US News
Bush rejects unconditional talks with Iran, Syria
By Mike McCarthy Dec 7, 2006, 18:17 GMT
On the Web
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. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
- 2. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 3. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 4. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 5. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
Older Talkback
page: 1
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.
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.
To SP4,
RE: 'This is the only reason to have this sham committee...'
Wrong! ... The reason to have this committee is because your boy Bush and crew, have screwed things up royally. And it's only getting worse by the minute.
Do you really think the idiots who created this mess can be counted on to fix it?
Again to SP4,
Re: '... if folks start dying.'
Where the hell have you been?
I hate to break the news to ya, but people having been dying in this mess for years. And more are dying now than ever.
The committee was not set up to study Iraq. This is evidenced by the lack of anything new. It is a way to deflect attention from the congress that backed this little party.
It does this, by stating the obvious. Now, the president is supposed to stand and fling his arms up saying 'eureka!' as though these washed up apparatachicks have actually done something.
The crowning moment was when, on O'Reilly, Leon Panetta, Clinton's apparatchick and one of the members of the Surrender Study, was asked if we should pull out of Iraq. His response was absolutely astounding:
'I think that would be the worst possible move'
I could not believe it. I watched it a second time. He should have sent Sandy Berg(l)ar, but Murdoch was afraid he'd steal the corporate china, so he barred him from the building.
Honestly, it would have been hysterical, if it wasn't so lame. This is your Democratic party at work.
Do you actually think this has anything to do, at all, with Iraq? It's posturing for 2008.
For the above poster ...
The Iraq Study Group called it a 'comprehensive' plan.
Do you know what the word means? Apparently not. Let me explain it to you.
A comprehensive plan is a list of 'everything' they see as necessary to do for success, not just the new stuff.
And yes, a comprehensive plan will include the obvious, duh. And yes, it will include 'some' of what Bush is already doing too.
But most importantly, it will include things the Bush administration is not doing, or has refused to do, that they have determined will be helpful in achieving success.
Would you in your wisdom suggest we keep doing what isn't working? And blindly continue with an utter failure of strategic policy?
Re: you comment ... 'Do you actually think this has anything to do, at all, with Iraq? ' No, geez what was I thinking? ... Clearly, it has to do with 'La La Land', where you and Bush live.
Re: the title of your posting ... ' The Surrender Study' ... very revealing, I see you like to parrot the mindless, partisan distortions of Rush Limbaugh.
Ya know, I'm sick and tired of idiots like you spewing your mindless dribble and disinformation. I will call you the idiots you are.
I won't apologize for my tone, or harsh remarks towards your pure stupidity and hatred of anything that criticizes Bush's policies. Even the most obvious ones. (There are so many of them.)
And the reason is because innocent people are dying as a result of your kind of stupidity.
So, if you think Bush is sooo smart. And you think the war was sooo justified and necessary ... Why isn't your dumb ass over there fighting right now?
It's called a 'Comprehensive Plan'
Do you know what that means? Now, let me explain it to YOU.
It means the politicians are running like hell from the problem. It means they will do, exactly, nothing. The key word is 'comprehensive'. It stinks like do-do.
The whole charade is designed to pass this onto the next asshole in office, ostensibly, either Hillary, or someone like McCain , who is under the delusion he is a Republican.
Like most things political, if a scintilla of progress is produced, it will be hailed as a raging success. If none is produced, the fingers will point, it doesn't matter who.
In the end, the only thing that impresses me is that, not once, to my knowledge, have I seen Bush trying to lay blame. His guys may have, but he has, pretty much borne the load. He, for whatever reason, has let this all rest on himself. That, my butt sore friend, is a rare thing in politics.
It is the enigma of Bush: He really doesn't care what is said about him. He really doesn't go sell his views(which is one of his shortcomings). In 35 years, I have never seen a president so unmotivated by public perception. Clinton, on the other hand, was a sychphants dream. He still wants to be a celebrity so bad it hurts. It is truely an enigma.
Rules for negotiation are embedded in the rules of politics:
Nothing is what it seems
Never accept the 1st draft
Always, watch your back
When their lips move, they are lying
Unless you have an ironclad verification, they will break it before the ink dries(think N. Korea).
Pity Not-so-slick Willie, and flubby Clifford didn't have these before he went to N. Korea in the 90's. My bet is that he never intended for it to be honored to begin with. That either makes him crooked, or stupid. You decide.
Right now, Bush is wiping his ass with your vaunted report. The best part is, so is Hillary.
Butter up sweetcheeks and assume the position, I have much, much Moore.
When it comes to this discussion, you're just like Bush at war.
You like to declare premature victory, just like him.
Here you are trying to tell us that the driving force for creating the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report had nothing at all to do with us being in a complete mess of a war.
A war that very soon, unless something intelligent is urgently done, even you won't be able to deny is a civil war.
You're trying to convince us that the report is not remotely motivated by a dire need to save success in an Iraq that's falling completely apart, before it's too late -- for our nation's security, the region's security, and even world security.
No, it has nothing at all to do with any of that does it?
Instead you're telling us it's purely political posturing for an election 2 yrs from now. Nothing more.
You're just too dumb to know how stupid you are.
All of your other points are mindless ramblings.
You're completely oblivious to the real world around you.
Yes, you're a perfect example of 'Some people you just can't reach.'
So just go on exchanging reality for your own delusional creations. I'm gonna let you argue with yourself about what they really mean.
And dude, when you keep talkin about how you wanna do my butt, you give me the creeps. I like chicks.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story