lutherblsstt
Guest
Bill Clinton was successful in negotiating the release of the two American journalists who were imprisoned in North Korea. I believed he would be successful in this trip.
roids1
Banned
Well, yeah. That's a good thing. The Dear Leader got a photo op that he's probably wanted for a long time and those chicks got released. It was kind of funny that Bill was standing about 15 feet away from KJI with a somewhat blank expression on his face. The Dear Leader was probably hoping for a smiling handshake photo, but took what he could get. Hopefully, we didn't give up anything in return.
I don't know why they were in such a hurry to get out of NK though. It may be a nice place to live. Afterall Luther, it's just western propaganda that makes it look so bad.
I don't know why they were in such a hurry to get out of NK though. It may be a nice place to live. Afterall Luther, it's just western propaganda that makes it look so bad.
lutherblsstt
Guest
I think it is because they live in the US and were detained that they were trying to get out,even if they were detained in a tropical paradise I am sure they would be in a hurry to get out of the detention and subsequently out of the country and back to their homes.
JW32Hoops
Banned
Word on the street is that no concessions were made and we knew they'd be released before Bubba ever left.
Delta Force
PES Rep
I have nothing but respect for Clinton, I think he was the best president of our time but I couldn't help thinking this morning when i saw the pictures of those 2 asian girls getting in the plane and the smile on his face.... he probable did them on the way how 
Delta Force
PES Rep
Clinton's trip was a lot cheaper than having tensions rising between both sides and later sending a bigger team over there!
roids1
Banned
I have nothing but respect for Clinton, I think he was the best president of our time but I couldn't help thinking this morning when i saw the pictures of those 2 asian girls getting in the plane and the smile on his face.... he probable did them on the way how
:werd: If any concessions were given, it prolly involved Bubba getting some knob on the flight home!!!! :lmao:
lutherblsstt
Guest
We may never know what was given to get these two women back, but the irony out of all this is that the North Korean government basically got what they wanted. They got the notoriety of having former President Clinton visit their country, and tacit acknowledgement from the international community that the two women broke their laws, which implicitly bolstered the North Korean government's ideals. The two women reporters were puppets of the regime that were used for their own manipulative purposes.
The North Koreans are experts at brinksmanship, somehow turning a minor situation into an extreme, and then obtaining concessions for it.
The North Koreans are not in the business of selling nuclear arms nor are they likely to be planning to use them against their neighbors. Like the reporters, they are using the weapons as leverage to gain respect in the international community. I think it's time for the U.S. to have a one on one dialog with North Korea.
AE14
Board Sponsor
Its funny, I made a reference of that to my wife yesterday when they showed the clips on the news. Clinton had that sh!t eating grin, saying I am getting a$$ in a minute
roids1
Banned
I agree. NK can't be all that bad. Those people build statues in honor of their leader every year for his birthday. They wouldn't do that if they didn't cherish him. He must be a brilliant, beautiful man.
lutherblsstt
Guest
No one said that,I said that the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle between Western and North Korean Propaganda and it is none of our business anyway,we have nothing to do with North Korea or the conditions there.
hardknock
Well-known member
Living there and being held there for YEARS without permission to leave is two different things.
hardknock
Well-known member
Who is us? I hope your not referring to the taxpayers? Half of the damn people in this country don't pay their damn taxes anyway...if you mean, their concessions, then little if any.
hardknock
Well-known member
How does that prove that they cherished anyone just because they build statues? Look at history, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have great thoughts dancing through their heads...think Ethiopians.
roids1
Banned
They also bow to likenesses of him. People just don't do that out of simple respect. We respect our leaders, but we don't bow before pictures and statues of them. Clearly, they have a deep love for this man and his father, The Great Leader. Much more so than we have for our own leaders.
lutherblsstt
Guest
Clinton the greatest of our time? Who's time? I vote Reagan
Greatest what?
strategicmove
Legend
North Korea can't be all that bad? Reports abound!
Talking about those statues, who commissions them, and who pays for them?
strategicmove
Legend
"Bowing" is an aspect of Far-Eastern culture. Does not necessarily demonstrate admiration or deep love.
strategicmove
Legend
There is no basis for this implied analogy!
nemo
Well-known member
I have nothing but respect for Clinton, I think he was the best president of our time but I couldn't help thinking this morning when i saw the pictures of those 2 asian girls getting in the plane and the smile on his face.... he probable did them on the way how
You're a riot Delta,.. Dormant,... friend!!
lutherblsstt
Guest
Treat North Korea As a Child Psychologist Would
Invalid Link Removed
Yet even though the happy outcome tugs at our sentimental side, we should be asking whether the rescue was good public policy. Several hard questions arise:
1. Is the U.S. government responsible for bailing out American journalists, business people, or tourists who do stupid or risky things in dangerous and autocratic foreign countries?
Although Bill Clinton is a private citizen, he is a former president and his wife Hillary is the nation’s secretary of state and top diplomat. Therefore, any visit by Bill Clinton had the tacit approval of the Obama administration, and everyone knew it. The U.S. government has been bailing out a lot of people lately, but these journalists knew that doing a story about human trafficking in autocratic North Korea was very risky. Similarly, several hikers carelessly strayed over the Kurdistan-Iran border into Iran and have been detained. Although the families of all these people understandably want the U.S. government to do everything possible to get them back, and the U.S. government may have a responsibility to at least make diplomatic approaches to do so, should it be expected to pay ransom — in the case of the journalists, a coveted visit by an charismatic former president? And where does the government’s responsibility end? Someday, such inflated expectations of the government’s role could allow such irresponsible private hostages to drag the United States into a needless war.
2. Is it wise to reward bad behavior by any cantankerous regime, especially one with a track record like North Korea’s in which it regularly acts obnoxiously to win more favors from the United States and its neighbors?
North Korea’s bizarre leader has recently fired off missiles and conducted a second nuclear test to test the new Obama administration and enhance his bargaining position in the world’s attempt to negotiate away the regime’s nuclear weapons program. Then to win the release of the journalists, Kim specifically demanded and received a prestigious visit by Clinton. Next, he will probably be looking to receive even more in exchange for pardoning and setting the journalists free and will be irate if he doesn’t get it.
Any child psychologist will tell you that rewarding a child’s tantrum will only cause more tantrums. For some time under previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush and Clinton himself, the U.S. has been reinforcing bad behavior on the part of Kim by giving North Korea more attention and aid whenever the country misbehaves. Such pay offs only increase future bad behavior to get more goodies from the West.
3. What policy should the U.S. pursue toward North Korea?
All of this doesn’t mean we need to assume a belligerent policy toward North Korea — as advocated by neoconservatives — because backing a paranoid, nuclear-armed country into a corner is dangerous. A child psychologist would recommend rewarding good behavior, while simply ignoring bad behavior. The U.S. could offer a "grand bargain" of full diplomatic recognition for North Korea and the end of world ostracism through the termination of economic sanctions, all in exchange for elimination of the North’s nuclear weapons program. Given the historical track record of the West’s rewarding North Korean bad behavior, however, this may no longer be a viable option. Too much water has flowed under the bridge. Instead, the United States should probably just accept that North Korea will be a nuclear weapons state and focus on deterring the regime from using such weapons against the U.S. — the threat of incineration by the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal should suffice — or selling such technology abroad. Otherwise, treating Kim like a child, the U.S. should simply ignore North Korea and its belligerent posturing. Eventually, such behavior will likely attenuate.
Doing nothing is doing something and is much better than the ill-advised policy the United States currently has toward North Korea.
Invalid Link Removed
Yet even though the happy outcome tugs at our sentimental side, we should be asking whether the rescue was good public policy. Several hard questions arise:
1. Is the U.S. government responsible for bailing out American journalists, business people, or tourists who do stupid or risky things in dangerous and autocratic foreign countries?
Although Bill Clinton is a private citizen, he is a former president and his wife Hillary is the nation’s secretary of state and top diplomat. Therefore, any visit by Bill Clinton had the tacit approval of the Obama administration, and everyone knew it. The U.S. government has been bailing out a lot of people lately, but these journalists knew that doing a story about human trafficking in autocratic North Korea was very risky. Similarly, several hikers carelessly strayed over the Kurdistan-Iran border into Iran and have been detained. Although the families of all these people understandably want the U.S. government to do everything possible to get them back, and the U.S. government may have a responsibility to at least make diplomatic approaches to do so, should it be expected to pay ransom — in the case of the journalists, a coveted visit by an charismatic former president? And where does the government’s responsibility end? Someday, such inflated expectations of the government’s role could allow such irresponsible private hostages to drag the United States into a needless war.
2. Is it wise to reward bad behavior by any cantankerous regime, especially one with a track record like North Korea’s in which it regularly acts obnoxiously to win more favors from the United States and its neighbors?
North Korea’s bizarre leader has recently fired off missiles and conducted a second nuclear test to test the new Obama administration and enhance his bargaining position in the world’s attempt to negotiate away the regime’s nuclear weapons program. Then to win the release of the journalists, Kim specifically demanded and received a prestigious visit by Clinton. Next, he will probably be looking to receive even more in exchange for pardoning and setting the journalists free and will be irate if he doesn’t get it.
Any child psychologist will tell you that rewarding a child’s tantrum will only cause more tantrums. For some time under previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush and Clinton himself, the U.S. has been reinforcing bad behavior on the part of Kim by giving North Korea more attention and aid whenever the country misbehaves. Such pay offs only increase future bad behavior to get more goodies from the West.
3. What policy should the U.S. pursue toward North Korea?
All of this doesn’t mean we need to assume a belligerent policy toward North Korea — as advocated by neoconservatives — because backing a paranoid, nuclear-armed country into a corner is dangerous. A child psychologist would recommend rewarding good behavior, while simply ignoring bad behavior. The U.S. could offer a "grand bargain" of full diplomatic recognition for North Korea and the end of world ostracism through the termination of economic sanctions, all in exchange for elimination of the North’s nuclear weapons program. Given the historical track record of the West’s rewarding North Korean bad behavior, however, this may no longer be a viable option. Too much water has flowed under the bridge. Instead, the United States should probably just accept that North Korea will be a nuclear weapons state and focus on deterring the regime from using such weapons against the U.S. — the threat of incineration by the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal should suffice — or selling such technology abroad. Otherwise, treating Kim like a child, the U.S. should simply ignore North Korea and its belligerent posturing. Eventually, such behavior will likely attenuate.
Doing nothing is doing something and is much better than the ill-advised policy the United States currently has toward North Korea.