Is it better to negotiate a cooperative relationship with our enemies, or attack them?

Question

No, I'm not talking appeasement. That's another republican talking point. I am specifically talking about negotiation.

Answer 1

KILL KILL KILL KILL HAHAHAHAHAHAHA KILL KILL KILL HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
THIS ANSWER BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE BUSH WHITEHOUSE

Answer 2

War is just diplomacy using other means - I think maybe Will Rogers said it.

It depends on the situation. Diplomacy only gets you there sometimes. You can sit and talk about it for years and get nowhere.

Some situations are not bad enough to warrant use of force.

But, sometimes you just have to reach out and B*tchslap someone.

Answer 3

Absolutely!!!!! War is a last resort.

We were recently able to negotiate w/North Korea, are trying to negotiate with Iran.

Re, Iraq. All Saddam would have had to do is allow UN inspectors to come in and inspect. He has a record of not negotiating in good faith.

Remember Ronald Reagan. "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!"And the wall came down.

Answer 4

How did that work out for Neville Chamberlain?
We are dealing with very radical extremists who have a goal of global domination and death to the infidel, no peace agreement is going to squelch that. Their war against us has been in progress for 20+ years, only now they have pushed enough buttons to bring our millitary into the equation, which I am convinced was Osama Bin Ladins' intent, only he misjudged our might, ability and resolve, (maybe), he was expecting the US to crumble in Afghanistan like the USSR did, and when he found that we where a much greater foe than he could have imagined, he began to campaign for John Kerry in 04'.
Read about all of the concessions Israel has made to the aggresive radical Muslims it is surrounded by, you will find that appeasement only indicates weakness and invites future attacks from them.

Answer 5

Since our enemies are Islamic extremists bent on killing and rampaging until all the non-believers of Islam are killed, it is an unreachable goal to have a cooperative relationship with our enemies due to the nature of the fact that we cannot possibly, unless we were a theocracy of Islam, sign peace with the Jihadists. Therefore your first option is impossible.

Your second option would be the only choice left.

Answer 6

it depends on the enemy your are fighting. So we can break it down into smaller more simpler terms. If I owned a gun and said i was going to kill you and your family. wouldn't you want to kill me first. That is called a preemptive strike, which was launched by the U.S. i Iraq. Now if this was just a minor disagreement. like maybe you and i work together, and i got you in trouble with your boss. then we should work out a cooperative relationship, but still will probably remain enemy's.

Answer 7

I think this is a very stupid question. Of course it is better to create relationships than just attack people. Was this just some pathetic attempt to snub conservatives with your, "not talking appeasement?" I believe it was.

Answer 8

Negotiate with people who shoot schoolchildren in the back? Where's the logic in that?

Answer 9

Do you think that you can negotiate a cooperative relationship with the terrorist types?

I dont.

Answer 10

You never can negotiate with an enemy who's admitted agenda is to destroy you and anyone else that won't submit to them.

Let's see maybe if we offer only half of our people will submit or maybe we will let them subjugate only half of the world. Maybe we can offer to permit them to blow up civilians on certain days.

Please!


.

Answer 11

well, diplomacy and discussion is generally considered a more civilized approach to solving problems. you can shock and awe your enemy and kill a bunch of innocent civilians thereby creating even more enemies tho if your point is to prove that might makes right.

PS. um twinspick? Iraq didn't threaten the US. besides, even if threats were made they had no capability to attack the USA. what the Bush admin did was like if your neighbor threatens to spray you with a garden hose and you blow his azz away with an AK47.

PPS. um Senatorjerk. the UN weapons inspectors WERE in Iraq. it was GW who pushed them out before they finished their job. but if GW had allowed them to finish their job no justification to attack Iraq would have been found and the PNAC elite would have been so displeased.

PPSS. only monsters more blood thirsty than terrorists are the warmongering neoCONs.