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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.