Negotiating with the "Enemy"

Post Reply New Topic

After listening to excerpts of Bush's speech, I'm curious to know how many of you agree or disagree with his position.

I was kind of waiting for someone to post this.

My view is that, as long as the leadership sufficiently demonstrates that
they have a sincere interest in peace, we should talk with them.
I stand firmly by that precusor, though.
Just as an example, if, say, they can't stop shouting "Death to Israel", or "Death to America"
for at least a few months straight, then I'd say they're not really in the we-want-peace catagory yet.

Peace is not settling down happily with another country, but, in international politics, at least, a policy of 'agree to disagree'. Bush's comments are rich, given that his gramps banked for the Nazis.

I think the United States should initiate war with any country that does not pledge and demonstrate absolute cooperation from it's leaders and citizenry with every requirement of American security.

The USA should not be hesitant to use its arsenal of of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (which we researched, developed, paid for, and built). No external entities should have any authority over our methods or means of managing our security.

This is the only way to keep America safe.

Kennedy was weak by talking to the Russians. If he hadn't appeased them the Cold War wouldn't have happened. He should've pushed the button. I'd rather have died than live knowing I'd created a panty-waisted do-nothing situation like the Cold War. Stalemates are for losers and whimps. There are reasons we worked out nuclear war scenarios during that time -- we were just too weak-minded to implement them.

"When out-matched, negotiate" says Sun Tzu. The only reasons our enemies negotiate is to stall for time. You can never trust them. They will always want to kill us and if they say otherwise they are lying. There is no other conceptualization that guarantees survival. You must always kill, or at least subjugate your enemies. That is what they are for, and why they are your enemy.


* neocon satire mode: powering down *

Generally, people that don't want to listen, don't.

To talk is to challenge, to appease is to give ground.
I am all for the former and totally against the latter.

Talking with Hitler (or whoever else): YES
Appeasing Hitler by giving him half of Czechoslovakia to try and avoid war: NO

Talk = good
Appeasement = bad

Bush fails to make the distinction at all.

To try and solve problems with out talking is less than sensible.

Poland was invaded by both Hitler and Stalin simultaneously.

Most political arguments these days end with: "How would you like it if you were killed by the Nazis?"

who makes the nazis?