Russia threatens Poland with nukes.

[rn79870]

I think there's a wholesale misperception on the part of the Obamallamas that we "shoot first, ask questions later".

Not true, and a dangerous (and dumb) assumption.

Isn't that what we did in Iraq. Didn't we shoot first, only to find out that the reasons for shooting were not valid. That's what I call shoot first, ask questions later. That's SOP for the McWar camp though.

[AZhitman]

Isn't that what we did in Iraq. Didn't we shoot first, only to find out that the reasons for shooting were not valid. That's what I call shoot first, ask questions later. That's SOP for the McWar camp though.

Sure. At least that's the general perception.

That's why there was nearly unilateral support early on for our actions.

Did we act on bad intel? Yep. Did we maybe jump the gun? Yep. Could we have found an alternative? Sure.

Know what all those questions rely on? Hindsight. At the time, we didn't know then what we know now.

__________________________________________

I don't share your dismal and possibly inaccurate appraisal of J-Mac's "SOP".

Especially when his opponent says, "I'd talk to them" but has no experience in negotiations of this magnitude. Saying you'd do something, and then getting your butt handed to you when you fail ruins your credibility, but more importantly, exposes millions to unnecessary risk.

All I'm saying is that the issue is much more complex and it's ignorant to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

[rn79870]

We've got more lessons in hindsight than most countries. What we need now is a leader cognizant of what that hindsight has taught us.

I don't share your dismal and possibly inaccurate appraisal of J-Mac's "SOP".

Especially when his opponent says, "I'd talk to them" but has no experience in negotiations of this magnitude. Saying you'd do something, and then getting your butt handed to you when you fail ruins your credibility, but more importantly, exposes millions to unnecessary risk.

All I'm saying is that the issue is much more complex and it's ignorant to paint everyone with the same broad brush.

See, that's the beauty of negotiate first and shoot last. We always have the second option when the first fails. But when we do it the republican way, we lose the option of a peaceful, non violent resolution.

[96Qowner]

I don't share your dismal and possibly inaccurate appraisal of J-Mac's "SOP".

Especially when his opponent says, "I'd talk to them" but has no experience in negotiations of this magnitude. Saying you'd do something, and then getting your butt handed to you when you fail ruins your credibility, but more importantly, exposes millions to unnecessary risk.

President Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollahs of Iran come to mind.

See, that's the beauty of negotiate first and shoot last.

We negotiated in Iraq for 10 years. Is that the case you're referring to? The proponents of negotiating never actually say how long we should continue to negotiate before taking forceful measures.

Again, I ask: If negotiating is so swell, point to the successes.

[OriginalWheelman]

claptrap edited out by mod...

[AZhitman]

See, that's the beauty of negotiate first and shoot last. We always have the second option when the first fails. But when we do it the republican way, we lose the option of a peaceful, non violent resolution.

It's unbelieveable how you cling to these deluded definitions that you've arrayed in your mind... as if it's SO black and white... as if we DIDN'T discuss first.

There's where you're wrong. We DID "negotiate".

...I'm not coming at this from a partisan viewpoint... and I think thats why my point has been made time and time again.

And no, we don't have "more lessons in hindsight than most countries". We're a young country WITHOUT centuries of history to draw upon.

How many civil wars have we experienced? Compare that with other nations. How many gloal conflicts have we initiated? Compare that with other nations. How many revolutions? Uprisings? Rebellions?

[rn79870]

******

Ah, your off topic juvenile post got edited. I'll bet it happens every time until you grow up and post like an adult.

[rn79870]

We negotiated in Iraq for 10 years. Is that the case you're referring to? The proponents of negotiating never actually say how long we should continue to negotiate before taking forceful measures.

You call threats and saber rattling "negotiation." You call "accept my position or we'll invade" negotiation? You call "resign and leave Iraq by next week" open minded negotiation? It's more like backing someone into a corner and offering them no way out, then complaining when they don't move fast enough.

What is Negotiation? In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem.

No where does it use the word "ultimatum" or the phrase "or else." Those aren't terms found anywhere but in the vocabulary of a school yard bully.

[AZhitman]

The more I think about this, the more I think I understand WHY you'd think in such restrictive terms...

I think you mis-comprehend the concept of negotiations and diplomacy, and have bought into the "shiny happy rhetoric" that BO is slathering on for effect.

"Negotiation" does not always involve letting the other person have everything they want.

Sometimes, it means they don't get ANYTHING they want... except when it involves avoidance of a consequence, which they ultimately DO want, if they'd considered it in their "wish list".

Negotiation is generally ineffective when one side is irrational, or has irrational demands. Many have nothing to lose... they're not a good candidate for a discussion over tea and crumpets.

Negotiation with an entity that has nothing to offer is not negotiation. Negotiating with a leader whose regime espouses violence and terror gives them a legitimacy by virtue of their participation in said discussions.

Negotiation implies that both parties are INVESTED. Many of the regimes that Obamalamadingdong wants to "negotiate" with have been unable to achieve their goals through democratic means. The PROPER thing to do in this case is demand that countries abandon violent means and cease acts of terrorism BEFORE negotiations can even be considered.

[rn79870]

You're missing my point. When you hold a gun to someones head, it really isn't negotiation, even though the government would like you to believe that. Perhaps if the US stopped negotiating as a parent does with a child, though might be different.

[AZhitman]

I caught your point. Perhaps, then, negotiations aren't really needed at all?

Many of the regimes that Obamalamadingdong wants to "negotiate" with have been unable to achieve their goals through democratic means. The PROPER thing to do in this case is demand that countries abandon violent means and cease acts of terrorism BEFORE negotiations can even be considered.

Negotiations begin AFTER the regime ceases the activity that brought them to attention in the first place.

Let me give an example:

You're a hostage negotiator, and you're needed at the local bank, where an armed robber has threatened cutting the throats of his hostages, one per hour, on the hour.

FIRST rule is, he does not pick up the knife again, or he's dead. Period. That is NOT up for negotiation.

Now, once he says, "OK, no more knife", then the talking can start. He wants a double cheeseburger and Diet Coke, fine. But 2 hostages get to leave. He wants a getaway car, fine. But 5 hostages get to leave. He wants to call his mama and tell her he's sorry? Cool. Here's my celll phone. He wants a helicopter? Nope. Not gonna happen, buddy. Sorry. He wants to turn himself in, but wants to exit the building without any press? Fine. We can do that for you.

Negotiation is not without limitations.

[96Qowner]

And I suspect he would just shine you on, if there was no threat of force.

[rn79870]

Negotiations begin AFTER the regime ceases the activity

How can you put a condition on negotiations and not call it an ultimatum?(Speaking in the sense of international negotiations.) We have intervened many times where our right to intervene is questionable. Then we threaten the other side with force if they don't capitulate. That's not negotiating, that's bullying. That's part of the change we want in Washington. Force should be the very last option, and then only when the US citizens or US interests are in jeopardy.

Cops don't negotiate, they can't. They are required to immediately assert control over a situation and complete their duty. Cops are not good examples for negotiators.

[AZhitman]

Cops don't negotiate, they can't. They are required to immediately assert control over a situation and complete their duty. Cops are not good examples for negotiators.

And you'd be incorrect there. Criminal Justice 101: Discretion. It's the most valuable weapon in a LEO's belt, and it's what seperates the best from the rest.

[AZhitman]

How can you put a condition on negotiations and not call it an ultimatum?(Speaking in the sense of international negotiations.) We have intervened many times where our right to intervene is questionable. Then we threaten the other side with force if they don't capitulate. That's not negotiating, that's bullying. That's part of the change we want in Washington. Force should be the very last option, and then only when the US citizens or US interests are in jeopardy.

Remind me not to look for you if I'm getting jumped by multiple opponents.

It's not bullying if you're taking out a bully.

You go ahead and negotiate with terrorists and see how far you get - Just don't include me in the "we" that wants THAT kind of change in my Commander-in-Chief.

p.s. Anytime there is a threat to democracy or human rights are at stake, our interests are in jeopardy. France or Switzerland might be a more appropriate residence for you.

[AZhitman]

And I suspect he would just shine you on, if there was no threat of force.

Exactly.

Someone pass him a mirror so he can see the array of red dots on his center of mass...

[rn79870]

Remind me not to look for you if I'm getting jumped by multiple opponents.

It's not bullying if you're taking out a bully.

You go ahead and negotiate with terrorists and see how far you get - Just don't include me in the "we" that wants THAT kind of change in my Commander-in-Chief.

p.s. Anytime there is a threat to democracy or human rights are at stake, our interests are in jeopardy. France or Switzerland might be a more appropriate residence for you.

Let me ask you this. Is a terrorlst a terrorlst or a freedom fighter? It all depends on which side of the fence you're on. Maybe there wouldn't be a fence if there was more dialog between the parties.

I'm heading out to the beach now for a little photo enhanced cruise in the 09 Mustang vert (thanks Avis). I'll be back later.

[AZhitman]

Let me ask you this. Is a terrorlst a terrorlst or a freedom fighter?

Don't get all Che Guevara on me, Mister.

If you're asking me whether Mohammed Atta was a "freedom fighter", I'd defer to the innocent victims of September 11, 2001.

Ever see "The Patriot"? That's a "freedom fighter".

There's no negotiating with those who kill innocents. Once they start lopping off the heads of journalsts on video, persecuting nonbelievers and "infidels", kidnapping contractors, and indiscriminately blowing up citizens on buses and in the market, their contribution to meaningful dialogue drops to zero.

This applies to

[rn79870]

Sure, in hindsight they were terrorlst. Had we been involved in a policy of looking and listening prior to 911 things might have turned out differently. I don't know. Why is it that the world sees GW as an out of control cowboy? Why is it that much of the ME feels that the US is so far beyond reason that there is no option left but "terrorism." Did we contribute to any of that? Simply put, the current plan of shoot first ask questions later isn't the best plan of action. Maybe "change" isn't so bad after all. Maybe change will address some of these issues. I don't see that our current policies are all that successful.

[96Qowner]

Simply put, the current plan of shoot first ask questions later isn't the best plan of action.

Straw Man. That hasn't been the plan, and you've yet to show that it was, or that negotiating endlessly actually works.

[rn79870]

Shall we start with Vietnam of go straight to Iraq. We put a gun to Saddam's head and told him to get rid of his WMDs. When we didn't see truckloads of WMDs leaving Iraq we assumed he wasn't complying. Then we gave him the option of leaving his country or we'd send in the troops. That's negotiation? Is it at all possible that a little negotiation along with a regular observation might have saved us from participating in a moral and strategic disaster?

I think you're all too involved in McWar's "beat them down until they surrender" policies (then negotiate after we've destroyed them) to realize that just maybe the US isn't in the high road here. After all, there might be a better way.

[rn79870]

96 consider this...

Conflicts become ripe for negotiation in a variety of ways. Generally, the relative power of the two sides must be clearly understood. If both sides think that they are more powerful than the other, and that they can prevail in a power struggle without incurring excessive costs, they are likely to pursue that struggle, rather than negotiate. If negotiation is suggested at such a time, it is likely to be refused, or if it is tried, it is likely to fail, unless it results in an agreement that is better than the one any side could attain otherwise.

Sound familiar...shoot first, negotiate later...

If the parties know who is more powerful (and they generally agree), then they can usually negotiate a settlement that corresponds to the relative power structure at less cost than it would take to obtain a settlement using a power-based approach. (Power-based approaches might include military contests, nonviolent action, political action, or litigation.) Conflicts also often become ripe when both sides come to realize that they cannot prevail through a power struggle--when they have reached a stalemate, which is costing a lot and gaining little or nothing. Then they will usually be willing to sit down and negotiate a settlement, though they were not willing to do so before.

Sounds like the US has failed at understand this...

Sometimes a change of negotiators will make a conflict ripe for negotiation, as new people often come in with fresh ideas and lack the negative stereotypes and emotions of earlier negotiators. A change in external circumstances which affects one or both parties' ability to wage the battle can change the situation, as can an approaching deadline. (Labor contract negotiations can drag on for a long time, until the contract is about to expire and a strike deadline looms just ahead. The threat of an imminent strike can make the dispute ripe for resolution when it was not before.)

Change of negotiators...I think that's what many of us have been saying.quoted from...http://www.colorado.edu/confli...e.htm

[srellim234]

Didn't the Irish Republican Army lay down weapons and stop the terrorism after negotiation?

[sr20deTsomeday118]

It's not bullying if you're taking out a bully.

i think its more like a 6'0'' tall bully(US) trying to cut their beef with a bully from the school of midgets. That's all i really see America as. We seem to attack anything and everything regardless of anyone else's viewpoints on the matter.

i dont really think we have the right to go into other countries and try to change who they are. I believe that negotiations are always possible, even with the most hotheaded of leaders, but on the same hand the US sees the word negotiation as a way to bully someone around and back them into a corner. I think this is what Bush has shown America he is capable of doing time and time again. It just seems as though he finally got the best job in the world where nobody can bully him and he is just being stupid with power.

I think Bush's definition of negotiation is alot different than the rest of the world( as are the definitions of many other things, but that is for another topic ) he believes that as long as he(and America) are in power then we win...yay...wrong as long as we keep stepping our foot in the wrong door then we will always be the big guy to take a swing at, leaving us vulnerable in every direction.

If our government thinks that just because everyone laughs, smiles, and shakes our hands that we are all friends here...wrong. There are people in high places that would easily turn their heads on(our ways) for the right amount of money/power.

Didn't the Irish Republican Army lay down weapons and stop the terrorism after negotiation?

yes yes they did but only after guerrilla warfare with the british for 2 years.(amoslt like all of the current fighting in the Middle East) maybe they just took a lesson from history and are awaiting the negotiations from America. I mean honestly, at some point in time aren't people just going to get fed up with our troops dying over there. What are we even accomplishing anymore??

[Soravia]

Well, let's get things straight.

US NEEDS allies in Mid East. Don't say we don't. What are all our trucks (economy back bone) running on? Ethanol?

Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, etc are good allies, but small fries without power. If China or Russia gets a good face with Iraq, Iran oil, there's so much more to lose for US.

The Iraq war was a necessity. I support it, both for US and Iraqi people. The war was done fabulously. Not because of President Bush, but the generals. AFTER the war, the civil unrest and the terrorlst were NOT for the military to handle. President Bush did not have the capacity and fore-sight for it. That's where people lost faith. They were quick to rally behind him and quick to blame him too. Well the man wasn't that smart anyway, can't blame it all on him.

That's the situation we're in now. As soon as US pulls out of Iraq, Al Qaeda will take over and Russians will have excuse to come in, kick their asses and take over the country. Russians can always say that Al Qaeda in Iraq is contributing to Chechnyan rebels.

Iran maybe sanctioned now, meaning they can't be Chinese, Russian allies. But as soon as US leaves Iraq, they will come to power in middle east and no one will stop them from dealing with the rest of the world. Nukes help too.

So not only US loses Iraq, they will lose the entire middle east.

As for Poland, the war is as good as done. The only question is, how it will come out. Will it be a war of words and give them up for Russians or have a regional war and fight over them? Because Russians are prepared to go all the way on this. They did not put down 1,500 tanks next to Georgia for fun. That cost them tens of millions of dollars.

If the Russians were reminded that US is not so weak, they will attempt to reconsider the situation and try to focus again on their economy. They have been having Budget surplus since Putin got into power.If they see US blink, they will take the world one piece at a time. Putin is not going to haste like Hitler, he's a lot smarter.

[AZhitman]

Unfortunately, the Left doesn't see the global "big picture", nor do they recognize that global strategic interests sometimes involve complex maneuvering that the lay person doesn't really comprehend.

[rn79870]

Much can also be said about the "big picture" the right sees, complete with goblins, spooks, gremlins and ghosts.

[heliochrome85]

and those ever elusive Iraqi WMDs...

[Cold_Zero]

Which are now in Syria.

Btw Helio,Did they pass any out to you yet?bud

[heliochrome85]

nope not yet. it being a socialist country, im sure there will be a coupon program for the proper and uniform distribution of these weapons.