Who's got the better North Korea policy?

[The Duke]

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

Bush is right about missile defense, but wrong not ot put anything at all on the table (like the non-aggression pact).

Bush is slightly better, because:

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.
2. If Bush's policy fails and NK launches an attack on America, we shoot their missiles down.

Only GW Bush has a little thing called a back-up plan.

[The Duke]

Kerry is right about bilateral talks, but wrong for being willing to put the terms of the 1953 armistice back on the table.  He's giving away things North Korea hasn't even asked for.

How can Kerry be right about bilateral talks?  What do we gain by conceding that point?  I agree that bilateral talks could be held out as a bargaining chip, if we can get something substantial in return, but how Kerry's public concession strengthen our position?

Kerry just ensured that no meaningful talks can occur until after the election.  North Korea now sees that all they have to do is wait and maybe the US will choose a president that will give them what they wanted for free.

Fine, so use the bilateral talks as a chip in exchange for a cessation of uranium enrichment until the bilateral talks can begin, but in order to eventually fix this it will be a two-way solution, not a six way solution.

Bush's China syndrome blinds him.  Who do you think is propping up Pyongyang's government right now?  Its the PRC!  And bush says we need the PRC to disarm North Korea, hell there wouldn't be a North Korea today if the PRC wasn't on their side.

[The Duke]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

[The Duke]

You think the Chinese want some madman with a bunch of nukes and an unstable country on their border?

Uh, no.

Bilateral talks are a loser.

Then why do the CHinese send so much foreign aid to North Korea?  The PRC has a long alliance with the DPRK, and they have been of no help in these failed six party talks.

How can you assert that bilateral talks are a loser when we have seen two years of six party talks fail?

They give NK so the country doesn't collapse. But that will happen eventually anyway... the real solution has to deal with their nuclear program.

Bilateral talks failed. Multilateral talks are in early stages and are the only chance for success.

Note that, in my opinion, the main concern is no NK having nukes- it's them helping other people get them. But, no one wants to accept NK as a nuclear state. Eventually, we may have no choice, but at the very least we need to stop proliferation beyond the current level.

The aid is not for practical reasons, the PRC has aided the DPRK for decades.  Its out of legitmate friendship.

The bilateral talks failed because Clinton signed a bad deal, not becuase they were destined to fail.  A better foreign policy team could have gotten it done.  In any case, all we should hope for is a holding measure.  The final solution will be to bring about the collapse of the DPRK from within.  We just need to hold them off for a while.

[The Duke]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

The Taepodong 2 missile can reach the west coast of the United States.

[The Duke]

1. If Kerry's policy fails, and NK launches an attack on America, Los angeles gets blown up.

I don't think that North Korea has capacity to build intercontinental missiles and hopefully never will have. However  they can strike against South Korea and Japan and sell they weapons to terrorists!

Bush did the mistake when he decided to decrease your troops in South Korea. Kerry is against that. He could get at least some extra Korean-American votes because of it.

Btw. What is Nader's North Korea policy? A capitulation?

The Taepodong 2 missile can reach the west coast of the United States.

Really? I didn't know that. Where that information is from?

From the congressional testimony of former CIA Director Tenet.