Are we now going to negotiate with terrorists?

Question

According to an AP story on Yahoo, we want to negotiate a cease-fire agreement in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

"Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said commanders at all levels are being empowered to reach out for talks with militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence on a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals."

But... But aren't some of those "militants" the very same people (such as that pig Al Sadr) who are causing the violence?

-----------
Saddam: Read the story, please. I'm not spinning anything here; I'm asking for opinions and perspective.

Answer 1

I don't see a big difference between never wanting to negotiate a cease fire and genocide. You are talking about the eradication of a people group, regardless of their beliefs. The larger the people group, the more chance there is that some people would be willing to change their beliefs/actions to support a cease fire.

I try to remember that in some of "their" eyes at least, we are the terrorists. How does it look when we have people saying "kill them all" reminds me a lot of "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" or similar statements about jewish people.

Does the president enjoy killing people? I doubt it. Does he believe in defending what he believes is right? Probably. Do we possess sufficient non-lethal weaponry and resources to capture rather than kill our rival? Not yet.

Its stated on the whitehouse.gov site that Osama believes this is a war of destiny, fighting to the bitter end basically. A desire for any amount of cease fire on our part basically means we do not believe it is a war to the bitter end, at least not for everyone involved. So, do you want to think like Osama?

I would say the goal of "good" based war is to end the war with the least amount of loss of life possible, on both sides. That was partially the reasoning behind actually using nuclear weapons in WW2. Nukes aren't going to work when your enemy is intermixed with your allies. And they tend to scare people. "bad" based war would be "kill them all to the last man even if it takes all my people's lives to do it" because then you are left with nothing really.

And finally, I would like to apologize to anyone that feels I've somehow insulted their religion, but if your religion itself (not your leaders) encourages you to kill people, then at least I have to say I disagree and simply don't understand.

Answer 2

I have no problem with negotiations. Something might happen, although I doubt it.

I want negotiations because of what the British did with the IRA in the 1970s. When they started to talk, the British were sincere, some IRA militants did not like it and in the end the IRA started killing each other. The British did not intend this, but benefitted. So...I want to negotiate with the terrorists, then sit back have a beer, and watch the true believers go after those who talk with the devil, and vice versa.

Answer 3

Since there is no 'government' in Iraq, except the feeble, slapped together, 'Vichy Iraq' nonsense established by the US occupation authorities, we have to 'talk' to someone. It won't do a damned thing, but the effort has to be made if only for the PR benefit. The 'cause' of the current violence is the US occupation of Iraq. I suspect that after we leave there will be other 'causes' for violence. Let's be real....the 'war' is long since over....now its an occupation with no natural stopping place. Get the troops out of there, we won the 'war', now let these people settle it themselves.

Answer 4

nicely one ingredient you have incorrect there that's relatively not an important conflict, theres no prefer for us to be the place we are reason there are no longer any terrorist the place we are, this conflict is pointless all it relatively is, is a conflict for oil a conflict to scouse borrow oil thats no longer ours and replaced into no longer presented to us. Theres no prefer for us to be there anymore, the conflict has been dragged out long sufficient. thousands of lives have been misplaced, greater again, thousands of CIVILIANS have died emphasis on civilians. and you think of thats real that harmless people could die so as that we are in a position to scouse borrow oil so as that we are in a position to lie and say this conflict has meaning. have you ever talked to somebody who has misplaced a love one in Iraq, i wager no longer reason then in step with possibility you will know the way it feels to nicely known which you misplaced somebody for no longer something. Cant you open you eyes and notice that different countries hate us we haven't any allies, so of path there already no longer taking us heavily. Hes no longer negotiating with terrorist hes negotiating with people, only people. Im completed right here, im bored with this bull. Im bored with the racism.

Answer 5

Why is negotiating such a bad idea? If negotiating can keep just one American soldier from being killed in this "police action", what's the problem? Obviously the threat of armed forces isn't doing anything to stop the different factions from killing each other. So why not negotiate?

Answer 6

It depends on whether you consider them terrorists. If the administration calls a suicide bomber who drive an explosives-laden truck into a crowd of police recruits a 'terrorist' people object, claiming he's 'another man's freedom fighter.' If the commanders in the field are given the option of negotiating with one side or another of the ongoing civil war, those same poeple object that they are 'terrorists.'

It's all just spin. It's probably not a bad idea to give commanders the option of negotiating with some of the violent factions in Iraq. It's probably not as good an idea as 'pacifying' the country with pragmatic rules of engagement and a sufficiency of troops, but that's not going to happen.

Answer 7

Spin against the Bush administration Saddam ?

There no spin here
Its just that NOW we are trying negotiations
why didn't we try that BEFORE the troop surge?
Could it have been bullheadedness?

or is it somehow the liberal left's fault they had the better idea in the beginning?

Answer 8

Israel has engaged palestinians and created an extensive intelligence network. This network has been useful in deterring attacks in a violent situation similar to that in Iraq. We need to create an intel network (since we never really had one) to start some peace in the area. We have to start somewhere.

Our goal is to buy oil and not let our citizens get shot or kidnapped.

Answer 9

untie the hands of the military
throw out the outdated, outlawyered rules of engagement
send home the embedded reporters

the war will be over in a day

Answer 10

if you would had read the entire article you would had seen that 80% are reconciable - whcih means they don't fall into the bounds of radicals or terrorist. 80% fall into the misguided and such- You did fine cherry picking.