PDA

View Full Version : Clinton in North Korea



Eki
5th August 2009, 16:05
Who can still claim you can't negotiate with North Korea? Clintons "let's meet eye to eye" strategy obviously worked better than Bush's "we don't negotiate with the 'evil' " strategy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/05/pardoned-journalists-return-home-reunite-families/

gloomyDAY
5th August 2009, 16:15
This has nothing to do with politics.

I think Billy did this for a ménage à trois with two Korean chicks.

chuck34
5th August 2009, 17:40
Clinton meeting "eye to eye" had nothing to do with these two being released. It had been pre-negotiated. There is no way a former President would have opened himself up to a failure of that magnitude. However I don't, and no one does, know how the negotiations went down.

The question that is on my mind is, what did we (the US) give up to secure their release. I have trouble believing that Kim Jong Ill would have just released them without getting something in exchange.

Eki
5th August 2009, 18:04
The question that is on my mind is, what did we (the US) give up to secure their release. I have trouble believing that Kim Jong Ill would have just released them without getting something in exchange.
Maybe what they got in exchange was Clinton visiting North Korea. North Korea has insisted it bilateral high level negotiations with the US and not those "six country" talks with just low level US officials attending, but the US has refused, just like Bush refused to meet Ahmadinejad.

chuck34
5th August 2009, 18:56
Maybe what they got in exchange was Clinton visiting North Korea. North Korea has insisted it bilateral high level negotiations with the US and not those "six country" talks with just low level US officials attending, but the US has refused, just like Bush refused to meet Ahmadinejad.

Maybe that's all they got. Is that a good thing though? NK could use pics of Clinton and Kim as propoganda. Is that good? You might think so, others not.

Jag_Warrior
5th August 2009, 23:21
This has nothing to do with politics.

I think Billy did this for a ménage à trois with two Korean chicks.

Never cared for him when he was President. But I wouldn't fault the Big Dog for that. :s mokin:

rah
5th August 2009, 23:36
Clinton meeting "eye to eye" had nothing to do with these two being released. It had been pre-negotiated. There is no way a former President would have opened himself up to a failure of that magnitude. However I don't, and no one does, know how the negotiations went down.

The question that is on my mind is, what did we (the US) give up to secure their release. I have trouble believing that Kim Jong Ill would have just released them without getting something in exchange.

That one is easy, Billy would have swapped them for a ton of porn.

chuck34
6th August 2009, 00:10
That one is easy, Billy would have swapped them for a ton of porn.

Well that's not even in question. :-D

Jag_Warrior
6th August 2009, 00:17
I think Bill being willing to meet the North Koreans eye-to-eye, after they and Hillary ragged on each other recently, did make this possible. If he had said, "nope, I'm not going to show up", I think these two would still be busting rocks or washing NK soldiers' dirty underwear... or whatever they had them doing.

I've never taken it away from him that the ol' boy has loads of charisma and he's got rock star status in many places these days. Good job, Bill. If Dick Cheney had taken this trip, they'd have probably shot the girls as his plane was landing.

anthonyvop
6th August 2009, 01:06
Once again the Dems embarass the US.

Jag_Warrior
6th August 2009, 01:24
I hear that's what is making the rounds on right wing radio today, Anthony. But I'm still trying to figure that one out... and me not exactly a great lover of Slick Willy.

Yeah, an embarrassment if Kim Jong Il had said, "No, Mr. Willy, you go away. We busy now. We send lil girls back when we feel like it. First, they need to rub my feet and fix me a salad. You got salad dressing with you, Mr. Willy? No?! Then like I say, go away! Come back next week, or maybe next month. We very busy now! Go! Shoo!

Oh BTW, you got very cool hair, Mr. Willy. You like old Elvis. And me like Elvis. Still, you go away now!!! And tell Obama I play basketball too. I dunk on his ass if he ever play me. I bad man!!! Go home, Slick Willy!"

But Slick shows up, jaw bones for awhile, the girls call him their knight in shining armor and Kim Jong Il gives them up. Everybody gets on the plane and comes home. Other than getting a past President to show up in NK, I don't see that Kim got anything out of this. And I don't see that the U.S. was embarrassed. Possession is 9/10th's, the way I see it. We got the girls back, Kim gets poked by Hillary later in the day and the status quo goes on.

Jag_Warrior
6th August 2009, 01:40
The last thing I'd do if I was a little 5'3" dude, who was sensitive about my height (ya know, one who wears platform shoes and big hair): NEVER sit in a chair the same height as the one used by a 6'2" guy. Never do that! Damn, short stuff! What kinda proper Napoleon are you???

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fGl9EMbc62LF/610x.jpg

steve_spackman
6th August 2009, 01:53
Once again the Dems embarass the US.

How??

Valve Bounce
6th August 2009, 05:10
Maybe what they got in exchange was Clinton visiting North Korea. North Korea has insisted it bilateral high level negotiations with the US and not those "six country" talks with just low level US officials attending, but the US has refused, just like Bush refused to meet Ahmadinejad.

What Bill Clinton gave North Korea's president was face. I have worked in Korea and I fully understand the meaning. All thos eposting jokes here should take a good long look at what Bill Clinton achieved there. Just have a look at the faces of the two women as they arrived back in the US.

But Ahmadinejad is a different situation altogether. If you have a look at this picture here http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/features/, then read the accompanying article, you will see that no outside leader can effect political change in Iran - it will be effected from within.

Roamy
6th August 2009, 06:52
BFD
He should go get them - no since in wasting these young girls lives. Matter of fact if they didn't let them go we should have traded them for Al Gore. The world knows N. Korea is a terrorist country so I fail to see any underlying value other that getting the girls back .. I just wonder if Clinton passed screening for cigars.

All of this is just plain crap. They hate us we hate them - if they fire a rocket our way that has a warhead we will shoot it down on top of them.

Iran will get their ass kick by israel and if israel loses they will detonate all their nukes and destroy half the world on their way out. That is why I can't understand the thinking of all you surrender monkeys. Do you not get the fact some rouge country will build enough nuke to destroy most of the world. Russia, china, EU is too interested in living which make Nuke war unlikely. That is why we should not allow nukes in rouge nations. I think I remember if Israel fires all their stuff it will take out most of the EU.

Jag_Warrior
6th August 2009, 07:26
I'm confused, Fousto. Are you saying that we need to turn Israel into a giant parking lot before they do something stupid?

Eki
6th August 2009, 09:04
The last thing I'd do if I was a little 5'3" dude, who was sensitive about my height (ya know, one who wears platform shoes and big hair): NEVER sit in a chair the same height as the one used by a 6'2" guy. Never do that! Damn, short stuff! What kinda proper Napoleon are you???

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fGl9EMbc62LF/610x.jpg
I've always liked this photo of the Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen and Vladimir Putin:

http://img.mtv3.fi/mn_kuvat/mtv3/uutiset/kotimaa/poliitikot/2008/594122.jpg

For once, the Russian Prime Minister is looking up to the Finnish Prime Minister.

Roamy
6th August 2009, 15:45
I'm confused, Fousto. Are you saying that we need to turn Israel into a giant parking lot before they do something stupid?

You can't now Jag. They have too many weapons which is why I am saying you cannot allow rouge nations to have nukes - once the build a hundred or so then you can see the enormous problem.

Jag_Warrior
6th August 2009, 21:53
You can't now Jag. They have too many weapons which is why I am saying you cannot allow rouge nations to have nukes - once the build a hundred or so then you can see the enormous problem.

OK. I see what you mean.

But Israel was safe anyway (from us). You and I both know that the Evangelicals, neocons and Zionists among us would blow up New York and Washington, D.C. before they'd see anything happen to Israel.

But yeah, once a nation reaches critical mass with nukes, it's harder to do anything with them. Pakistan, India and South Africa always worried me the most.

anthonyvop
7th August 2009, 01:10
How??
Really? You don't know?

7th August 2009, 01:32
Is it for soccer ?

http://www.madnike.com

Eki
7th August 2009, 06:41
Really? You don't know?
I don't know either. The US should be proud of Clinton.

Jag_Warrior
7th August 2009, 20:38
I've heard the GOP spin on this and I've read through a couple of neocon type blogs. Apparently we're supposed to hang our heads low because Kim Jong Il was able to get a former American President to come to his country to get these girls back. Clinton didn't have the authority to make any deals, and as far as we know, there were no deals attempted. The little guy wanted some face time on the world stage before he croaks (which is probably any day now). Kim Jong Il is a classic short guy with a "little man syndrome" (I'm dealing with on exactly like him right now myself). Rub 'em on the head, tell 'em how great they are and then smash their lil asses when the opportunity presents itself.

At this point, the neocons and Evangelicals that control the GOP are fishing and spinning to put a negative face on anything that is really a positive. The girls are home and there was no quid pro quo that anyone knows of. And if there was, surely by now, the neocons would be singing about it.

Eki
7th August 2009, 22:13
I've heard the GOP spin on this and I've read through a couple of neocon type blogs. Apparently we're supposed to hang our heads low because Kim Jong Il was able to get a former American President to come to his country to get these girls back. Clinton didn't have the authority to make any deals, and as far as we know, there were no deals attempted. The little guy wanted some face time on the world stage before he croaks (which is probably any day now). Kim Jong Il is a classic short guy with a "little man syndrome" (I'm dealing with on exactly like him right now myself). Rub 'em on the head, tell 'em how great they are and then smash their lil asses when the opportunity presents itself.

At this point, the neocons and Evangelicals that control the GOP are fishing and spinning to put a negative face on anything that is really a positive. The girls are home and there was no quid pro quo that anyone knows of. And if there was, surely by now, the neocons would be singing about it.

Exactly. Clinton's ego isn't bigger than his common sense (if his libido is, that's another story).

chuck34
7th August 2009, 22:24
Exactly. Clinton's ego isn't bigger than his common sense (if his libido is, that's another story).

Make no mistake that man's ego is HUGE. As all politician's are, and his is bigger than most.

If all that was exchanged in this deal was a bit of face time then fine. I just think that there may have been more to this than meets the eye, but I could be wrong.

Eki
7th August 2009, 22:48
Make no mistake that man's ego is HUGE.
So is his common sense. At least compared to George W Bush. It's all relative. Bush was too cocky for his intelligence level and for his own good.

Easy Drifter
8th August 2009, 03:32
So what happens when it turns out Randy Bill cannot deliver Hillary to Kim as his new playtoy? :vader: :s mokin: :D

Jag_Warrior
8th August 2009, 03:43
So what happens when it turns out Randy Bill cannot deliver Hillary to Kim as his new playtoy? :vader: :s mokin: :D

I don't think Kim Jong is that hard up. I mean, this is the same guy who sees a pretty girl on South Korean TV and then has his goons go out and kidnap her.

I think the problem would be if Slick promised Kim Jong a date with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton (pick the Tart of the Day) and instead Bill dumps Hillary onto the runway during a low-fly.

"Mr. Willy! This not our deal! This not Paris Hilton! This not Britney Beaver.. I mean, Britney Spears!!! You come back, Mr. Willy! I don't want your old lady. They told me not to trust you! At least bring me Michelle Wie. She can't play golf worth damn, but I can climb her for exercise! Come back!!! Ah, damn. She already starting to talk. You come back and get her, Mr. Willy! I give you all the nukes I got. Just take her back or shoot her. I can't take this!"

anthonyvop
8th August 2009, 03:46
I've heard the GOP spin on this and I've read through a couple of neocon type blogs. Apparently we're supposed to hang our heads low because Kim Jong Il was able to get a former American President to come to his country to get these girls back. Clinton didn't have the authority to make any deals, and as far as we know, there were no deals attempted. The little guy wanted some face time on the world stage before he croaks (which is probably any day now). Kim Jong Il is a classic short guy with a "little man syndrome" (I'm dealing with on exactly like him right now myself). Rub 'em on the head, tell 'em how great they are and then smash their lil asses when the opportunity presents itself.

At this point, the neocons and Evangelicals that control the GOP are fishing and spinning to put a negative face on anything that is really a positive. The girls are home and there was no quid pro quo that anyone knows of. And if there was, surely by now, the neocons would be singing about it.
You just don't get it.

1st the fact that we spent even one cent of my tax dollars to "rescue" those two women makes me mad.
What the hell were they doing there? Don't give me that journalist crap. Anybody with a blog is a journalist. They violated willfully Chinese law then attempted to enter NORTH KOREA!!!! North Korea is pretty much know for being not being too friendly to those who violate their borders.

2nd. Bill Clinton is the former president of the US and married to the current sec. of State. He is NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN. He will NEVER BE A PRIVATE CITIZEN. He was representing the US.
Negotiating with that slimy, evil, vile, twerp just adds legitimacy to his regime. The fact that Billy boy went over there to ask for those 2 arrogant jerk's release is just embarrassing. The thought that anything was given in exchange makes me sick.

Mark in Oshawa
8th August 2009, 04:33
You just don't get it.

1st the fact that we spent even one cent of my tax dollars to "rescue" those two women makes me mad.
What the hell were they doing there? Don't give me that journalist crap. Anybody with a blog is a journalist. They violated willfully Chinese law then attempted to enter NORTH KOREA!!!! North Korea is pretty much know for being not being too friendly to those who violate their borders.

2nd. Bill Clinton is the former president of the US and married to the current sec. of State. He is NOT A PRIVATE CITIZEN. He will NEVER BE A PRIVATE CITIZEN. He was representing the US.
Negotiating with that slimy, evil, vile, twerp just adds legitimacy to his regime. The fact that Billy boy went over there to ask for those 2 arrogant jerk's release is just embarrassing. The thought that anything was given in exchange makes me sick.

Anthony...put a sock in it. I am a conservative by nature and cant stand Bill Clinton's legacy, and I GET that him going there MAY give this little twerp some sort of legitmacy in his own MIND, but no one else is believing it. As it stands today, two American citizens (no matter how dumb they are, your government is obliged to do its best within reason to liberate) are home safe.

Was it stupid to there? HELL ya....and god knows Slick Willie is a jerk on a lot of levels, but in the end, a year from the only guy who thinks he won was the midget, and he won very little. He has a cheap photo op which he will use to promote in his own nation showing how important he is. No one there with a brain is buying it, but it is good for a weeks propaganda in the North and next week everyone will have something new to whine about.

Mark in Oshawa
8th August 2009, 04:34
So is his common sense. At least compared to George W Bush. It's all relative. Bush was too cocky for his intelligence level and for his own good.

Bush would have not negotiated in the open. That is the only difference. Why must everything that happens be used as a pretext to go after Bush? Eki...you must be a sad little troll. Always trying to start an argument on your favourite guy to hate, when he has NOTHING to do with this mess.

chuck34
8th August 2009, 17:07
So is his common sense. At least compared to George W Bush. It's all relative. Bush was too cocky for his intelligence level and for his own good.

Yep, Clinton had so much "common sense" that he used Arkansas State Troopers to help him pick up women, banged interns IN THE OVAL OFFICE, and probably a bunch of other stuff too. Sure sounds like a lot of commons sense to me.

And as Mark said, this has nothing to do with Bush. Nothing at all. You got your wish, he's out of power. Now lets start talking about what his successor is doing about things.

anthonyvop
9th August 2009, 03:43
Anthony...put a sock in it. I am a conservative by nature and cant stand Bill Clinton's legacy, and I GET that him going there MAY give this little twerp some sort of legitmacy in his own MIND, but no one else is believing it. As it stands today, two American citizens (no matter how dumb they are, your government is obliged to do its best within reason to liberate) are home safe.

Was it stupid to there? HELL ya....and god knows Slick Willie is a jerk on a lot of levels, but in the end, a year from the only guy who thinks he won was the midget, and he won very little. He has a cheap photo op which he will use to promote in his own nation showing how important he is. No one there with a brain is buying it, but it is good for a weeks propaganda in the North and next week everyone will have something new to whine about.

Sorry. That dog don't hunt.

Today there are 1000's of American in foreign prisons who Obama and Billy are not lifting a finger for there release. Most are imprisoned for being stupid and or naive.

These two were imprisoned for arrogance and were "rescued" for a pro-Obama photo-op and sound-bite.
And all it did was cost me money and made me less safe.

Jag_Warrior
9th August 2009, 04:03
Anthony, how are you less safe? Really? Like really?

race_director
9th August 2009, 04:12
If Dick Cheney had taken this trip, they'd have probably shot the girls as his plane was landing.

If george bush had gone then the plane would have been shot down

ShiftingGears
9th August 2009, 04:17
The thought that anything was given in exchange makes me sick.

Suck it up.

race_director
9th August 2009, 04:29
most likely the deal would have been to exchange NK people held in USA for SPYING or espionage. do not think USA would have traded Nuclear weapon or stealth bomber's

Eki
9th August 2009, 09:55
Yep, Clinton had so much "common sense" that he used Arkansas State Troopers to help him pick up women, banged interns IN THE OVAL OFFICE, and probably a bunch of other stuff too. Sure sounds like a lot of commons sense to me.
I already told you his libido is another story. It vastly exceeds his common sense, but we were talking about his ego. A man with a bigger ego than common sense may have bragged about his love affairs, but Clinton even tried to deny them.

anthonyvop
9th August 2009, 15:26
Anthony, how are you less safe? Really? Like really?

Anything that legitimizes an evil, despotic, murderous, supporter of terrorism makes us all less safe.

Eki
9th August 2009, 16:11
Anything that legitimizes an evil, despotic, murderous, supporter of terrorism makes us all less safe.
How? I have never been hurt by a North Korean, never even met one.

Roamy
9th August 2009, 20:32
How? I have never been hurt by a North Korean, never even met one.

You like the rest of the TIREs have chosen to keep your head in the sand until your asses are blown off.

Eki
9th August 2009, 20:42
You like the rest of the TIREs have chosen to keep your head in the sand until your asses are blown off.
I'm not paranoid like you Americans.

gloomyDAY
9th August 2009, 21:27
I'm not paranoid like you Americans.I don't think Americans are paranoid, but they seem to be more concerned about security rather than opportunity. Just seems peculiar that people are more afraid of living than they are of dying.

Also, Americans gave up a lot of civil liberties through the PATRIOT Act (oxymoron), which sets a dangerous precedent for the future of America.

Jag_Warrior
9th August 2009, 23:22
Anything that legitimizes an evil, despotic, murderous, supporter of terrorism makes us all less safe.

So, the strategy of paying off warlords in Iraq is a bad one and it's making us less safe? We're paying bad people to do as we ask (and they're most certainly being legitimized), but the strategy seems to be working. Now longer term, could that make things "less safe" in that region? Maybe. But for them, not for me or anyone else in the U.S.

Kim Jong Il is a true nutcase. Unlike Saddam, I don't think a normal smackdown would affect him, and the Chinese wouldn't allow it anyway. But him gaining nukes under Clinton and Bush is what's made us less safe. Him beating his little chest and grabbing his little crotch as Mr. Willy's plane took off... nah, that didn't make us less safe. All he has to show for that is meaningless rhetoric that no one is paying any attention to - well, almost no one.

Jag_Warrior
9th August 2009, 23:24
I'm not paranoid like you Americans.

Please make that, "...like some of you Americans."

Thank you. ;)

Tomi
9th August 2009, 23:45
So, the strategy of paying off warlords in Iraq is a bad one and it's making us less safe? We're paying bad people to do as we ask (and they're most certainly being legitimized), but the strategy seems to be working. Now longer term, could that make things "less safe" in that region? Maybe. But for them, not for me or anyone else in the U.S.

Kim Jong Il is a true nutcase. Unlike Saddam, I don't think a normal smackdown would affect him, and the Chinese wouldn't allow it anyway. But him gaining nukes under Clinton and Bush is what's made us less safe. Him beating his little chest and grabbing his little crotch as Mr. Willy's plane took off... nah, that didn't make us less safe. All he has to show for that is meaningless rhetoric that no one is paying any attention to - well, almost no one.

Agree with you, but paying the Warlords or clans in Iraq and Afganistan helps just as long the money is coming to them, after the fight of lost positions start over again.
What comes to Kim Jong Il his rethoric is mainly directed to his own supporters same goes for Iran as well, every statemans ego should be able to take that, its only words nothing else.

anthonyvop
10th August 2009, 02:15
More Facts about what really happened....

And not from a right wing American Source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1205224/In-peril-Pyongyang-Those-girls-greater-danger-sharing-plane-Bill-Clinton.html

steve_spackman
10th August 2009, 02:58
Anything that legitimizes an evil, despotic, murderous, supporter of terrorism makes us all less safe.

Your president is in that category to...

Eki
10th August 2009, 11:37
Please make that, "...like some of you Americans."

Thank you. ;)
OK, some of you Americans.

Some American and some European see a hornet's nest:

American: "We must destroy it."
European: "No, let's leave them alone and mind their own business."
American: "No, they make us less safe." (pokes the hornet's nest with a stick) "ARRRGH...They are all over me. They are anti-American."

anthonyvop
11th August 2009, 02:05
OK, some of you Americans.

Some American and some European see a hornet's nest:

American: "We must destroy it."
European: "No, let's leave them alone and mind their own business."
American: "No, they make us less safe." (pokes the hornet's nest with a stick) "ARRRGH...They are all over me. They are anti-American."
Do they even try to teach History in Finland?

anthonyvop
11th August 2009, 02:05
Your president is in that category to...
Obama isn't that bad.....close but not yet.

Roamy
11th August 2009, 02:27
OK, some of you Americans.

Some American and some European see a hornet's nest:

American: "We must destroy it."
European: "No, let's leave them alone and mind their own business."
American: "No, they make us less safe." (pokes the hornet's nest with a stick) "ARRRGH...They are all over me. They are anti-American."

fousto - use a neutron mini on it so you won't hurt the house! :p

Easy Drifter
11th August 2009, 03:16
Negotiating the release of a couple of 'silly' journalists and negotiating a nuclear treaty are also a little different when you have demented leader on one side.

Eki
11th August 2009, 12:18
fousto - use a neutron mini on it so you won't hurt the house! :p

ACME neutron mini.

http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~korn/wile_burned.jpg

Back to the old drawing board.