Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 12, 2009 13:02:41 GMT -5
U.S. will now engage in one-to-one talks with North Korea. At least this way, the Obama administration's apology for the United States will only have to be translated once rather than as part of 6-way talks.
Did anyone not see this coming when the former Fornicator in Chief went over there this summer?
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 12, 2009 13:11:56 GMT -5
What's wrong with face-to-face talks when the 6-party talks aren't working?
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2009 13:13:22 GMT -5
And this is a bad thing, why? Has our previous approach been successful at accomplishing any major goals?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 12, 2009 13:14:15 GMT -5
What's wrong is that we are capitulating to the demands of a tin horn dictator. What's worse is that I'd lay odds we apologize for something while we're there. North Korea always wanted face-to-face and behaved like my four year old until we gave in. Way to reward bad behavior Mr. Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 12, 2009 13:15:45 GMT -5
What's your evidence that its capitulation? How does negotiation = capitulation?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 12, 2009 13:17:10 GMT -5
N. Korea refused to participate in the 6 way talks and demanded one-on-one. We gave them one-on-one. You do the math. North Korea pouts; we give in. That is capitulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 12, 2009 13:52:08 GMT -5
We capitulated by talking? I find that to be a bit of a stretch. What have we given up?
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2009 14:55:00 GMT -5
What's wrong is that we are capitulating to the demands of a tin horn dictator. What's worse is that I'd lay odds we apologize for something while we're there. North Korea always wanted face-to-face and behaved like my four year old until we gave in. Way to reward bad behavior Mr. Obama. Your four year old doesn't have nuclear weapons. Like it or not, we have to treat countries, even hostile countries, like adults. If America can't be strong enough to handle our business one-on-one, then that is a bad sign. I think it's a sign of weakness that we ever acted like we needed four buddies around to get anything done. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Sept 12, 2009 15:32:46 GMT -5
What's wrong is that we are capitulating to the demands of a tin horn dictator. What's worse is that I'd lay odds we apologize for something while we're there. North Korea always wanted face-to-face and behaved like my four year old until we gave in. Way to reward bad behavior Mr. Obama. Your four year old doesn't have nuclear weapons. Like it or not, we have to treat countries, even hostile countries, like adults. If America can't be strong enough to handle our business one-on-one, then that is a bad sign. I think it's a sign of weakness that we ever acted like we needed four buddies around to get anything done. Sounds like you could have stolen that quote from a neo-con defending our Iraq adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 12, 2009 16:18:38 GMT -5
It is capitulation because Matt Drudge says so.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 12, 2009 16:28:01 GMT -5
Over/under on posts till Elvado goes for the Sudetenland reference?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 12, 2009 17:04:45 GMT -5
We capitulated by talking? I find that to be a bit of a stretch. What have we given up? The United States has, in the past, an awful track record when it comes to North Korea and bilateral negotiations. This is because, in the past, North Korea doesn't follow up what it has said it will do. Involving multilateral partners - especially Russia and ESPECIALLY China, who remains the North's meal ticket, gives them less wiggle room and makes the words of the U.S. less imposing than if they had been said by all partners in unison. If North Korea agrees to everything in the world, it doesn't matter. What matters is following through. Without the Chinese and Russians pressing the Koreans and reminding them that they can't negotiate what they agreed with the US, bilteral negotiation is worthless. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 12, 2009 17:19:50 GMT -5
We capitulated by talking? I find that to be a bit of a stretch. What have we given up? The United States has, in the past, an awful track record when it comes to North Korea and bilateral negotiations. This is because, in the past, North Korea doesn't follow up what it has said it will do. Involving multilateral partners - especially Russia and ESPECIALLY China, who remains the North's meal ticket, gives them less wiggle room and makes the words of the U.S. less imposing than if they had been said by all partners in unison. If North Korea agrees to everything in the world, it doesn't matter. What matters is following through. Without the Chinese and Russians pressing the Koreans and reminding them that they can't negotiate what they agreed with the US, bilteral negotiation is worthless. Correct on all counts. However, you wil be lambasted because you don't worship at the altar of Barry O. He has effectively allowed Noth Korea to dictate the terms under which they will even talk. What are his chances of success on the substance when he's already been rolled on form? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2009 18:04:38 GMT -5
Your four year old doesn't have nuclear weapons. Like it or not, we have to treat countries, even hostile countries, like adults. If America can't be strong enough to handle our business one-on-one, then that is a bad sign. I think it's a sign of weakness that we ever acted like we needed four buddies around to get anything done. Sounds like you could have stolen that quote from a neo-con defending our Iraq adventure. It does. If you think that engaging in negotiations and starting a war are the same thing. Most of us consider them polar opposites. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 12, 2009 22:18:01 GMT -5
Diplomacy was invented as a way to deal with countries that you don't like. Saying that we won't engage in diplomacy with countries we don't like is like saying we won't give counseling to suicidal people because that would give them attention, which is what they want.
I agree with theexorcist that 6 party talks are the best way to negotiate with North Korea. But North Korea isn't going to the 6 party talks. The only opening we have is bilateral talks, so that's what we've got to take.
Unfortunately, North Korea has basically all the bargaining power in this deal. They have nukes and even more importantly they have South Korea essentially held hostage. The situation on the Korean peninsula won't change in a good way until North Korea wants it to, and that's not happening anytime soon.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 12, 2009 22:52:33 GMT -5
Diplomacy was invented as a way to deal with countries that you don't like. Saying that we won't engage in diplomacy with countries we don't like is like saying we won't give counseling to suicidal people because that would give them attention, which is what they want. I agree with theexorcist that 6 party talks are the best way to negotiate with North Korea. But North Korea isn't going to the 6 party talks. The only opening we have is bilateral talks, so that's what we've got to take. Unfortunately, North Korea has basically all the bargaining power in this deal. They have nukes and even more importantly they have South Korea essentially held hostage. The situation on the Korean peninsula won't change in a good way until North Korea wants it to, and that's not happening anytime soon. I feel obligated to say that North Korea has brilliant diplomats. For a country that can't feed its people, they are punching way above their weight. With that said, taking the only option isn't an option. There's always other ways. Work through the Chinese to convey messages, or refuse to meet with the North (and thus deprive them of their desire to get on the world stage). I repeat what I said above - every previous agreement, the US has made concessions to ensure that North Korea does certain things. North Korea has never lived up to what they've said they'll do. Further US bilateral negotiations aren't helping. If the US negotiates with the North without the framework of the multilateral talks, I guarantee you that the North will welch on any deal that the US makes while the US constrains their hand. And Iran will take notice. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2009 23:57:42 GMT -5
It is capitulation because Matt Drudge says so. You know, at this point, you're just a broken record. Can we have a Hoyatalk corollary of Godwin's Law for references to Drudge? |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 13, 2009 7:25:41 GMT -5
We capitulated by talking? I find that to be a bit of a stretch. What have we given up? The United States has, in the past, an awful track record when it comes to North Korea and bilateral negotiations. This is because, in the past, North Korea doesn't follow up what it has said it will do. Involving multilateral partners - especially Russia and ESPECIALLY China, who remains the North's meal ticket, gives them less wiggle room and makes the words of the U.S. less imposing than if they had been said by all partners in unison. If North Korea agrees to everything in the world, it doesn't matter. What matters is following through. Without the Chinese and Russians pressing the Koreans and reminding them that they can't negotiate what they agreed with the US, bilteral negotiation is worthless. You're right it's a better option on paper. But a better option on paper that isn't working in practice is not that great of an option. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 13, 2009 9:45:56 GMT -5
You know, at this point, you're just a broken record. Can we have a Hoyatalk corollary of Godwin's Law for references to Drudge? As long as we have one for copying talking points directly from Drudge sans attribution. Drudge actually used the word capitulate as well. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 13, 2009 10:04:42 GMT -5
You know, at this point, you're just a broken record. Can we have a Hoyatalk corollary of Godwin's Law for references to Drudge? As long as we have one for copying talking points directly from Drudge sans attribution. Drudge actually used the word capitulate as well. You would prefer caved in, turtled, surrendered, appeased, acquiesced? Your choice. |
|
