For the democrats...do you personally believe Diplomacy works?

Question

Fellow Pubs answer too, please. Do you(dems) think we should have packed up a tea set and played pattycake with the radical ideologists whose main goal in life is to destroy America?

Let me clarify one thing. You assumed I referred to Iraq, which I didn't. And you want to explain what a "war on terror" means to you.

You can't win a war based on an ideology.

Hope that cleared things up.

BTW, you did a horrible job at answer the question Bush.

Scott; was it not evident they attacked the pentagon, possibly the white house and the twin towers? The central core of America, and you want to question it...I'll just chalk that up to liberal niavety.

Elway, I agree that we should have finished the job in Afghan before taking extreme measures(the war in Iraq.) Thumbs down to me, but this whole time I have always thought we took saddam's power away simply to build oil allies.

Answer 1

I'm an Independent, but I know enough history to know that diplomacy does indeed work.

It doesn't work with terrorists though, and I know of no Democrat that thinks it does. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. If we had maybe Al Queda wouldn't be crawling all over Iraq and the rest of the Middle East right now while we police a civil war in Baghdad.

But to your main question, of course diplomacy works. If it didn't work, we would have had a very hot nuclear war with Russia instead of a cold one. That's just one example of the value of diplomacy - there are dozens. We practice diplomacy with countries, not terrorists. But, when countries are protecting or helping terrorists, diplomacy with those countries will get us much further than bombing first and asking questions later. The Middle East is the most sensitive and volatile area in the world. One misstep can mean a nuclear nightmare in the Middle East. Like it or not, we have to employ diplomacy in most cases, it's what has prevented WW III from becoming a reality.

EDIT: You may be right about Saddam and the oil. For me, the jury is still out on that. Mostly because I've always had a sense that the attack on Iraq came from a more complicated idealogy that formed between Bush and Cheney, and not solely to do with oil. I think it will be a long time until we get a clear picture of the real gut check reasons.

Answer 2

No, but I'm odd. My family escaped Islam in the 1950s. We've been expecting this war for decades.

Diplomacy still had a chance, you have to admit, but President Bush played the odds, and did so wisely in my opinion. The fall-out was his reputation (Islam already hated us, and now we have some firm allies in the Middle-East that are even firmer). Diplomacy is still working.

It's not an either/or. It's a balance that aims at making our countries interests number one, not sacrificing them to an ideology that puts our country at number two or below.

Just remember that democrats (those who aren't political bigots against half the country) serve a purpose.

All cars need brakes and gas, no matter what direction we're headed. Republicans & Democrats. Smart Americans remember we have different goals, NOT opposite goals. Only political bigots think that way. Enough of them, on both sides.
Patriot, first, democrat, second.

Answer 3

Your question is a deliberately deceptive oversimplification. Either that, or you know absolutely nothing about foreign affairs if you think diplomacy is "tea and pattycake". It's backchannel communication. Dealmaking. Veiled threats. Not-so-veiled threats. It's cooperation with friendly governments, and with neutral governments for intelligence and go-between work. It's KNOWLEDGE.

No one wants to negotiate with Bin Laden. But with people who may know someone who knows where to find him? With hostile governments, if to do nothing more than clearly and personally draw a line in the sand? You bet.

Or, like in Iraq, we could just dive right in and open the floodgates for Civil War and MORE terrorists, alienate most of the world (thereby biting the hands that feed us with miltiary, logistic and intel support), and stay mired in death and chaos for years to come.

Thankfully, less and less people by the day still swallow your argument.

Answer 4

Diplomacy alone won't solve anything if Americans don't finally understand why the rest of the world hates us. We cannot continue to represent only 5% of the global population and squander 55% of the world's resources. While some may ask, "Why not?" it would be more appropriate to ask, "Why?"
If this nation continues to bully its way around the world and "protect its national interests" (which, interpreted, means, "Why is OUR oil under THEIR sand?"), we will eventually become targets of virtually every other nation on Earth.
Why do you think countries like Iran are building weapons of mass destruction? To protect themselves from the bully Bush - and greedy Americans who think they shouldn't have to share with the rest of the world.
As Bush's runaway 'war' spending escalates, China will soon take over as the world's super power and the U.S.A. will fall into decline, just as the great Greek and Roman empires did during their glorious, gluttonous heydays. -RKO- 07/27/07

Answer 5

The problem that most Democrats don't want to address can be summed up in one question: Who do we negotiate with?

Most of these whack-jobs don't represent a sovereign nation, and there are a LOT of different groups. Most of these groups hate us, but ironically enough, they hate each other too. If you make peace with one, another one views you as siding with them, and you become their most hated enemy. So who are we supposed to negotiate with? Osama? Iran? The Palestinians (which ever side is in power this week)?

Negotiating with terrorists only legitimizes their grievances, and that's not a good precedent to set.

Answer 6

So according to you, the only two choices we have are kill everyone in sight, or join their side?

Your question lacks merit. Were we actually engaged in a battle with the people who attacked our country, you might have a point. However, Iraq was not responsible for 9/11. Even Dubya admits that, so why can't the rest of you accept it?

Fact is, Iraq has nothing to do with the so-called "war on terror." That war should be fought in the countries which harbored those responsible for hte 9/11 attacks. But Bush has consistently taken military resources AWAY from those countries to send them to Iraq to tilt at windmills, while Osama bin Laden, the man who financed and planned the 9/11 attacks is sitting with his feet up watching satellite television.

Nice gig if you can get it.

Meanwhile, Bush is desperately trying to backpedal and explain how fighting Iraq's civil war for them is for the benefit of America's national security.

The problem he faces is that we're all pretty sick of his bullcrap at this point.

I hope this answered your question.

Answer 7

I'm going to relate this to my kids. Most of them I could negotiate with and they would mind. But one wouldn't. The big green hairy monster had to be out there first.
In other words I had to spank him some so the negotiations would then work.

Answer 8

How do you know know whether or not their main goal in life is to destroy America when you haven't even sat down and spoke with them, being diplomatic?

Surprise surprise, you could just be paranoid.

Edit:

"In other words I had to spank him some so the negotiations would then work."

Haha, thats basically what terrorists do. They bomb us so we will surrender and comply with converting to their ideology.