Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The Gulf
- Add a comment
- Go to A Partisan President and Profiteering
kingmi, you are correct.
Not knowing that tidbit about Clinton does show the entire affair in a different light. However, I still feel that it is a power play by Bush, a ploy toward misdirection. He doesn't have to make the same mistakes Clinton made. (Of course, I don't believe Dubya is nearly as diplomatic as Clinton was, either. Still...) And with the Chinese breathing down Pyongyang's neck for a nuclear-free Korean peninisula, something may actually come from the multi-lateral forum as well. Yet, given the game of diplomacy, all things are situational. This is the main reason I emphasize that Bush need not disregard bilateral talks altogether. But in light of Clinton's lack of success, I can certainly understand his reticence, foreign affairs far from being his strong suit.
Thanks for the input, kingmi. Mine own ignorance is not bliss and I appreciate it.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 15, 2005 at 4:20 PM
| link to this | reply
saul, I still respect your opinion. However, I feel it might be clouded
with fervor for your cause. Clinton did bi-lateral, gave away billions, and within five years, NK renegged on their pledge to dismantle the nukes, and left Clinton looking like a kindergartener. The reason I say your fervor of cause is the reason for your inexact assessment, is that you never mentioned this. As we saw from their response to the Clinton bi-lateral talks, we have everything to lose by repeating the same mistake. Sorry, but I think this falls into the heading of pre-emtive and unilateral. Time to let the boys from the Korean War win one.
posted by
kingmi
on February 13, 2005 at 1:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Considering North Korea, kingmi,
the Bush administration has fought them on their overtures for bilateral talks. The N. Koreans want a one-on-one with the U.S. Kerry brought up the fact that Dubya and Co. kept sidestepping bilateral talks, always using the multi-lateral forum as the only way to negotiate with the N. Koreans. Bush is wrong and is only using the multi-lateral forum as an excuse to do nothing, therefore keeping N. Korea on the verge of diplomatic and military mistakes. We have nothing to gain by multi-lateral talks, especially if the N. Koreans see them as a way of losing face and international status. Bush needs to meet with them in a bilateral forum, find out what their demands may be, agree tentatively (or not) to a way out of this stupid stalemate, and bring what he has to all the other nations involved (not to mention the United Nations) and get their approval. Keeping North Korea on edge (and how hard is that, when they have a raving lunatic for a leader?) is not a good idea. In fact, it is extremely foolish. And Bush has everything to gain by agreeing to bilateral talks with them, so...
Another thing, kingmi. I'm worried about Honolulu becoming part of the San Francisco sky as well. Bush and his idiotic "axis of evil" speeches. I'll give you an "axis of evil": Bush, Rice, and Cheney. Scary as hell, just thinking about them in the same sentence, let alone loose on the planet...
(see, told you its a virtual "sea of verbiage" when I write)
posted by
saul_relative
on February 13, 2005 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
saul, I respect youopinion, I jsut think that the Iraq deal is done and
over. That doesn't mean we're safe. How many of our great thinkers are considering the day after N. Korea blows San Fracisco halfway to Des Moines? I don't think the Koreans are too concerned about their image or civilian casualties.
posted by
kingmi
on February 13, 2005 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
kingmi, you have a flare for understating and getting your point across.
I, however, find myself awash in a sea of verbiage every time I speak or write.
posted by
saul_relative
on February 13, 2005 at 11:59 AM
| link to this | reply
saul, oh boy!
posted by
kingmi
on February 13, 2005 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply