Democrat double standard? Iraq and N Korea...

[6SpeedTA95]

I just got done reading an article in the washington times. It's the national edition and the nov6th paper for those who wanna know.

Hillary Clinton has been criticizing Bush for not talking directly with N Korea alone. She said that negotiating with a country alone shows leadership and is not a sign of weakness.

Why is it that when the president "goes it alone" as the democrats say with regards to Iraq its a bad thing. We used too much pressure and didn't allow allies to negotiate in the situation before we went into Iraq. Now we're using multination talks and these same people are saying we should go it alone. If anyone can provide an explanation I'd love to hear because this reeks of partisan politics and nothing more.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I just got done reading an article in the washington times. It's the national edition and the nov6th paper for those who wanna know.

Hillary Clinton has been criticizing Bush for not talking directly with N Korea alone. She said that negotiating with a country alone shows leadership and is not a sign of weakness.

Why is it that when the president "goes it alone" as the democrats say with regards to Iraq its a bad thing. We used too much pressure and didn't allow allies to negotiate in the situation before we went into Iraq. Now we're using multination talks and these same people are saying we should go it alone. If anyone can provide an explanation I'd love to hear because this reeks of partisan politics and nothing more.

Didn't Kerry say he wanted bilateral talks and everyone supported him on it? When it comes to North Korea they have always wanted us to exclude the rest of the world, just like when we handed them millions and a couple nuclear reactors and promised to not send inspectors in for a while behind everyone else's back and without their counsel. When it comes to other nations, that's when we need UN support and multi-lateral talks. When it comes to communist countries, the world be damned.

The problem is, there are other nations who are more effected by North Korea. And yes, you are right. Who are we to go in and be the sole person to mess up the region. Iraq was one nation. You deal with Saddam and you deal with the Iraqis. You deal with N. Korea and S. Korea gets the nuke. It's a more delicate situation with a lot more people and countries involved in the outcome.

[Diamond Cross]

It is partisan politics. Remember how Former President Clinton went into Mogadishu, Haiti, and Bosnia Hertzogovenia(sp?) unilaterally? I believe they praised him.

That's the biggest thing that truly baffles me about Partisan Politics, why the party is so willing to foprgive their members for doing something bad, tasteless, criminal, etc... but not members of the other party. Oh, I do know the reason behind it, because in politics image is very important and character is no virtue, but it still baffles me to no end.

Morality requires consistency. And one should hold themselves to the same standards that they hold everybody else. "Do as I say not as I do is really just oh so credible(not)".

Otherwise, if they don't hold themselves to the same standards, i just don't see how they can go on with their lives with no self respect and go on hating themselves, for if they hate people who don't behave according to those standards, whatever standards they may be, how can they not have any self respect or hate?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It is partisan politics. Remember how Former President Clinton went into Mogadishu, Haiti, and Bosnia Hertzogovenia(sp?) unilaterally? I believe they praised him.

That's the biggest thing that truly baffles me about Partisan Politics, why the party is so willing to foprgive their members for doing something bad, tasteless, criminal, etc... but not members of the other party. Oh, I do know the reason behind it, because in politics image is very important and character is no virtue, but it still baffles me to no end.

Morality requires consistency. And one should hold themselves to the same standards that they hold everybody else. "Do as I say not as I do is really just oh so credible(not)".

Otherwise, if they don't hold themselves to the same standards, i just don't see how they can go on with their lives with no self respect and go on hating themselves, for if they hate people who don't behave according to those standards, whatever standards they may be, how can they not have any self respect or hate?

Damn dude, thats a good post

[Diamond Cross]

Thank you.

[Thorgrim]

It's pretty simple:

When the rest of the world is screaming "don't rush, include us in this conversation, please, we think we can help make a better world!"

We should strongly consider having multi-national talks

When the rest of the world is going: "Please, these nations are afraid of you, they feel you give them no respect and won't even sit down alone at a table with them, please talk to them for the betterment of the world"

We should strongly consider having unilateral talks


In actuality, you are comparing apples and oranges...No liberal in foreign policy said "Don't have formal unilateral talks with Iraq, that's a bad idea" nor did they say "Don't have multinational talks with NKorea/Iran/Syria"

[6SpeedTA95]

What are you talking about? All the nations involved in N Korea talks want to be there with the possible exception of China...Japan has begged us to continue talks so has S Korea.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It is partisan politics. Remember how Former President Clinton went into Mogadishu, Haiti, and Bosnia Hertzogovenia(sp?) unilaterally? I believe they praised him.

2 of those involved the UN, the other was because we have been the central force in Haitian politics for...100 years?

That's the biggest thing that truly baffles me about Partisan Politics, why the party is so willing to foprgive their members for doing something bad, tasteless, criminal, etc... but not members of the other party. Oh, I do know the reason behind it, because in politics image is very important and character is no virtue, but it still baffles me to no end.

First off, we don't, we primaried out Cynthia M., and we are having a runoff to try and knock out Jefferson

Second off, to people we have "forgave" we are not a party of moral absolutes, nor do we ever claim to be...

Third off (that sounds funny We ran Congress for about 60 years, we didn't come in 1994 on a platform to reform everything...and way back in 1932 we didn't get elected to reform corruption, we got elected to solve an economic crisis...the GOP's mandate was to reform, and when reformers are caught breaking the very rules they are trying to implement...it screams for more attention

Morality requires consistency. And one should hold themselves to the same standards that they hold everybody else. "Do as I say not as I do is really just oh so credible(not)".

Yes and thats part of why voters kicked out the GOP, and if the Democrats in JANUARY (read, not today or yesterday) have Nancy Pelosi in some big bribery scandal, hey, I'll be the first to call her out

Otherwise, if they don't hold themselves to the same standards, i just don't see how they can go on with their lives with no self respect and go on hating themselves, for if they hate people who don't behave according to those standards, whatever standards they may be, how can they not have any self respect or hate?

See, you are missing something here...when I see devout catholics eating meat on fridays, I laugh, because they act so holy yet they are violating their own rules, that does not mean I have to give up eating meat...they aren't my values

Ken Mehlman (head of the RNC) being gay is whispered about as a big scandal...you think any Democrat would care if Howard Dean was gay? They'd probably think he was cooler...homosexuality being a "scandal" is a republican value, not a democratic one

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What are you talking about? All the nations involved in N Korea talks want to be there with the possible exception of China...Japan has begged us to continue talks so has S Korea.

Japan possibly, and only so because they are afraid of China, and recently elected more nationalists...but from what I understand they want the US to directly talk to NKorea

S Korea? You must be kidding me, they just said they won't support any effort by US or UN forces to blockade NKorea, they are obstructing our (well Bush's) foreign policy

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's pretty simple:

When the rest of the world is screaming "don't rush, include us in this conversation, please, we think we can help make a better world!"

We should strongly consider having multi-national talks

When the rest of the world is going: "Please, these nations are afraid of you, they feel you give them no respect and won't even sit down alone at a table with them, please talk to them for the betterment of the world"

We should strongly consider having unilateral talks


In actuality, you are comparing apples and oranges...No liberal in foreign policy said "Don't have formal unilateral talks with Iraq, that's a bad idea" nor did they say "Don't have multinational talks with NKorea/Iran/Syria"

Your argument falls short because you failed to include the surrounding nations of N. Korea which overwhelmingly support multi-lateral talks and generally get upset if they're not involved in the process.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Your argument falls short because you failed to include the surrounding nations of N. Korea which overwhelmingly support multi-lateral talks and generally get upset if they're not involved in the process.

They would get upset if it became 5, 4 or 3 party talks (generally)

I've really been flooded with information on Iraq/Iran, but I've never heard of Russia saying "you guys better never talk to North Korea on your own!"

They overwhelmingly support 6 nation talks because they know they won't go anywhere, but if they do they'll get all the credit

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

They would get upset if it became 5, 4 or 3 party talks (generally)

I've really been flooded with information on Iraq/Iran, but I've never heard of Russia saying "you guys better never talk to North Korea on your own!"

They overwhelmingly support 6 nation talks because they know they won't go anywhere, but if they do they'll get all the credit

Then how's that different then what Russia tried to do with Iraq? They wanted "multi lateral talks" which we engaged in for a LONG time and the outcome was action must be taken based on intelligence, not what the other countries wanted. We took action bush got shit on for being "unilateral" now he's bending over backwards more than before to include other nations and being shit on by the same people who wanted him to do this last time. It makes ZERO sense. No one has provided a good answer as to why other than its partisan shit.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Then how's that different then what Russia tried to do with Iraq? They wanted "multi lateral talks" which we engaged in for a LONG time and the outcome was action must be taken based on intelligence, not what the other countries wanted. We took action bush got shit on for being "unilateral" now he's bending over backwards more than before to include other nations and being shit on by the same people who wanted him to do this last time. It makes ZERO sense. No one has provided a good answer as to why other than its partisan shit.

Before getting into a protracted debate about the entire foreign policy of the United States for the past 30 years...

The argument was made that Democrats have a double standard on unilateral talks and multi-national talks...we don't, we support both...every rule has its exception, but I don't think there has been one yet

[ballz2wallz]

There is power in numbers; that's the main reason NK doesn't want 6-party talks. They'll feel it much easier to finger the pressure if they have W sitting alone in front of them. If they have 6 nations, they won't be able to do that.

It's simple human nature.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

There is power in numbers; that's the main reason NK doesn't want 6-party talks. They'll feel it much easier to finger the pressure if they have W sitting alone in front of them. If they have 6 nations, they won't be able to do that.

It's simple human nature.

and this means the democrats have a double standard?