US News
By Mike McCarthy Dec 7, 2006, 18:17 GMT
Bush rejects unconditional talks with Iran, Syria
And Also
Similar articles
- Britain working 'hand in glove' with US over Iraq
- Britain will not send more troops to Iraq says Beckett
- Bush, Blair optimistic mission in Iraq can succeed
- Bush says Iraq in 'bad' situation
- Blair to give evidence to US task force on Iraq
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. White House gate crashers in less festive mood in first interview
- 2. Suspect in US police killing shot dead (1st Lead)
- 3. Suspect in US police killing shot dead
- 4. In Pictures: 'World War II Fighter Recovered'
- 5. Supreme Court overturns decision on detainee abuse photos
Older Talkback
CLUE:
War is NOT a positive outcome.
As for Korea, I reference it twice, once as the Korean war(1950) and once in reference to Clintons failed Nonproliferation treaty, which they broke, BEFORE George Bush Jr. was EVER in office. These facts are not in question. Madelene Albright even admitted to it, and she helped produce the treaty!
My writing is, admittedly, tough to read. It requires a high school education, which, is admitteldy hard to get this day and age, or is, at least to 1962 standards. Certainly I cannot blame this on you, as it is, likely, not your fault.
I provided copious examples of both negotiations with failed outcomes and specific historic events where negotiation was NOT employed, with positive (your words) outcomes, at least for one party. All of them are backed up by hisotric fact. None of them are in question by any recognizable expertise.
War certainly IS a positive outcome, usually, for at least ONE of the parties. I can't help the truth, I only state it.
It's legal in 50 states to not like a standing president, but you should try to get rid of bigotry, not reinvent it.
N.Vietanmese Armistace. Send money for the explanation.
Diplomacy is war by other means, if war is diplomacy by other means.(who said that, Von Clausewitz?)
This being the case, do-da talking is just another battle to lose. In fact, to a degree, it can even precipitate a conflict.(WWII)
If true, the combatants must have:
A desired outcome (KNOWING WHAT ONE WANTS)
Leverage, or means, to achieve one's goals
A opponent willing to negotiate
An outcome amenable to BOTH parties.
If these things are not present, talking is, at the least, a waste of time, and at most, a possible agent to conflict. Every businessman knows this. Every politician, even the stupid ones, know this.
Now Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does know what he wants, something the democrats have yet to share with us, besides simply gaining office. He, correctly, knows that Iran has, absolutely, no incentive to deal on anything. He knows, correctly, that N.Korea will NEVER be able to be trusted, something that apparently escaped the befuddled Clark Clifford and Bill Clinton.
This being the case, he states, correctly, that any talks must have some basis (see above). This is called politics and it is best played by those who have an outcome in mind.
The conclusion is then, that, no, just talking is NOT a good idea.
Try books.
The challenge was simple enough, 'Show an example of where refusing dialogue produced a positive outcome.'
You simply can't do that.
And no, war is not a positive outcome. Not by any rational definition.
Do you even understand the meaning of the word 'positive'?
Your responses tell me you don't.
Again, in my postings I state that 'dialogue does not guarantee success, but refusing dialogue guarantees failure.'
Sure, Bush can refuse dialogue if he wants. But it will most certainly guarantee failure.
And it will be a failure that you encouraged, and endorsed . I hope you enjoy it.
Let me explain it to you one more time ...
Listing 'dialogue failures' is NOT tha same as giving us an example of where refusing dialogue produced a positive outcome.
Got that yet? I doubt it.
Geez, maybe you should let someone read it to you.
Example 1ADec 7th, 2006 - 23:22:23
South Korea. (Korean War)
We never negotiated with N. Korea, we simply went in and whacked them (successfully). Once, however, we DID go to the table, it only got worse. We capitualted and the benefits ceased.
Today, South Korea is an economic and democratic miracle.
Example 2ADec 7th, 2006 - 23:25:52
War with Japan(again!)
There was never any negotiation of an armistace. We dropped two nukes, and they surrendered. No negotiations. Game over.
Curiously, Japanese scholars are the one's who credit this fact with saving somewhere between 3 and 5 million lives: 2 million in casualties on both sides and 3 million from starvation and disease.
People like me call this an example of the greater good being served.
Example 3ADec 7th, 2006 - 23:30:50
War with Germany.
Roosevelt was heavily influenced to negotiate an armistice with Germany, and, correctly, for the first time in his presidency, refused. He, correctly, realized that the Treaty of Versailles (see previous example) was the move that guaranteed the present war #2.
He convinced Churchill and Stalin to prosecute the war to its conclusion, with stellar results. His only mistake was with Stalin, in giving away the farm i.e. eastern Europe. If we only could have just kept his mouth shut, or removed the wheels from his chair...
I need to start charging you if you need more examples. Another alternative is a public school that still teaches history.
They actually have useful information. I know, you can't just go to Yahoo and read the propaganda but you might even find them interesting. They are, usually, printed on something called paper, and most of the good one's don't have pictures with speech balloons, coming out of super heros mouths.
You can even go to a place that will loan you a book. It is called a Library. They are in even the very small towns. There are, usually, folks who will even help you find a book to read. Important tip: try the one's titled 'Fun with Dick and Jane' first.
Geez, am I talking to George Bush here?
This guy thinks that repeating an an irrelevant answer will somehow make it correct.
I give up. You're an idiot.
Some books have facts, amassed by the author, which have references/notations made. We use these to validate the facts presented. Sometimes, they are cause for debate, but I'm afraid you must read them, first. That would, pretty much, leave you out of the debate, for the forseable future.
You respond with insults, the usual reaction, from an ignorant person. People who are equally informed, seldom disagree.
You asked for specific examples where refusal to negotiate produced a 'positive' result. I gave you three. As an added bonus, I showed you three, sterling, examples of befuddled, do-gooding negotiated blunders that had a...well...less than stellar outcome.
My favorite, of course, is the Clinton / N. Korea one. It is the smoking gun, the burning bush,(see a book called 'the Bible' for reference)th bomb, the home run. Ol Slick Willy sent the Little Rock brain trust and found, to their surprise, someone who could lie even better than them. It also helped that Al Gore was pulling nice $$ from Chinese contributors.
All of which happened BEFORE Bush took office.
You see, negotiation is much like a card game. If you ever watch poker, he same guys almost always end up at the end of the game. This would, to a reasonable person, seem to indicate a plan at work, by a very astute person. In politics, the logic is the same: The battle is usually over before it is fought, so, no, just talking is about as useless as, say, your comic book collection.
Now, your anus must be sore, and I'm proud to say I pounded it hard, and I secretly think you like it, because you keep coming back for more. Be my guest. I have many books.
Re: your comment ...'your anus must be sore, and I'm proud to say I pounded it hard'
So that's what you like eh?
Thanks for sharing your little secret with us.
Comedy.
You think war is a positive outcome?
You might have tons of books, but you're very short on brains.
That fact doesn't, necessarily, make me wrong. I know, it makes you look like a dipwad, but you stepped into it.
You have what I call the the Mooreon disease. Moore Hate. Moore lies. You hate Bush, not for what he stands for, but because you just hate him. As a person who has actually voted for someone in another party, you need to really watch and learn before drawing any conclusions.
Bush needs leverage to deal. Since he has none, the outcome is assured. To be successful, he needs leverage, which does not exist. This being the case, he can either physically impose will (how's that working so far) or wait and pursue leverage.
This is the hand he has been dealt. No amount of wishing changes it. Like Roosevelt in 1941, or Clinton in 1996, they are just flapping their gums, unless they can back their actions. Some kind of leverage will change it, but what, is difficult to say.
RE: 'This is the hand he has been dealt.'
Hey get a clue. It's the hand he dealt himself ... He chose to go to war with Iraq.
Ya know, It's beginning to sound like you're one of the 2 people left on earth who still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
So now we know you're not just an idiot. You're an idiot with a male butt fetish too.
Who was on this stupid panel, Jimmy Carter?
Like someone said earlier, we should be bombing them and seeking Israel's technical advice.
I'm sooo tired of people like you guys who keep ranting about how justified, how utterly necessary the war with Iraq is, while you sit in your comfy chairs telling us why our son's and daughters need to be fighting over there ...
Why don't you get off you big fat asses and go fight yourselves?
is it just me or does anyone else get the impression that the scarecrow from the wizard of oz and bush are one in the same?
The goal here is to clean this all up before the next election. Both parties want it. Our security is the last priority. That might change if folks start dying.
This is the only reason to have this sham committee. Bush has no basis to deal with terrorist nations. This is why he is not presently dealing.
Your Talkback on this Story