Pride comes before the fall. With someone like you at the helm the world would have become a desolate nuclear wasteland sometime back in the 60s. Totally irrational.lowing wrote:
No it is a win for the runt, the US looks weak and foolish and it appears can be dictated to by anyone, if it can be dictated to by a half pint dictator.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- N. Korea Threatens Retaliation on U.S., S. Korea Over Sanctions
It has nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with not negotiating with terrorist states.CameronPoe wrote:
Pride comes before the fall. With someone like you at the helm the world would have become a desolate nuclear wasteland sometime back in the 60s. Totally irrational.lowing wrote:
No it is a win for the runt, the US looks weak and foolish and it appears can be dictated to by anyone, if it can be dictated to by a half pint dictator.
You are scared that America 'looks weak and foolish'. That's pride talking, pure and simple. No meaningful negotiations took place. Last I checked North Korea were still an international paraiah embargoed by most of the known world, including the US. The US is every bit as strong as it was before Clinton's visit, arguably slightly stronger given that two of her children are not currently carrying out hard labour in a Korean concentration camp. I don't expect you to understand such rational things. If anything it makes North Korea look foolish: a hasbeen ex-President who was impeached turns up at their door for a photo-op and Kim Jong Il hands over the goods with nothing concrete to show for it. If anything he's the weakling for giving in to America. And into the bargain the international press lauded Clinton's move as a diplomatic masterstroke.lowing wrote:
It has nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with not negotiating with terrorist states.CameronPoe wrote:
Pride comes before the fall. With someone like you at the helm the world would have become a desolate nuclear wasteland sometime back in the 60s. Totally irrational.lowing wrote:
No it is a win for the runt, the US looks weak and foolish and it appears can be dictated to by anyone, if it can be dictated to by a half pint dictator.
Kim reminds me of a small barking dog.
I am not "scared" America looked weak and foolish. It did look weak and foolish. and for you to admit no negotiating took place pretty much says Clinton do dick for the situation except blow Kim Jong. His prerogative a suppose. you approval of such appeasement does not surprise me in the least.CameronPoe wrote:
You are scared that America 'looks weak and foolish'. That's pride talking, pure and simple. No meaningful negotiations took place. Last I checked North Korea were still an international paraiah embargoed by most of the known world, including the US. The US is every bit as strong as it was before Clinton's visit, arguably slightly stronger given that two of her children are not currently carrying out hard labour in a Korean concentration camp. I don't expect you to understand such rational things. If anything it makes North Korea look foolish: a hasbeen ex-President who was impeached turns up at their door for a photo-op and Kim Jong Il hands over the goods with nothing concrete to show for it. If anything he's the weakling for giving in to America. And into the bargain the international press lauded Clinton's move as a diplomatic masterstroke.lowing wrote:
It has nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with not negotiating with terrorist states.CameronPoe wrote:
Pride comes before the fall. With someone like you at the helm the world would have become a desolate nuclear wasteland sometime back in the 60s. Totally irrational.
I suppose if Bin Laden said all the US needs to do is adopt Islam as a national relegion to stop the terrorist attacks, you would approve of this as well.
a) America didn't look weak or foolish. Only a tiny polarised Cold War-fixated segment of American society would believe anything of the sort. Not a single major news outlet (bar Fox) or rational human being saw this as weak or foolish. You are in a minority here. You would have been happy to see those girls suffer despite a course of action being available that entailed little or no cost, economic, diplomatic, military or otherwise. You can't argue with pure unadulterated logic and common sense.lowing wrote:
I am not "scared" America looked weak and foolish. It did look weak and foolish. and for you to admit no negotiating took place pretty much says Clinton do dick for the situation except blow Kim Jong. His prerogative a suppose. you approval of such appeasement does not surprise me in the least.
I suppose if Bin Laden said all the US needs to do is adopt Islam as a national relegion to stop the terrorist attacks, you would approve of this as well.
b) The freedom of two American journalists trapped in a labour camp in North Korea cost Bill Clinton an airfare and a photo-op. Cost-benefit analysis of the most rudimentary nature would give a green light to this. Call it what you will but that it is a win pure and simple. Kim Jong Il looked stupid into the bargain.
c) To your last question, no I would not advocate anything of the sort. What an absolutely ludicrous extrapolation. Mothing less than could be expected from Mr. Binary I suppose.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-16 09:37:05)
well I guess that is why they call them opinions Cam, everyone is entitled to one.CameronPoe wrote:
a) America didn't look weak or foolish. Only a tiny polarised Cold War-fixated segment of American society would believe anything of the sort. Not a single major news outlet (bar Fox) or rational human being saw this as weak or foolish. You are in a minority here. You would have been happy to see those girls suffer despite a course of action being available that entailed little or no cost, economic, diplomatic, military or otherwise. You can't argue with pure unadulterated logic and common sense.lowing wrote:
I am not "scared" America looked weak and foolish. It did look weak and foolish. and for you to admit no negotiating took place pretty much says Clinton do dick for the situation except blow Kim Jong. His prerogative a suppose. you approval of such appeasement does not surprise me in the least.
I suppose if Bin Laden said all the US needs to do is adopt Islam as a national relegion to stop the terrorist attacks, you would approve of this as well.
b) The freedom of two American journalists trapped in a labour camp in North Korea cost Bill Clinton an airfare and a photo-op. Cost-benefit analysis of the most rudimentary nature would give a green light to this. Call it what you will but that it is a win pure and simple. Kim Jong Il looked stupid into the bargain.
c) To your last question, no I would not advocate anything of the sort. What an absolutely ludicrous extrapolation. Mothing less than could be expected from Mr. Binary I suppose.
Again I am not surprised that you would bow to terrorists to secure a favorable outcome. It is called appeasement and you have been established as a proponent of it long ago. No big shocker.
Where then, do you draw the line between peace and war, between sacrifice and steadfast defiance in the face of certain or probable loss.
Now that we have established your appeasing, apologist attitude does in fact have bounds, all we need to do is determine where they are.
The line is drawn on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, economically, militarily, strategically and rationally speaking. I'm at a complete loss as to what this has materially cost America. You just seem to be an intransigent with no common sense. Even Bush was holding round table talks with the guy to get him to give up his nuclear program.lowing wrote:
well I guess that is why they call them opinions Cam, everyone is entitled to one.
Again I am not surprised that you would bow to terrorists to secure a favorable outcome. It is called appeasement and you have been established as a proponent of it long ago. No big shocker.
Where then, do you draw the line between peace and war, between sacrifice and steadfast defiance in the face of certain or probable loss.
Now that we have established your appeasing, apologist attitude does in fact have bounds, all we need to do is determine where they are.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-16 10:25:47)
Bush was holding round table talks yes, he was not being dictated to by a half pint.CameronPoe wrote:
The line is drawn on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, economically, militarily, strategically and rationally speaking. I'm at a complete loss as to what this has materially cost America. You just seem to be an intransigent with no common sense. Even Bush was holding round table talks with the guy to get him to give up his nuclear program.lowing wrote:
well I guess that is why they call them opinions Cam, everyone is entitled to one.
Again I am not surprised that you would bow to terrorists to secure a favorable outcome. It is called appeasement and you have been established as a proponent of it long ago. No big shocker.
Where then, do you draw the line between peace and war, between sacrifice and steadfast defiance in the face of certain or probable loss.
Now that we have established your appeasing, apologist attitude does in fact have bounds, all we need to do is determine where they are.
and what exactly would kissing bin ladens ass cost you, probably not much, so I assume you would favor doing so rather than fight him. Again no big shocker.
He didn't need to hold round table talks with a 'terrorist'. He could have intransigently held firm instead of negotiating with him. Instead he sent ambassadors and diplomats over to the region to talk shop with Mr. Half Pint. And he got nowhere. It looked to me that Clinton was doing much of the dictating - he got the little shit to hand over two American citizens at no cost.lowing wrote:
Bush was holding round table talks yes, he was not being dictated to by a half pint.
and what exactly would kissing bin ladens ass cost you, probably not much, so I assume you would favor doing so rather than fight him. Again no big shocker.
Why would you raise such a proposterous suggestion in your last comment? Either debate seriously or not at all.
Oh so the terrorist bin laden is differnt than the terrorist Kim Jong? How so?CameronPoe wrote:
He didn't need to hold round table talks with a 'terrorist'. He could have intransigently held firm instead of negotiating with him. Instead he sent ambassadors and diplomats over to the region to talk shop with Mr. Half Pint. And he got nowhere. It looked to me that Clinton was doing much of the dictating - he got the little shit to hand over two American citizens at no cost.lowing wrote:
Bush was holding round table talks yes, he was not being dictated to by a half pint.
and what exactly would kissing bin ladens ass cost you, probably not much, so I assume you would favor doing so rather than fight him. Again no big shocker.
Why would you raise such a proposterous suggestion in your last comment? Either debate seriously or not at all.
Erm I was talking about the ludicrous concept of kissing someones glutimus maximus as part of diplomacy.lowing wrote:
Oh so the terrorist bin laden is differnt than the terrorist Kim Jong? How so?
yup so was I seemed good enough for clinton with your approval, why would laden be differentCameronPoe wrote:
Erm I was talking about the ludicrous concept of kissing someones glutimus maximus as part of diplomacy.lowing wrote:
Oh so the terrorist bin laden is differnt than the terrorist Kim Jong? How so?
Are you going to continue being childish and vacuous? I don't recall any kissing of any nature, let alone kissing of the nature that you have been speaking of. Are your petty pride issues coming to the fore again? The successful action wasn't 'Team America' enough for you? Do you think anyone is impressed with that image?lowing wrote:
yup so was I seemed good enough for clinton with your approval, why would laden be differentCameronPoe wrote:
Erm I was talking about the ludicrous concept of kissing someones glutimus maximus as part of diplomacy.lowing wrote:
Oh so the terrorist bin laden is differnt than the terrorist Kim Jong? How so?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-16 10:55:53)
You need to give up debating the virtues of diplomacy when force and persistence are the only two ways familiar to your adversary to get what he wants.
Nothing childish about it, Kim Jong, made demands and the US bent over backwards to accomadate those demands. We call that kissing ass I am sure as a European, you have some other fancy PC term for it that is acceptable to you, but for us, it is kissing ass plain and simple.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you going to continue being childish and vacuous? I don't recall any kissing of any nature, let alone kissing of the nature that you have been speaking of. Are your petty pride issues coming to the fore again? The successful action wasn't 'Team America' enough for you? Do you think anyone is impressed with that image?lowing wrote:
yup so was I seemed good enough for clinton with your approval, why would laden be differentCameronPoe wrote:
Erm I was talking about the ludicrous concept of kissing someones glutimus maximus as part of diplomacy.
Nope, the US didn't. An impeached President flew there and accommodated ..... what demands exactly? I'm still not sure what the fuck North Korea got out of this????lowing wrote:
Nothing childish about it, Kim Jong, made demands and the US bent over backwards to accomadate those demands. We call that kissing ass I am sure as a European, you have some other fancy PC term for it that is acceptable to you, but for us, it is kissing ass plain and simple.
Rant on with your cold war rhetoric all you like.
His presence was the demand the US kissed his ass, ( I see you call it accommodate) and what NK got out of this was legitimizationCameronPoe wrote:
Nope, the US didn't. An impeached President flew there and accommodated ..... what demands exactly? I'm still not sure what the fuck North Korea got out of this????lowing wrote:
Nothing childish about it, Kim Jong, made demands and the US bent over backwards to accomadate those demands. We call that kissing ass I am sure as a European, you have some other fancy PC term for it that is acceptable to you, but for us, it is kissing ass plain and simple.
Rant on with your cold war rhetoric all you like.
NK got shit all out of this. Shit all.lowing wrote:
His presence was the demand the US kissed his ass, ( I see you call it accommodate) and what NK got out of this was legitimizationCameronPoe wrote:
Nope, the US didn't. An impeached President flew there and accommodated ..... what demands exactly? I'm still not sure what the fuck North Korea got out of this????lowing wrote:
Nothing childish about it, Kim Jong, made demands and the US bent over backwards to accomadate those demands. We call that kissing ass I am sure as a European, you have some other fancy PC term for it that is acceptable to you, but for us, it is kissing ass plain and simple.
Rant on with your cold war rhetoric all you like.
Some ex president went and had a chat, then he got a plane home with two us citizens.
KJI got a handshake and a photo.
Im curious, how would you go about getting your two citizens back?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Don't ask him difficult questions like that.FatherTed wrote:
Im curious, how would you go about getting your two citizens back?
lol but I'm with Aussie on this oneCameronPoe wrote:
lol. What did Bill agree to do for them, take a blowjob off one of their meedy interns?AussieReaper wrote:
Clinton saves journalists who here imprisoned and he is now a Puppet of North Korea?lowing wrote:
Wow, They better be careful, they don't wanna drop a nuke on their new puppet friend, Bill Clinton.
I don't think they asked the US for anything, Clinton just turned up. And NK is not legitimised - last time I looked at the status of US embargoes on them. If you are actually advocating Clinton not doing this to help those poor women then you're a crueller cunt than I thought, with scant regard for your fellow citizens (scotching your faux concern for 'the troops' out in Iraq).lowing wrote:
His presence was the demand the US kissed his ass, ( I see you call it accommodate) and what NK got out of this was legitimization
I dunno, what the fuck were they there for in the first place? I promise you if 2 NK's slipped into America, I would be seeking imprisonment.FatherTed wrote:
NK got shit all out of this. Shit all.lowing wrote:
His presence was the demand the US kissed his ass, ( I see you call it accommodate) and what NK got out of this was legitimizationCameronPoe wrote:
Nope, the US didn't. An impeached President flew there and accommodated ..... what demands exactly? I'm still not sure what the fuck North Korea got out of this????
Rant on with your cold war rhetoric all you like.
Some ex president went and had a chat, then he got a plane home with two us citizens.
KJI got a handshake and a photo.
Im curious, how would you go about getting your two citizens back?
Secondly if you plan on sneaking into a terrorist country, I suggest you have a plan for getting caught, instead of hoping a US ass kisser magically appears to blow Kim Jung for your release. As it is they beat the odds and an ass kisser showed up shoulda known when dealing with the Obama presidency.
Simply put we don't know what happened when Bill went to North Korea. Personally I like that he rocked on up to Kim Jong Il and blew a mean saxophone solo at which time Kim was like "Dude, awesome!" and handed over the detainees. For all we know that did happen.
From an outside perspective I must admit it makes the United States look pretty cool. I mean a former president, a man with no formal power as such, rocks on over to a country, performs some magic and walks away with what he came for. No threats, no submissions, no ass-kissing. Okay so he might have said "Please be a good cunt and give us our citizens back." Is that submissive? Personally I don't think so. That's just what you do. If some bully takes your toy truck in the playground the natural response is to ask for it back.
What North Korea got out of this was a little good publicity. Bill didn't hand over nuclear secrets or the secret behind special sauce, (old mayonnaise with a little tomato sauce by the way,) North Korea just got one fleeting example of how there are times when Kim Jong Il isn't a mental deficient who's glory was foretold by a fucking sea cucumber.
Although he still fucking is.
From an outside perspective I must admit it makes the United States look pretty cool. I mean a former president, a man with no formal power as such, rocks on over to a country, performs some magic and walks away with what he came for. No threats, no submissions, no ass-kissing. Okay so he might have said "Please be a good cunt and give us our citizens back." Is that submissive? Personally I don't think so. That's just what you do. If some bully takes your toy truck in the playground the natural response is to ask for it back.
What North Korea got out of this was a little good publicity. Bill didn't hand over nuclear secrets or the secret behind special sauce, (old mayonnaise with a little tomato sauce by the way,) North Korea just got one fleeting example of how there are times when Kim Jong Il isn't a mental deficient who's glory was foretold by a fucking sea cucumber.
Although he still fucking is.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Answer the question;lowing wrote:
I dunno, what the fuck were they there for in the first place? I promise you if 2 NK's slipped into America, I would be seeking imprisonment.FatherTed wrote:
NK got shit all out of this. Shit all.lowing wrote:
His presence was the demand the US kissed his ass, ( I see you call it accommodate) and what NK got out of this was legitimization
Some ex president went and had a chat, then he got a plane home with two us citizens.
KJI got a handshake and a photo.
Im curious, how would you go about getting your two citizens back?
Secondly if you plan on sneaking into a terrorist country, I suggest you have a plan for getting caught, instead of hoping a US ass kisser magically appears to blow Kim Jung for your release. As it is they beat the odds and an ass kisser showed up shoulda known when dealing with the Obama presidency.
Im curious, how would you go about getting your two citizens back?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- N. Korea Threatens Retaliation on U.S., S. Korea Over Sanctions