posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:41 AM
If as Bush says the US is 100% behind solving this through diplomacy, could someone remind me why the US has rejected direct talks with NK? Surely
"some" talks are better than none? Surely then the 100% figure is slightly inacurate?
The US has again rejected direct talks with North Korea to bring about an end to the nuclear stand-off.
Washington said it would not be intimidated by threats from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile at the US unless it moved to halt
Source: US reject NK talks
As big as the threat may be, put aside the statement saying that NK could launch a nuke if the US do not hold talks with them. Many say Kim is just
bluffing and trying to bully his way into talks anyway, so why does'nt the US talk to them?
Maybe it won't go as NK wants, maybe it won't go the way the US and the rest of the world wants, but thats the nature of talks is'nt it? In the end
theres hope you might just get somewhere close to what you want. I believe it's called comprimise?
Yes i know Kim's a total nutjob, but he's asked for direct talks, so why don't we see what they want instead of puffing out our chests until
someone chucks over a big one? I'm not calling for being blackmailed or coming across as the soft touch, just exhaust all avenues if they are
Or are we already aware of what NK's demands will be and theres a good reason for rejecting talks?