Bush rejects unconditional talks with Iran, Syria
US News
By Mike McCarthy Dec 7, 2006, 18:17 GMT
Older Talkback
We should not be talking with Iran and Syria we should bombing them.........
Good to see an elected official acting like he's been put in charge...on EITHER side of the aisle!
...jesus!
We know that not talking with Iran will have a certain, guaranteed outcome ... failure for our policy goals.
If we have dialogue with them, failure may still happen, but it's not the certainty of not talking, and atleast a positive outcome could still happen too. And even though it's not guarranteed, at least there would be the possibility for some success in our policy efforts.
Only fools can honestly think that refusal to have dialogue with our enemies will give us the outcomes we want.
You know when to talk, when the other party wants to. Do you see Iran or Syria begging to go to the table?
Better go do an actual negotiation before you shoot your mouth off.
Spot on, whoever that was!
Criticize me all you want ... the truth is your position of refusing dialogue reflects anything but knowledgable wisdom. (e.g. N. Korea ... did refusing dialogue work for us there? or, in other words, 'How's that workin for ya?)
Give me just one example of refusing dialogue having a positive outcome. Just one!
to not come down on bush.
he has a lot more american soliders to kill off yet
before he is done playing his war games.
World War II.
We negotiated all the way to Pearl Harbor. The distinction here is that negotiation actually kept us from doing what should have been done earlier, with an unrealistic expectation.
In 1939 America was a liberals wet dream: we capitulated all the way to being attacked. 'Peace in our time' was the cry.
Like all reasonable people, who were not born yesterday, I correctly realize that, in a negotiation, both parties must possess 'good faith' and also want something to gain in a negotiation, neither of which Iran or Syria are capable of or want from the United States. Bush, and every other politician on earth, correctly realize this.
Being naive is not a sin, but we should not rely on that for running a nation.
The German - Russian nonaggression pact. This, guaranteed that Hitler would attack Russia. If not signed, Stalin would have been forced to gear up and would have avoided the disastrous calamity that Hitler dealt him.
Dead - 20 million. Thanks, a pantload, to the deal makers.
Again, a disasterous outcome, based on the wishful thinking, and transient political motivations of the negotiators.
Clinton's treaty with N. Korea - a mess of a document, supposedly designed to curtail N. Korea's nuclear weapons development.
How's that working, so far?
There were no stipulations on verification, or the one's present were so loose as to be useless. On top of that, we got the pleasure of actually supplying them with some of the technology!
You can thank the befuddled Clark Clifford and Madelene Albright, and, of course, Slick Willie.
Bush might be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch in the world, but he will never have treaties like this in his library.
Do I need to keep doing these, or are you smart enough to get the point now? I have a muilliion of them!
Treaty of Versailles.
An ill-conceived piece of toilet tissue, like the others, virtually guaranteeing another war. The signatories, in their gossamer world, thought they could change the world without doing anything to affect change. In the end, Germany re-armed. Also, they were really pissed off. Good move.
The winners are supposed to TELL the losers what we will do, not negotiate. For confirmation see 'Marshall Plan'.
Bush's refusal will give us the outcome you want for certain, guaranteed failure of policy.
I hope you enjoy it.
Re: the examples you gave ...
The challenge was to show one example where REFUSAL GAVE A POSITIVE OUTCOME.
Not where dialogue failed. Idiot.
As I mentioned previously, dialogue does not guarantee success, while refusal guarantees failure.
Last night i read Baker - Hamilton report about the best way to deal with the stuation in Iraq.I think, the( Baker-Hamilton ) report has a lot of unlogic solution to the Kurdish issue in the Middle East.In my, idea if the domenent powers in the Middel East ignore or marginalize the Kurdish issue, dramatically will increas the tension against the states in the region.In the report didn't mention to solve the issue so the conflect will continue until Kuridish will gain their demand in self determentaion. Marginalize the Kurdish issue will lead the area for long term conflect similar to the Iran-Iraq war.So the key point to start the dialogue, must start for the Turkish regime becaouse it's policy has big effect on the other countries view.I hope the USA should make pressure to these countries to solve this issue,other wise the sparke of the conflect will effect the USA policy in the Middle East.I think the USA will never get friends and coalition better than Kurdish.During the last 10 years the USA knew very well who is the best friend in the Middle East.So any ignorace for the Kurdish people will lead the area in to another bloody conflict especially with the Turkish regime.
Finally, Mr Baker - Hamilton report should be reviewed before publishing it.
Mariwan
South Korea.
We never negotiated with N. Korea, we simply went in and whacked them. 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.
War with Japan(again!)
There was never any negotiation. We dropped two nukes, and they surrendured. 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.
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.
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.
Grenada.
Reagan, correctly, realized that Castro was going to cause nothing but trouble. He, correctly, just went down and dealt with it. Castro got the message: Reagan would not tolerate his shenanigans while he was in office, and, damn, it worked.
The trend is clear. People bent on undermining our freedoms understand action far better than our words. The idea that war never solves anything is not defendable:
War, while not desirable, actually, solves a great deal, for at least one of the parties involved.
In a world where the negotiators are all posers, like the UN, what good is talk? Don't get me wrong, genuine parties who want genuine progress SHOULD meet and discuss.
Bush, proves, once again, that, while he may not be any smarter than his opponents, he is certainly no dumber.
South Korea? What? ... our dispute wasn't with South Korea ... it was with N. Korea over nuclear development ... Bush refused dialogue. Now N. Korea has nuke weapons. You call that a positive outcome? ... again, you're an idiot.
Japan during WWII? Look stupid, that's not even relevant to the topic of having dialogue with Iran about what's going on in Iraq. We're not at War with Iran (though Bush is working on it) ... Can you see the difference? ... man you're just not getting this.
Let me spell it s l o w l y for you.
SHOW ME WHERE REFUSAL OF DIALOGUE HAD A 'POSITIVE' OUTCOME.
Everyone else can see you're not able to comprehend the challenge, as evidenced in your responses.
You make yourself look like very stupid for not understanding the challenge, with the examples you provide.
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. New York man kills fellow commuter over seat on train
- 2. Computer glitch causes delays at major US airports
- 3. Pentagon launches review in wake of Fort Hood rampage
- 4. Oprah to declare 2011 end to landmark talk show
- 5. Five killed in shooting on Pacific island of Saipan
News from Other Sites
Your Talkback on this Story