That is with Islamic fundamentalists? Do you think they would be treating us with so much political correctness if they had the upper hand militarily? If you give them an inch, they will take a yard. Be careful, this dog will bite if you give it a chance.
2006-09-25 19:19:56 · 9 answers · asked by haterade 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
By the way, our dealing with the Middle East in the past has strictly been for the stablization on the region. We supported Iraq because Iran was more powerful.
2006-09-25 19:27:09 · update #1
There are differences between diplomacy, international cooperation, and negotiation.
You obviously got this stupid argument from someone who cares more about their political agenda than they do the welfare of the United States and its citizens.
Name one prominent Democrat who says we should 'negotiate' with the terrorists, and provide a citation of exactly what was said.
You can't, can you? Of course you can't, because you have absolutely no idea what's going on here at all, do you?
I didn't think so.
Have you ever had an original thought or creative idea in your entire life?
It doesn't seem likely, since no one of any intelligence would ask a question that presupposes a generally held opinion by half of the population that they have no basis for, especially when the questioner them-self does not even understand the terms, concepts, or principles involved.
Maybe you should try again when have a question and not an accusation. (I'll let you look that word up yourself - like homework).
******************
We supported both Iraq and Iran with arms and intelligence information during their war.
You really don't have a clue about what's going on in the world, do you?
And so now we must be working for de-stabilization?
Well, I have to give this one, because Bush has certainly (as every non-partisan Middle East expert predicted) destabilized the region, if nothing else
********************
remy ds revenge -
More than that - how about those kissy-face lovey-dovey photos of Rumsfeld and Saddam (I think they were dating).
How come there aren't any pictures of Dems sucking (I mean sucking-up) to Saddam, I wonder?
*********************
seeing clearly -
I get it. That's a joke name, right?
There aren't many CONS around with self-depreciating senses of humor. Bravo!
2006-09-25 19:42:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Negotiating (diplomacy) is not just done by Democrats. It is best to negotiate first, trying to ease the tensions, before having to send in our young men and women into harm's way. Afganistan was necessary, and we had bin laden on the hook. Then the Bush administration lost focus. They decided to quit the search for bin laden, and oust Saddam in Iraq to retaliate for his father's failure 12 years earlier. And now terrorism is worse than before 9/11. Also, more Americans have now died in Iraq than died on 9/11. Saddam was a pimple on an elephant's ***, bin laden is/was the head of the biggest terrorist group in the world. Saddam was under control, due to negotiating, whereas bin laden, as with all other terrorists, cannot understand negotiating, and the Bush administration needs to re-focus on that fact and take them out. Iran and North Korea? Do we negotiate, or what?
2006-09-26 04:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by greg j. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I think it's partly they have to go against any and everything Bush does. And using force just goes against their grain. They are a party who intellectualize everything. In their world there is no black or white, no absolute right or wrong, only different shades of gray. There are no really bad people only victims who do bad things because of circumstances. (Well except Bush). They think they can actually change the minds of the Islamic fundamentalists by leaving Iraq, or ignore them like Clinton did and hope they will go away. A wise man said recently "yes we do need to change the hearts and minds of these radical terrorists, and to accomplish this in a timely manner depends on how firm a grip we have on their balls."
2006-09-26 03:02:13 · answer #3 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most Sane people feel the need to negotiate(that includes republicans , muslims ,jews,frenchman,blacks, buddhists, christians, hispanics, asians....etc) in a world so full of conflict and so many opposing views . The alternatives use of force orignoring the opposition rarely provide an optimum soution for all concerned.
2006-09-26 02:37:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats are AFRAID to OFFEND... Political Correctness has them NEUTERED.... Jimmy Carter was a prime example... had he taken harsh action against Iran in the late 70s, Muslims would have thought twice about attacking the USA again....
Islam0-fascists need to be offended with all might at our disposal. They are absolute LUNATICS... following an ideology much like communism.... don't give them an inch, give them a bullet or a bomb....
2006-09-26 02:25:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, negotiation isn't really an option with those ppl. However, we are the ones with our noses stuck in their business.... and remember that people like to strike out and attack symbols (i.e., islamic fundamentalists), not people. There are countless different groups of people that have nothing to do with each other that have been affected by American actions in the middle east.
2006-09-26 02:23:45 · answer #6 · answered by wolfgangmeyers 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why not, it worked for Republican Ronald Reagan when he negotiated with terrorist Iran to give them arms for hostages.
Bush, Rumsfeld negotiated with Saddam in the 80's.
2006-09-26 02:24:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree. Did you ever see "Natural Born Killer's?" Remember the old indian man and the story he told about the snake?
2006-09-26 02:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wonder who we would negotiate with.. the terrorists are not interested in negotiations.. who then?
2006-09-26 02:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋