North Korea demands direct talks with US
By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer Jae-soon Chang, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 2, 4:10 am ET

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea pressed the United States to accept its demand for direct talks on the communist regime's nuclear program, warning Monday that Pyongyang "will go our own way" unless Washington agrees.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry did not elaborate in the statement carried by state media, which appeared to be a threat to enlarge its nuclear arsenal.

The statement came as North Korea's No. 2 nuclear negotiator, Ri Gun, wrapped up a rare trip to the U.S., where he met with the chief American nuclear negotiator, Sung Kim, amid media speculation the two discussed bilateral negotiations.

North Korea has demanded direct talks with Washington since conducting a series of nuclear and missile tests and quitting six-party nuclear negotiations involving China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and the U.S. earlier this year.

"As the (North) was magnanimous enough to clarify the stand that it is possible to hold multilateral talks including the six-party talks depending on the talks with the U.S., now is the U.S. turn," North Korea's Foreign Ministry said, according to Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency.

"If the U.S. is not ready to sit at a negotiating table with the (North), it will go its own way," the ministry said.

North Korea agreed in 2007 to disable its nuclear facilities — as a step toward its ultimate dismantlement — in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. Pyongyang halted the process and later abandoned the pact after receiving most of the promised energy aid and concessions.

The standoff led to Pyongyang conducting its second nuclear test and banned missile tests earlier this year.

However, North Korea said Monday that "meaningful progress" on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula is possible "if the hostile relations between the (North) and the U.S. are settled and confidence is built between them."

The North has warned in recent months it is enlarging its nuclear stockpile, saying it is "weaponizing" plutonium and has succeeded in enriching uranium, a second way of building atomic bombs, in an apparent attempt to pressure Washington to agree to one-on-one talks.

North Korea has long called for direct talks with the U.S. to resolve the nuclear standoff, and maintains it is compelled to develop atomic bombs to cope with what it calls "U.S. nuclear threats."

Washington has denied it has any intention of attacking the North, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured South Korea last month it would use all military capabilities — including its nuclear might — to defend the longtime ally.

Pyongyang's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper blasted Gates' remarks, saying the U.S. "boldly unveiled its design to invade" the North and is trying to provoke a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula.

"It is the height of folly for the U.S. to calculate that it would get something through the pre-emptive nuclear attack," the paper said in a commentary carried by KCNA. The North's "nuclear deterrent will be bolstered" if the U.S. refuses to switch its "policy of aggression" toward the North, it said.

The U.S. has said it is willing to engage North Korea in bilateral talks if they lead to the resumption of the stalled six-nation disarmament talks.

Officials in Washington say no decision has been made on whether to hold direct talks.

North Korea also said Monday there was no progress on the issue of bilateral talks.

South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Moon Tae-young said Monday that bilateral talks between the U.S. and the North should be aimed at reviving the stalled six-party talks and any substantial negotiations should take place at the multilateral discussions.

Essentially the north korean policy hasnt changed from Bush all that much, I seem to recall similar calls during his 8 years, but wait!!!! This is Obama, you all voted for "change" right?

Can one of my liberal friends explain why the policy on North Korea hasnt changed? Was Bush's approach a good one? Whats in the cards going forward for mr obama's NK policy?

First off, don't use this stupid talking point. Just because he ran on a "change" platform, doesn't mean every.single.aspect of the government has to change. So stop it.

No one said every single aspect had to change. Apparently, though, Bush's foreign policy was a universal and widespread failure, so I would expect some "change" there.

so nobody said every single aspect had to change, just every single aspect of foreign policy?

Please point me to where that makes any more sense.

In general, Barack Obama's foreign policy is quite different to Bush's. That doesn't translate to it having to be different in every particular.

No one said THAT, either. The OP is saying that the NK policy of Bush and Obama is pretty much exactly the same. Since NK is a major policy problem, it's reasonable to expect change. No?

NK is a major problem in general. Not necessarily policy, thought this may be true as well.

I am taking this as meaning that we might have the best policy we could have and we would still have a crappy situation in NK. Am I reading you correctly, or am I mistaken?

No one said THAT, either. The OP is saying that the NK policy of Bush and Obama is pretty much exactly the same. Since NK is a major policy problem, it's reasonable to expect change. No?

What if Bush had done that?: Part IV

What if Bush had been black? The media would have been completely racist to him because he was Bush. Obama is getting the kid gloves on his decision to be a racial minority.

I can't for the life of me see the purpose of this post.

its also for entertainment purposes as I like seeing liberals defend.

Anyone who pays even the slightest bit of attention to NK knows Obama's policy has been far, far different from Bush's. The OP's premise is incorrect on its face.

Its like if I asked him "Why aren't you calling out the hypocrisy of Glenn Beck not being indicted for killing a child in 1990." Falls apart at the premise.

What makes you think Obama has had a radically different North Korea policy from Bush or Clinton?

Me thinks you apply the word "far" far too liberally in an attempt to differentiate your guy from the last guy.

Obama's approach has been simply to require lil' Kim to abide by his agreements to get what he wants. The approach taken by previous Presidents has been to give concessions when he acts out in order to calm the situation temporarily. Appeasement by another name. Now, Obama may be drawing on the experience of his predecessors who saw Kim break every agreement in turn, so he hasn't come up with any remarkable discovery, but nevertheless he has put Kim in a bad spot, as his usual "get what I want" card of throwing missiles in the air or nuclear tantrums isn't getting him anything. This leaves North Korea with a choice: Play by the rules, or alienate China.

This is what North Korea experts have been calling for a long time running. And, it is working. The fact that North Korea is whining more and more is a good sign. If, however, Obama reverts to the appeasement approach, then feel free to lump his DPRK policy in with Clinton and Bush, I will not object.

Both Bush and Obama are too big of government for me lol

If you ask me both would be happy as hell to be a dictator given the chance, not because they are crazy like Hitler, but because they like to be in controle, and are narcissists

both also admitted to wanting to be in total controle (Obama was more suttle than Bush who openly joked.... Obama was more into hints than blurting things out)

Both also are not good at running a government Bush was ok for a short time which led to reelection, but it totally went to hell after the 2nd election (not totally his fualt but he didn't help)

Obama is smart but can't run a country without help..... he relies too much on others, and some times he listens to people who does not know about the subject over others (for example sending back up troops to Afganistan when they needed it, he listen to his inner circle over his generals)

You should be afraid When thier inner circle has wrote books about starilizing entire towns, and books on communist ideas (like government ownership of bussinesses, and redistribution of wealth)

And in Bush's case when he listens to stupid people (who would not be able to write books that is convincing of; radical and at the same time stupid ideas)

Sources?

Sources? We don't need no stinkin sources in the Boiler Room!!

I find it interesting that the new party line is "Bush was an appeaser" when it used to be "Bush was a rampant cowboy who invaded countries at random for no reason."

Regardless, this isn't some sort of radical break from past policy. The Bush era policy was not "appeasement." The 6-party talks had some concessions in exchange for tangible results, including NK destroying parts of its nuclear plant. It's not a permanent solution, but no one was expecting that. It slows them down, though, with a concrete step. It's more or less exactly what France and Russia are doing with Iran by processing its uranium for it.

The only thing that's happened since Obama came to office is more backtrack of what started summer '08. NK left 6 party talks and is rearming. Obama responded by cutting aid. That's not a change, that's exactly what Bush did. I can support it, because I don't really care about human misery if their own government doesn't care: such crazy regimes need to be dealt with. The rest of you apparently do, because you !@#$%* at me ALL THE DAMN TIME about it, so I find it a bit ironic that you are now claiming this is a good thing. I suppose this a good thing that you have finally seen the light, and now since you don't care about the millions of North Koreans starving to death, I'm sure you really won't mind if I kill a million or so Iranians to destroy THEIR reactors with nuclear arms if it comes to that.


The Obama policy is much closer to appeasement. Bush wouldn't even TALK to the North Koreans outside of six party talks. Obama is still talking with the North Koreans. I actually think this is a good idea as long as nothing big comes out of it, but the talks are secretive, not a radical change, and have a history of not working. It's also NOT multi-lateral, and it's also EXACTLY what North Korea wants.



NK pressed Obama hard. Obama gave in a tiny bit, not a lot, but a bit. NK is still building weapons. This is my reading of the situation, and while this may be commendable as doing the best we can, it's hardly a success for the US/

\o/ mods \o/

OP, I suggest you read your own article.

I'm not sure if anything I say can be called anyone's party line, but Bush did appease North Korea. Whether his actions towards the Middle East can be called cowboy warmongering or whatever is for another thread.

And again, the 6 party talks did have apparently good deals under Clinton and Bush, but each time Kim turned on his word. Obama's course of action was to require North Korea to abide by past agreements, which they refuse to do. So here we are.

Nobody accused Bush of cowboy warmongering in Korea ... the clue's in the fact that there is actually no war there.

The policy over North Korea doesn't seem that different to me, no-one's yet worked out how to stop their government being a little bit crazed. Keeping the diplomatic channels open is always a good thing, though, so that small change in policy is a good one. In general the Bush policy on NK wasn't too bad, and the Obama policy isn't too bad. You should really stop trying to pluck at straws to find any little thing to either bash Obama with or say 'lol liberal hypocrites' about.

I read the article, this is precisely what I was hoping for, I enjoy seeing liberals squirm. Not as much as I enjoyed watching the idiot republicans but its still fun.

Stay tuned for the next installement "what if bush had done that" as coming soon there will be a short 2 minute sound bite about how obama wont be closing Gitmo.

Few things before I go: I enjoy reading replies far more then attempting to sway people on an forum in a small corner of the web. Some call it trolling, I call it "ridiculous proclomation of partial fact to discern common themed replies from actual thought". Most topics started by me fall in that category. So what ever your quip is about "mods" and what it means, next time you will know when you see an op created by me that I am looking to read replies, I may or may not believe the content of the material, and or the text I post afterward.

just ignore it, or expand on the subject matter presented (including the inuendo and mild leading....), its the web have some fun !

Also, I don't see why you are attacking me when you are agreeing with me.

So you admit you are just poking a hornet's nest.

What the heck is wrong with you? This is a discussion forum for adults. This is not your play area.

This is not your play area.

The sub-title of the thread has been altered, to reflect the different nature of the topic. We don't need multiple threads in the forum talking about alleged media bias against either the Obama or Bush adminstrations, though a North Korea thread is acceptable.

In addition:


Saying controversial things to get a rise out of a group of people is not helpful and is dangerously close to trolling. I suggest you tread very carefully.

Im not poking a hornets nest, like I said when I make a topic and post commentary I do so to read the replies. Also this is not a dicussion forum for adults, its a discussion forum for people who are registered on the CN boards to talk about topics of the day.

You might want to read this thread: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=218 no where in the rules does it make any mention of a "dicussion forum for adults" once again, try not to make things up as you go, you arent very good at it.

Also Since you feel that way, can I assume that you have been elevated to mod status? Or are you not intelligent enough to simply ignore the threads I make and or put me on ignore? I mean, I think I got the tone of your response correct, intelligent adults like you are very hard for me though.

Disclaimer for the rest of you: I post here on the CN forums for entertainment purposes, its why I created a nation etc. I dont take it all to serious, if you do I suggest you disconnet from the web a bit theres lots of other exciting things to do. I do however enjoy reading replies from people who do not share my ideology, it helps me understand the otherside and I find it entertaining. If you have read this disclaimer and find it not to your liking, by all means put me on your ignore list or report the posts you dont like to an op. This way, you will have effectively used the tools at your disposal to absolve yourself from the burden of having to read something you dont like.

Truly the "adult" thing to do, you agree GVchamp?

That was at the OP.

Bush did seem pretty incapable of diplomacy though. His 'diplomacy' came in two varieties: 'do what I say' (Iraq/Afghanistan/drugs policy) and 'screw you' (climate change/environment in general/trade). That's not relevant to North Korea who seem to be pretty much impossible to talk with sensibly, so while Bush failed to do so, that's not really a point against him.

May I suggest reading a moderator's post in your own thread?

Seriously, when did you fly off the deep end?

I did read it I like to post certain things but will refrain from doing so, it aint that important to me. I like to read replies to topics i find interesting, I dont see any harm in that as I have consistantly pointed it out in multiple postings over a long period of time. Ive always made that distinction in my posts (when questioned on intent) and I simply defer to the ability of the posters here in the boiler room to excersise thier ability to discern what they find to be a meritous discussion or not, and act upon it.

As far as the "deep end", I dont know what you mean, we were once alliance mates you know perfectly well how I operate. I concede I am pushing with some leading commentary after the articles, specifically the subtitles of "what if bush had done that" but I also understand we are given a slightly longer leash here in the boiler room. I dont think iv'e gone off any deep ends or made gross leaps from accepted behaviors.

Back on topic: Since thier seems to be confusion my desire was and is to see people from different ideological points of view discuss current and past policy on NK, specifically differences and similarities between Bush and Obama admins. So far ive enjoyed it, and I dont see anything wrong with the tact I have taken, the stated premise behind the method of my postings or the conduct and clarification of my replies.

I'll see you all IC soon I hope, cheers!