Again, I think we have much greater diplomatic weight by having all of us sit on the same side of the table wanting the same thing, and putting it to the North Koreans.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We always have hoped that American diplomacy deploys itself in dialogue and persuasion rather than by ultimatums. That is the path we want in international relations.
My proposal to re-establish diplomatic relations - not necessarily friendly relations, but diplomatic relations - is a sensible, simple, and straightforward approach that will finally get us off dead center.
I would not suggest the U.S. should sit down with the North Koreans bilaterally immediately after they've fired missiles - because the appearance is that you reward bad behavior. But if North Korea behaves for some period of time, I would pretty much favor direct talks.
We are hopeful that the North Koreans can show a little bit more realism, a little bit more flexibility.
And we ought to work our diplomacy first and I think it's a reason it's going to respond increasingly to our diplomacy particularly with the president's direct involvement in the peace process, and I think that's extraordinarily important.
In a chaotic world, U.S. diplomats will probably have even less contact with the people they need to reach.
The military can buy our diplomats some time.
We probably could more successfully resolve the North Korean nuclear threat through game-theoretic reasoning. We could successfully resolve what American leaders seem to perceive as an Iranian nuclear threat through game-theoretic reasoning.
For the Kremlin, it is more feasible to preserve its great-power status in cooperation with the United States than in confrontation.
I think it's fair to say that diplomacy today requires much more of that if you're the United States of America than it did 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
No opposing quotes found.