Hello:

Here we got ole Bill Clinton going to N. Korea and rescuing two American girls, and the right calls it a failure... What?? I guess family values are important, except when your children are being held in a foreign country...

Since they don't LIKE diplomacy, evidence that diplomacy WORKS kind of dumps their applecart, so I'll bet that's why they don't like it. Maybe they think it gave the dear leader some prestige or something... Which may be true, but it got our girls out, and that's what diplomacy is about.

Is prestige for Kim jong il bad for us? Or, is the prestige we gained by saving our citizens better than what the right thinks we lost?? I'm waiting for you tell us why it isn't.

excon

Hello:

Here we got ole Bill Clinton going to N. Korea and rescuing two American girls, and the right calls it a failure... What???? I guess family values are important, except when your children are being held in a foreign country...

I guess, since they don't LIKE diplomacy, evidence that diplomacy WORKS kinda dumps their applecart, so I'll bet that's why they don't like it. Maybe they think it gave the dear leader some prestige or something.... Which may be true, but it got our girls out, and that's what diplomacy is about.

Is prestige for Kim jong il bad for us? Or,is the prestige we gained by DOING it better than what the right thinks we lost??? I'm waiting for you tell us why it isn't.

excon

You'll get no argument here. I think it was a huge success. Kim Jong knew it would be seen as some attempt at civility. Regardless, it worked. I was wondering, me being bad, how the flight back over here went. With Bill and the gratefully just released girls... You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the horn out of the dog. He's my hero.

But arguments are what these threads are for. Nevertheless, Those two don't really seem like Bubba's type - too thin. Lewinsky and Flowers and all had some meat on their bones.

I actually hope Kim thinks this was a victory. Ex is right that the girls are safe, so this actually does look like a win - win.

Successful diplomacy evidenty means getting hostages back for concessions.You call that successful diplomacy but I have a different words for it... blackmail ,kidnapping ,and ransom . At a minimum Kim used the arrest of two journalists to secure a bilateral meeting .

Do you know what other deal was stuck ? Nope. I can assure you that it is more than stroking Kim Jon mentally-Il's ego . No doubt there was an apology thrown in . It is what our current President does best.

No doubt the Iranians got wind of the secret clandestine negotiations that took place prior to Clintoon's visit. I wonder if there is a connection between those events and the recent kidnapping of 3 American hikers Joshua Fattal, Shane Bower and Sara Short ? Nah ;Iran and the NORKS never coordinate their actions.

Do you know what other deal was stuck ? Nope. I can assure you that it is more than stroking Kim Jon mentally-Il's ego . No doubt there was an apology thrown in .

You forget that it was Mr. "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" that made the apology. Heck, if that's all it takes to get kidnap victims back, Bubba just found his "Habitat for Humanity" type calling.

Successful diplomacy evidenty means getting hostages back for concessions.You call that successful diplomacy but I have a different words for it....blackmail ,kidnapping ,and ransom . Hello again, tom:

Yup. Kin jong il is bad... So, we should have punished him by letting him put those girls in jail... You really don't know how dumb that sounds, do you? Nope, you don't.

excon

How anyone can see this as anything other than a success is beyond me.. But lots of things are beyond me I suppose.

Hello Skell:

It clearly IS a win win. However, those who disdain diplomacy couldn't really acknowledge that, now could they?

excon

No doubt there was an apology thrown in .
I hope so. The girls were in the wrong.

All Kim Jong Il wants is some respect. He's like the schoolyard bully who will knock himself out with bad behavior just so he will get yelled at by a teacher, and being yelled at is better than being ignored. The time Kim got some real respect and an apology from the greatest nation in the world. I hope President Clinton also discussed how the two countries can work together to make this a better world. North Korea's people are long overdue some humanity, so maybe this is the beginning.

This is a good thing a result without threats and posturing, that's real progress, perhaps the greatest progress in fifty years of paranoia

He will launch a few more ;detonate a few more ;take a few more hostages... that is the MO for his whole reign . Nothing changes. Tell me Clete because you are more familiar with the area than we are... how many Japanese and South Koreans have the NORKS kidnapped ?

Should those 2 countries kowtow to the nut jub dictator also so they can get their hostages released?

Listen to the hypocrisy here. Reagan was correctly criticized for negotiating and making concessions to Iran for hostages who were captured by Iranian proxies in Lebanon. He was investigated by the left for his actions . And his critics were right .It was the low point of his Presidency.

Now ;apparently it is good negotiations to make concessions to kidnappers.

hope so. The girls were in the wrong.



They were filming from the Chinese side of the border . NORK border patrol crossed the border to detain them. That's kidnapping .

Hello:

Here we got ole Bill Clinton going to N. Korea and rescuing two American girls, and the right calls it a failure... What?? I guess family values are important, except when your children are being held in a foreign country...

I don't think it was a failure. I think this is the first time since Clinton was elected President 17 years ago that he actually accomplished a mission he set out to accomplish.

On the other hand, who could have been better for this mission than Clinton: To pick up two women and pay off some Asians? He's got more experience with both of these actions than any other President in our history.

The only question I have is what did he promise N. Korea in exchange for the two women? We don't know the answer to that question.

But Clinton did what he set out to do. Mission accomplished.


Since they don't LIKE diplomacy, evidence that diplomacy WORKS kind of dumps their applecart, so I'll bet that's why they don't like it. Maybe they think it gave the dear leader some prestige or something... Which may be true, but it got our girls out, and that's what diplomacy is about.

Again, all true. But what did he promise them? And how will what he promissed them effect our future relations with N. Korea? I'm not saying it was a failure. It wasn't. He accomplished his goal. I'm saying we don't know what's coming down the pike.


Is prestige for Kim jong il bad for us?

Depends. How will that prestige manifest?


Or, is the prestige we gained by saving our citizens better than what the right thinks we lost?? I'm waiting for you tell us why it isn't.

excon

What prestige do you think we gained? We sent Clinton to some second-tier nation that can barely feed itself and begged them to let our women go, and in doing so, we made promisses to them. What those promisses were, we don't know, but we know they were made. In other words, we bowed to the demands of a local dictator. It may have been NECESSARY, and it may have accomplished the mission, but it sure didn't gain us any prestige in the international community.

I'll bet you $5 right now that within 2 years, not only will North Korea kidnap some more foreigners, Iran will have also kidnapped some foreigners. Because they now know that America will kowtow to their demands... which means that other countries will kowtow as well. Why change what obviously works?

In other words, this has not only not improved our prestige in the international community, it will have decreased it.

Was this the right move? I don't know. Maybe. But I'm more worried about the consequences of it going forward in terms of promisses made and the future actions of our enemies. You clearly are not.

Elliot

I'll bet you $5 right now that within 2 years, not only will North Korea kidnap some more foreigners, Iran will have also kidnapped some foreigners.


Already happened . American hikers were kidnapped by Iran.

Already happened . American hikers were kidnapped by Iran.Hello again, tom:

If Iran kidnapped Americans because they thought they were going to get the same treatment N. Korea got, how come they kidnapped 'em BEFORE Clinton's visit?

excon

Do you think that Clinton's visit began or was the conclusion of the process to give into the blackmail ? Since you are an expert at diplomacy you must realize that the Clintoon did not go there until all the ducks were already in a row.

The Norks and the Iranians have close working relations so it is clear that I'm let them know America was caving .

Well, we'll see what actions the US government takes in dealing with the kidnap of these three hikers.

If we "negotiate" again for these hostages and get them back, what does that mean for the NEXT TIME it happens? And the time after that?

How many times should the USA deal with kidnappers and cave in to their demands before we do something more drastic?

excon, you MAY be right that Clinton's actions in NK were the right thing to do. (I question it, but just for argument's sake, let's say you're right.) Let's say that it actually improved our prestige around the world.

But how many times can we give in to our enemies who are kidnapping our citizens without LOSING our prestige? How many times can we do this before the rest of the world turns around and says that the USA is run by a bunch of weaklings, and we can get away with anything we want because the USA won't stop us?

When does "negotiation" and giving in become self-defeating, and strong military action become the only viable option to protect US citizens?

That's what I mean about understanding the consequeces going forward.

Again, I don't know whether Clinton's visit was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. From my point of view, the jury's still out. But the questions for the FUTURE consesequences are scary.

Elliot

Hello again, righty's:

I don't know where you got the notion that diplomacy = catering... But, you GOT it. It's a WRONG notion. I'm not going to CONVINCE you of that, because you're beyond being convinced...

You think we should just talk to our friends... I think we should talk to our enemies. Good thing YOUR idea was thrown in the crapper in the last election.

excon

Negotiations with the Kim regime have led nowhere for years. Do you think this is the 1st attempt to help Kim save face and gain prestige ? Jimmy Carter ;Madelline Albright ; President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea and his "Sunshine Policy " ;Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan have all grovelled to the man . Still his nuke,and missile program grows unimpeded as the NORKS become greater threats to their neighbors.

There was a real chance that after Kim Jong Il that there could've been a leadership vacuum in the country and the Kim regime finally end. But it is more likely now that this face saving gesture will be seen as strength and his son's succession insured . That is what I predict this whole event will bring... another generation of the Kim's gulag .

But it is more likely now that this face saving gesture will be seen as strength and his son's succession insured . That is what I predict this whole event will bring.....another generation of the Kim's gulag .Hello again, tom:

So you really think the son wouldn't have succeeded his father WITHOUT Bill Clinton's visit?? And, you think the result of his visit, will be an entire generation of North Koreans being put in the gulags??

Dude!

excon

Hello again, righty's:

I don't know where you got the notion that diplomacy = catering... But, you GOT it. It's a WRONG notion. I'm not going to CONVINCE you of that, because you're beyond being convinced...

Actually, that's EXACTLY how negotiation works... we give in on something, you give in on something else.

Kim gave in on letting these women go. What did we give in on to get him to agree?

Or are you saying that Kim Jong Il just gave in out of the goodness of his heart and just wanted a "heavy hitter" to visit him in order to go site-seeing?


You think we should just talk to our friends... I think we should talk to our enemies.

Have you ever tried talking to an enemy? Generally speaking, it doesn't work too well unless one of you is holding a gun to the other's head. And this is true from the "street" level, all the way up to governments talking to each other.


Good thing YOUR idea was thrown in the crapper in the last election.

excon

Yep. Good thing. We'll see how things play out.

But the fact that 3 more Americans have been kidnapped, this time in Iran, tends to lead me to think that your idea of international relations is exactly what our enemies want. Seems to me that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the same idea that you do. He also wants Obama to talk to him.

But we'll see.

And again, you haven't answered my question. After how many kidnappings and negotiations will it be all right for us to take stronger actions against those who kidnap Americans?

Elliot

Actually, that's EXACTLY how negotiation works... we give in on something, you give in on something else.
Not necessarily. You are talking about compromise, which is not the same as negotiation.


Kim gave in on letting these women go. What did we give in on to get him to agree?
A formal apology.

Or are you saying that Kim Jong Il just gave in out of the goodness of his heart and just wanted a "heavy hitter" to visit him in order to go site-seeing?
Exactly! All Kim Jong Il wants is respect. Clinton gave him that this time.

Have you ever tried talking to an enemy? Generally speaking, it doesn't work too well unless one of you is holding a gun to the other's head.
It has always worked well with my mil -- no gun needed.

But the fact that 3 more Americans have been kidnapped, this time in Iran, tends to lead me to think that your idea of international relations is exactly what our enemies want.
This happened before Clinton went to N.Korea. Don't get excited.

Not necessarily. You are talking about compromise, which is not the same as negotiation.

And the difference is..

Different words for the same thing.

A formal apology.[/quote]

For what? For having the audacity to have 2 reporters inside of CHINESE territory get kidnapped by North Korean soldiers? What a chutzpah those Americans have...


Exactly! All Kim Jong Il wants is respect. Clinton gave him that this time.

So I guess that Kim will be taking down his nuclear program. After all, all he wanted was respect, not nuclear arms. He has that now.


It has always worked well with my mil -- no gun needed.

You've never been faced down by an enemy who wanted to HURT you. Try talking a mugger or a rapist or a burgler out of hurting you, and see how far you get.


This happened before Clinton went to N.Korea. Don't get excited.

Yes. But it happened AFTER it was known that Obama's government was willing to negotiate with kidnappers like Kim Jong Il.

And the difference is.. Different words for the same thing.
Not at all. I negotiate (i.e. discuss, talk, pow-wow) with my mil, but that doesn't mean I compromise with her.

A formal apology. For what?
The women were trespassing.

So I guess that Kim will be taking down his nuclear program. After all, all he wanted was respect, not nuclear arms. He has that now.
He's definitely happier. A happy Kim Jong Il makes for a happy WG.

You've never been faced down by an enemy who wanted to HURT you. Try talking a mugger or a rapist or a burgler out of hurting you, and see how far you get.
You know this about me, how?

Yes. But it happened AFTER it was known that Obama's government was willing to negotiate with kidnappers like Kim Jong Il.
And what's wrong with negotiation?

The women were trespassing.

They were in China when they were kidnapped, not North Korea. Against whom were they trespassing? It sure wasn't N Korea.


He's definitely happier. A happy Kim Jong Il makes for a happy WG.

So... your goal is to appease tyrants? I thought you were against tyrants who violated other people's civil rights. Turns out that was only when CERTAIN tyrants are against civil rights. Other tyrants get appeased by WG.

Nice.


You know this about me, how?

Your own comments make it obvious.


And what's wrong with negotiation?

NOTHING... if the guy you are negotiating with is negotiating in good faith and what you give up in the negotiation doesn't hurt you down the road.

Kim doesn't negotiate in good faith. He has negotiated SEVERAL ends to his nuclear programs with several world leaders and has gone back on his word SEVERAL times. He has negotiated anti-polution protocols several times, and has violated the protocols eery time. He has negotiated borders several times and violated those borders. He cannot be trusted. Ergo, negotiating with him is BAD.

And we all know that Kim got more from Clinton than an "apology". What we don't know is what else he got. I'm afraid we're going to find out, and that we won't like it when we find out.

They were in China when they were kidnapped, not North Korea. Against whom were they trespassing? It sure wasn't N Korea.
I looked it up 'specially for you. Most reports say the women were on the wrong side of the border.

So... your goal is to appease tyrants?
"Appease"? You're having trouble with definitions today.

Your own comments make it obvious.
Huh? Try again.

if the guy you are negotiating with is negotiating in good faith and what you give up in the negotiation doesn't hurt you down the road.
You don't have to give up anything during negotiations. You're talking about something else.

And we all know that Kim got more from Clinton than an "apology". What we don't know is what else he got. I'm afraid we're going to find out, and that we won't like it when we find out.
And you know this how?

What prestige do you think we gained? We sent Clinton to some second-tier nation that can barely feed itself and begged them to let our women go, and in doing so, we made promisses to them. What those promisses were, we don't know, but we know they were made. In other words, we bowed to the demands of a local dictator. It may have been NECESSARY, and it may have accomplished the mission, but it sure didn't gain us any prestige in the international community.


Elliot

Why do you need to gain prestige, although there is great deal of prestige where it matters outside of Asia for a peaceful resolution of this small matter.
Did you loose a little face in Asia by doing this, I don't think so, you showed some respect for a change and that was all that was needed, to demonstrate you respect NK sovereignty even if the offense was filming over the fence. Borders are not so well defined in that part of the world and what were those good citizens doing there anyway, have you forgotten they were spying, which appears to be a well honed US activity.

Let me ask you what prestige did you gain when Obama kowtowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It seems your administration isn't concerned with US prestige but with just getting the job done. Obama is going to do what it takes and a lot of you good Americans aren't going to like the approach, which will probably be more inclusive that you are used to. Gone are the days of the US dictating to the world, and you haven't woken up yet

It is said do not despise the day of small beginnings

have you forgotten they were spying, which appears to be a well honed US activity.


Not true; they were doing a documentary on the slave trade .Did not know you were a mouth piece for Nork propaganda.


Let me ask you what prestige did you gain when Obama kowtowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.

None ;it was a national embarrassment.

not true; they were doing a documentary on the slave trade .Did not know you were a mouth piece for Nork propaganda.



None ;it was a national embarrassment.

Not a mouth piece Tom but see it from an NK perspective; is there any difference from documenting something we consider undesirable and spying.

So following your line of thought above it is a national embarrassment that these women were released without the use of force of arms or economic might. And yet the US might have gained a valuable insight into how to motivate NK to do what seems reasonable to us. I think the US takes its self too seriously and this is a source of diplomacy fopars.

Look we saw the same problem here with the "sorry" debate one side of the political spectrum refused to say sorry to tha aboriginals for some very regretable incidents even thought it didn't carry any penalty, just perceived possible negatives. Pride got in the way of a simple solution and I think this is the same, NK is stuck in the 1950's and the only way they will progress is with leadership and dialogue, and a little lost of face on the part of "more advanced" nations

I don't see it that way. The NORKS will not progress during the KIM reign and anything that props him or his heir apparent is a negative.

Look ;I may sound insensitive to the plight of these women reporters but I'm not . The Kim regime has practiced kidnap diplomacy since the war and if they think it will work then they will continue to do so.This move in fact makes for a greater risk of this happening again. Just this week they seized a South Korean fishing boat and a factory manager .

Based on this capitulation now both South Korea and Japan have been forced to make separate unilateral initiatives to address the plight of their citizens kidnapped by the NORKS.

Our goal was to float the carrot of bilaterial talks for good behavior. Now it appears the opposite is coming true . We will reward his bad behavior with bilateral talks. Shame on us for our weakness.

So you really think the son wouldn't have succeeded his father WITHOUT Bill Clinton's visit?? And, you think the result of his visit, will be an entire generation of North Koreans being put in the gulags??

Dude!


I'm not the only one who thinks that .



This could lead him to be tougher in negotiations with the US, South Korea and Japan. It may also indicate that he has enhanced his grip on power amid speculation of dissent in the power hierarchy as a result of his recent illness and because he has not fully prepared his successor.


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/08/11/2003450839


For North Korea, Bill Clinton's rescue mission last week was all about showing that "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il still had the mojo before he hands off the dictatorship to his youngest kid, aka the "Brilliant Comrade."

Decoding the "hermit" kingdom's power puzzle is mostly guesswork gleaned from racy tidbits on the ruling family offered by defectors and Kim's former sushi chef.

But U.S. and South Korean officials said that the photo ops with the former President, and the recent A-bomb test and missile launches, were just a doting dad's way of "securing the throne" for 26-year-old Kim Jong-Un.

Kim Jong Il uses Bill Clinton's visit to free journalists to groom Kim Jong-Un (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/08/09/2009-08-09_n_korea_leader_uses_bill_visit_to_groom_minikim .html)


North Korea has been using Bill Clinton's visit to Pyongyang last week to promote leader Kim Jong-Il's son as the communist nation's next head of state, a news report said Sunday.
Former US president Clinton traveled to Pyongyang last week to take home two journalists jailed for having illegally entered North Korea.
Seoul's Yonhap news agency, quoting an unnamed source, said Pyongyang's National Security Agency was praising Kim Jong-Un, third son and heir apparent to Kim Jong-Il, 67, for having engineered the episode.
According to Yonhap, the North's powerful secret police said in a recent "internal lecture" that "General Kim Jong-Un's artifice let former US president Clinton cross the Pacific to apologise to the Great Leader (Kim Jong-Il).
"It was all made possible thanks to General Kim Jong-Un's extraordinary prophecy and outstanding tactics."
Washington has denied that Clinton gave any apology.
Yonhap said the North's move was part of a campaign by Pyongyang to promote Jong-Un as the country's next leader.
Seoul's National Intelligence Service declined to comment on the report.
North Korea, the world's first communist dynasty, used similar campaigns when Kim Jong-Il was preparing to inherit power from his father Kim Il-Sung, who founded the country, Yonhap said.
In 1968, the North's regime praised Kim Jong-Il, then 26, for having masterminded the seizure of a US military ship, Pueblo, off its east coast. The US crew were released only after a high-profile apology.
Jong-Un, now 26, is said to have been named the successor to Kim Jong-Il, who reportedly suffered a stroke in August last year.
Sources in Seoul's unification ministry, handling cross-border relations, say North Koreans have recently begun calling Jong-Un "General" in an apparent sign that he is being groomed to take over as leader.


AFP: N.Korea using Clinton visit 'to promote Kim's son' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZ6LBpl3NsNDa4sdd17uTlK4IRNw)

Why do you need to gain prestige, although there is great deal of prestige where it matters outside of Asia for a peaceful resolution of this small matter.

It was excon who claimed that this was about prestige. Please see his OP. I was just responding to his comments. Frankly, I don't think it's about prestige at all. I think it's about tactics and strategy.


Did you loose a little face in Asia by doing this, I don't think so, you showed some respect for a change and that was all that was needed, to demonstrate you respect NK sovereignty even if the offense was filming over the fence. Borders are not so well defined in that part of the world and what were those good citizens doing there anyway, have you forgotten they were spying, which appears to be a well honed US activity.

They were reporters. They were ACREDITED reporters with proper identification on their persons. They were not spies, regardless of what N Korea would like the world to believe.

And if they WERE spies, then we had no business getting them out. In which case, Clinton's entire mission was a sham.


Let me ask you what prestige did you gain when Obama kowtowed to the King of Saudi Arabia.

Absolutely none.


It seems your administration isn't concerned with US prestige but with just getting the job done.

Which job would that be? What job did Obama get done by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia?


Obama is going to do what it takes and a lot of you good Americans aren't going to like the approach, which will probably be more inclusive that you are used to.

What inclusivity has Obama accomplished?


Gone are the days of the US dictating to the world, and you haven't woken up yet

So instead, Obama is going to let the rest of the world dictate to us.

Brilliant plan.


It is said do not despise the day of small beginnings

I don't sepise anything. Nor have I said that Clinton didn't accomplish his mission. What I have said is that we don't know what he gave up in exchange for these two women. And I'm afraid of what we are going to find out.

Are the lives of these two women worth the cost of a nuclear North Korea? How about a North Korea that can ignore human rights violations with impunity? What about the ability of North Korea to pollute there environment in violation of the Kyoto protocols that they signed on to? (Not that I care about Kyoto, but that's one of YOUR favorite agenda items.) What are the lives of these two women, who YOU condemn as spies, worth giving up?

I know that as an Aussie, you don't really see any of this as your issue. American gives up some stuff to N Korea, who cares? But you have to live in the same world as the rest of us. And with the consequences of what happens when we give up something important to N Korea.

You SHOULD be concerned. But your not. If it screws America, its good, as far as you're concerned. Forget its effect on Australia.

Elliot

By the way the grovelling by Obama to the Saudi's is an attempt by him to use their $$ influence on the Taliban and the Paki ISI (to influence AQ not to attack the US homeland again) so that the President can make a graceful exit from Afghanistan. In return the Saudi's asked him to ramp up pressure on Israel. It is a Chamberlainesque attempt .

On the eve of the Afghan elections ,General Stanley McChrystal stated the Taliban has initiative, momentum and the "upper hand." He wants more troops there but I believe the President is reluctant to commit . It is doubtful the Karzai's will win the Aug. 20 vote . Dr. Abdullah, former foreign minister, is the leading candidate ,and Abdullah opposes more combat troops in Afghanistan.

And why wouldn't Japan and SK already have separate initiatives to address the plight of any citizens who have fallen foul of NK. Look this is a paranoid regime, knowing this why would you go anywhere near the place and give them the opportunity to apprehend you.

Yes, shame on you for your weakness and shame on you for your overweaning pride, thinking you can do anything you like anywhere in the world, but if one policy doesn't work, there is need to change and adjust the approach. The we are always right approach doesn't wash, The image of Washington crossing the Delaware cannot be translated to this situation. Trade has proven to be the most successful method of breaking down barriers so rather than restricting trade with a stick and carrot approach why doesn't the world see that it should take the other approach. When NK realises that it is not at risk of invasion by SK and USA there may be possibility of change but what do you have the same conditions that existed between France and Germany before WWII a heavily fortified border and forces facing each other. A deterant Yes,but very counterproductive in improving relations. The last vestige of the cold war, the philosophy of MAD needs to be dismantled

They were reporters. They were ACREDITED reporters with proper identification on their persons. They were not spies, regardless of what N Korea would like the world to believe.
If accredited reporters were standing in your neighbor's backyard and filming your family's bbq taking place in your backyard, would those reporters be spies?

It really depends upon who they were employed by and what they were seeking. You might want to examine what guests were at the BBQ or what my profession actually is.

Those reporters were gathering evidence clandestinely and in the eyes of NK they were spies because whatever they were filming was a state sanctioned activity. Look, I don't say these events meet the standards we would apply to them but in a communist country you cannot just do whatever you think is a great idea, even though I had a great time in China a few years ago. You have to take their paranoia into account, I think it is interesting that those reporters were asians even if they were american citizens. Like, it isn't as though some caucasan americans were arrested on the NK-China border, these people were no doubt able to blend in, and may have been chosen for their ability to do so

For what? For having the audacity to have 2 reporters inside of CHINESE territory get kidnapped by North Korean soldiers? Hello again, El:

I'm having trouble with your belief that North Korean troops operate freely inside China. Actually, it's more than just trouble...

excon

And I wouldn't believe that Mexican Army would cross the US border but it has happened.
Mexican troops cross U.S. border, hold agent | U.S. | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN069920080806)


They were on the Chinese side of the river and not spying .They were doing a documentary about sex-slave trafficking .This would be an investigative report that would embarrass both the NORKS and the Chi-coms. So why would you be surprised that the Chinese would look the other way while the NORKS crossed the border to kidnap them ? They were probably doing it under Chinese direction.

I cannot believe that anyone here is justifying the actions of the NORKS. This is dictatorship of the worse kind . Even they admit that the whole thing was a political stunt to prop up the regime.

If accredited reporters were standing in your neighbor's backyard and filming your family's bbq taking place in your backyard, would those reporters be spies?

No, they would be paparazzi.

Hello again, El:

I'm having trouble with your belief that North Korean troops operate freely inside China. Actually, it's more than just trouble...

excon

Why would you have trouble believing that?

Hizbollah troops were able to cross into Israel from Jordan and kidnap Yigal Amir and escape unscathed with a live kidnapee.

An American was able to swim across a lake into the home of Aung San Suu Kyi in Manyamar (Burma), despite the fact that there were army officials all around and she has been under house arrest for the past 14 years.

The Mexican Army crossed over the US border into Arizona and held a border patrol agent captive last week. There have been 42 such incursions in the past 10 months.

What makes it so unbelievable that North Korean troops would cross over into Chinese territory? This sort of thing happens more often than you realize.

Elliot