Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:36 PM Apr 2013

No negotiating - Korea ? CNN Link

Last edited Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

with hostage takers or terrorists....Christiane Amanpour was so frustrated last night in a shared interview with somebody named "Haas." Didn't catch his name, but she was shaking her head "no" to his remarks about not negotiating with Korea.

She said the US has this ridiculous policy of not negotiating with terrorists even though it could calm waters and prevent things from getting worse. She was so animated and sad because she wants our government to do something, and Haas, of course, didn't.

I have never seen her so emotional about anything.

It was on around 11ish last night, don't know whose program they were on. I agree with her (and that basketball player who went to see Kim Jung Un)...

I have little interest in most of what MSNBC has on anymore. The more they change, the less I watch. I wish I could say goodbye to everyone but Rachel. I wonder how long she's got since quality doesn't seem to matter anymore. At least CNN has a lot of current news.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
1. Unfortunately, there's not really any negotiation to be had with a country
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:45 PM
Apr 2013

that now has nuclear strike capability AND announces that it's going to strike the US preemptively. Are we going to hand over more money, food, aid to a country that is holding a gun to our heads and will probably shoot anyway, after we hand over the goods? There is not much that can be negotiated here--they want nukes, but they are in violation of UN's rules and past agreements. They want a reunified Korea, but South Korea doesn't want that (not on NK's terms). They don't seem to want peace, at all--they occasionally do aggressive things and are constantly threatening and provoking. They are starving their people and causing immense suffering. We don't totally know who's in charge, anyway. What levers do we use, how can we negotiate when we aren't dealing with totally rational, well-intentioned leaders?

derby378

(30,252 posts)
2. Some people just want to watch the world burn
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:50 PM
Apr 2013

You want to believe there's a chance of reaching them. Me, I'm a Quaker - my faith insists that everyone can be persuaded, that there is "that of God in every man." But there is a practical side that we don't like to talk about that much. And if Kim Jong-Un points the barrel at our heads, we have the right to respond in kind and put him down like a rabid dog.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
4. Do we even know what their "demands" are . . .
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:01 PM
Apr 2013

Naturally, they are waiting for some sign, but what? They'll never get down on their knees and beg forgiveness, mercy, and promise to do whatever we say without something in return.

I don't know what they want....do you? It would be nice to know before they blow up something any of these - the Pacific Coast, South Korea, or Japan. It would be their utter destruction if they did, as it should be. But I hate to think of us dropping the first bomb.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
9. I hear you, but this isn't exactly Iraq in 2003
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:21 PM
Apr 2013

Twelve years of sanctions and embargoes crippled Iraq's military, and it had no viable WMD programs whether Saddam wanted them or not. There was no navy or air force to speak of. There was an army, complete with the overhyped Republican Guard. But that was about it. Iraq was barely a threat to its neighbors, let alone America, no matter what Cheney and Rice intoned on FOX News or how many cartoon drawings Powell held up at the UN.

North Korea, however, is a different story. Their military is fanatical and surprisingly well-equipped. Kim Jong Un's personal bodyguard is on a par with our Presidential Secret Service, only three times as crazy. The country has nukes. This cannot end well if both sides get into a fight.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
5. I agree--even though it will be horrifying, they may leave us no choice.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:04 PM
Apr 2013

I don't see a good way out, unless the regime is somehow magically replaced with a more peaceful, rational set of leaders. The current kid (or aunt/uncle, or generals--whoever is in charge) doesn't seem to know when to quit, but now that they have been pretty successful at uranium enrichment, missile and warhead development, and launching satellites, why would they? They think they're in the catbird seat, apparently.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
8. I'm not sure how much South Korea wants reunification under any terms...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:14 PM
Apr 2013

How do you integrate 23 million people (about half our S. Korea's population), many of whom have never seen a cellphone and barely have enough to eat into a established high tech society? A society that exports technology produced by a skilled workforce to import food will have trouble adding that many people who need to eat but perhaps aren't educated well enough to contribute to the workforce.

TheMightyFavog

(13,770 posts)
12. It would make the reunification of Germany look cheap by comparison.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 07:59 PM
Apr 2013

It porbably would also take the better part of half a century for the north to catch up to the south.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
3. Good for her. The warmongers will be lobbying again for her removal from the air,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 05:56 PM
Apr 2013

as they did when she spoke out against Iraq. The last time I remember her being this emotional was when she pleaded with the Clinton administration to do something about Rwanda before it was too late. She was right then, while they argued over the word 'genocide', genocide happened.

Clinton has since said that one of his biggest failures was Rwanda.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
7. Seriously, the Pentagon and the media really don't want a potential
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:10 PM
Apr 2013

nuclear war--or a conventional one over there, for that matter. I see caution. I don't see any warmongers this time. Not every situation is Iraq.

 

Demo_Chris

(6,234 posts)
6. We are trying to negotiate with the little Theocrat
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:07 PM
Apr 2013

He's not interested. He believes, and so far with good reason, that there is really nothing he can do or say that will result in our attacking him first. And in any case we don't want to. No one wants a war with North Korea.

But I believe this: there is a time limit, based upon technology, beyond which the world will no longer tolerate this clown -- and that clock is rapidly ticking down.

JVS

(61,935 posts)
10. I'm not opposed to negotiation but this is a situation that really doesn't fit with negotiation.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 06:31 PM
Apr 2013

Negotiations usually happen when there is a particular incident that needs to be resolved in order for relations to return to normal. The current situation is just an escalation of threats on both sides. There isn't really a crisis to negotiate, although some might argue that the entire reason the N Koreans started this round of saber rattling is to renew interest in talks between them, S Korea, China, and the US.

Anyway, lines of communication should be kept open/ re-opened where possible and it would probably be constructive to unilaterally tone down our language in the hope that is taken as a cue that this bullshit can stop.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No negotiating - Korea ? ...