RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea

RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SilverMark -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/6/2009 12:25:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig From the stories I have read, it appears that the US was told in advance that the women would be freed if Clinton went (apparently Kim rejected a visit by Al Gore). There doesn't seem to have been any secret back door deals made, it really does appear that Kim wanted his photo op with Clinton. If there really was any secret deals to be made, then wouldn't Hillary have been the Clinton Kim wanted to talk to? Exactly what deals could Bill have made? What authority does he have, what position of power? All he had to work with in the way of a trade is his face and his fame, and it appears that is exactly what he traded for the release of these women. Not a half bad deal to my eye. It just occured to me, given how tightly controlled information is in North Korea, its entirely possible that the people there still believe Bill is an important part of the government. I bet Kim is spinning this domestically as a powerful US government figure coming begging the oh-so-magnanimous Kim to release the evil spies. It was the photo op and then they went bar hopping to look for girls....I am certain Clinton would be the world's greatest "wing man"

KaineD -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/6/2009 12:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Youre damn right it matters what was behind it. Clinton fucked up negotiations with NK, a terrorist state. What did OB have to give up? You dont negotiate with terrorists, period. That's a view that would have those girls working in a hard labour camp. And the IRA would still be active.

hlen5 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/6/2009 2:07:40 PM)
I wasn't implying that Clinton could make any deals or actually effect change except in reporting to the administration what he saw and what KJ Il's expectations were. I was talking about Clinton being an advocate for the administration. H Clinton wouldn't have been as good a choice. She is officially part of the government. This was back door type stuff.

MrRodgers -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/6/2009 9:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave It is not clear at this point what really was behind this thing. Clintons corrupt global Old Boys network again at display: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080504021.html ...and just think, that corruption has at the very least...helped secure the release of these people. Pretty cheap ransom for the kidnapped. Would you have been happier if it were Bush or Cheney and a for-profit meeting as well...say, they'd have talked oil or pipeline ?

VanIsleKnight -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 4:19:53 AM)
Personally, I have -never- liked the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists" due to the very nature of the statement. Impolitely, it's "fuck communication, we're going to fuck up anyone who fucks with us" and quite honestly, that often makes a situation even worse. There are many cases where negotiating for a deal that both parties are comfortable with simply won't work at all, but even if you have every intention of sending in the MIGs (or whatever the US airforce has flying these days) at least with negotiations you can acquire information, work out a temporary deal, or by some lucky accident, even find a win-win solution. As for the entire reporter/Clinton/North Korea thing, I was happy and relieved to hear that they were released and it made my day. I've always kept in mind however that -far- more happened then we the public know of, and that Bill must have done some incredible talking, or that North Korea/Kim Jong Il got something -very- valuable out of this whole ordeal. You don't just give up two perfectly good bargaining chips without getting something in return. This could be anything from an improved global image to a few billion dollars however.

servantforuse -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 6:27:04 AM)
Every administration says they do not negotiate with terrorists. All have done so in the past and will do so in the future..

TheHeretic -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 7:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight North Korea/Kim Jong Il got something -very- valuable out of this whole ordeal. You don't just give up two perfectly good bargaining chips without getting something in return. He got to pose for official pics with a US President. Granted, a former and disgraced one, but to a petty little dictator, it's a big deal. I'm glad the reporters are home, even if it turns out they brought the arrest on themselves.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 9:13:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight Personally, I have -never- liked the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists" due to the very nature of the statement. Impolitely, it's "fuck communication, we're going to fuck up anyone who fucks with us" and quite honestly, that often makes a situation even worse. There are many cases where negotiating for a deal that both parties are comfortable with simply won't work at all, but even if you have every intention of sending in the MIGs (or whatever the US airforce has flying these days) at least with negotiations you can acquire information, work out a temporary deal, or by some lucky accident, even find a win-win solution. As for the entire reporter/Clinton/North Korea thing, I was happy and relieved to hear that they were released and it made my day. I've always kept in mind however that -far- more happened then we the public know of, and that Bill must have done some incredible talking, or that North Korea/Kim Jong Il got something -very- valuable out of this whole ordeal. You don't just give up two perfectly good bargaining chips without getting something in return. This could be anything from an improved global image to a few billion dollars however. As soon as you accept any demands it encourages more terrorist acts in the future. You may get short term gain, but you are guaranteed long term problems.

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 9:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As soon as you accept any demands it encourages more terrorist acts in the future. You may get short term gain, but you are guaranteed long term problems. What sort of terrorists were further encouraged inside Iran when Reagan traded arms for hostages? We really haven't seen anything out of the area until we have been poking about itn it. (Which I see as a reasonable reaction on their part). Ron edit: inside is a very useful concept-- especially when the sentence was void.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 9:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As soon as you accept any demands it encourages more terrorist acts in the future. You may get short term gain, but you are guaranteed long term problems. What sort of terrorists were further encouraged Iran when Reagan traded arms for hostages? We really haven't seen anything out of the area until we have been poking about itn it. (Which I see as a reasonable reaction on their part). Ron Nahhh, we havent seen much. They are only the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. And no, terrorism is never a reasonable reaction, even if we had been "poking".

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 9:29:00 AM)
I don't really go for the "don't negotiate" idea. On a VERY small scale, I get called once or twice a month to my bar because some drunk has become unruly. I usually go in, ask him to leave and come back the next day if he wants. He usually asks if I want to throw him out. I usually tell him that I'm sure he could kick my ass and buy him a drink on the house. Nearly every time the guys takes his drink and leaves with the smile on his face that he "won." I could give a rats ass who wins or what he thinks. I didn't have to call the police (bar for bar business) and he left. Mission accomplished. I don't need to show anyone who is boss or who has the biggest dick. It's counterproductive.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 9:43:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom I don't really go for the "don't negotiate" idea. On a VERY small scale, I get called once or twice a month to my bar because some drunk has become unruly. I usually go in, ask him to leave and come back the next day if he wants. He usually asks if I want to throw him out. I usually tell him that I'm sure he could kick my ass and buy him a drink on the house. Nearly every time the guys takes his drink and leaves with the smile on his face that he "won." I could give a rats ass who wins or what he thinks. I didn't have to call the police (bar for bar business) and he left. Mission accomplished. I don't need to show anyone who is boss or who has the biggest dick. It's counterproductive. Bad analogy, I'm afraid. A drunk in a bar isn't a terrorist. Firm

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 10:25:12 AM)
The analogy isn't the size of opponent. The analogy is to not caring what the other side thinks about their victory in their heads. If a photo op makes someone think they won something then so be it. Their thoughts don't cost us the outcome.

philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 1:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy As soon as you accept any demands it encourages more terrorist acts in the future. You may get short term gain, but you are guaranteed long term problems. ....and the obvious counterpoint to this is the IRA. The only thing that stopped them was good faith negotiation.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 2:03:07 PM)
The point about not negotiting with terrorists is not that there is no dialog per se. what it means is that until certain conditions are met that no negotiations will be forthcoming it is in fact itself a form of negotiation a bluff in some senses. The I.R.A. are a good example it wasn't until their leadership was willing to make concessions to their methods and demands that they were negotiated with.

philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 2:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 The point about not negotiting with terrorists is not that there is no dialog per se. what it means is that until certain conditions are met ...and thats precisely what didn't happen with the IRA. Instead people on both sides took a leap of faith and started negotiations before any conditions had been met, hoping that would create the climate where concessions could be made. Guess what? It worked.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 2:13:26 PM)
That's not quite right philosophy the I.R.A. eroded a vast amount of it's public support which had been waning for some time by using the proxy suicide bomb. It was then that the i.r.a. began negotiations in earnest. The I.R.A. was only willing to negotiate when it became clear that they could not prosecute their campaign to a succesful conclusion militarily. With that realisation they changed tactics and negotiation began.

philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 2:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 That's not quite right philosophy the I.R.A. eroded a vast amount of it's public support which had been waning for some time by using the proxy suicide bomb. It was then that the i.r.a. began negotiations in earnest. The I.R.A. was only willing to negotiate when it became clear that they could not prosecute their campaign to a succesful conclusion militarily. With that realisation they changed tactics and negotiation began. ......rubbish. John Major opened the door to negotiations. The IRA had been quietly offering to negotiate for years, if not decades. The sticking point was never the IRA coming to the table, the sticking point was the UK government.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 2:27:44 PM)
It's not rubbish philosophy it is true. You can check for yourself all the information is in the public domain. The I.R.A. came to the conclusion that it could not achieve it's aims through military means. THeir public support sunk to a record low due to the use of the proxy car bomb.

philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:02:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 It's not rubbish philosophy it is true. You can check for yourself all the information is in the public domain. The I.R.A. came to the conclusion that it could not achieve it's aims through military means. THeir public support sunk to a record low due to the use of the proxy car bomb. ...and you're missing the point by a country mile. The IRA wanted to negotiate for years........Thatcher refused and the violence continued. People died. Finally john Major had the guts to actually open negotiations and finally the violence stopped. It takes two to come to the table. The IRA had to wait for a leader less interested in ideology and more interested in pragmatism. ....or are you seriously suggesting that Thatcher didn't delay the peace process by refusing to participate in one? The thing is, your argument cuts both ways. Can violence ever actually win in a war against terrorism? The IRA, quite rightly, came to the conclusion that it couldn't. Thatcher imagined that she could. She was wrong. Earlier you suggested that governments hold out the promise of negotiation and withold it until terrorists make concessions. i disagreed and said that didn't happen with the IRA. So, using your own model, what concessions did the IRA make before negotiations began?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875