North Korea - could someone please explain to me why * thinks

[DustMolecule]

bi-lateral talks with North Korea 'won't work' (so therefore he won't even TRY)? What shrub was saying just (surprise) didn't make sense to me.

Seems to me that diplomacy is always the first/best choice option.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

1. Indeed. Especially consider that bi-lateral talks got us vidcams

Senator Kerry pointed out that we used to have IAEA video cameras installed in the rector near Pyongyang, so we could monitor exactly what N. Korea was doing with its nuclear material.

After Bush destroyed the bi-lateral sunshine policy, N. Korea removed the cameras.

It's been explained to me like so: The right does not want a unified Korean penninsula. That would make the China/Korea/Japan hub into what would become a more influential and powerful set of nations than the United States. So, the right would rather not have peace with N. Korea in order to keep that region tied up with marginalizing-to-them drama.

[DustMolecule]

3. Interesting....thanks for that input n/t

[Canuckistanian]

2. It's because the RW base doesn't want him to.

Wesley Clark on The Daily Show explained it fairly well. The hard-core Republicans consider talking to North Korea "negociating with the enemy". This is the same crowd that wanted no part of nuclear proliferation talks with the Soviet Union.

[RobinA]

4. Still Don't Get It

I admit I haven't exactly followed this issue. There's obviously huge debate between bilateral versus quintlateral, or whatever's going on now. Why does Kerry think bilateral is better, and why does Bush say it won't work? I don't mean politically why does he say it, I mean what is the argument?

[maxsolomon]

5. I'll give Bush this:

the chinese are a country that Kim HAS to respect. they are the only force that keeps that place from imploding.

in fact, it is the chinese that should unseat that megolomaniacal monster.

[Peachhead22]

6. He'd rather outsource the diplomacy to China

:eyes:

[Brotherjohn]

7. Didn't he NOT want talks at ALL intitially, and then ONLY Bi-lateral?

Refresh my memory, but aren't the multi-lateral talks now a double flip-flop by Bush?

First, he cut off negotiations.

Then, he said he wouldn't talk to them with any other countries involved, when that's what North Korea wanted?

Then he caved and agreed to let other involved nations join in?

(Even he wasn't initially for bi-lateral talks only, he still has done a mega flip-flop in that initially, he said we shouldn't talk to them at all)

Oh, and weren't ongoing, successful, diplomatic actions initiated by the Clinton administration scuttled when Bush labelled North Korea a member of his "Axis of Evil"? Why would you talk to any world leader that's using that kind of language? What kind of diplomacy is that?!? That's the equivalent of telling North Korea to "Bring 'em On!". Well, they DID "bring 'em on"... the nukes, that is.