Talking to our enemies may not solve every problem, but not talking to them can give off two different, and both untrue, illusions about our country. One is that we are afraid to speak to them, empowering our enemies and giving them the feeling they've won. Two is that we could seem like we are just too powerful and mighty to speak to our enemies about our problems and pure intimidation and force is our means of communication. Either way, these are the reasons our country has lost many supporters around the world and is looked at as a wealthy, arrogant country. I would have to disagree with Bush and agree with PRESIDENT Obama.
Iam going with dave over here I think that not even concidering some peace talks is cowardice and arrogance. Mr. Bush if you don't want peace why don't you nuke the place it be the same thing.
Mr. Bush just because your an arrogant slob doesn't mean the rest of the country is so, go back to your little hick ranch and give the job to someone better OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!!!!!!
I agree with Dave and also look at who his audience is. Of course the Israelis are going to applaud him, he just brought back WW2 and Hitler, no one can look bad bashing Hitler. Being the descendents of the Holocaust survivors of course the Israelis will agree with him because I'm sure they would love to just nuke anyone who threatens their way of life.
First off, dave meradith, i do not support your arugment in the least bit. Websters dictionary defines terrorism as:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
So given that terrorism is a destructive force towards government meant to pass their own ideas of extremism and radicalism, I feel we have no need to talk and negotiate with terrorists. They use unnessecary violence. Look at the bombings in Madrid, London, the first world trade center bombing, the second world trade center bombing, and countless others. What deems this violence as alright? nothing does, which is why they are not recognized as a legitimate institution. Were past the point of negotiating, and even if we negotiated with terrorists noting is going to shake their extremist ideas. This would also be a form of appeasement, which is the original cause of World War I. We shouldn't make that same mistake again. No negotiations whatsoever. For these reasons i support President Bush.
What exactly would talking with terrorists do? Sure we can say that we are working to find an understanding but how can you find common ground with someone who despises you and everything that you stand for. There is only one thing these people understand and that is force. No, not necessarily military force. There are also economic forces and forces from within their nations. There is not nationwide approval for the Iranian government. They have just managed to squash it thus far. So maybe we should work to change these nations by working with those who like us and those who do not simply want us all to die.
I don't really see where talking to the 'terrorists' would help. The people of these countries may wish to rectify the relationship with the United States, but their officials have other ideas.
The problem is plain and simple: We are two separate countries fighting for what we believe is right. Add in some strong religious beliefs and America's trust in our constitution and we have a problem. Our cultures clash, and there is not much that can change that.
Poncho villa, I see where you are coming from, but you are not very informed when it comes to this issue. I'm glad you can access the internet and locate the definition of a word, but that did not further anybodys intelligence. Talking with terrorists is not just to tell them they need to stop. It is a way to try to negotiate and soothe the American people. By trying to negotiate we can maybe come to terms with the terrorists and stop the violence. At the same time, it tells the people of our country that we are here to defend our country protecting them from their thinking of being attacked again by terrorists. You are right; nothing deems this violence as alright. But who are we to say that their acts of violence are equal and opposite to our violence back at them? So they attack us. Then we decide, no more. We will retaliate. So we do. Do you expect that to be the end of it? If yes, then you are terribly naive. If no, then you can safely assume that they will want revenge on us. They attack us, we attack them. This is called war, a war on terrorism. Is this much different then what is going on today? Where has that gotten us? We kill thousands of terrorists. In the process, we lose thousands of lives. Why not give the option of negotiation a shot and try to save thousands of lives? A great man once said, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." That man was JFK. By not even attempting negotiations, you are promoting war, and by promoting war, I'm sure from that quote you can conclude you are putting an end to mankind. ~Obama for president~
We have tried negotiating with countries that supported terrorism. We told Hussein to stop their nuclear program and what not. They did not. We told them they had 3 months before we sent in the Military. They did not. And so we did what we said we were going to do.
Negotiating should always be the first thing done. If it does not work, like in Iraq, then military force is an acceptable answer.
I have the feeling that after we deal with Iraq, Iran will be a serious problem. The Islamist want nuclear weapons. They are not as sane as U.S. presidents or Soviet Union leaders. We at least understood if we launce a nuke, there would be a nuclear holocaust and everyone would die. Quite frankly, the Islamists do not care.
So, we will ask them to stop building nukes. They will continue. We will tell them they have a certain amount of time before we use military force. They won't halt their programs. Then we will follow through on what we said.
Obama is very naive. He just expects that Iran and the U.S. can negotiate. He just does not seem to see that their government just does not like us and they want to destroy us. The only negotion they will accept is one that involves the demise of the United States of America. One I hope no U.S. president accepts.
As far as President Bush in Knesset, he was explaining his policies. They were not aimed at anyone. It has always been the policy of the United States to not negotiate with terrorist. We do not give in to the demands of terrorists. Mr. Bush's link with Hitler was a great metaphor. I couldn't explain it any better. He was just saying why the policy is what it is.
Again, Obama was naive. Since he does not agree with the policy, he felt it was aimed at him. If Mr. Bush wanted it aimed at Obama, he would have said "Others, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama..." Obama is not the only person who disagrees. Dub-yah was talking about all those who disagree as one collective group.
Davemeradith how exactly are we supposed to come to terms with people who do not even live in our country? We are not talking about dealing with the ETA in Spain, the Chechens in Russia, or any other separatist group. These are people who are not within our borders and hate us for a very different set of reasons.
Yes, you may argue that they attack us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia but the problem with Islamic terrorists goes much further than that. People need to remember that these same peoples invaded Europe many times throughout history. From the Moors in Spain to the many attempted Ottoman invasions western civilization has constantly fought off militant Islam.
Talking with these terrorists will not do anything. They hate us in many cases because we are secular and do not believe like them. It is impossible to negotiate with them as they are not trying to achieve their goals peaceably, but rather through force. How exactly do you negotiate with someone who is shooting at you?
Also, I would like to note the hypocrisy of decrying the loss of thousands of American soldiers while you are supporting Obama. He is a man who has opposed the criminalization of the killing of babies who have managed to survive abortions. If you are not sure of what this would be called I can supply the correct word for you: infanticide. So maybe you should reconsider your support for a man who is a supporter of greatest mass murder in the history of the world.
Well What if, from that well thought out rant, you achieved next to nothing. I love the fact that everyone trying to oppose me so far tries to prop up their arguments with useless information and by getting off subject. Some of you have actually made a valid point. Most of you have made a fool out of yourself by saying nothing in your writing except that negotiations with terrorists are bad. You took a paragraph explaining they aren’t inside of our borders, another explaining westerners have constantly been fighting militant Islam, and you reiterated the fact that you believe it is impossible to negotiate with them. The best though had to be the last paragraph. Trying to display your knowledge by attempting to alter the focus and shift the attention from foreign policy to a set of personal beliefs. By comparing the deaths of soldiers to the aborted babies, it just showed how desperate for information you really are. Well let me be the first to enlighten you. Because we don’t talk with terrorists, Saddam Hussein became the maniacal leader he was. Saddam Hussein was put into power in Iraq then given weapons from the U.S. He was then urged by the U.S. to attack Iran. We also turned our cheek when Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on Iran because the Shah was taken from power and replaced by the Ayatollah. Hussein was a pathetic military general and went in debt to the Kuwaitis because the war with Iran lasted a decade. Hussein thought it easiest just to invade Kuwait to avoid paying them back. So let me explain this through some Q&A’s. ~Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? He was in debt to them. Why was he in debt to them? There was a decade long war with Iran. Why was he in a decade long war with Iran? The U.S. gave him weapons and urged him to attack Iran. Why did we give him weapons and urge him to attack Iran? The Iranian leader of our choice was removed by a popular revolution. Why was the leader of our choice removed? The Iranian people did not want him there. Why didn't we just ask the Iranian people who they wanted in the beginning? The U.S. doesn’t talk with terrorists. Isn't getting a majority of people to agree on their leader like a democracy? That’s exactly what it is, but not if the U.S. doesn’t like the outcome. Then it's a dictatorship.~ Our country would be ignorant not to negotiate. As for your inaccurate depiction of President Obama, we’ll let that one go. I don’t feel like demoralizing you any further, especially right before the end of the year. Blogging has been fun. This will be my last post. I’d like to thank Mr. Keller for getting me involved, even if it was at the very end of the year. I feel confident that I have dominated every opponent to challenge me. Maybe next year I’ll join the debate team… *Vote Obama*
Thank you for that egotistical, self-adulating, utterly worthless post of yours. I only hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Enough about you personally though and on to your inane remarks:
First of all when the Shah fell in Iran the government which came to power was not full of terrorists. They were anti-western and anti-United States and they were revolutionaries. To label them as terrorists would be to do the same to the American revolutionaries. Just because you oppose or do not like the United States does not mean you are automatically called a terrorist. See our relationship with China and Russia if you need examples.
Because you falsely characterize the Iranian government as terrorists during the 1980s your "examples" fall on their face. In fact I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Yes, we supported Iraq in the war against Iran. Yes, we gave weapons to Iraq. Yes, I agree we should not have done this but it has nothing to do with talking with terrorists. Saddam Hussein murdered his own people and we talked with him. (We were also allies with Josef Stalin for a time too if you’ll remember).
You then proceed to ramble on self-righteously about how the US should negotiate with the Iranian government because somehow this is the government the people want. How exactly does this relate? The Iran government is elected, but as you should know from class not just anyone can run. It is not a true democracy as there are not free elections so even now we would not be truly talking with the Iranian people. The only way to truly talk with the Iranian people would be to invade Iran and form a true democracy there and I doubt anyone really wants to do that.
As for my "inaccurate depiction of President Obama" I have a few pieces of information you might enjoy.
While serving as an Illinois state senator in 2001 Obama opposed a bill which mirrored the federally passed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The federal version of this bill was passed unanimously in the Senate and it criminalized the action of murdering babies who had managed to survive an abortion and were outside of the womb and breathing.
Obama opposed such a bill in Illinois by saying that to support it would be to weaken a women's right to abortion. In short he is saying that an innocent baby should be murdered so that abortion rights will not be weakened.
I would point out that foreign and domestic policies are very much related. If you can not be counted on to defend the lives of the innocent within your own country how can you expect to have any credibility in the world?
Also, please don't cry when Obama is defeated in the general election. How exactly is someone who is getting crushed in primary after primary going to win the general election? How is someone who is can’t even get a third of the popular vote in these states supposed to win? How is someone who is an out of touch, elitist snob who can’t relate in any way to the American people supposed to win? Answer to all of them? He won’t.
11 comments:
Talking to our enemies may not solve every problem, but not talking to them can give off two different, and both untrue, illusions about our country. One is that we are afraid to speak to them, empowering our enemies and giving them the feeling they've won. Two is that we could seem like we are just too powerful and mighty to speak to our enemies about our problems and pure intimidation and force is our means of communication. Either way, these are the reasons our country has lost many supporters around the world and is looked at as a wealthy, arrogant country. I would have to disagree with Bush and agree with PRESIDENT Obama.
Iam going with dave over here I think that not even concidering some peace talks is cowardice and arrogance. Mr. Bush if you don't want peace why don't you nuke the place it be the same thing.
Mr. Bush just because your an arrogant slob doesn't mean the rest of the country is so, go back to your little hick ranch and give the job to someone better OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!!!!!!
I agree with Dave and also look at who his audience is. Of course the Israelis are going to applaud him, he just brought back WW2 and Hitler, no one can look bad bashing Hitler. Being the descendents of the Holocaust survivors of course the Israelis will agree with him because I'm sure they would love to just nuke anyone who threatens their way of life.
First off, dave meradith, i do not support your arugment in the least bit. Websters dictionary defines terrorism as:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
So given that terrorism is a destructive force towards government meant to pass their own ideas of extremism and radicalism, I feel we have no need to talk and negotiate with terrorists. They use unnessecary violence. Look at the bombings in Madrid, London, the first world trade center bombing, the second world trade center bombing, and countless others. What deems this violence as alright? nothing does, which is why they are not recognized as a legitimate institution. Were past the point of negotiating, and even if we negotiated with terrorists noting is going to shake their extremist ideas. This would also be a form of appeasement, which is the original cause of World War I. We shouldn't make that same mistake again. No negotiations whatsoever. For these reasons i support President Bush.
What exactly would talking with terrorists do? Sure we can say that we are working to find an understanding but how can you find common ground with someone who despises you and everything that you stand for.
There is only one thing these people understand and that is force. No, not necessarily military force. There are also economic forces and forces from within their nations. There is not nationwide approval for the Iranian government. They have just managed to squash it thus far. So maybe we should work to change these nations by working with those who like us and those who do not simply want us all to die.
I don't really see where talking to the 'terrorists' would help. The people of these countries may wish to rectify the relationship with the United States, but their officials have other ideas.
The problem is plain and simple: We are two separate countries fighting for what we believe is right. Add in some strong religious beliefs and America's trust in our constitution and we have a problem. Our cultures clash, and there is not much that can change that.
Poncho villa, I see where you are coming from, but you are not very informed when it comes to this issue. I'm glad you can access the internet and locate the definition of a word, but that did not further anybodys intelligence. Talking with terrorists is not just to tell them they need to stop. It is a way to try to negotiate and soothe the American people. By trying to negotiate we can maybe come to terms with the terrorists and stop the violence. At the same time, it tells the people of our country that we are here to defend our country protecting them from their thinking of being attacked again by terrorists. You are right; nothing deems this violence as alright. But who are we to say that their acts of violence are equal and opposite to our violence back at them? So they attack us. Then we decide, no more. We will retaliate. So we do. Do you expect that to be the end of it? If yes, then you are terribly naive. If no, then you can safely assume that they will want revenge on us. They attack us, we attack them. This is called war, a war on terrorism. Is this much different then what is going on today? Where has that gotten us? We kill thousands of terrorists. In the process, we lose thousands of lives. Why not give the option of negotiation a shot and try to save thousands of lives? A great man once said, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." That man was JFK. By not even attempting negotiations, you are promoting war, and by promoting war, I'm sure from that quote you can conclude you are putting an end to mankind. ~Obama for president~
We have tried negotiating with countries that supported terrorism. We told Hussein to stop their nuclear program and what not. They did not. We told them they had 3 months before we sent in the Military. They did not. And so we did what we said we were going to do.
Negotiating should always be the first thing done. If it does not work, like in Iraq, then military force is an acceptable answer.
I have the feeling that after we deal with Iraq, Iran will be a serious problem. The Islamist want nuclear weapons. They are not as sane as U.S. presidents or Soviet Union leaders. We at least understood if we launce a nuke, there would be a nuclear holocaust and everyone would die. Quite frankly, the Islamists do not care.
So, we will ask them to stop building nukes. They will continue. We will tell them they have a certain amount of time before we use military force. They won't halt their programs. Then we will follow through on what we said.
Obama is very naive. He just expects that Iran and the U.S. can negotiate. He just does not seem to see that their government just does not like us and they want to destroy us. The only negotion they will accept is one that involves the demise of the United States of America. One I hope no U.S. president accepts.
As far as President Bush in Knesset, he was explaining his policies. They were not aimed at anyone. It has always been the policy of the United States to not negotiate with terrorist. We do not give in to the demands of terrorists. Mr. Bush's link with Hitler was a great metaphor. I couldn't explain it any better. He was just saying why the policy is what it is.
Again, Obama was naive. Since he does not agree with the policy, he felt it was aimed at him. If Mr. Bush wanted it aimed at Obama, he would have said "Others, including presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama..." Obama is not the only person who disagrees. Dub-yah was talking about all those who disagree as one collective group.
Davemeradith how exactly are we supposed to come to terms with people who do not even live in our country? We are not talking about dealing with the ETA in Spain, the Chechens in Russia, or any other separatist group. These are people who are not within our borders and hate us for a very different set of reasons.
Yes, you may argue that they attack us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia but the problem with Islamic terrorists goes much further than that. People need to remember that these same peoples invaded Europe many times throughout history. From the Moors in Spain to the many attempted Ottoman invasions western civilization has constantly fought off militant Islam.
Talking with these terrorists will not do anything. They hate us in many cases because we are secular and do not believe like them. It is impossible to negotiate with them as they are not trying to achieve their goals peaceably, but rather through force. How exactly do you negotiate with someone who is shooting at you?
Also, I would like to note the hypocrisy of decrying the loss of thousands of American soldiers while you are supporting Obama. He is a man who has opposed the criminalization of the killing of babies who have managed to survive abortions. If you are not sure of what this would be called I can supply the correct word for you: infanticide. So maybe you should reconsider your support for a man who is a supporter of greatest mass murder in the history of the world.
Well What if, from that well thought out rant, you achieved next to nothing. I love the fact that everyone trying to oppose me so far tries to prop up their arguments with useless information and by getting off subject. Some of you have actually made a valid point. Most of you have made a fool out of yourself by saying nothing in your writing except that negotiations with terrorists are bad. You took a paragraph explaining they aren’t inside of our borders, another explaining westerners have constantly been fighting militant Islam, and you reiterated the fact that you believe it is impossible to negotiate with them. The best though had to be the last paragraph. Trying to display your knowledge by attempting to alter the focus and shift the attention from foreign policy to a set of personal beliefs. By comparing the deaths of soldiers to the aborted babies, it just showed how desperate for information you really are. Well let me be the first to enlighten you. Because we don’t talk with terrorists, Saddam Hussein became the maniacal leader he was. Saddam Hussein was put into power in Iraq then given weapons from the U.S. He was then urged by the U.S. to attack Iran. We also turned our cheek when Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on Iran because the Shah was taken from power and replaced by the Ayatollah. Hussein was a pathetic military general and went in debt to the Kuwaitis because the war with Iran lasted a decade. Hussein thought it easiest just to invade Kuwait to avoid paying them back. So let me explain this through some Q&A’s. ~Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? He was in debt to them. Why was he in debt to them? There was a decade long war with Iran. Why was he in a decade long war with Iran? The U.S. gave him weapons and urged him to attack Iran. Why did we give him weapons and urge him to attack Iran? The Iranian leader of our choice was removed by a popular revolution. Why was the leader of our choice removed? The Iranian people did not want him there. Why didn't we just ask the Iranian people who they wanted in the beginning? The U.S. doesn’t talk with terrorists. Isn't getting a majority of people to agree on their leader like a democracy? That’s exactly what it is, but not if the U.S. doesn’t like the outcome. Then it's a dictatorship.~ Our country would be ignorant not to negotiate. As for your inaccurate depiction of President Obama, we’ll let that one go. I don’t feel like demoralizing you any further, especially right before the end of the year. Blogging has been fun. This will be my last post. I’d like to thank Mr. Keller for getting me involved, even if it was at the very end of the year. I feel confident that I have dominated every opponent to challenge me. Maybe next year I’ll join the debate team… *Vote Obama*
Dear davemeradith,
Thank you for that egotistical, self-adulating, utterly worthless post of yours. I only hope you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Enough about you personally though and on to your inane remarks:
First of all when the Shah fell in Iran the government which came to power was not full of terrorists. They were anti-western and anti-United States and they were revolutionaries. To label them as terrorists would be to do the same to the American revolutionaries. Just because you oppose or do not like the United States does not mean you are automatically called a terrorist. See our relationship with China and Russia if you need examples.
Because you falsely characterize the Iranian government as terrorists during the 1980s your "examples" fall on their face. In fact I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Yes, we supported Iraq in the war against Iran. Yes, we gave weapons to Iraq. Yes, I agree we should not have done this but it has nothing to do with talking with terrorists. Saddam Hussein murdered his own people and we talked with him. (We were also allies with Josef Stalin for a time too if you’ll remember).
You then proceed to ramble on self-righteously about how the US should negotiate with the Iranian government because somehow this is the government the people want. How exactly does this relate? The Iran government is elected, but as you should know from class not just anyone can run. It is not a true democracy as there are not free elections so even now we would not be truly talking with the Iranian people. The only way to truly talk with the Iranian people would be to invade Iran and form a true democracy there and I doubt anyone really wants to do that.
As for my "inaccurate depiction of President Obama" I have a few pieces of information you might enjoy.
While serving as an Illinois state senator in 2001 Obama opposed a bill which mirrored the federally passed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The federal version of this bill was passed unanimously in the Senate and it criminalized the action of murdering babies who had managed to survive an abortion and were outside of the womb and breathing.
Obama opposed such a bill in Illinois by saying that to support it would be to weaken a women's right to abortion. In short he is saying that an innocent baby should be murdered so that abortion rights will not be weakened.
I would point out that foreign and domestic policies are very much related. If you can not be counted on to defend the lives of the innocent within your own country how can you expect to have any credibility in the world?
Also, please don't cry when Obama is defeated in the general election. How exactly is someone who is getting crushed in primary after primary going to win the general election? How is someone who is can’t even get a third of the popular vote in these states supposed to win? How is someone who is an out of touch, elitist snob who can’t relate in any way to the American people supposed to win? Answer to all of them? He won’t.
Much love,
What if?
Post a Comment