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

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



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:18:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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.



No what stopped them was capitulation and acceding to their principal demands. Had they not achieved them through negotiation they would have been back at it. As I recall they never even officially declared a cease fire, they promised a cease fire if negotiations progressed favorably. Obviously if you give someone virtually everything they are looking for youve removed their incentive to terrorize. Personally I dont think agreeing to convert to Islam or pay jizya is a fair exchange for stopping terrorism.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:23:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No what stopped them was capitulation and acceding to their principal demands.


*beep* wrong answer.

(Sauce for the goose and all that....)

The principle demand of the IRA was the reunification of Ireland. Last i looked this hadn't happened. QED, you are the weakest link....goodbye.

Yanno, an ideological position isn't really a substitute for actual facts.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:35:19 PM)

I'm not missing the point philosophy I am afraid you are. The I.R.A. wanted to negotiate. What they wanted to negotiate was the return of northern Ireland to the republic of Ireland and to accomplish this end they waged a terror campaign. The British government refused to negotiate with them. In the early nineties the I.R.A. came to the conslusion that it could not win militarily and force the british to withdraw. Therefrore it began the process of disarming and modified it's demands to the british government wherupon meaningful dialog began. The point i am making is that a refusal to negotiate with terrorist IS a form of negotiation it challenges the grooup to either change it's behaviour and demands or face a military struggle. usually after a period of conflict most groups are willing to compromise and the I.R.A. is a good example of that. It's one of the reasons you get radical offshoots like the P.I.R.A. who are furious at the compromise that have been made. The reason the peace process began happening under Major was because the I.R.A. decided to change as you noted they needed leadership that was willing to be pragmatic.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:36:52 PM)

Willbeur I have to say that simy isn't true. The I.R.A.s  main/omly real aim was the reuniication of ireland but they could,nt do it, at least militarily that is why they gave up the fight.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:44:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Therefrore it began the process of disarming and modified it's demands to the british government wherupon meaningful dialog began.



...factually incorrect. Disarmament occured after negotiations began, not before. If you think different feel free to link to any source that agrees with your view.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 3:47:54 PM)

Very well I slightly mispoke theI.R.a. came to he tblewith the offer to disarm and to concede that the demands for the original states of Ireland were unrealistic, at least through the means they had been sing. THe point is they had to change to negotiate. Their actions got them nowhere because the British government was willing to match their campaign and refused them n ear. Once they began changgig so did the situation.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 4:04:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Once they began changgig so did the situation.


....*sighs*.........please try to read the following carefully.

The IRA wanted to negotiate when Thatcher was in power, but she refused. We had to wait until John Major came to power. Therefore it was not the IRA that was the trigger for negotiations.....it was a willingnes on the part of government to do so. Those negotiations were not offered to JM on significently different terms to those offered to La Thatch.

Additionally.......the main thing they did offer was a cease fire. Disarmnament was a much trickier process that required the presence of an independent observer and a whole committee of other people. It took a long time and occured a very long time after the actual cease fire. In the meantime some of the institutional biases built into Ulster society had to be dismantled.

In short, disarmnament was quid pro quo, while the cease fire was, initially, unilateral. A sign of good faith. i spent time in Ulster around that time. i even met a few of the bit players. Your analysis of the situation is just plain wrong i'm afraid.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 4:15:26 PM)

Speaking to me in a patronising tone does not lend credence to your argument philosophy please refrain from doing so. I address myself to you politely extend me the same courtesy.
The I.R.A. wanted to negotiate with Thatcher, what they wanted to negotiate was the withdrawal of all British forces from ireland and the reunification of all the irish counties. By the time Major came to power the I.R.A. had recognised that their campaign had failed and that they could not achieve their aims throuh military means. Therfore when they attempted to negotiate with major they were willing to change fundamentaaly from a militant group to bona fide political party that eschewed violence. There is nothing wrong with this analysis. Do you believe philosophy in the early nineties that the i.r.A. was of the impression that it could defeat the British government militarily? If you are then it is your analysis which is incorrect.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 4:34:21 PM)

I'm off for now philosophy so i'll catch up with you tommorow, have a good night.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 4:36:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

The I.R.A. wanted to negotiate with Thatcher, what they wanted to negotiate was the withdrawal of all British forces from ireland and the reunification of all the irish counties. By the time Major came to power the I.R.A. had recognised that their campaign had failed and that they could not achieve their aims throuh military means.


...as you keep repeating this i'm sure you can offer a link to a source that confirms it. In lieu of that i'll go with the information i gained from talking to people involved in the process. What they say is that Thatcher, like Calaghan before her, refused to trust that the cease fire being offered was a genuine offer. John Major took a chance on things.....a lot of the credit goes to Hume for convincing him........and that there was no difference between the negotiations offered to John Major and those offered to Calaghan in '78.

quote:

 Therfore when they attempted to negotiate with major they were willing to change fundamentaaly from a militant group to bona fide political party that eschewed violence. There is nothing wrong with this analysis.


...yes there is. They were always a bona fide political party....at least Sein Fein was. They just happened to be a political party that had an armed group that supported their aims. Bit like the DUP.

quote:

 Do you believe philosophy in the early nineties that the i.r.A. was of the impression that it could defeat the British government militarily? If you are then it is your analysis which is incorrect.


....nope....but neither did it believe that in 1978. Or earlier. The aim of the IRA post late 60's was not to defeat the military.
"The 1977 edition of the Green Book, an induction and training manual used by the Provisionals, describes the strategy of the "Long War" in these terms:
  1. A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal.
  2. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.
  3. To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
  4. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
  5. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.[49] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army

They never thought the military solution was going to work. The point, in their minds, was to change hearts and minds. To make what they saw as occupation too costly.

Your analysis is simply not rooted in facts. At least as far as i'm aware. Should you be able to link to any actual facts supporting your thesis i'd be surprised. However i'd also be impressed.



Starbuck09 -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 5:09:36 PM)

Okay one last post before bed. First of all phjilosophy respond to what i am arguing not what you wish my argument to be. I have never claimed that the I.R.A. planned to defeat the british army per se. What they did believe was that they could use their own military to acheive their aims. what you have pasted from wikipedia confirms this they planned to conduct a military campaign that would result in the withdrawal of all british forces. Underneath the pasted text you have stated, ''they never thought the miltary solution was going to work.'' As your own quote attests tin fact they did indeed think it would work perhaps you should analyse your own posts a little further before you criticise my own deductive process.
Sinn Fein was not treated as a proper political party as it's ties, support and approval of the I.R.A. a terrorist organisation made them indivisible in the eyes of the British government. Once they were willing to demand the disarmement of the I.R.A. and ceased approving violence then the situation began to change.
As for the terms offered as far as i am aware the I.R.A. demands in the seventies were for the unconditional retreat of the British army and the release of all prisoners linked to the republican cause. Their peace feelers were rejected as the government believed that they would use a ceasefire to consolidae their position as the I.R.A. still believed they could succeed militarily. In the nineties it had been demonstarted that their campaign had failed and so their requests for a ceasefire were taken seriously along with the fact that their struggle became political rather than armed. IF you want sources then continue reading wikipedia philosophy it is all there.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 5:46:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Starbuck09

Willbeur I have to say that simy isn't true. The I.R.A.s  main/omly real aim was the reuniication of ireland but they could,nt do it, at least militarily that is why they gave up the fight.


Yes that is the ultimate goal, but the key is in the last phrase, because we are discussing achieving the goals that they hope to achieve through terrorism.
Sinn Fein/PIRA long recognized that achieving that goal was impossible militarily and that was not the goal of terrorism. The specific goals of terrorism were realized when direct rule from London was abolished and the NSMC, BIC and NIA assemblies gained their powers. The goal of reunification could never be achieved before peace was achieved, but that peace would never be achieved without the capitulation of the British Government. That was the prinicipal goal of terrorism, and that was achieved.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 5:55:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


The goal of reunification could never be achieved before peace was achieved, but that peace would never be achieved without the capitulation of the British Government. That was the prinicipal goal of terrorism, and that was achieved.


Capitulation eh?

Well, i suppose allowing Ulster to have the same rights to self determination as other parts of the UK could be seen as capitulation. Or it could be seen as a tiny and very reasonable price to pay for the lives, safety and well-being of a million or so people.

i take it you'd rather the war was still going on, people still dying, lives blighted by the hopelessness of living through a low level civil war rather than capitulate and give Ulster the same rights as Wales, Scotland etc.......

Because there's one thing i do agree on with Starbuck.......military force was never going to win, on either side.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 6:08:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


The goal of reunification could never be achieved before peace was achieved, but that peace would never be achieved without the capitulation of the British Government. That was the prinicipal goal of terrorism, and that was achieved.


Capitulation eh?

Well, i suppose allowing Ulster to have the same rights to self determination as other parts of the UK could be seen as capitulation. Or it could be seen as a tiny and very reasonable price to pay for the lives, safety and well-being of a million or so people.

i take it you'd rather the war was still going on, people still dying, lives blighted by the hopelessness of living through a low level civil war rather than capitulate and give Ulster the same rights as Wales, Scotland etc.......

Because there's one thing i do agree on with Starbuck.......military force was never going to win, on either side.


Of course it was capitulation, and that is the point I have been making since the original claim that the IRA was an example of succesful negotiation with terrorists. The terrorism did achieve its goals. And no, I wouldnt rather the war was still going on..it amazed me that it took so long for self determination to be granted.



philosophy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 7:15:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Of course it was capitulation, and that is the point I have been making since the original claim that the IRA was an example of succesful negotiation with terrorists. The terrorism did achieve its goals. And no, I wouldnt rather the war was still going on..it amazed me that it took so long for self determination to be granted.


.....harumph...bastards...........bloody Brits capitulating all over the place.......gutless bastards..........bah humbug.........bloody terrorists.........bastards........good job the wars not going on though, even though the only way to stop it was capitulation  because everyone had to give up something but i'm not going to call that reasonable negotiation because that would lose me my membership of the irrational curmudgeon club....bastards......they're all just like Atlee.........they're all bastards......where's my port and cigar..........



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 10:21:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Of course it was capitulation, and that is the point I have been making since the original claim that the IRA was an example of succesful negotiation with terrorists. The terrorism did achieve its goals. And no, I wouldnt rather the war was still going on..it amazed me that it took so long for self determination to be granted.


.....harumph...bastards...........bloody Brits capitulating all over the place.......gutless bastards..........bah humbug.........bloody terrorists.........bastards........good job the wars not going on though, even though the only way to stop it was capitulation  because everyone had to give up something but i'm not going to call that reasonable negotiation because that would lose me my membership of the irrational curmudgeon club....bastards......they're all just like Atlee.........they're all bastards......where's my port and cigar..........



How could you ruin port with a cigar? Or is it Tawny? lmao.



Arpig -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 10:28:35 PM)

You know, with all this talk of negotiating with terrorists and such seems to beg the question...does anybody actually know if anything was negotiated beyond the photo-op for release that it appears to have been, or is this all just wild speculation?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 10:56:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

You know, with all this talk of negotiating with terrorists and such seems to beg the question...does anybody actually know if anything was negotiated beyond the photo-op for release that it appears to have been, or is this all just wild speculation?


No, no details have been released and we arent likely to ever know. It strains credulity to think that the midget dictator would have rolled over for a photo-op, though.



Arpig -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 11:21:57 PM)

quote:

It strains credulity to think that the midget dictator would have rolled over for a photo-op, though.
I don't know about that, the North Koreans told the US before the trip that they would release the women if Clinton made the trip, they turned down Gore and specified Clinton....why might that be? Obviously having Bill come to him cap in hand so to speak meant something special to Kim. Clinton was POTUS the first time the NKs were forced to back down over nukes, so it is probably some sort of twisted revenge thing.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Clinton, Obama, Reporters and North Korea (8/7/2009 11:43:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

It strains credulity to think that the midget dictator would have rolled over for a photo-op, though.
I don't know about that, the North Koreans told the US before the trip that they would release the women if Clinton made the trip, they turned down Gore and specified Clinton....why might that be? Obviously having Bill come to him cap in hand so to speak meant something special to Kim. Clinton was POTUS the first time the NKs were forced to back down over nukes, so it is probably some sort of twisted revenge thing.

"Hee, hee, heee .... I'm still in charge of my country and you're NOT! Take that you scummy, weak American! I outlasted you, I outlasted Bush, and I'll outlast Obama!"

Kim Jong-il



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125