They should send me as negotiator. I have a few things to say to Kim about the quality of life in NK, his priorities to his people and about what WILL HAPPEN to him and his booze collection in about 15 minutes if one of his nukes goes off over here.
"Against prevailing logic, I would agree that one on one talks are good for us. Not sure if they will be productive but then at least the world can say that we tried everything. As it is, the world will say that we didn't try everything."
Exactly. Diplomacy should happen even when we have totally conflicting points of view.
"They should send me as negotiator. I have a few things to say to Kim about the quality of life in NK, his priorities to his people and about what WILL HAPPEN to him and his booze collection in about 15 minutes if one of his nukes goes off over here."
Hahah me too...
"Against prevailing logic, I would agree that one on one talks are good for us. Not sure if they will be productive but then at least the world can say that we tried everything. As it is, the world will say that we didn't try everything."
One on one talks are what Kim Jung-Il took advantage of and helped to put us in this situation. Do you think if we gave him one on one talks he now would do something different than take advantage? Do you have any evidence that there is any diffence between then, when we did have one on one talks and now?