Obama should appoint Cheney to negotiate with North Korea over hostages

As usual, I will address each point under its proper heading. ====== SANCTIONS, AID, and CHINA In the second round Pro asserted that sanctions, removal of aid, and engaging China are precisely the policies that have failed in the past. He then goes on to admit that offering concessions are part of the cycle in which North Korea gets what it wants then reneges on its part of the deal. Sanctions and removal of aid can and have proven to be effective in other cases. The difference here, as Pro notes, is that we have offered concessions why not ensuring that N. Korea keeps their part of the bargain. No where in my opening round did I suggest that we should offer any concessions. The benefit N. Korea receives from releasing the two U. S. citizens in question is to not lose aid and to not be further sanctioned. They cannot renege on this deal because their not being sanctioned and losing aid is wholly dependent on release. -------- AL GORE Pro can deride and insult liberals all he wants, no matter how thinly veiled. I will happily accept the conduct point from the readers. Pro claims that Al Gore would be sent to N. Korea with the "same cycle of failed policy. " However, this is not the case in this instance. No one is offering any concessions, as I have already mentioned. The message this time is 'return our citizens or suffer the (economic) consequences. ' This is in stark contrast to the message of sending Cheney, which is 'return the citizens or be bombed. ' As I said in round one, this is not the issue on which to go to war. There are more peaceable solutions. OTHER OFFICIALS Al Gore is by no means the only option available. Bill Richardson would be an adequate candidate since he has negotiated the release of U. S. citizens from Korea in the past (. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark has a similarly hard-line reputation to that of Cheney but without the dark connotations. If indeed we need to send subtle threats in order to achieve the release of the two prisoners then sending Ret. Gen. Clark, or any other military man, to negotiate would have the same (or greater) effect. ---------- THREATS OF VIOLENCE As I have asserted repeatedly, this is not the issue on which to go to war. The fate of the two women is regrettable, but not worthy of starting a war in which tens of thousands of lives will be lost; or of toppling the regime. Our legitimate reasons for opposing the regime would be undermined. --------- CHENEY I have my doubts that Cheney's war hawk reputation is sufficient enough for China to be "impressed" enough to act. If Pro wishes to make this assertion I hope he is willing to provide ample evidence that Cheney's reputation is such that his mere presence would have such an effect. Pro says that a violent follow up to Cheney's veiled threat would likely sufficiently impress China into action. However, the minor follow up action, in this instance, is what would cause the Chinese to act - not Cheney's leadership of the special envoy. Therefore, literally anyone could replace Cheney with the same result. If anyone can replace Cheney and achieve the same result then Pro loses this debate. CHENEY PT. 2 The very different domestic and foreign policy ideologies that exist between Obama and Cheney are sufficient reasons why Cheney should not be considered for the position unless it can be unequivocally proven that his presence would have the extreme effect that Pro claims. Pro has failed in this regard thus far, as evidenced by Pro's concession that a follow up would likely be necessary for our physical threats to be effective. ====== CONCLUSION Pro has yet to demonstrate a unique benefit of sending VP Cheney to negotiate the release of two U. S. citizens imprisoned in N. Korea. In order to win this debate he will first need need to show that the threat of violence is the only viable negotiation method in this case. If he can successfully demonstrate that, then he will need to show why Cheney is a better candidate than other men with similar hard-line reputations without the ideological difference. Good Luck in the final round, Roy Latham.