6-way North Korea Talks Enter 'Pivotal Phase'(Buyoff Nears)

MSNBC ^ | Feb. 26, 2004 | Associated Press

[XHogPilot]

BEIJING - North Korea on Thursday proposed “the comprehensive stopping of nuclear activities,” a Chinese government spokesman said. He said the details were still being discussed among the six nations meeting in the Chinese capital.

The apparent progress came a day after South Korea offered the North a conditional compensation package that officials said included energy aid for the power-starved country.

The development, in the middle of delicate talks about the North’s nuclear ambitions, appeared to be the most significant breakthrough since the stalemate between Washington and Pyongyang began in October 2002. Russia said, however, that a “gap” remained before the standoff could be solved fully.
/snip/

“The various parties welcomed the proposition from the North Korean side for the comprehensive stopping of nuclear activities,” Chinese spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a briefing.
/snip/

According to Losyukov, the North would retain its nuclear program related to “peaceful purpose,” Xinhua said. That’s a major step but one somewhat less than what China described.
/snip/

A U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing said he had no information.

[XHogPilot]

South Korea offered the North a conditional compensation package that officials said included energy

A common definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting an altogether different outcome.

[montag813]

Continuing the Carter Plan, a direct descendent of Neville Chamberlain's "peace plan" for Nazi Germany. Remarkably, more may die as a result of the current appeasement than of the former, as North Korea peddles nukes around the globe to rogue Muslim groups who will use them in Western cities. The Clinton Catastrophe continues. Unfortunately the current folks don't have the stomach to do what is neccessary. Why bother including North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" when we are going to put on such kid gloves with them?

[yonif]

I believe Russia will also be providing energy.

[yonif]

Also remember, the US is part of the talks, and if South Korea, our ally, goes ahead with this it will probably be without US objections.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you are not much aware of current events. If you were you would understand that Bush will not continue the nonsensical policy of Clinton.

If he reaches an agreement with these aholes it will mean that he will have an agreement to put an end to this crap not some face-saving punt into the next decade.

Is this willful blindness on your part? I suspect yes.

[LibertarianInExile]

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, appeasement is appeasement, no matter how small. We're going to buy out a monster, promise him he can keep torturing his own people, promise him money and food for his kleptocracy, all so he won't eat us or make us fight. That sounds like appeasement to me no matter who does it.

I don't think there's any other way you can spin it. I know nukes are involved, but we are now just making sure that every tinpot dictator is racing to buy his own.

[montag813]

If he reaches an agreement with these aholes it will mean that he will have an agreement to put an end to this crap not some face-saving punt into the next decade. Is this willful blindness on your part? I suspect yes.

All I see is more pass-the-buck from our feckless DoS, until proven otherwise.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Bush sets administration policy not the Department of State. Attempts to divide and conquer the administration will not work with the discerning and knowledgeable. Try that crap at sites filled with the gullibe you will have many more takers.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There will be no appeasement done here though I hardly see what it would matter to a libertarian since there is no foreign policy I can see which Libertarianism could pursue that would be consistent with its philosophy. Why would a Libertarian object to appeasement since they are adamently anti-State and object to just the increments of state power which would make a foreign policy possible?

Weak states cannot have a foreign policy since the effectiveness of any such policy demands a strong national will and strong national state. Others are ignored by the world community.

[gipper81]

N Korea talks didn't achieve much

There are different conclusions from other stories right now.

[montag813]

Bush sets administration policy not the Department of State. Attempts to divide and conquer the administration will not work with the discerning and knowledgeable. Try that crap at sites filled with the gullibe you will have many more takers.

You are obviously well-versed in "crappy" posts.

[LibertarianInExile]

To say that we are not posed to buy off the DPRK, and if we do, it is not appeasement...well, that's just silly. You know it, too, but you think that you can't admit it without saying Bush is a bad guy. I happen to think he's generally NOT a bad guy. I just don't like the idea of paying Kim Jong Il to go away.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I certainly have read enough of them to be an expert. Yours qualifies through its inane attempt to divide the administration and weaken it in the eyes of the American people.

[justshutupandtakeit]

When a knowledgeable person speaks of "appeasement" he is speaking of actions such as that performed by Chamberlain wrt Hitler. This is NOT what is going on wrt N. Korea and any pretense that it is is mendacity of the highest order if not a flat out lie. Which catagory does yours fall into?

[montag813]

I certainly have read enough of them to be an expert. Yours qualifies through its inane attempt to divide the administration and weaken it in the eyes of the American people.

And how exactly am I doing that? Do you deny that the State Department works tirelessly to undermine the West Wing on matter of foreign policy? If you say no, you are either purposely ignorant or merely unaware. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, despite your nasty and accusatory tone. The Arabist and Internationalist factions in the DoS are islands unto themselves, with agendas which do not reflect the President's views. The battle behind the scenes just to ostracize Arafat in 2002, for example, was fiercely fought by Foggy Bottom, and was Cheney's first major victory.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While the State Department is concerned with long term diplomatic issues which can occasionally differ from short term political ones, there is no divide within the administration.

Most of the blowhards who push these claims that there is are not reputable or knowing. There is no "undermining" of Bush's foreign policy by State no matter how many fantasies you or they might have.

When there are differences of opinion on matters of foreign policy they are worked out and agreed upon.

Why do people have such a hard time figuring out that State is NOT Defense nor vice versa? Why do people forget the "soft cop" vs "hard cop" routine?

WRT Arafat your contention is pure bs. Where did you gain access to meetings with Cheney indicating his opposition to State? Where did you get the idea that Powell is not as roundly condemned as the rest of the administration by the
RATmedia?

If Powell is good enough for W he is good enough for me.

[LibertarianInExile]

"When a knowledgeable person speaks of "appeasement" he is speaking of actions such as that performed by Chamberlain wrt Hitler. This is NOT what is going on wrt N. Korea and any pretense that it is is mendacity of the highest order if not a flat out lie. Which catagory does yours fall into?"

For those of you who aren't so knowledgeable and think that Hitler and Chamberlain were the only example of appeasement ever, here's the dictionary definition of appeasement:

the policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

I know appease is a big word for you ignorant types who think that Hitler and Chamberlain were the only example of appeasement ever because that's the only time you ever heard of the word, but just to define that word, too:

to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

You can pretend whatever you want, but we're about to appease North Korea just like we've been appeasing China and Vietnam. They have done nothing but make it obvious that they as totalitarian nations will both be ones we must someday face on a battlefield unless we vacate the region entirely, or these authoritarian states fall from internal rot. I think the former unlikely and the latter less likely the more we pay them off.

So, if you want to imagine that we're doing something that will make our children safer and freer, if you can support Iraq and support what we're about to do in Korea in the same breath, you have a great future as a politician. You're telling people what they want to hear, that there will be peace in our time, not what they deserve, which is the truth, that every second we delay fixing the problem from a military standpoint makes the coming fight a more bloody one for the U.S. soldiers who will fight it, kids who are now probably watching cartoons but will one day have to deal with the problems you deferred to them.

How proud you'll be then of your oh-so-gutsy defense of the DPRK buyout!

Oh, and two more things, for you ignorant types who can afford the dictionary but evidently can't be bothered with the definitions: mendacity MEANS THE SAME THING as a lying. So if you want to call one thing mendacity and the other a lie, you might as well try using the same word for both of them. Try 'prevarication' for both, it'll do, although it would probably make your sentence even sillier. However, it's a big word, and meets the interests of you ignorant types who want to use big words but don't really understand that they come complete with meanings attached.

Finally, the word is spelled "category," and my statement fits neither category because it's the truth. Sure, you'll call me a liar again after the DPRK buyout is finalized, because then you'll be even MORE right...in Bizarro World, where up is down, black is white, and appeasement isn't.

[LibertarianInExile]

I figured it out. This justshutupandtakeit guy has to be a Korean shilling for the DPRK.

It's good cop vs. bad cop. When they can't get idioms down, it's a tipoff.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Do you deny that the State Department works tirelessly to undermine the West Wing on matter of foreign policy? If you say no, you are either purposely ignorant or merely unaware."

A little bit of A, a little bit of B...

:)

[squidly]

If China won't get on board and adopt a hard line re: DPRK, I'm not sure if we have an option besides some form of appeasement.