quote:

We must always negotiate from a position of strength.

I thought we were already strong enough. When do you think we might be ? When could negotiations begin? It doesn't seem we've had much success with the present strategy of -- (ostracism ?)

I think the facts, as shown here and in any current recounting of events, show that we are already negotiating with terrorists and our enemies, and have done so for a few decades at least. We are openly paying terrorists in Iraq. Should we stop and wait until we have gained strength? (Actually, that may not be a bad idea, considering that our actions in Iraq have increased terrorism world-wide, according to the US Dept. of State and numerous foreign policy groups. Maybe if we stop talking to them and leave Iraq, we could strengthen our military while eliminating a very effective recruiting tool for the terrorists, namely, our presence in Iraq.) In any case, you may not have noticed that our position, whether measured in military power or world influence, is not strengthening. But many generals both active and retired have, and have spoken out.

Like so many in his administration, bush is condemning the very activity that he himself is taking part in. The sad thing is that he gets away with it; his solid 27% will think that whatever he does is wonderful. Meanwhile, the rest of the country (and the world) suffers.

DG and frank, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you will both support Obama over McCain.

The fact remains, regardless of whom you support, that Obama will have to answer why he would negotiate with terrorists without pre-conditions (say, a condition from Iran that they not enrich Uranium), and what he would have as objectives.

His Kruschev/Kennedy comparison was, IMHO, a poor one to make.

It would also seem to me - though I am no diplomat - that negotiating with the head of a terrorist organization is different from negotiating with a legitimate head of a sovereign nation.

Why was it that his opponents once called him irresponsible on the matter?

"Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement." - James Baker, Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration, Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the administration of President George H. W. Bush; October 2007

'The formal position of the Quartet - the US, EU, UN and Russia - is that Hamas must end violence, recognise Israel and accept previous peace agreements, including the 1993 Oslo deal between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. But with momentum building for a ceasefire in Gaza and a growing sense in Europe that the policy of isolation - and the siege of 1.5 million Gazans - has not worked, alternative strategies are being quietly explored.' France admits contacts with Hamas in breach of boycott

'However, the US's failure in rolling back Syrian and Iranian influence in Lebanon pales in comparison with the withering away of the US-sponsored Arab-Israeli "peace process". The latter hung like an albatross's cross on Bush's Middle East tour. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' credibility has greatly suffered; Fatah has been eliminated from Gaza; Hamas is significantly gaining ground in the West Bank after its consolidation in Gaza. Thus, there were no takers when Bush told the Arab audience in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Friday, "All nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with continued acts of terror and violence."

The Arabs knew that at any rate, there is an air of unreality in Bush's anti-Hamas rhetoric. Hamas had announced only a couple of days ago that it would send a delegation to Egypt on Monday for a new round of talks with mediators...' Bush's Middle East policy in tatters

'Iran said on Monday that holding anew round of talks with the United States on Iraq would "make no sense" when bloodshed is going on in the war-torn country, the official IRNA news agency reported...

...The United States, which accuses Iran of providing weapons and funds to the insurgents to fight against coalition forces in Iraq, has held three rounds of talks with Iran over Iraq's security issue but failed to reach any agreement...' Iran: Talks with U.S. on Iraq "make no sense" (May 5th)

Governments and terrorists are talking all the time. Of course there are talks - although maybe secretive, tentative, indirect talks - without preconditons. There have to be 'pre-talks' in order to get the publicly-acknowledged talks underway.

As the catastrophic shambles of recent US or Israeli military actions in the Middle East have shown, talking is the way to go, and talking might have to start on an exploratory basis, without objectives or conditions.

Bush's comments on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary were just an attempt at (domestic, US) partisan point-scoring. They were inappropriate as well as misleading.

How many years will it take for some to understand that, when a movement has no country, no standing military, does not fight conventional warfare, you cannot defeat it militarily? And, if, like bush in Iraq, you try to buy them out, you are just paying for the weapons that will e used against you.

I remember a phrase someone used in political campaign. Let's apply it here. Are we better off than we were eight years ago regarding terrorism? Has the number of terrorist activities increased or decreased world-wide since bush started his war?

Let's look at the longer term. How is isolating Cuba doing? Is it a democracy (as we see democracy) yet? Has the (almost) 50 year ostracism of Cuba paid off?

Go on to other countries. We ignored the Chinese government for a couple of decades, during which we fought them in a proxy war (or 2). DId that work out? DId Mao and the boys suddenly say, "You know, I really feel bad that the US won't talk to us. Let's change our ways so they will"? Or was it Nixon's diplomacy that got China to open up? China now has a middle class larger then the entire population of the US. Which method worked? We pretended Soviet Russia didn't exist (once we pulled out of Russia's civil war, having backed the loser) until we needed them (and they needed us) during WWII. But late in Eisenhower's administration, we started talking to Russia. How did that work out? Which method worked?
--------
By the way, someone should clue McCain in on who is the power in Iran. He doesn't seem to understand that Ahmadinejad answers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. McCain is starting to look very foolish when he claims knowledge fo foreign policy, and especially Iran, when he keeps making the same mistakes over and over.

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israel says it is holding indirect peace talks with Syria mediated by Turkey. - CNN


Don't those fools in Israel know that they will just legitimize and embolden the radical Syrian government?
--------
In looking up Syria to see exactly how the current Assad became president of Syria, I found this (below) in Wikipedia.

In April, 2008, President Assad told a Qatari newspaper that Syria and Israel had been discussing a peace treaty for a year, with Turkey as a go-between. This was confirmed in May, 2008, by a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. As well as a peace treaty, the future of the Golan Heights is being discussed. President Assad was quoted in the The Guardian as telling the Qatari paper:

...there would be no direct negotiations with Israel until a new US president takes office. The US was the only party qualified to sponsor any direct talks, [President Assad] told the paper, but added that the Bush administration "does not have the vision or will for the peace process. It does not have anything." [12]
--------
From the looks of Syria's recent political history, its government is not at legitimate as that of Hamas in Palestine. Yet Israel talks to them.

And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."

The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for "the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place" between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues. - Time, Inc (Bold mine - DG)

Let me understand this correctly: Army Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command in the Middle East, the man whom John McCain calls "one of the great generals in American history", supports appeasing the enemy? Why, the man ought to be court-martial, then strung up! Where is our president in this? Hasn't he the courage to fire this rogue general? Where is the political Right? Why aren't they up in arms about the very idea of "one of the great generals in American history" supporting appeasement? Have they no courage as well?

Better sack Rice, too:

'And on Wednesday, the Bush administration was singing the praises of an Arab-mediated deal in Lebanon which would, in essence, give Hezbollah veto power over the Lebanese cabinet.

While the United States will continue its policy of not holding direct talks with Hezbollah, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the agreement "a positive step" and was even on the phone over the past few weeks with Egyptian and Saudi officials to help find a resolution to the Lebanese stalemate, administration officials said.

"Bush's rhetoric is completely disconnected from everything on the ground," said Martin Indyk, head of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "While he's giving his speech against appeasement last week, Hezbollah was taking over control of the Lebanese government."' NYT

'When McCain responded to Bush’s recent inflammatory speech, he said: “It’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.”

McCain is off the mark. There were behind-the-scenes negotiations leading up to the hostages’ release at the very moment Reagan took the oath of office, and some charge the Reagan campaign was directing them. The new administration certainly did plenty of negotiating with the Iranians (with Israel in the middle), selling them missiles to raise money for illegal support of the contras in Nicaragua.' www.fpif.org

Ad misleading about Iran hostage crisis

'Carter described western governments' self-imposed ban on talking to Hamas as unrealistic and said everyone knew Israel was negotiating with the organisation through an Egyptian mediator, Omar Suleiman. Suleiman took the Hamas ceasefire offer to Jerusalem last week.

Israel was still hesitating over the ceasefire, Carter confirmed yesterday. "I talked to Mr Suleiman the day before yesterday. I hope the Israelis will accept," he said.' www.guardian.co.uk

Why Israel Is Talking to Its Enemies

But his audience of Israeli legislators, who interrupted Bush's speech at least 14 times with thunderclaps of applause, interpreted it otherwise. They saw it as the American President's unswerving support of the Jewish nation on its 60th anniversary. Nevertheless, under instructions from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israel envoys have been carrying out discreet talks with the very "radicals and terrorists" that Bush was warning against in his speech: Syria, the Lebanese militia Hizballah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

It is partly a measure of how far the Bush Administration's stature has fallen that even staunch allies like the Israelis are now ignoring White House commandments. But it may also be an act of desperation by the embattled Israeli leader, who sees no choice but to rebuff the U.S. if he wants to win back popular Israeli support.

Shrugging off Bush's warning against "appeasing" its enemies by negotiating with them, the Israeli government is engaging in Egyptian-brokered cease-fire talks with Hamas, the militant Islamic rulers of the Gaza strip. At the same time, through Turkish diplomats, it is sending out feelers to Damascus to discuss Israel's possible return of the Golan Heights in exchange for Syria's cutting off its support and sanctuary for Palestinian militant leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. As one Israeli official told TIME: "For us, peace doesn't mean embassies in Damascus and Tel Aviv, but an end to Syria's destructive roles. Hamas has its headquarters in Damascus, and Syria backs Hizballah." - Time. Inc

I look at all of these articles & web-sites accumulated over the past few days yet I see nothing that shows where President Bush is wrong in what he says. While he certainly is not winning any popularity contests, in due time we will be looking back to see just how right he was.

Anyone who thinks negotiating peace settlements with the enemies of Israel will accomplish anything, are sadly mistaken. As long as their prime objective is the anniliation of the state of Israel, negotiations are totally useless.

Your first paragraph is laughable, and shows that you apparently don't understand what negotiations are. Your second paragraph is completely erroneous, as the facts shown above amply demonstrate.

But don't bother telling me, LR. Go tell every US President since Truman. Address the UK Parliament. Most importantly, tell Israel's Knesset. "Gentlemen, what you are doing is wrong. What you have done is wrong! It will never work!"

LR, do you know anything about the Iran-Contra Affair? Just who did we negotiate with there? While we are at it, how did Reagan get the hostages freed in 1981? There is a certain level of knowledge of what has happened in the world necessary to discuss what is happening. I don't see that you have it. Denying facts doesn't change anything except how others see you.

Israel's negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah is a sign of hope. Possibly, unlike Bush, the Israeli government has finally learned from its mistakes.

Israel tried military force in the Lebanon - 2006 Lebanon War - and achieved little other than blowing the country to bits and killing a lot of innocents. Israel has collectively punished Gazans for years without getting much out of it. In each case, oppression and aggressive over-reaction aided the forces of terror.

Exaclty the same happened in Iraq. The spectacular military success of 'mission accomplished' has achieved little in terms of making the US safer. It's done nothing to prevent another 9/11, and the inevitable backlash against such unjustified agressive action has actually hampered taking on the perpetrators of 9/11. The inavsion of Iraq created a failed state, many more terrorists, a rallying point for al Qaeda and it may even have allowed terrorist organisations to collect billions in unaccounted-for money. How could negotiations possibly have gone worse?

The invasion of Iraq and the airstrikes against Lebanon in 2006 surely proved the criminal futility of using overwhelming miltary force to try to solve complex problems - to (as it's often childishly put) 'wipe out' enemies.

Negotiations lead to real solutions. It's clear that McCain and Bush must be aware of this, their comments must surely be aimed at those in their domestic audience they precieve as being capable of swallowing anything. How patronising.

quote:

Anyone who thinks negotiating peace settlements with the enemies of Israel will accomplish anything, are sadly mistaken.

'The Camp David Accords had their origin in Sadat's unprecedented visit to Jerusalem on November 19-21, 1977, to address the Israeli Knesset, the first visit by an Arab head of state to Israel. Sadat was named "Man of the Year for 1977" by Time Magazine.

Sadat's visit initiated peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt that went on sporadically through 1977 and into 1978. Reaching a deadlock, both Sadat and Begin accepted President Carter's invitation to a US - Israeli - Egyptian summit meeting at the Presidential retreat, Camp David (in Maryland) on September 5, 1978...

...The two agreements between Israel and Egypt led to a negotiated peace between those two nations in 1979, the first between Israel and any of its Arab neighbors. Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for their historic agreements.' What were the 1978 Camp David peace accords?

nnn-What you have successfully done is to prove my point. How??? You may ask... Do you recall what become of Anwar Sadat...assassination. It goes to show even when an Arab leader makes a peace agreement with Israel, Islamic extremeists do everything possible to undermine it.

Despite the assassination, Egypt and Israel remain at peace - so something was accomplished by negotiation. Your point is disproved.

My point is disproved??? Not at all. It is only a matter of time something will happen to break this pact. And no other real progress in the region has been made for peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors. The radical Muslims will see to that. Because the last thing they want is peace with Israel.

"It is only a matter of time something will happen to break this pact."

Ah, the ultimate in logical thinking, The fact that it hasn't happened yet is the strongest proof that it is going to happen. Aristotle, Descartes, and their disciples would be proud.