U.S. offers to meet N. Korea on sidelines (Bilateral Talks, a reward for N Korea?)

AP ^ | JAE-SOON CHANG

[Da Mav]

The key is obviously "offered to meet bilaterally with the North".

Have we given in to North Korea's demand for bilateral talks, is this a misquote, or is this guy about to get smacked down for saying this? I'll hold back on the rant until this is clarified.

[Perdogg]

The US will only have some bilateral discussions if Gim Jeong il agrees to the broader six party discussion.

[umgud]

I realize there is no simple or easy answer to the Iran or NK problems, but I really hope that historians don't condemn us for not having neutered these two rogue countries when we had the chance.

[308MBR]

Hey, at least we can tell them in private that if they keep screwing up, we'll take them out.

[Da Mav]

Sounds like a big climbdown from 'no bilateral negotiations'. Rather Kerryesque no? "I said I would never meet with them bilaterally so first I met with all six, then I met with them bilaterally?" Huh?

Again, the quality of the reporting here is so poor it is hard to tell what is going on. I'm hoping someone can find clarification in a better written story and post it or maybe replace the thread.

[clintonh8r]

Great. Elevating North Korea to the diplomatic equivalent of the greatest, most generous, strongest, country in history. What the hell are these people thinking?

[EndWelfareToday]

I realize there is no simple or easy answer to the Iran or NK problems,

??? Am I missing something here? Aren't we the most powerful nation to ever exist? No easy answer?
I beg to differ. There is one very easy answer but no one has the eggs to implement it. NUKE EM! Stop playing footsies with tyrants. I'll tell you all what. Either civilized nations do what is necessary to turn back the tide of Islamo-fascism and Marxism and repent for allowing it to get to this point or God's written documentation concerning His handling of such evil is going to manifest. And manifest soon. God isn't going to continue to put up with the sort of dinking around those who think they have all the answers are doing.

People, there can never be a lasting peace so long as your enemy lives. Leaving them to get stronger only makes the casualties on our side grater.

Disclaimer: These statements are my opinion and my opinion only. I do not fear letting things go as they are simply because I know who and what I am in Christ Jesus. It is those of you caught up in trying to negotiate with madmen that I worry about. When will you learn that there is no rational within the irrational?

[DTogo]

I hope so!

[cardinal4]

Hey, at least we can tell them in private that if they keep screwing up, we'll take them out.

Thats exactly what happened in Geneva right before Gulf War I. SECSTATE sidled up to Tariq Aziz and told him a chemical attack on Coalition Forces would result in a nuclear response. Tariq was stunned..

[InterceptPoint]

I realize there is no simple or easy answer to the Iran or NK problems, but I really hope that historians don't condemn us for not having neutered these two rogue countries when we had the chance.

Well there is a way but it will take some technological breakthroughs.

We will need a time machine and someone to ride it back to the period of the Korean War and tell Truman to let MacArthur win the war or else. Ties are not allowed in war. If we could do that then there would be one Korea and the Koreans would be our friends, we would have maybe 500 troops in Korea, countless numbers of Koreans would get to live rather than starving to death and the people of the North would be just as well off as those in the South. To dream.

[Hawk1976]

We can't just nuke 'em. Prevailing wind patterns in that area are to the east, towards our ally Japan.

They would still get a chance to destroy Seoul and therefore South Korea before we stopped them.

Then there is how China and Russia would react. Russia not so much but China could do some temporary damage.

All things considered, even a nuclear retaliatory strike may not be a good idea. At that point the damage that would be done has been done to Japan and South Korea anyway and we can take care of them conventionally.

[Pox]

Going by your loose logic, what is the point of having Nukes if we are too timid to use them even in a retaliatory strike? That reasoning is absurd and does nothing but encourage rogues like the axis of evil to acquire nukes since they will have direct observation that we are too much of a pussy now to use them even in a retaliatory strike.

That is absolutely a psychotic "belief", IMO. Not to mention suicidal.

Also, if they want to cross the ultimate line in the sand, why waste thousands upon thousands of American lives when it will suffice to simply nuke them to oblivion? Fallout will be an issue, likely worldwide, but not nearly as bad as is believed due to hysteria that has been instilled in the world population over radiation in the decades since nukes were first built and used.

All of those tests we did has not brought the planet to its knees nor threatened humanity with extinction from those specific tests, and it should take significantly less detonations than all of the above ground tests combined to flatten NK permanently.

[Hawk1976]

It isn't a matter of timidity. They can not destroy us like Russia could. Most likely the nuke would hit Japan.

[Pox]

Insanity!

You respond in kind or you invite more attacks of the same from that nutbar and any other potential psycho that can get their hands on nukes.

You absolutely invite more attacks of the same if you show the type of weakness you advocate, and yes, it is timidity, weakness, cowardice and worse.

We already know our military can likely defeat any in the world when fully unleashed and supported. The capability to destroy us or not is irrelevant. Our resolve to back up our "words" with concrete action in such a scenario is paramount to dissuade other future attacks of the same type.

Historically, this is "common sense" type of thinking, IMO.

[Hawk1976]

If the scenario unfolds where he can be beaten conventionally then that is what we should do. The best would be to intercept a nuclear tipped missile, giving undeniable causus belli then take him out conventionally. Remember we do not yet know what President Bush's response to the DPRK missile launches will be.

We have to gauge our actions to our desired outcome. I am onlyt arguing that nuke wouldn't help us achieve our desired outcome, and may hurt it.

I get the feeling North Korea is teetering on the edge, but we shall see.

[sinkspur]

All of those tests we did has not brought the planet to its knees nor threatened humanity with extinction from those specific tests, and it should take significantly less detonations than all of the above ground tests combined to flatten NK permanently.

This is drunk talk. One failed missle launch does not justify nuclear war. What the hell is the matter with you?

[Pox]

A nuke detonates and they get the same in return, otherwise all our posturing, all our nuclear weapons, and all our "words" amount to squat.

You're missing the whole point of our having nukes in the first place, IMO. Deterrence. If they will not be used in retaliation for a first strike, they have zero deterrence value. None.

Kim wants to nuke anything, he needs to understand in no uncertain terms that Pyongyang or another NK city will be flattened immediately with a nuke from us, period. Your "take the high road" approach in that scenario is ridiculous and suicidal, IMO.

If he uses one and we do not respond in kind, are you telling me he's suddenly not going to use the others he likely has? Do you think that he has to use a missile that can theoretically be shot down to deliver it? Do you not believe he has fighter/bombers that he can use to eradicate Seoul or most other SK cities if he believes he can get away with it.

Again, I say your stance is not the least bit rational and is entirely illogical!

[Pox]

I'm talking about retaliation in the event of Kim actually detonating a nuke. Do you skim through threads and pick out statements at random or do you make an effort to actually comprehend the reasoning behind a statement by reading what it was replying to?

[sinkspur]

Kim is not going to detonate a nuke. He knows all bets would be off if he did, and even China would abandon him.

[Pox]

Now I'm inclined to agree with that.