Negotiating with Terrorism?

[tomspug]

Political Radar: Obama Takes Issue With Bush Foreign Policy Speech

Is Bush generalizing here? I think the major question is whether or not to treat countries that fund terrorism (Iran, Syria, Hamas) with the same diplomatic respect as countries like France, Russia, Britain, etc. (for example, Pelosi's trip to Iran/Syria and Carter's trip to Palestine)

To me, it seems like Obama is dodging the issue. He doesn't actually respond to the argument, instead accusing Bush of being flippant. Obviously, Bush isn't just talking about terrorists groups. He's talking about Iran, which is currently flooding money and weapons into southern Iraq.

 

[UnityNow101]

I believe that George Bush is the one that is misguided on the issue. If you haven't heard, the United States is having talks with Iran and Israel is planning on holding "indirect" peace talks with Syria. So even the US and Israel understand the need to talk over issues with your "enemy." What else is there that can be done? Has talking with somebody ever brought about a single death? Or would people like George Bush just rather bomb them to death and then hold talks with all that remains?

 

[Dunemeister]

Bush's ignorance never fails to inspire me with awe.

 

[tomspug]

There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement. To do more than what the Bush Administration does already with regards to Iran and Syria would fall under the category of "appeasement".

 

[Dunemeister]

There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement. To do more than what the Bush Administration does already with regards to Iran and Syria would fall under the category of "appeasement".

So anything more than threats, lies, historical amnesia, and belligerence is "appeasement" now? Good heavens, what have we come to?

 

[kai]

So anything more than threats, lies, historical amnesia, and belligerence is "appeasement" now? Good heavens, what have we come to?

kowtowing to the demands of belligerent dictators and regimes is appeasement, diplomatic ties with democratically elected governments is diplomacy. governments always have channels to talk to hostile regimes its just not common knowledge. Israel has always desired peace with its Arab Neighbors Syria included It already has peace with Jordan and Egypt, the Golan heights have been the sticking point and bearing in mind its a dictatorship. As far as Iran goes they will be speaking all the time just not in public . and i believe you should negotiate with terrorists until you are in a position to eliminate them, you cannot give in to demands from crackpots and murderrers.

 

[lilithu]

Obviously, Bush isn't just talking about terrorists groups. He's talking about Iran, which is currently flooding money and weapons into southern Iraq.

After we invaded Iraq, which happens to be their next door neighbor.

I'm no fan of Iran. Their human rights record is atrocious. But I see some hypocrisy in invading a country and then condemning a neighboring country for sending money and weapons to counter us. What about the weapons we sent to Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets? What about the weapons we sent to Iraq when they were fighting Iran?

P.S. I like your title.

 

[kai]

After we invaded Iraq, which happens to be their next door neighbor.

I'm no fan of Iran. Their human rights record is atrocious. But I see some hypocrisy in invading a country and then condemning a neighboring country for sending money and weapons to counter us. What about the weapons we sent to Afghanistan when they were fighting the Soviets? What about the weapons we sent to Iraq when they were fighting Iran?

P.S. I like your title.

what is happening here is that you are in fact already fighting Iran by proxy they supply weapons and training to insurgents mainly in the south and support Shia factions for their own reasons of course. these weapons were used mainly against British troops who are there under UN mandate. but also against Iraqi government security forces more so since the British handed over.

of course we applauded the mujahadeen when they fought the soviets but then we ended up with the Taliban becoming the dominant faction.

Iran and Iraq we supported Iraq at that time , things change on the world scene, japan is now an ally for example. politics are fluid a change of regime in Iran and you never know one day they may come in out of the cold so to speak.

 

[Scuba Pete]

There is a difference between diplomacy and appeasement. To do more than what the Bush Administration does already with regards to Iran and Syria would fall under the category of "appeasement".

Actually, I think Obama wants to do FAR LESS than the Shrub Administration. He wants to BOMB LESS, Rattle his sabre LESS, threaten LESS, talk LESS smack (like mission accomplished) and the list goes on.

Shrub's only method of negotiation is to bomb the crappola out of people for all the wrong reasons. I can't remember any President who screwed foreign policy up quite so badly.

 

[Dunemeister]

Negotiating with hostile regimes is also diplomacy, whether those regimes are democratic or not. Besides, the US has a long, proud tradition of creating and propping up belligerent dictators, so what's the big deal about negotiating with Iran?

 

[kai]

Negotiating with hostile regimes is also diplomacy, whether those regimes are democratic or not. Besides, the US has a long, proud tradition of creating and propping up belligerent dictators, so what's the big deal about negotiating with Iran?

what decides your stance depends what you are negotiating for ?

 

[lilithu]

of course we applauded the mujahadeen when they fought the soviets but then we ended up with the Taliban becoming the dominant faction.

Yeah, kinda short-sighted of us, huh?

 

[tomspug]

What's sad is the state that Afghanistan is in now. And I don't think it has to do with us not putting enough forces there.

What's happening, I think, is that the people in that region THINK they want the Taliban. The power struggles of militarism seem to thrive in these countries because it is so familiar to them. But why is it that we are eager to negotiate with Tehran but not with the Taliban? Oh, right. Because of Osama.

Why is it that we are so nice to people until something unforgivable happens? Then we massacre!

 

[kai]

Yeah, kinda short-sighted of us, huh?

thats one way of looking at it, i dont think anyone really understood the problem fundamentalism would become at the time, or the influence of foriegn fighters and the role of Pakistan would have have in tipping the balance in favour of the Taliban over other factions in the civil war after the soviet withdrawal.

 

[kai]

What's sad is the state that Afghanistan is in now. And I don't think it has to do with us not putting enough forces there.

What's happening, I think, is that the people in that region THINK they want the Taliban. The power struggles of militarism seem to thrive in these countries because it is so familiar to them. But why is it that we are eager to negotiate with Tehran but not with the Taliban? Oh, right. Because of Osama.

Why is it that we are so nice to people until something unforgivable happens? Then we massacre!

the Taliban are mostly ethnic Pashtuns from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan a lawless area not really under the control of the Pakistani government they attack in Afghanistan then are able to retreat to their enclave and the locals don't think they want the Taliban they are terrified of them ,when the Taliban come if you dont aid them you lose your head pure an simple.

the reasoning behind reaching some kind of political accord with Iran is that it is vital to the stability of Iraq as they provide arms and training to Shia insurgents and the nuclear issue

 

[Aqualung]

This reminded me of an article I saw on reddit with the title Call a man an enemy and you guarantee he'll be one. Call him a friend and you suddenly have something to talk about. It really amazes me how different politics are run from real life. In real life if you have problems with other people you're supposed to talk about your difference, you're encouraged to find a mediator to help you work things out, and you're supposed to remember that they're people too with feelings and whatnot. Yet in politics, if you have problems with a country, you're supposed to ignore them, cut off all contact with them, and even bomb them into submission. What if we did that in real life? What if when my brother made me mad by eating the last piece of bread even though I wanted a sandwich for lunch, I ignored him, stole all his blankets off his band and refused to give them back, and when he came into my room to get them I punched him? I'd probably go to jail, or at least to a psychiatrist. Yet these are the qualities we most value in a president? Why?

 

[kai]

This reminded me of an article I saw on reddit with the title Call a man an enemy and you guarantee he'll be one. Call him a friend and you suddenly have something to talk about. It really amazes me how different politics are run from real life. In real life if you have problems with other people you're supposed to talk about your difference, you're encouraged to find a mediator to help you work things out, and you're supposed to remember that they're people too with feelings and whatnot. Yet in politics, if you have problems with a country, you're supposed to ignore them, cut off all contact with them, and even bomb them into submission. What if we did that in real life? What if when my brother made me mad by eating the last piece of bread even though I wanted a sandwich for lunch, I ignored him, stole all his blankets off his band and refused to give them back, and when he came into my room to get them I punched him? I'd probably go to jail, or at least to a psychiatrist. Yet these are the qualities we most value in a president? Why?

lots of talking goes on even if you declare you are breaking off diplomatic relations it sill goes on behind the scenes. i am a little confused aout which contries we bomb into submission. and your analogy would be better if you subsituted your brother for a neighbour down the road who came in and ate the last piece of bread and later entered your bedroom

 

[Aqualung]

lots of talking goes on even if you declare you are breaking off diplomatic relations it sill goes on behind the scenes.

Yet we elect those with the professed qualities I described. This wasn't a commentary about what the president actually does. It was a commentary about what qualities we are looking for in those we elect.

i am a little confused aout which contries we bomb into submission.

Iraq, currently.

and your analogy would be better if you subsituted your brother for a neighbour down the road who came in and ate the last piece of bread and later entered your bedroom

Feel free to write your own analogy if you feel mine was lacking. That's the great thing about internet forums - you can always write back.

 

[tomspug]

Let me know when we bomb Iraq into submission.

 

[Aqualung]

Let me know when we bomb Iraq into submission.

I don't think that will ever happen, despite our attempts. The islamic tradition has such deep-rooted political implications that I don't see them submitting any time soon. But that's not for a lack of effort.