up their weight in argument. It almost seems to me as a self-defense measure, not an aggressive one. The NKs are losing leverage in their peace talks, so they see nuclear measures as a means to an end.
IMHO, I offer 3 reasons NOT to attack NK. (Note: I am not an anti-war "liberal", I just call things as they are)
1. We do not want to piss off China and other countries right now, especially with all this heat over Iraq.
2. NK has no resources for us to steal.
3. Always think twice before attacking Asians. They WILL fight back.
Let me get this straight, NK said they have nukes and want to use it on us and you are saying people who advocate attacking NK is venting hate. And Iraq said they did not have nuke/WMD and was letting UN weapon inspectors do the checking, and Bush attacked them anyway and you said Bush was doing the right thing.....
Yeah right.....make sense......
I don't ever recall NK threatening to shoot anything at the US. The threats are more towards SK and it really doesn't bother me. They can field their own army and figure out their own problems. They know if they launched one nuke, they'd be made into a huge parking lot in a matter of minutes.
Cad - have you been following the situation? Did he send diplomats in the beginning when this first emerged as a problem, or did he play cowboy and proclaim we will not deal with them on their terms at all? (hint, it is the latter) Trilateral talks are not the answer, bilateral talks are not the answer, however I do see a certain ammount of hypocrisy in the situation, the Administration was not concerned with world opinion in Iraq, however the NK issue is suddenly a "world" issue. Food for thought.
Selective memory is a b!tch ain't it?
It doesn't matter how it ends, if they were to hit us with a nuke and we nuked back the loss of life would be insurmountable, and any loss of life for such a cause is deplorable IMO. Sea of fire Just the first link I got, there were more statements, just don't feel like getting more as I think I have made my point.what the hell is this "play cowboy" crap. Is it because he doesnt want to REWARD NK(like previous administration) with giving them food and aid and signing a non-agression pack even though they broke a contract? and we kept are part of it with the supplies we gave them throughout the 90's.
I think its good we are getting other countries so NK knows that if they continue it can lead to bad relations with China,SK,Japan who they depend on especially China.
I think its good we are getting other countries so NK knows that if they continue it can lead to bad relations with China,SK,Japan who they depend on especially China.
Have you been following the situation? NK said it would talk to no one but us. Seems to me that we have had and are going to have tri-lateral talks with them. How is that playing cowboy? Seems like they conceeded on that issue. Hmm...
So if trilateral, and Bi-lateral aren't the answer then by God it must be multilateral talks -WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO!!! Or we could just wipe them off the map if you wish. Your choice, seriously - call up George and play darts on a NK map using Nukes - he'd probably think it's fun and say YeeeeeeHaaaw!!!!
Iraq and NK are two totally different situations but since you claim they are similar then how do you explain 12yrs of diplomacy and sanctions on Iraq? Rush to war?
CkG
Sigh, you don't know much about diplomacy do you? We deliberately DELAYED any diplomatic action in the beginning. Why? The bush administration didn't want to seem like they were following what NK was telling them to do. Now, they could have tried to nip it in the bud to begin with, or let it fester. As has been the trend this administration allowed it to fester, after all we all know that emotional people are easier to push onboard the bandwagon when it comes to war. Indeed emotion blinds reason, and NK has done all the work for the Bush administration in this respect (Sea of fire anyone?). Of course that kind of rhetoric is going to enrage the American people. Does bush want another war? Now you all know my stance is not to give in because of the domino effect so I won't go into any great detail justifying my position again.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Have you been following the situation? NK said it would talk to no one but us. Seems to me that we have had and are going to have tri-lateral talks with them. How is that playing cowboy? Seems like they conceeded on that issue. Hmm...
So if trilateral, and Bi-lateral aren't the answer then by God it must be multilateral talks -WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO!!! Or we could just wipe them off the map if you wish. Your choice, seriously - call up George and play darts on a NK map using Nukes - he'd probably think it's fun and say YeeeeeeHaaaw!!!!
Iraq and NK are two totally different situations but since you claim they are similar then how do you explain 12yrs of diplomacy and sanctions on Iraq? Rush to war?We don't give a F about world opinion with NK. NK wanted the US to shoulder the situation and we wanted people in the region to participate. Iraq's neighbors didn't want to participate for 12 years except Kuwait and S.A. and sometimes Turkey. Iraq had it's chance. NK is getting it's chance. We aren't going in with guns ablaze just like we didn't go into Iraq with guns ablaze - there was 12 YEARS of diplomacy and sanctions before action.
CkG
You continually omit my key contentions and twist my words to suit your own position, this is not constructive and abusive. You want to have your cake and eat it too, you take one part of my statement without the justification, and it just makes your argument look silly. What did I saw about Iraq? Oh yes thats right I simply said "the Administration was not concerned with world opinion in Iraq, however the NK issue is suddenly a "world" issue" In Iraq obviously I was talking about the bush administration ignoring the United Nations and popular world opinion, and here comes the important part, (notice I said nothing about rush to war those are your words not mine) I contrast it with North Korea which is different than comparing them. I show how they are different and you seek to make me out to show how they are the same. You also miss my point about NK entirely. We should have already been in discussion with NK, yes I believe multilateral talks are the answer so far as policy goes, I would not give into NK due to the domino effect, and I don't think that non-agression is the answer again hasty generalizations and over simplification of my statements coupled with your distinct ability to put words into peoples mouth (such as "Or we could just wipe them off the map if you wish") only serve to weaken your argument. Think about that before you come back with a response please, other wise I will stop responding to your baiting statements.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Iraq and NK are two totally different situations but since you claim they are similar then how do you explain 12yrs of diplomacy and sanctions on Iraq? Rush to war?We don't give a F about world opinion with NK. NK wanted the US to shoulder the situation and we wanted people in the region to participate. Iraq's neighbors didn't want to participate for 12 years except Kuwait and S.A. and sometimes Turkey. Iraq had it's chance. NK is getting it's chance. We aren't going in with guns ablaze just like we didn't go into Iraq with guns ablaze - there was 12 YEARS of diplomacy and sanctions before action.
CkG
Hmm....only 12 years of diplomacy and sanction on Iraq? Hell US slapped economic sancationed on NK 50 years ago after the Korean War, and is having diplomatic talks around NKs nuclear weapon since 1990's. NK is just getting its chance? Are you trying to spinning something or just misinformed?
Originally posted by: rchiu
Iraq and NK are two totally different situations but since you claim they are similar then how do you explain 12yrs of diplomacy and sanctions on Iraq? Rush to war?We don't give a F about world opinion with NK. NK wanted the US to shoulder the situation and we wanted people in the region to participate. Iraq's neighbors didn't want to participate for 12 years except Kuwait and S.A. and sometimes Turkey. Iraq had it's chance. NK is getting it's chance. We aren't going in with guns ablaze just like we didn't go into Iraq with guns ablaze - there was 12 YEARS of diplomacy and sanctions before action.
CkG
Hmm....only 12 years of diplomacy and sanction on Iraq? Hell US slapped economic sancationed on NK 50 years ago after the Korean War, and is having diplomatic talks around NKs nuclear weapon since 1990's. NK is just getting its chance? Are you trying to spinning something or just misinformed?
OK. so lets go kick their ass!
I don't think you understood my point but oh well.
NK, is just getting it's chance on this renewed nuclear issue. If he doesn't show up to talk, measures to secure peace in the region will have to be taken. Yes, there have been diplomacy and such in the past but they've always ended up playing nice as I hope they will again. Saddam on the other hands has shown that he was in direct defiance for ~12 years. There is a BIG difference.
Now back to the article -
DaiShan, will cookies and milk help?
<sniff>CkG
OK. so lets go kick their ass!
I don't think you understood my point but oh well.
NK, is just getting it's chance on this renewed nuclear issue. If he doesn't show up to talk, measures to secure peace in the region will have to be taken. Yes, there have been diplomacy and such in the past but they've always ended up playing nice as I hope they will again. Saddam on the other hands has shown that he was in direct defiance for ~12 years. There is a BIG difference.
Now back to the article -
DaiShan, will cookies and milk help?
CkG
Ok, so NK exchanging gun firing with SK and developing nuclear capability is playing nice, and Iraq letting weapon inspectors go around the country and search for WMD was defiant........yeah...sure.
Admit it, you and Bush got double standard here.
Originally posted by: rchiu
OK. so lets go kick their ass!
I don't think you understood my point but oh well.
NK, is just getting it's chance on this renewed nuclear issue. If he doesn't show up to talk, measures to secure peace in the region will have to be taken. Yes, there have been diplomacy and such in the past but they've always ended up playing nice as I hope they will again. Saddam on the other hands has shown that he was in direct defiance for ~12 years. There is a BIG difference.
Now back to the article -
DaiShan, will cookies and milk help?
CkG
Ok, so NK exchanging gun firing with SK and developing nuclear capability is playing nice, and Iraq letting weapon inspectors go around the country and search for WMD was defiant........yeah...sure.
Admit it, you and Bush got double standard here.
OK, you win.
You obviously can't see the difference and won't ever choose to so instead of dealing with comparisons and the like - how exactly would you like to see him handle NK?
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter