its funny cus all you morons probably still think u run your democracies. LOL you simpletons. Not even worth the ground you sit over. You think countries invade other countries with the intention of settling disputes? The idea is to start them. Only in rare instances such as the iraq invasion of kuwait was war used to settle a dispute. Everything since has been a power grab. You fucking morons.
Sometimes it's good to talk to people because that's how you find out it useless because their world view is so distorted. You find their dellusions, you find their vulnerabilities. and you exploit them to your ends.
Internal conflicts often prevent external conflicts.
Iran was in the middle of a civil war, no one would worried aout a nuclear program.
Talking through a problem only works on people that can reluctantly tolerate coexistance
The most important point he makes here though, is that talking is not the same as endorsing, or agreeing. One of the huge failures of American foreign policy in my opinion, is that they never talk to anyone they don't like, or agree with. Talking and having a discussion about certain topics might help solve alot of issues. Like Cuba for instance. They never talk to Cuba, now some 40 years after the Cold War. It's shameful.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Military intervention is necessary no matter how many people we kill. We can empower warlords to run Afghanistan government. Who are religious fanatics, and commit numerous war crimes.
@TheEcoApe Haha, funny. If you by sensibile mean a naive fuck that wants to import a million muslims and regulate your life to the fullest you're right.
@eroceanos As a Libyan, if you value human life, you value intervention in Libya. Without NATO intervention, 1 million massacred was a realistic, conservative outcome. 3 million was possible.
@Eetaq Why didn't NATO stop the Libyan rebels' destruction of Sirte, in which not a single building now stands unharmed? Why didn't they stop the massive ethnic cleansing of black tribes? I'll tell you why: all they cared about was regime change, not protecting the people. They lied about their intentions.
@tantzer Wrong. It's because Gaddafi supporters continued resisting until he was killed. After Gaddafi was killed, the shelling of Sirte stopped. If they didn't want their city destroyed, they could have stopped killing in Gaddafi's name.
@Eetaq If you accept the idea of destroying civilian cities, that is your choice: so did Qaddafi. But my point is that it shows that NATO's claim was a lie: NATO was not there to protect civilian areas from destruction: NATO's aim was to change the regime. NATO didn't care that the new Libyan government shelled Sirte for three weeks, destroying every building in it.
@tantzer Ok. So what? As Nietzsche said, lying in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral. Only the repurcussions of a lie can be moral or immoral. Telling a lie that earns your friend his dream job is a moral act. Telling a lie that gets rid of a ruthless tyrant is also a moral act. And I thank NATO for that lie, because that's what it took to get China and Russia to abstain from veto.
@eroceanos Difference is that in Libya Gaddafi was only a few miles away from Benghazi. This is truth, I was part of enough networks in Libya who kept contact with family inside the country. My family experienced the snipers and the house raids, and they were in a relatively docile region of Libya. If Gaddafi had marched on Benghazi, a city of a million, the urban warfare would have cause mass slaughter undoubtedly.
@eroceanos We did. Feb 17th was declared via facebook as the day to go out and protest. The facebook group had 100,000 people on it, and on Feb 15th the earliest protests began. By the 17th, the slaughter had begun. If Gaddafi had decided to listen, and not to slaughter, things may have gone differently.
I like what he just said, but seriously despair for this world if the idea of including all the interested parties is considered a new, revolutionary idea in diplomatic circles.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
@jimothy183 That sounds like an oversimplification to me. Reason and force can be combined, it is not necessarily either of the two. How would you categorize propaganda for example? Strong authoritarian regimes uses propagandist rhetoric to convince the population. They use force as a threat if people violate their rules, but if force was the only necessary instrument they wouldn't need propaganda in the first place.
@Vgard In the case of an authoratarian regime it is simply a matter of using the ability to use force as a reason to cooperate. The use of a vieled threat is one.
"The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.This suggests that the USA should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force. "
Sadly in the USA we have a significant hurdle: the military industrial (congressional) complex. Big business prefers a military solution because of profits: weapons sales, a slice of resources in the conquered land, contracts for building bases, rebuilding, etc.
This is why whenever diplomacy is suggested, the mainstream media — owned by big business— conflates it with appeasement and the fools in the audience shriek their agreement (see zamestol's embarrassingly inane comment below).
@zamestol: Cowards always imagine diplomacy/communication is appeasement. Perhaps if you'd watched the video you'd understand the difference.
One of President Reagan's great successes was ending the ridiculous arms race that was bankrupting the USA and USSR, and opening diplomatic channels. Doubtless he too was accused of appeasement by the Republican neocon fools who turned away from him at the time, but they've since returned to sing his praises and now credit him with "winning the Cold War".
@zamestol You're kidding right, they were imperialistic, the biggest threat the planet has ever faced. They were involved in proxy wars too.
Jonas Store is speaking in favor of dialogue. Dialogue doesn't equal saying to someone like Hitler you have the right to occupy that land. As Jonas said, dialogue doesn't mean agreement.
@zamestol The USSR was as much a participant in the cold war as the US was. It was called a *war* for clear reasons; there was massive military interest, political corruption and propaganda/censorship on both sides. Even when you play by the rules you can play a very dirty game. This also goes for Western powers. And don't forget the mass murdering Stalin.
Ha Ha, I never said that I agree with USSR. I don't :)
When you write "Even when you play by the rules you can play a very dirty game" What`s your point ? I didnt say anything about USSR NOT playing dirty !
How is it that after so much mayhem and bloodshed... you finally get around to the idea of "maybe talking works better..."
Can you maybe start to consider that you were LACKING a certain quality of CONSCIOUSNESS and CONSCIENCE which actually prevents you form doing ANY good at all? Can you consider the BIGGER IMPLICATIONS of the BASIC PHILOSOPHIES on which you're trying to "help" the world? Could you instead of "talking" and "helping", shut the fuck up and do some SERIOUS INTROSPECTION?
@Beatnuk What I mean is, you've mainly been presuming negative cases on a general-level about somebody using pseudo-psychological bullshit. Using terms such as philosophy, morality, etc. Sometimes, I equivocate people's anger to idealistic(unrealistic) views that take things too personally. If you act like this in real life, you probably are perceived as an aggrivator. That's all I have to say. Feels like your life revolves around a form of absolutism.
Political talk is illusion magic. You actually think that they're saying something when the basic points are actually INFANTILE in their nature....
"We should talk."
No Shit Sherlock? You're a member of STATE, and too morally ignorant to see that the very concept of STATE is synonymous with slavery and the use of force...
Military action was necessary in Libya and Afghanistan? You already lost your mind and morality to political abstraction.
@Beatnuk You're very opinionated to the extent I'd really rather not argue, although.. I don't think you watched the whole video(Or listened to it objectively). Military Action was referring to a presence there while they pursued discussion and understanding, as opposed to conflict by force. He said that actually. Is this idea new? No. Should it have been understand earlier? Yes. But please don't be the condescending, moral exemplar of humans stating they should've done it earlier. Ugh
@CRokkan I think we always believe our country accent is terrible. I am from Brazil and this sounds fine for me, but I can't stand Brazilians speaking english.
@jamesrands Well, they violate other nations' sovereignity, kidnap and kill or torture other nations' citizens, declare countless offensive wars and occupy other countries, and a bucnh of other stuff all of which is too long to get into in youtube comments.
It's pretty clear that if *somebody other than the US* were doing what they are doing, they'd be called things like rogue terrorist states, but since it's the US nobody can really do anything about it.
@jamesrands "rogue state": engages in violent acts in contravention of international law; does not honor international treaties. "terrorist": engages in violent clandestine activities (and provides funding for proxy organizations and states that do so) without the blessing of international law and without due process being afforded to the victims.
@tantzer That's not what "rogue state" means at all. A rogue state is one which opts out of significant elements of the international system in a disruptive fashion. How you can call any member of the UNSC a "rogue state" is beyond me. They are the guardians (for good or ill) of the international system.
The US honours all treaties to which it is a party (which is surprisingly few for historical and constitutional reasons).
Terrorism has a specific meaning you are aren't even close to.
@jamesrands I'm sure that tantzer is being facetious referring to the US as a rogue terrorist state and is talking about its stance on not talking to terrorists with a tongue in cheek comment.
@maseltah I would hope so but the terms "terrorist" and "rogue state" get bandied around with gay abandon. Tantzer's response to my challenge (whilst eloquent) doesn't in any way shape or form define those terms accurately and looks to me to be a real attempt at justifying and unjustifiable statement.
@jamesrands "Terrorism": I've seen multiple definitions for "terrorism," and the interesting thing is that U.S. behavior fits every single one of them. Of course, I'm setting aside the unspoken journalistic definition that "terrorism is what they do to us, not what we do to them." "Rogue State:" If by "opt out" you mean voluntarily giving up membership in international organizations, then, fine, by this definition the US is not a rogue state, nor is any other state I know of.
@tantzer By the definition of "rogue state" Iraq under Saddam Hussein, North Korea under Kim il Jong and Iran under Ahmadinijad (apologies for spelling) are all rogue states so I don't think what you say stands. There are rules of international conduct and some countries opt out. The US isn't one. Give me one widely recognised definition of terrorist that the US satisfies. Just one!
"Yeah, I can barely get through a day without an assassination." Funny you said that. Just yesterday an Iranian physicist was assassinated by America's great friend and ally, Israel. American drones in the Horn of Africa, Yemen, and (until recently) Pakistan kill people from the air without any due process using a video game format. In 2003 the US destroyed a whole nation, Iraq, and in the 1990s killed 600,000 Iraqi children using economic sanctions on a false WMD pretext.
@zamestol He's not saying you should talk to everyone. He openly admits a couple times in this speech that military intervention is necessary. He's saying that it is unwise for violence to be the default response.
Diplomacy is not new; and the concept of a dialogue is as old as Plato or even before, if you wish. What I do take from the talk is the excruciatingly high ratio of intrastate to interstate conflicts. I wasn't aware of it, and it now gives me a wide perspective on how important it is for people and nations to look inwards. The dialogues by "the diplomats" have to take place more often, and very importantly, within our countries, in addition to the usual popular foreign diplomacy.
Wonderful talk, I found the bit about the hypocrisy of wanting democracy, but not wanting what may indeed be representative of the majority in power, to be particularly brilliant.
People refuse to have balanced intellectual discussions, full stop. The number of times that I've tried to start a dialogue with somebody, on various subjects, only to be accused of being arrogant or manipulative, is enough to make me feel dreadfully lonely. I know of only a handful of people that I can talk to without feeling like I'm speaking an alien language. So I can't imagine what it must be like when the same happens to somebody who has something important to say.
@PressForFreedom It's not that we love to fight, it's just that all of Europe, and many other countries, expect us to do their fighting for them. And for some reason, we oblige them
@leconfidant I disagree. To your average person, every last thing he said in here is common sense. Although, your average person doesn't run countries, self interested individuals and corporate money runs countries. What may be common sense to average people, is trumped by corporate interests and or political correctness. If he would have made his video about that, about normal people forming a government that truly represents them, that would be something.
@bweazel It won't matter if we have a government that is formed of normal people. The moment we put them into power they will slowly be eroded away through corruption unless we manage to fix the system and ban external forces from influencing political positions such as money and corporations.
@BrutusAlbion Agreed. Therein lies the problem. So again, I have no idea why he wasted 15 minutes of our time behaving as though government's actions are indicative of the choices of their people.
Talking talking talking talking. How exactly does this guy believe we can "talk" any differently than we are right now? We here on youtube are doing more for this "talking" effort than any of these politicians are doing, or even wish to do.
@bweazel I think he makes a fair case that governments are starting to wake up to the need for dialogue as something you do before war rather than when war has failed. Your point, which is very interesting, perhaps more than his point, is a seperate issue. You should put your own video up about it and I would be very happy to watch it.
@leconfidant Take Iraq for example, health insurance reform, aide to Israel, bombing Libya, bailing out banks, bailing out unions (public and private), the list goes on and on, and these are only recent happenings. The general public overwhelmingly did not agree with any one those things and the actions we took.
The video came across as very condescending to me. He's blaming average people, for what self interested politicians and corporations do.
So diplomats should make web pages and twit more. But apart from that, what is the message? People who need food and work are not likely to be impressed by a posh Norwegean diplomat offering dialogue to feed them ...
Bad. Almost zero content. What are the skills? Talk to whom? What are the examples exactly? Nothing but good intentions. The land mines example is weak. What is traditional diplomacy? What is an inclusive process of diplomacy? What is bottom up exactly, aren't all democratic countries bottom up? Just a bunch of undefined hopes with supposed good intentions.
@Krestianx Anthropology is not a skill nor is history. The who is obvious and he mentioned more, bottom up is not revolution, realpolitik is a buzz word, as interstate negotiation (what is a negotiation, a gun in the head in a negotiation, and it doesn't mean skills, at least not the one I think he was mentioning. Think a bit more
Great speech, though as a Norwegian I can't help but cringe every time our politicians speak English. There's just a tone to the accent that gnaws at the back of my skull.
@CRokkan I can only speak for myself, but I'm a native English speaker (don't speak any other languages either ;p) and it's difficult for me to differentiate some foreign accents. To me anything from the Germanic family of languages sounds very similar. Anything Scandinavian, Dutch, etc. I can tell this guy isn't French, but I couldn't tell you where he's from other than "Europe". Just like it would be hard for you to tell between Boston vs New York or Liverpool vs Wiltshire.
@devourerofbabies I can tell the difference between Boston and New York accents, though I'm generally better with British accents, but I think we as non-native English speakers get a much more wide spectrum from popular culture.
@CRokkan And anyway, he speaks fluently and clearly and that's good enough. I find a lot of non-native English speaking people are really self conscious of their accents, and I don't really understand why. Nobody cares. In fact, most people will probably think you sound interesting and exotic.
@CRokkan Dear CRokkan, I've lived in the US for 30 years and heard many different nationalities speak English. Believe me, compared to them his accent is in fact way superior. He speaks fluently and clearly. There is a wisdom, sincerity and care you can sense from his words and that's what makes is appealing. He has my utmost respect. Best Regards.
@simabah It's nice to know most people seem to like it. I guess it just grates on my nerves since I hear the Norwegian ups and downs that he tries so hard to suppress. Sometimes you can even hear a person's dialect shine through. I don't have it myself since I spoke English from age 3, but my parents do and I was constantly trying to correct them. So I guess it's just the teacher in me.
Ah cmon, unless you start in childhood it is more difficult to get rid of an accent than to learn an entirely new language. I recently met a guy from china that mastered the german language to perfection, he translates books both from german into mandarin and from mandarin into german for renowned publishers, he also writes short stories in german. And his accent is still strong.
@kurtilein3 Well, I can't speak for everyone, but of course it's difficult. Doesn't mean it's not entirely possible. I know people who spent a couple of months in America and came back with strong accents, and I know those who've lived in England for years and still can't pronounce certain words. I would also suspect it's a little easier between certain languages than others.
Yes, it depends on the languages. People that have arabic as their first language can get rid of almost all accent in nearly all languages, because arabic contains so many differend phonetic sounds. English is my second language, and when im writing noone notices because i perfected my grammar and vocabulary. But i sound a bit like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I dont care, ill learn Spanish instead. My accent is far less than Einsteins, and less than Schwarzeneggers, so WTF.
a little anecdote: In German, we have some dialects, one of these is bavarian. It sounds distinct, with very strong vocals and less focus on consonants. The head of a bavarian language history museum is a guy that immigrated from england. First he learned german, got it accent-free within a few years, and then he learned the bavarian dialect, and mastered the phonetics of it. Very few people can learn a foreign language, and a foreign dialect, and eliminate all accent.
my first language is german, and i think i also mastered written english, next i will learn spanish, but then japanese will follow. If you can speak german, pronouncing japanese is trivial, because there is not a single new sound. All phonemes already exist in the german language. The grammar is also easy, so all that is needed is vocabulary. In japanese, it is easy to get rid of any accent.
@CRokkan There's just an immense lack of fluency. I'm Norwegian as well, and I quite frankly don't understand why this lack of fluency within English is so prominent not only in the older generations but younger ones as well.
@Epeenification I suspect the difficult part comes from the rhythm of the language. Norwegian has a very prominent rhythm and it's hard to stop your voice from doing that suddenly. Some sounds are really tricky too. I know so many people who say "were" like "ver" or "church" like "shurch". Annoys the hell out of me. But we're teaching the kids from 5 years old now, so I suspect they'll come a generation that's better eventually.
@CRokkan Right there with you bro. One would think that he, Having to deal with lots of foreign politicians, Would be at the very least somewhat competent at hiding the accent. But sadly, No. Oh well. At least he isn't as bad as Petter Solberg. lol.
I'm from the former Soviet Union & I am quite familiar with that whole region myself. Is it just me or is his accent a mix of Russian & French? It just sounds like that to me.
I am, right now, a little proud to be norwegian :]
Oskoreii 1 week ago
30 idiots.
Ighart 1 week ago
its funny cus all you morons probably still think u run your democracies. LOL you simpletons. Not even worth the ground you sit over. You think countries invade other countries with the intention of settling disputes? The idea is to start them. Only in rare instances such as the iraq invasion of kuwait was war used to settle a dispute. Everything since has been a power grab. You fucking morons.
SOSTacoJohnson 1 week ago
Sometimes it's good to talk to people because that's how you find out it useless because their world view is so distorted. You find their dellusions, you find their vulnerabilities. and you exploit them to your ends.
Internal conflicts often prevent external conflicts.
Iran was in the middle of a civil war, no one would worried aout a nuclear program.
Talking through a problem only works on people that can reluctantly tolerate coexistance
Isreal has always been willing to talk.
sallybaker1950 3 weeks ago
The most important point he makes here though, is that talking is not the same as endorsing, or agreeing. One of the huge failures of American foreign policy in my opinion, is that they never talk to anyone they don't like, or agree with. Talking and having a discussion about certain topics might help solve alot of issues. Like Cuba for instance. They never talk to Cuba, now some 40 years after the Cold War. It's shameful.
Faerlon123 1 month ago 5
We should use words insted of guns
nataliabutor 1 month ago
κι εμεις τετοιους πολιτικους εχουμε... :P
kanarinakimou 1 month ago
i am from ksa
husnainanwaar1992 1 month ago
Vote Ron Paul, Get A Free Country!
lukaskoube 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Talk's Bottom-line: We should talk to the US even though it's a rogue, terrorist state.
tantzer 1 month ago
Oh, btw
Petter solberg + vocabulary = Jonas Gahr Støre
Knaragus 1 month ago
Typical norwegian politic - Talk, discuss and make compomises of ideas - Well it works, BECAUS WE HAVE OIL! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Knaragus 1 month ago
@Knaragus You have oil because the guy representing Denmark, that had to discuss who gets what, was drunk :(
ThisIsMyUserNameVT 1 month ago
i think this is very naive... many polititans have no means of peace... war is peace (orwell)
asaldanam 1 month ago
Mutual communication is an important element of already existing relationships, it's also an important element in creating relationships.
InsanityComplex1 1 month ago
He is good at talking, but shit at doing. With regards from a Norwegian voter.
Ko252 1 month ago
the fuck i thought only smart ppl are at this show...
viggy123 1 month ago
Dialogue isn't about being idealist it's totally pragmatic & needed for all our & future generations survive..
glimmertwin67 1 month ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Banning land mines was not started by politicians. It was started by a community in Vermont, i shit you not.
Frey12 1 month ago 3
Military intervention is necessary no matter how many people we kill. We can empower warlords to run Afghanistan government. Who are religious fanatics, and commit numerous war crimes.
Frey12 1 month ago
Too confusing...
TheYouSphere 1 month ago
@TheYouSphere Norwegians, what are you goint to do.. xD
Swiftynine 1 month ago
@TheYouSphere let me sum it up for you.. "talk to other countries, don't just invade them.."
Spunn3d 1 month ago 17
Comment removed
Everwood2010 1 month ago
The worlds most professional and sensible politician right there. Remember the name.
TheEcoApe 1 month ago 23
@TheEcoApe Haha, funny. If you by sensibile mean a naive fuck that wants to import a million muslims and regulate your life to the fullest you're right.
Norwegiian 2 hours ago
Great talk, really great talk.
somethought 1 month ago
there is no talking to some people.
agoddamnatheist 1 month ago
'I believe intervention in Lybia was necessary...' yeah right, to keep oil traded in dollars.
Some slippery dude, promoting dialogue to reach his goals... strange feeling I get with this man.
eroceanos 1 month ago
@eroceanos The gold reserve that Ghadaffi held were a lot more important I think...
ToxinalX 1 month ago
@eroceanos As a Libyan, if you value human life, you value intervention in Libya. Without NATO intervention, 1 million massacred was a realistic, conservative outcome. 3 million was possible.
Eetaq 1 month ago
@Eetaq Why didn't NATO stop the Libyan rebels' destruction of Sirte, in which not a single building now stands unharmed? Why didn't they stop the massive ethnic cleansing of black tribes? I'll tell you why: all they cared about was regime change, not protecting the people. They lied about their intentions.
tantzer 1 month ago
@tantzer Wrong. It's because Gaddafi supporters continued resisting until he was killed. After Gaddafi was killed, the shelling of Sirte stopped. If they didn't want their city destroyed, they could have stopped killing in Gaddafi's name.
Eetaq 1 month ago
@Eetaq If you accept the idea of destroying civilian cities, that is your choice: so did Qaddafi. But my point is that it shows that NATO's claim was a lie: NATO was not there to protect civilian areas from destruction: NATO's aim was to change the regime. NATO didn't care that the new Libyan government shelled Sirte for three weeks, destroying every building in it.
tantzer 1 month ago
@tantzer Ok. So what? As Nietzsche said, lying in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral. Only the repurcussions of a lie can be moral or immoral. Telling a lie that earns your friend his dream job is a moral act. Telling a lie that gets rid of a ruthless tyrant is also a moral act. And I thank NATO for that lie, because that's what it took to get China and Russia to abstain from veto.
Eetaq 1 month ago
@Eetaq
so they say...heard stories in Irak bout weapons of MASS destruction too...
eroceanos 1 month ago
@eroceanos Difference is that in Libya Gaddafi was only a few miles away from Benghazi. This is truth, I was part of enough networks in Libya who kept contact with family inside the country. My family experienced the snipers and the house raids, and they were in a relatively docile region of Libya. If Gaddafi had marched on Benghazi, a city of a million, the urban warfare would have cause mass slaughter undoubtedly.
Eetaq 1 month ago
@Eetaq
Who set up the armed rebels, I wonder?
eroceanos 1 month ago
@eroceanos We did. Feb 17th was declared via facebook as the day to go out and protest. The facebook group had 100,000 people on it, and on Feb 15th the earliest protests began. By the 17th, the slaughter had begun. If Gaddafi had decided to listen, and not to slaughter, things may have gone differently.
Eetaq 1 month ago
Bla bla bla. Good luck talking to groups that do not respecting human lives - I have in mind quite a lot of muslim groups.
aelzin 1 month ago
@aelzin I have in mind soldiers urinating on enemy corpses.
greyglee 1 month ago
@greyglee What do you mean? First of all respect the living! It is a good thing to respect the dead as well. But first of all - respect the living.
aelzin 1 month ago
@aelzin If you don't respect the dead and their memories you don't respect history, which would mean that you are nothing short of a caveman.
Epeenification 1 month ago
I like what he just said, but seriously despair for this world if the idea of including all the interested parties is considered a new, revolutionary idea in diplomatic circles.
tdurran 1 month ago
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
jimothy183 1 month ago
@jimothy183 That sounds like an oversimplification to me. Reason and force can be combined, it is not necessarily either of the two. How would you categorize propaganda for example? Strong authoritarian regimes uses propagandist rhetoric to convince the population. They use force as a threat if people violate their rules, but if force was the only necessary instrument they wouldn't need propaganda in the first place.
Vgard 1 month ago
@Vgard In the case of an authoratarian regime it is simply a matter of using the ability to use force as a reason to cooperate. The use of a vieled threat is one.
watch?v=3-son3EJTrU
jimothy183 1 month ago
Anyone else notice the pallets behind him aren't 'OSHA'?
xPR3CiSiONx 1 month ago
Who's this suit with such a clear political story?? What, it's a professional politician?! A minister even?! Oh wow..
Waranoa 1 month ago
Does anyone else feel like he looks a little like Robert De Niro?
sparklymage 1 month ago
"The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process.This suggests that the USA should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force. "
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
Sadly in the USA we have a significant hurdle: the military industrial (congressional) complex. Big business prefers a military solution because of profits: weapons sales, a slice of resources in the conquered land, contracts for building bases, rebuilding, etc.
This is why whenever diplomacy is suggested, the mainstream media — owned by big business— conflates it with appeasement and the fools in the audience shriek their agreement (see zamestol's embarrassingly inane comment below).
jigen08 1 month ago
There's little money in talking and often diplomacy is meant to fail.
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
Norway representing. :-)
GluttonForSex 1 month ago
BORING....
bvrcrap56 1 month ago
His advocating for this :
wikipedia . org / wiki / Neville_Chamberlain
"Peace in our time"
Rofl ......
zamestol 1 month ago
@zamestol: Cowards always imagine diplomacy/communication is appeasement. Perhaps if you'd watched the video you'd understand the difference.
One of President Reagan's great successes was ending the ridiculous arms race that was bankrupting the USA and USSR, and opening diplomatic channels. Doubtless he too was accused of appeasement by the Republican neocon fools who turned away from him at the time, but they've since returned to sing his praises and now credit him with "winning the Cold War".
jigen08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jigen08
As I wrote to Hirnlego999
USSR was not some rough state. They played by the rules, so of cause the potential was there.
We got a Nazi-like culture on our hand and you don't deal with them by talking !
zamestol 1 month ago
@zamestol USA talked to USSR. Should've bombed instead huh?
Dialogue doesn't mean giving the right to occupy another country.
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999
USSR was not some rough state. They played by the rules, so of cause the potential was there.
"Dialogue doesn't mean giving the right to occupy another country." I don't really know what you mean by that ?
zamestol 1 month ago
@zamestol You're kidding right, they were imperialistic, the biggest threat the planet has ever faced. They were involved in proxy wars too.
Jonas Store is speaking in favor of dialogue. Dialogue doesn't equal saying to someone like Hitler you have the right to occupy that land. As Jonas said, dialogue doesn't mean agreement.
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999
Oh shit another communist.
Of cause he does even in his own country. Look at the crime statistics for Norway. He would sell his own mother to make a deal.
zamestol 1 month ago
@zamestol Eh, you claim that USSR played by the rules but I'm the communist?
LMFAO
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@Hirnlego999
lol, where have i ever said anything about you Not playing by the rules ?
Its called a straw man.
zamestol 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zamestol Are you drunk? You wrote:
"USSR was not some rough state. They played by the rules"
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
@zamestol The USSR was as much a participant in the cold war as the US was. It was called a *war* for clear reasons; there was massive military interest, political corruption and propaganda/censorship on both sides. Even when you play by the rules you can play a very dirty game. This also goes for Western powers. And don't forget the mass murdering Stalin.
Waranoa 1 month ago
@Waranoa
Ha Ha, I never said that I agree with USSR. I don't :)
When you write "Even when you play by the rules you can play a very dirty game" What`s your point ? I didnt say anything about USSR NOT playing dirty !
@Hirnlego999
Your an idiot. You make no sense. Are YOU drunk ?
zamestol 1 month ago
Sometimes complex issues require complex solutions. War is the lazy mans way to solve complex issues.
Copperfoilhat 1 month ago
How is it that after so much mayhem and bloodshed... you finally get around to the idea of "maybe talking works better..."
Can you maybe start to consider that you were LACKING a certain quality of CONSCIOUSNESS and CONSCIENCE which actually prevents you form doing ANY good at all? Can you consider the BIGGER IMPLICATIONS of the BASIC PHILOSOPHIES on which you're trying to "help" the world? Could you instead of "talking" and "helping", shut the fuck up and do some SERIOUS INTROSPECTION?
Beatnuk 1 month ago
@Beatnuk What I mean is, you've mainly been presuming negative cases on a general-level about somebody using pseudo-psychological bullshit. Using terms such as philosophy, morality, etc. Sometimes, I equivocate people's anger to idealistic(unrealistic) views that take things too personally. If you act like this in real life, you probably are perceived as an aggrivator. That's all I have to say. Feels like your life revolves around a form of absolutism.
ACANOFSODA 1 month ago
Political talk is illusion magic. You actually think that they're saying something when the basic points are actually INFANTILE in their nature....
"We should talk."
No Shit Sherlock? You're a member of STATE, and too morally ignorant to see that the very concept of STATE is synonymous with slavery and the use of force...
Military action was necessary in Libya and Afghanistan? You already lost your mind and morality to political abstraction.
Løgn og mord er spillereglene i all politikk.
Beatnuk 1 month ago
@Beatnuk You're very opinionated to the extent I'd really rather not argue, although.. I don't think you watched the whole video(Or listened to it objectively). Military Action was referring to a presence there while they pursued discussion and understanding, as opposed to conflict by force. He said that actually. Is this idea new? No. Should it have been understand earlier? Yes. But please don't be the condescending, moral exemplar of humans stating they should've done it earlier. Ugh
ACANOFSODA 1 month ago
The Talk's Bottom-line: We should talk to the US even though it's a rogue, terrorist state.
tantzer 1 month ago 69
@tantzer Hah, forreal!
Beatnuk 1 month ago
@tantzer
Send a mail to Obama !
zamestol 1 month ago
@CRokkan I think we always believe our country accent is terrible. I am from Brazil and this sounds fine for me, but I can't stand Brazilians speaking english.
pedrohadek 1 month ago
The idiot doesnt understand Islam and terrorism
timjohan 1 month ago
@timjohan Google: "Rand corp how terrorism ends".
Military is ineffective...
Hirnlego999 1 month ago
Islam sucks!
timjohan 1 month ago
thought he was Swedish at first xD
iFarsight 1 month ago
6 words that last guy said
haigfeinn 1 month ago
Should we talk to the United States and other predatory, terrorist rogue states? This speech has given me reason to ponder that question.
tantzer 1 month ago
@tantzer Define "terrorist" and "rogue state" and the explain how those terms apply to the US.
jamesrands 1 month ago
@jamesrands Well, they violate other nations' sovereignity, kidnap and kill or torture other nations' citizens, declare countless offensive wars and occupy other countries, and a bucnh of other stuff all of which is too long to get into in youtube comments.
It's pretty clear that if *somebody other than the US* were doing what they are doing, they'd be called things like rogue terrorist states, but since it's the US nobody can really do anything about it.
MrCattlehunter 1 month ago 46
@MrCattlehunter This dynamic is changing dramatically. The recent UNESCO Palestine membership gave a big fuck you to the USA.
Alpinex105 1 month ago
@MrCattlehunter That's just a bunch of anti-American horseshit and assertion with no meaningful backup to your point.
jamesrands 1 month ago
@jamesrands "rogue state": engages in violent acts in contravention of international law; does not honor international treaties. "terrorist": engages in violent clandestine activities (and provides funding for proxy organizations and states that do so) without the blessing of international law and without due process being afforded to the victims.
tantzer 1 month ago
@tantzer That's not what "rogue state" means at all. A rogue state is one which opts out of significant elements of the international system in a disruptive fashion. How you can call any member of the UNSC a "rogue state" is beyond me. They are the guardians (for good or ill) of the international system.
The US honours all treaties to which it is a party (which is surprisingly few for historical and constitutional reasons).
Terrorism has a specific meaning you are aren't even close to.
jamesrands 1 month ago
@jamesrands I'm sure that tantzer is being facetious referring to the US as a rogue terrorist state and is talking about its stance on not talking to terrorists with a tongue in cheek comment.
maseltah 1 month ago
@maseltah I would hope so but the terms "terrorist" and "rogue state" get bandied around with gay abandon. Tantzer's response to my challenge (whilst eloquent) doesn't in any way shape or form define those terms accurately and looks to me to be a real attempt at justifying and unjustifiable statement.
jamesrands 1 month ago
@jamesrands "Terrorism": I've seen multiple definitions for "terrorism," and the interesting thing is that U.S. behavior fits every single one of them. Of course, I'm setting aside the unspoken journalistic definition that "terrorism is what they do to us, not what we do to them." "Rogue State:" If by "opt out" you mean voluntarily giving up membership in international organizations, then, fine, by this definition the US is not a rogue state, nor is any other state I know of.
tantzer 1 month ago
@tantzer By the definition of "rogue state" Iraq under Saddam Hussein, North Korea under Kim il Jong and Iran under Ahmadinijad (apologies for spelling) are all rogue states so I don't think what you say stands. There are rules of international conduct and some countries opt out. The US isn't one. Give me one widely recognised definition of terrorist that the US satisfies. Just one!
jamesrands 1 month ago
@jamesrands assassinates foreign citizens regularly.
Eetaq 1 month ago
@Eetaq Yeah, I can barely get through a day without an assassination. Idiot.
jamesrands 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yeah, I can barely get through a day without an assassination." Funny you said that. Just yesterday an Iranian physicist was assassinated by America's great friend and ally, Israel. American drones in the Horn of Africa, Yemen, and (until recently) Pakistan kill people from the air without any due process using a video game format. In 2003 the US destroyed a whole nation, Iraq, and in the 1990s killed 600,000 Iraqi children using economic sanctions on a false WMD pretext.
tantzer 1 month ago
@jamesrands Anwar al Awlaki was an american citizen, assassinated. All those Taliban drone attacks are assassinations. Who is the idiot?
Eetaq 1 month ago
@jamesrands Actually, we do opt out of the international rules of conduct. We just put on a facade of adhering to those rules.
It's called the CIA.
MultiPaulinator 1 month ago
@jamesrands If by "opt out" you mean "disobeying" international rules, the US has done that. The invasions of Iraq and Panama are but two examples.
tantzer 1 month ago
Only a Norwegian can talk about talk for a long time. Rofl
You cant talk to people who want to kill you. You simply have to kill them.
zamestol 1 month ago
@zamestol He's not saying you should talk to everyone. He openly admits a couple times in this speech that military intervention is necessary. He's saying that it is unwise for violence to be the default response.
Raithulu 1 month ago 2
@Raithulu
Then why does he still want to talk to "the palestinians" ?
zamestol 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zamestol
"Only a Norwegian can talk about talk for a long time. Rofl
You cant talk to people who want to kill you. You simply have to kill them."
I find it pun intended funny that you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Lobos222 1 month ago
@Lobos222
And you come to that conclusion, how ?
zamestol 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Diplomacy is not new; and the concept of a dialogue is as old as Plato or even before, if you wish. What I do take from the talk is the excruciatingly high ratio of intrastate to interstate conflicts. I wasn't aware of it, and it now gives me a wide perspective on how important it is for people and nations to look inwards. The dialogues by "the diplomats" have to take place more often, and very importantly, within our countries, in addition to the usual popular foreign diplomacy.
Krnphy 1 month ago
Comment removed
Krnphy 1 month ago
Comment removed
Krnphy 1 month ago
NORWAAYYY
OrginalKork 1 month ago
Wonderful talk, I found the bit about the hypocrisy of wanting democracy, but not wanting what may indeed be representative of the majority in power, to be particularly brilliant.
dookiecheez 1 month ago
Good speech. I hope the people who need to listen it hear it. I am doubtful.
American response: "Ur sh!ts all retarded and you talk like a f@g." /s
dvdragon 1 month ago
GO Norge!
jorgenhb 1 month ago
I was just going to give him thumb up, when he said how he believes that military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya were necessary.
fortissimoX 1 month ago
People refuse to have balanced intellectual discussions, full stop. The number of times that I've tried to start a dialogue with somebody, on various subjects, only to be accused of being arrogant or manipulative, is enough to make me feel dreadfully lonely. I know of only a handful of people that I can talk to without feeling like I'm speaking an alien language. So I can't imagine what it must be like when the same happens to somebody who has something important to say.
gamegloss 1 month ago
Nice! This is one of the pragmatic talks on TED.
ABHWLM 1 month ago
There should be more people like him
ThePeacefulAtheistt 1 month ago 2
@PressForFreedom It's not that we love to fight, it's just that all of Europe, and many other countries, expect us to do their fighting for them. And for some reason, we oblige them
bweazel 1 month ago
Boriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.
faunos51 1 month ago
Comment removed
sudchn 1 month ago
@sudchn Why? I want a good explanation to why.
strek0655 1 month ago
Would you guys mind renaming the video to: "Jonas Gahr Støre: Common Sense"? Just a suggestion.
bweazel 1 month ago 2
@bweazel His point is that while it may seem common-sensical, in fact this kind of sense is disappointingly uncommon. Very true.
leconfidant 1 month ago
@leconfidant I disagree. To your average person, every last thing he said in here is common sense. Although, your average person doesn't run countries, self interested individuals and corporate money runs countries. What may be common sense to average people, is trumped by corporate interests and or political correctness. If he would have made his video about that, about normal people forming a government that truly represents them, that would be something.
bweazel 1 month ago
@bweazel It won't matter if we have a government that is formed of normal people. The moment we put them into power they will slowly be eroded away through corruption unless we manage to fix the system and ban external forces from influencing political positions such as money and corporations.
BrutusAlbion 1 month ago
@BrutusAlbion Agreed. Therein lies the problem. So again, I have no idea why he wasted 15 minutes of our time behaving as though government's actions are indicative of the choices of their people.
Talking talking talking talking. How exactly does this guy believe we can "talk" any differently than we are right now? We here on youtube are doing more for this "talking" effort than any of these politicians are doing, or even wish to do.
bweazel 1 month ago
@bweazel I think he makes a fair case that governments are starting to wake up to the need for dialogue as something you do before war rather than when war has failed. Your point, which is very interesting, perhaps more than his point, is a seperate issue. You should put your own video up about it and I would be very happy to watch it.
leconfidant 1 month ago
@leconfidant Take Iraq for example, health insurance reform, aide to Israel, bombing Libya, bailing out banks, bailing out unions (public and private), the list goes on and on, and these are only recent happenings. The general public overwhelmingly did not agree with any one those things and the actions we took.
The video came across as very condescending to me. He's blaming average people, for what self interested politicians and corporations do.
bweazel 1 month ago
Talk about talk is too much talk!
lglglggl 1 month ago 2
So diplomats should make web pages and twit more. But apart from that, what is the message? People who need food and work are not likely to be impressed by a posh Norwegean diplomat offering dialogue to feed them ...
rodovre 1 month ago 2
"We should talk to other people!"
Controversial statement today. Saddens me that someone has to get up on a stage and say it.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
Bad. Almost zero content. What are the skills? Talk to whom? What are the examples exactly? Nothing but good intentions. The land mines example is weak. What is traditional diplomacy? What is an inclusive process of diplomacy? What is bottom up exactly, aren't all democratic countries bottom up? Just a bunch of undefined hopes with supposed good intentions.
jrlmenezes1 1 month ago
@jrlmenezes1 Skills: Anthropology, history
Who: Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, USA..
Trad. diplo.: Realpolitik, interstate negotiations
Inclusive: Terrorists/freedom fighters
Bottom up: Revolution
All countries b. u.?: No.. Just, no..
Undefined? Maybe for someone that has exactly zero diplomatic/historical/educational experience in this field of study.
Krestianx 1 month ago
@Krestianx Anthropology is not a skill nor is history. The who is obvious and he mentioned more, bottom up is not revolution, realpolitik is a buzz word, as interstate negotiation (what is a negotiation, a gun in the head in a negotiation, and it doesn't mean skills, at least not the one I think he was mentioning. Think a bit more
jrlmenezes1 1 month ago
Støre is one of my favorite politicians. Thumbs up!
noodlebamboo 1 month ago
Why do people want to skip the intro? I like the intro. It's calming and not in-your-face.
Ghost00117 1 month ago 3
I wonder what's inside all those boxes, are they empty?
Shalek 1 month ago
10th. YberBest. Ten fingers. Ten commadments. One Zero. Ten. Teen. I win!!
mjusiqtube 1 month ago
Great speech, though as a Norwegian I can't help but cringe every time our politicians speak English. There's just a tone to the accent that gnaws at the back of my skull.
CRokkan 1 month ago 48
@CRokkan
Our German foreign minister's accent is worse.
235711131723 1 month ago
@CRokkan Very clear and easy to understand :) Sounds like a Swede except for the more Scottish 'U'
Thomasfiddle 1 month ago
@CRokkan as a native English speaker I quite like it, it has a rounded smooth quality. xD
jwhitenstall 1 month ago
@jwhitenstall I've never heard it described like that before! I think I may like it now. ;)
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan Don't worry about it. Any native English speaker just hears it as "European".
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies Really? Cause I couldn't describe a "European" accent. Maybe you mean Scandinavian? Then again, the Danish sound totally different.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan I can only speak for myself, but I'm a native English speaker (don't speak any other languages either ;p) and it's difficult for me to differentiate some foreign accents. To me anything from the Germanic family of languages sounds very similar. Anything Scandinavian, Dutch, etc. I can tell this guy isn't French, but I couldn't tell you where he's from other than "Europe". Just like it would be hard for you to tell between Boston vs New York or Liverpool vs Wiltshire.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies I can tell the difference between Boston and New York accents, though I'm generally better with British accents, but I think we as non-native English speakers get a much more wide spectrum from popular culture.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan Yeah, good point. There's a lot of movies tv shows etc. I don't get exposure to very much Norwegian TV.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@CRokkan And anyway, he speaks fluently and clearly and that's good enough. I find a lot of non-native English speaking people are really self conscious of their accents, and I don't really understand why. Nobody cares. In fact, most people will probably think you sound interesting and exotic.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@CRokkan I know that. It's because you are being faced with your own failures. The only cure is to be proud of the accent
rakketakke 1 month ago
@rakketakke I do want to be proud of it, but I don't have it myself. Maybe that's why I want to correct people so badly when they speak like that.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan Dear CRokkan, I've lived in the US for 30 years and heard many different nationalities speak English. Believe me, compared to them his accent is in fact way superior. He speaks fluently and clearly. There is a wisdom, sincerity and care you can sense from his words and that's what makes is appealing. He has my utmost respect. Best Regards.
simabah 1 month ago 2
@simabah It's nice to know most people seem to like it. I guess it just grates on my nerves since I hear the Norwegian ups and downs that he tries so hard to suppress. Sometimes you can even hear a person's dialect shine through. I don't have it myself since I spoke English from age 3, but my parents do and I was constantly trying to correct them. So I guess it's just the teacher in me.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan He is pretty good though)
fakeshocker 1 month ago
@CRokkan Be glad you arent danish :D
Stereotype23 1 month ago
@CRokkan
Ah cmon, unless you start in childhood it is more difficult to get rid of an accent than to learn an entirely new language. I recently met a guy from china that mastered the german language to perfection, he translates books both from german into mandarin and from mandarin into german for renowned publishers, he also writes short stories in german. And his accent is still strong.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
@kurtilein3 Well, I can't speak for everyone, but of course it's difficult. Doesn't mean it's not entirely possible. I know people who spent a couple of months in America and came back with strong accents, and I know those who've lived in England for years and still can't pronounce certain words. I would also suspect it's a little easier between certain languages than others.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan
Yes, it depends on the languages. People that have arabic as their first language can get rid of almost all accent in nearly all languages, because arabic contains so many differend phonetic sounds. English is my second language, and when im writing noone notices because i perfected my grammar and vocabulary. But i sound a bit like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I dont care, ill learn Spanish instead. My accent is far less than Einsteins, and less than Schwarzeneggers, so WTF.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
@CRokkan
a little anecdote: In German, we have some dialects, one of these is bavarian. It sounds distinct, with very strong vocals and less focus on consonants. The head of a bavarian language history museum is a guy that immigrated from england. First he learned german, got it accent-free within a few years, and then he learned the bavarian dialect, and mastered the phonetics of it. Very few people can learn a foreign language, and a foreign dialect, and eliminate all accent.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
@CRokkan
.... third comment
my first language is german, and i think i also mastered written english, next i will learn spanish, but then japanese will follow. If you can speak german, pronouncing japanese is trivial, because there is not a single new sound. All phonemes already exist in the german language. The grammar is also easy, so all that is needed is vocabulary. In japanese, it is easy to get rid of any accent.
kurtilein3 1 month ago
@CRokkan There's just an immense lack of fluency. I'm Norwegian as well, and I quite frankly don't understand why this lack of fluency within English is so prominent not only in the older generations but younger ones as well.
Epeenification 1 month ago
@Epeenification I suspect the difficult part comes from the rhythm of the language. Norwegian has a very prominent rhythm and it's hard to stop your voice from doing that suddenly. Some sounds are really tricky too. I know so many people who say "were" like "ver" or "church" like "shurch". Annoys the hell out of me. But we're teaching the kids from 5 years old now, so I suspect they'll come a generation that's better eventually.
CRokkan 1 month ago
@CRokkan I think it's quite okay. It's at least MUCH less annoying than when our dutch politicians speak English.
L1b3rta 1 month ago
@L1b3rta Everybody thinks their own accent is the worst. Don't worry about it.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@CRokkan his English sounds okay to me
SuperAtheist 1 month ago
@CRokkan Right there with you bro. One would think that he, Having to deal with lots of foreign politicians, Would be at the very least somewhat competent at hiding the accent. But sadly, No. Oh well. At least he isn't as bad as Petter Solberg. lol.
geometrololi 1 month ago
@CRokkan
I'm from the former Soviet Union & I am quite familiar with that whole region myself. Is it just me or is his accent a mix of Russian & French? It just sounds like that to me.
andyrooney12 1 month ago
@CRokkan it's not a thick accent at all.. in fact i think some native english speakers are more difficult to understand, haha!
amh1230 1 month ago
@CRokkan Swede here, I know the feeling all too well.
inamamani 1 month ago