I'm not a negotiator and have no experience in such. In no way do I claim expert status on all political issues, something rare on this website. I'm speaking from the mind of a middle-of-the-road American, one who is tired of the old method and interested in trying something new. Will it work? I don't know. But every suggestion from Democrats or Republicans is lambasted on this website (along with the suggestor), and then everyone becomes defensive, and so it goes.

 

My post wasn't meant as a negotiation or compromise, just a meeting between sides. If the U.S. insists on calling those nations/groups the bad guy, nothing will ever improve. My only thought is that discussion MIGHT be a step in the right direction.

 

Who should be met with. These are not nations with recognized leaders. If one of their "leaders" starts to move away from what some factions feels ought to be their goals another factions starts. The PLO was at first the only voice for Palestine but when Arafat started getting to chummy with the US and Israel otehr factions sprung up. Exactly who should we talk to?

Who should be met with?

"We'd like to invite all the terrorists to meet with us at the local stadium so we can hash things out."

 

Kind of like the police sending out letters to wanted criminals saying that they won a prize and just need to show up at a certain location to receive it.

The American idea of "too good to talk to you" is growing tiresome. Would the other nations gain a greater bit of respect toward the United States if we would simply speak with them, instead of constant threat rhetoric and bombing?

 

I'm not saying it would work and of course Chamberlain was unsuccessful with Hitler. But I'm not sure the "bomb them into submission" plan has been very effective either.

 

I don't really care if "they" respect us or not---why should we care what "they" think? They are terrorists for goodness sake. Radical Muslim Terrorists listen to no one ---- we are infidels to them and they have pronounced Jihad on the West. Bushes comparison was right on.

Wait a second. Didn't the Bush administration negotiate with North Korea (a rogue state and a charter member of the so-called "axis of evil") as part of the Six-Party Talks? Yes, I believe it did:

 

Bush offers North Korea a deal

 

Is this a case of do as I say, not as I do?

No because North Korea is a government. The terrorist factions are just groups of thugs who will turn on one another as soon as they perceive weakness from their own.

No because North Korea is a government. The terrorist factions are just groups of thugs who will turn on one another as soon as they perceive weakness from their own.

 

I believe Obama has said he is open to talking to the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. Has he said he is willing to have talks with 'terrorists'?

I believe Obama has said he is open to talking to the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. Has he said he is willing to have talks with 'terrorists'?

Iran is actively supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Iran has called for our destruction and regularly chants "Death to America!" at government gatherings.

 

Funny that you should mention North Korea. The Bush administration demanded a concession from the North Koreans before agreeing to meet with them. The North Koreans demanded bi-lateral talks and Bush demanded the involvement of nations such as China that exercise some influence over the North Koreans. North Korea relented and Bush sent a team of negotiators.

 

Obama offered the immediate legitimacy of direct presidential negotiations with North Korea and Iran with no preconditions. The promise that he made during the debates was foolish, irresponsible, and just plain bad diplomacy.

I believe Obama has said he is open to talking to the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. Has he said he is willing to have talks with 'terrorists'?

 

Then why did he ASSUME Bush was referring to him? I don't believe Bush mentioned any names at all.

I believe Obama has said he is open to talking to the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. Has he said he is willing to have talks with 'terrorists'?

 

Of course not but that won't stop posters on the internet from claiming he did.

Iran's president is a terrorist. He has experience in both kidnapping and assassination. Unfortunately, he has no personal experience in suicide bombings.

The American idea of "too good to talk to you" is growing tiresome. Would the other nations gain a greater bit of respect toward the United States if we would simply speak with them, instead of constant threat rhetoric and bombing?

 

I'm not saying it would work and of course Chamberlain was unsuccessful with Hitler. But I'm not sure the "bomb them into submission" plan has been very effective either.

 

Do you really think talking to people who cut off the heads of living humans will be beneficial? Or talking to heads of state that wish to commit genocide will be beneficial?

Do you really think talking to people who cut off the heads of living humans will be beneficial? Or talking to heads of state that wish to commit genocide will be beneficial?

Don't forget honor killings, where male family members kill wives, daughters, and sisters for allowing themselves to be raped to restore the family honor.

Iran is actively supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Iran has called for our destruction and regularly chants "Death to America!" at government gatherings.

 

Funny that you should mention North Korea. The Bush administration demanded a concession from the North Koreans before agreeing to meet with them. The North Koreans demanded bi-lateral talks and Bush demanded the involvement of nations such as China that exercise some influence over the North Koreans. North Korea relented and Bush sent a team of negotiators.

 

Obama offered the immediate legitimacy of direct presidential negotiations with North Korea and Iran with no preconditions. The promise that he made during the debates was foolish, irresponsible, and just plain bad diplomacy.

 

 

I've got a little secret for you: just about every bloody country in the Middle East is involved in the support of terrorist groups to one degree or another. And some of these countries are ostensibly considered our close allies in the region. Saudi Arabia was more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks in terms of providing financing and manpower than any other country in the world. Saudi Arabia has had a continuous role in supporting destabilizing terrorism within Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Read for yourself:

 

The Saudi Connection--In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support.

 

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks

 

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

 

So please, before you feign shock and disgust at the notion of opening a dialogue with countries such as Iran because you say they sponsor terrorism, why don't we at least be honest with ourselves? If merely talking to the Iranians should be so off limits by your way of thinking, shouldn't we similarly give the cold shoulder to the Saudis? Maybe we should even refuse to buy their oil. :eek:

 

 

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you will employ to explain that double standard.

I've got a little secret for you: just about every bloody country in the Middle East is involved in the support of terrorist groups to one degree or another. And some of these countries are ostensibly considered our close allies in the region. Saudi Arabia was more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks in terms of providing financing and manpower than any other country in the world. Saudi Arabia has had a continuous role in supporting destabilizing terrorism within Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Read for yourself:

 

The Saudi Connection--In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support.

 

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks

 

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

 

So please, before you feign shock and disgust at the notion of opening a dialogue with countries such as Iran because you say they sponsor terrorism, why don't we at least be honest with ourselves? If merely talking to the Iranians should be so off limits by your way of thinking, shouldn't we similarly give the cold shoulder to the Saudis? Maybe we should even refuse to buy their oil. :eek:

 

 

 

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you will employ to explain that double standard.

 

 

 

 

Good...real good! No need to even add anything to that!:thumb:

I've got a little secret for you: just about every bloody country in the Middle East is involved in the support of terrorist groups to one degree or another. And some of these countries are ostensibly considered our close allies in the region. Saudi Arabia was more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks in terms of providing financing and manpower than any other country in the world. Saudi Arabia has had a continuous role in supporting destabilizing terrorism within Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Read for yourself:

 

The Saudi Connection--In Iraq and elsewhere, terrorism thrives with Saudi support.

 

Saudi Arabia remains the world's leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks

 

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

 

So please, before you feign shock and disgust at the notion of opening a dialogue with countries such as Iran because you say they sponsor terrorism, why don't we at least be honest with ourselves? If merely talking to the Iranians should be so off limits by your way of thinking, shouldn't we similarly give the cold shoulder to the Saudis? Maybe we should even refuse to buy their oil. :eek:

 

 

I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you will employ to explain that double standard.

 

 

 

:thumb: :thumb::thumb: