So...you're saying it's true now but that it's fine because gifts are normal?

i'm not sure what "true NOW" means, as i already did state that this was the only true part of this ad. but like i said,,,so what?

fact is that gifts are a common practice when meeting for diplomats and heads of state. it actually would have been unusual if there was no exchange. making a big deal out of it and painting it as something "unamerican" was sad and weak.

The real point of the video is true. Making nice and appeasing terrorists and dictators does not work.

The real point of the video is true. Making nice and appeasing terrorists and dictators does not work.

funny,,,then in another post, you'll cite lybia as a great success. LMFAO!!!

China relations are where they are because of the bridges built, starting with Nixon (watergate really clouds some of the good stuff nixon did do)

you are just wrong puppy...and the video is a lie.

The real point of the video is true. Making nice and appeasing terrorists and dictators does not work. funny,,,then in another post, you'll cite lybia as a great success. LMFAO!!! China relations are where they are because of the bridges built, starting with Nixon (watergate really clouds some of the good stuff nixon did do) you are just wrong puppy...and the video is a lie.

Lets start with that the ad has "NOTHING" to do with China! It "does" have everything to do with N. Korea! And sorry to inform you, the video is not a lie, but exactly what Island Dog said it was. It boots nothing to appease tin-horn dictators.

Lets start with that the ad has "NOTHING" to do with China! It "does" have everything to do with N. Korea! And sorry to inform you, the video is not a lie, but exactly what Island Dog said it was. It boots nothing to appease tin-horn dictators.

you are getting dumber by the minute , aren't ya quack?

i don't believe i said the ad had anything to do with china, dolt!

he contended that "making nice and appeasing terrorists and dictators does not work."

i provided 2 off the top of my head examples of where diplomacy did work. if it hadn't been for nixon extending his hand and opening dialog, we wouldn't have the relations we have with a china that has gradually improved itself over the years to the point of becoming a world power as they embrace more capatalistic policies.

lybia disarmed after years of negotiations and helping them out....not the "after 9/11 , they caved in" attitude that the portable punditry contends to the uneducated masses like yourself.

And sorry to inform you, the video is not a lie, but exactly what Island Dog said it was. It boots nothing to appease tin-horn dictators.

yes the video is a lie, and as i've shown, negotiating and simply "talking" to your enemy vs. threatening everyone and invading everyone has shown results.

try again quack...

Lets start with that the ad has "NOTHING" to do with China! It "does" have everything to do with N. Korea! And sorry to inform you, the video is not a lie, but exactly what Island Dog said it was. It boots nothing to appease tin-horn dictators. you are getting dumber by the minute , aren't ya quack? i don't believe i said the ad had anything to do with china, dolt! he contended that "making nice and appeasing terrorists and dictators does not work." i provided 2 off the top of my head examples of where diplomacy did work. if it hadn't been for nixon extending his hand and opening dialog, we wouldn't have the relations we have with a china that has gradually improved itself over the years to the point of becoming a world power as they embrace more capitalistic policies. lybia disarmed after years of negotiations and helping them out....not the "after 9/11 , they caved in" attitude that the portable punditry contends to the uneducated masses like yourself. And sorry to inform you, the video is not a lie, but exactly what Island Dog said it was. It boots nothing to appease tin-horn dictators. yes the video is a lie, and as i've shown, negotiating and simply "talking" to your enemy vs. threatening everyone and invading everyone has shown results. try again quack...

Listen up butthead and we'll try again! According to "you", you never said China had anything to do with the ad. Okay, then what's all this about?

China relations are where they are because of the bridges built, starting with Nixon (watergate really clouds some of the good stuff nixon did do)

Also according to you, you provided 2 instances of where diplomacy worked when dealing with a dictatorship. Care to point out "both" instances? Because I don't see any. If your thinking of using China....don't bother. That is a "communist" country, NOT a dictatorship! And as everyone knows a communist country is not ruled by a single person. So now "you" try again, dolt!!!

Listen up butthead and we'll try again! According to "you", you never said China had anything to do with the ad. Okay, then what's all this about?

lol....let me repeat myself...one more time...china didn't have anything to do with the ad. ISLAND DOG said that appeasing terrorists and dictators doesn't ever work.

i pointed out china and lybia as examples of where diplomacy has worked. china was run by Mao Tse-Tung, who was their DICTATOR. kim jong ill is a DICTATOR of a communist govt as well. your claim that china is communist, so they can't have a dictator, might be the single dumbest thing ever said here....you said...

That is a "communist" country, NOT a dictatorship! And as everyone knows a communist country is not ruled by a single person. So now "you" try again, dolt!!!

so kim is a dictator of a communist country, but that is impossible, right? cause communist countries can't have dictators according to you...so what is kim?

i wasn't gonna respond to this cause i laughed so hard every time i looked at it...but eventually the laughter died...

but don't believe me,,,just keep slamming your foot into your own mouth.

i pointed out china and lybia as examples of where diplomacy has worked. china was run by Mao Tse-Tung, who was their DICTATOR. kim jong ill is a DICTATOR of a communist govt as well. your claim that china is communist, so they can't have a dictator, might be the single dumbest thing ever said here....you said...

And just for the record....this mention of lybia was the "first" time you mentioned it.

And as far as "Chairman" Mao goes you better read a little more. Try this:

1. THE COMMUNIST PARTY The force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese Communist Party. The theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism. Opening address at the First Session of the First National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (September 15, 1954).

Link

Or this from the same site:

10. LEADERSHIP OF PARTY COMMITTEES The Party committee system is an important Party institution for ensuring collective leadership and preventing any individual from monopolizing the conduct of affairs. It has recently been found that in some (of course not all) leading bodies it is the habitual practice for one individual to monopolize the conduct of affairs and decide important problems. Solutions to important problems are decided not by Party committee meetings but by one individual, and membership in the Party committee has become nominal. Differences of opinion among committee members cannot be resolved and are left unresolved for a long time. Members of the Party committee maintain only formal, not real, unity among themselves. This situation must be changed. From now on, a sound system of Party committee meetings must be instituted in all leading bodies, from the regional bureaus of the Central Committee to the prefectural Party committees; from the Party committees of the fronts to the Party committees of brigades and military areas (sub-commissions of the Revolutionary Military Commission or leading groups); and the leading Party members' groups in government bodies, people's organizations the news agency and the newspaper offices. All important problems (of course, not the unimportant, trivial problems, or problems whose solutions have already been decided after discussion at meetings and need only be carried out) must be submitted to the committee for discussion, and the committee members present should express their views fully and reach definite decisions which should then be carried out by the members concerned.... Party committee meetings must be divided into two categories, standing committee meetings and plenary sessrons, and the two should not be confused. Furthermore, we must take care that neither collective leadership nor personal responsibility is overemphasized to the neglect of the other. In the ar!-ny, the person in command has the right to make emergency decisions during battle and when circumstances require. "On Strengthening the Party Committee System" (September 20, 1948), Selected Works, Vol. IV, pp. 267-68.*

I don't think you really understand how communism works.
Or this from Wikipedia on N Korea!

The parliament, the Supreme People's Assembly (Choego Inmin Hoeui), is the highest organ of state power. Its 687 members are elected every five years by popular vote. In every district voters are offered only one candidate. The People's Assembly usually holds two annual meetings, each lasting a few days, during which it elects a standing committee. The Assembly is viewed by the west as typically ratifying decisions made by the ruling KWP (see rubber stamp). A standing committee elected by the Assembly performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. See also: Foreign relations of North Korea, Military of North Korea, North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Link

Or this link on communism itself:

Link

So then I would say ol Kim isn't a dictator either. So now who's slamming their foot into their mouth, huh?

And just for the record....this mention of lybia was the "first" time you mentioned it.

for the record...WRONG AGAIN! go look at reply #19 . it was the 1st example mentioned.

and if you want to live in a fantasy world whre mao wasn't a dictator, go ahead. mao was not only a dictator, he was the equivalent of a God to many chinese. you obviously know nothing here. a "communist" system hardly prevents a dictator from ruling.

are you seriously contending that kim jong ill is not a dictator? what about castro? is he a dictator? cuba is communist.

and yes, it is you slamming your foot into your own mouth.

for the record...WRONG AGAIN! go look at reply #19 . it was the 1st example mentioned.

I like the way you take credit for an idea that someone "else" caused you to say and that claim that you deliberately said it to use as an example.

funny,,,then in another post, you'll cite lybia as a great success. LMFAO!!!

As for the rest of it, you bore me to tears. You're not much better than col klink! You say one thing, I show you in BLACK & WHITE that you are misinformed and yet you continue on in the same vien. You do not need to respond to this because I'm through with it.

run along dr quack...it's obvious that you have ran yourself into a corner and can't get out cause you are surrounded by facts.

have a nice day:)

run along dr quack...it's obvious that you have ran yourself into a corner and can't get out cause you are surrounded by facts. have a nice day:)

Sean

Then please show me the facts that Libya gave up their nuke program because of carrot negotiations and not because of hard-line sanctions/threats.

Then please show me the facts

Ron Suskind's "One Percent Doctrine" is sitting in front of me. it literally has scores of pages about that. sorry, i can't type em all out for ya,,,you'll have to buy the book or show me something that contradicts me at least.

suskind states that the program to get his regime to disarm began in 92 after the lockerbie crash. there was a bunch of progress in 98, then, in 2002, they got both the lockerbie stuff settled, and the disarmerment negotiations done.

Sean

I just got done readying the IAEA reports for 2003 and 2004 WWW Link">Link[link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0504.pdf"]WWW Link">Link[link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/iaea0804.pdf"]WWW Link">Link, a White house report: [link="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/libya/wh121903fs.html"]WWW Link">Link and a couple other reports from the EU and UN. None of them state that we have been nice to Libya. All have shown how Sanctions and isolation are what has worked. The US has taken step to restrict Libyan scientists from studying in foreign countries, block the sale of nuclear power plants, and enforce sanctions. Most reports show that Libya only gave up its program in order to rejoin the international community (i.e. remove sanctions), and ended its program after the invasion of Iraq for WMD. When have we given aid, or technology (as the Clinton administration did for North Korea)to Libya.

As for your book, start typing. I read the New York Times review of the book [link="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DC1E31F933A15755C0A9609C8B63"]WWW Link">Link and I don't see anything in the review about scores of pages relating to Libya. For me to go out and buy the book would silly, when it is you responsibility to provide the fact you have claimed to have.

What I did find was a review in the Washington Monthly that’s title is a little misleading.[link="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.suskind.html"]WWW Link Even this publication only states that the only thing given was for the US to send someone to talk with the Lockerbie family lawyers. Which looked like amounts of 2.6 Billion dollar payment were already settled, but the families was just dragging their feet. What else did Libya get? Nothing. If you want to say lowering sanction is a form of being nice, don't.

Suskind is just trying to rewrite and twist the final outcome to sound like it was some kind of being nice. He is also the only source for what you claim. The end fact is that years of sanction and presser worked, appeasement did not. The Libyans approached the US to cave in. Not the other way around.

Using this as an example to support your argument, had me laughing and shaking my head how anyone could twist facts that much.

None of them state that we have been nice to Libya. All have shown how Sanctions and isolation are what has worked.

i never said we were just nice to libya.

don't see anything in the review about scores of pages relating to Libya. For me to go out and buy the book would silly, when it is you responsibility to provide the fact you have claimed to have.

ok,,,the index of the book lists the following pages pertaining to libya...111, 44,46-47, 61, 121, 221-223, 228, 261,265-266 268-271,290, 297-298, 327. by my count, 21. also, on the lockerbie bombing specifically page 45 can be added in addition to some of the forementioned pages. there are some related subjects as well...do i really need to do this any further? if you "need" a correction, fine,,,"there are a score plus some."

as far as defending the point, i did. i summarized the years involved from the book. that's what i meant by "you'll have to buy the book" as i am not going to type everything out.

so what was your point there?

He is also the only source for what you claim.

no,,,it ws the source sitting right in front of me. there are others, but pal, i got other things to do than entertain you.

Using this as an example to support your argument, had me laughing and shaking my head how anyone could twist facts that much

that's your opinion to discount a pulitzer prize winner,,,fine.