why would the usa NOT want bilateral talks with N Korea?

[egoprofit]

~snip~
A North Korean official has reiterated Pyongyang's demand for two-way talks with the United States, a day after North Korea said it will abandon six-party negotiations on its nuclear weapons program and bolster its arsenal.
~snip

~snip~
North Korea has insisted on a bilateral nonaggression pact with the United States before it will consider dismantling its nuclear program.
~snip~


I read today that the USA has turned down bilateral talks with N Korea, why is this? what is so bad about these "talks"? doesn't it seem like they would help keep peace?

[count_alucard]

1. Bush wants a nuclear holocaust

It's the 'rapture', don't you know?

[Newsjock]

2. See, you assume ...

... that we want to "keep peace." Peace is bad for Halliburton.

[FloridaPat]

3. He's too busy with plans to invade the Middle East. He has to ignore

Korea else people might notice how he's talking to them but no one with oil. Also, if N. Korea attacks us, the first state hit will be California. Get rid of those Democrats and the electorial college won't be close at all.

[egoprofit]

4. why california?

just curious..

[FloridaPat]

11. California is Democratic. No Calif and the Dems get less electorial

votes. Also gets rid of Hollywood where all those anti-Christian movies and TV shows come from. All those gay folks in San Franciso. All those nuts out there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Scare tactics.

Korea had a successful test of a missile that could reach anywhere in Japan. There is no evidence that they have anything that can reach the US.

[David__77]

5. It's a bit convoluted...

...they don't want to have to acknowledge N. Korea at all. There's still technically no cessation of hostilities from 1950-1953. They want to use China especially as a wedge but fail to understand that whatever China says to the US it will absolutely not act as a factor in helping to affect "regime change" in that country--not now or ever. There is a firm party-to-party friendship.

North Korea could easily just say, "we are a nuclear power like India or Pakistan or Israel, and we are not surrendering our defense capacity. We are willing to discuss such matters with the U.S. as soon as it concludes a peace agreement with us, removes its troops from the Korean peninsula, and diplomatic relations are established." I think such a position would garner much sympathy from third world countries, China, Russia and democratic European countries like France.

[Toots]

6. Same reason Bush* won't meet with Black leaders

Bush* feels they are inferior to him and he won't sully his hands. This Arrogance is what will be his downfall. People are going to get mighty tired of it before his time is up.

[Village Idiot]

7. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il might have some demands of his own

in return for nuclear non-agression...as long as there are other parties involved, there can really be no true "quid-pro-quo..."

[PurityOfEssence]

9. because if anything goes wrong, it's our fault

When questioning the actions of this administration, think like a 5 year-old. We're going to get our fucking way because we want to get our fucking way. Heel. Smell the glove. Beg.

It's about power and dominance, and it's sick. Needs like that are never quenched, and they just lead to disaster.

[rfkrfk]

10. NKorea should announce its demands to the American people

f... shrub
The North Koreans, should make its demands
clear to the American people.
Stop beating around the bush.
NK, tell us what you want.
We can't read your mind.
There is no reason, not to do so.
f... shrub

[Igel]

12. Probably a few reasons.

First, the US has little pressure over N. Korea. The last time round they stopped plutonium A-bomb research, and switched over to uranium. It was a bilateral agreement, we could accept their behavior or ... whine. We bought a few years of no plutonium refinement at the cost of them improving their capabilities once it was resumed, giving them a partially completed nuclear reactor, and a mess of heavy oil to keep their economy from crashing. China has more leverage.

Second, N. Korea (like anybody else) can engage in divide and conquer. China and Japan also have issues with N. Korea.

Third, N. Korea likes talks with the US directly because in reinforces the official myth that much of their control is based on. The south is occupied by the US and is enslaved; it is not free, it is not sovereign; the Korean War was with the US, and isn't over. The US is the real antagonist; S. Korea is beside the point. So any peace treaty must be with the US, not with S. Korea. One-on-one negotiations, leaving out S. Korea, fit that narrative nicely, and make for juicy regime-supporting stories.

[fob]

13. Because that was John Kerry's plan and it will work.

[Disturbed]

14. After 50 years or so the U.S. and NK have not

signed a peace treaty. Technicaly the U.S. is still at war with NK.

The Bush Junta are have delusions that the NK people with China's aid will overthrow the NK Govt. by starving them. NK is getting some aid from other countries but their main source of revenue is from military tech. and drugs.

[fob]

15. Are you saying this technicality presents them from 1-on-1 meetings

or that 1-on-1 meetings won't work due to his technicality or other?

[Toucano]

16. "The world changed on September 11th."

As a result, we can no longer pursue a foreign policy that is rational or makes sense.