I have phrased my question in this way because the only alternative to fighting against terrorism is to start negotiating with them. The fanatic Islamists want to destroy U.S.A. and Osama bin Laden went about attempting to do so. Would a president from the Democratic Party have choosen to negotiate with terrorists, agree with them..... or allow them to develop into a greater threat than they are today?
2006-11-14 23:44:02 · 8 answers · asked by ofthehighest 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I feel negotiating with them will be seen as a sign of weakness by muslim extremists. I am not sure that they want to get along with us. Have you heard of Dhimitude? Read the following entry in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimitude
Had Al Gore been president on 9/11 I think he would have negotiated with them, appeased them and we would be in even more danger from mulsim extremists than we are now. Hillary will likely do the same.
2006-11-15 00:39:08 · answer #1 · answered by smartgrrlz 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are mistaken in your premise that the only alternative of fighting terrorists is to negotiate with them! To fight them, you have to negotiate with them because they do not have a true physical location.
To win against a terrorist you have to deny them the the desired result of their actions which is a response of terror!
Under the republican administration we have given them their desired result as well as tried to defeat them as a land based (country/government) opponent
2006-11-15 08:03:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we are lucky they would negotiate with Hillary the way they are negotiating everywhere else in the free World!!
2006-11-15 10:47:23 · answer #3 · answered by STEVEN J 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES - definitely
But US Diplomacy must be based on good intelligence which has been a scarce commodity in the USA.
2006-11-16 22:32:14 · answer #4 · answered by fatsausage 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
with whom do you negotiate?hamas,al queda,hezbollah,that bunch in the phillipines or all their little subgroups that keep popping up.
negotiation is impossible.the president is correct.kill them whereever and whenever they are found.
2006-11-15 09:28:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She might. I think that she knows you can't fight fire with fire...so what is the opposite of fire? Maybe water. What would be like water to Terrorists? Whatever is water, she will throw it on them.
Bush, on the other hand, tries to fight fire with fire and you can see where that has gotten us.
2006-11-15 07:47:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
she want become president of this country with that type of message to the american public.
2006-11-15 08:46:17 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush allready beat her to it, he is going to negociate with the syrians
2006-11-15 22:31:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋