Liberals Always Say 'Negotiate , Negotiate , Negotiate'. . . . OK , What If The Enemy Won't Agree To Logic ?

Question

I'm sorry libbies , but you guys couch your answers and always stop short of saying 'What happens if the ones you're negotiating with won't agree to anything logical' ? -- What then ?
Nothing .
We never see you put forth what you would do in that situation .

And ya know .. .. . this is part of the cause of why so many people refer to you as weak , looney , appeasers , cowards , collaborators , lily-livered , anit-American , etc. etc .

Many see your candidates in the same light too .

So , exactly what would you expect our president, whoever that may be , to do when there is just no way to negotiate any further ?

Many of you took this as an opportunity to bash Bush . That's not what I asked . So if you're guilty of not answering the posted question then I strongly suggest you edit your answer . I have a firm rule that you will answer the question directly(Just like Yahoo says) and if you care to rant then do so AFTER you answer .

Answer 1

Our first American Hero Stephen Decatur once said "The only words these people understand is from the mouth of a cannon."

Funniest part, the "these people" he's talking about were Middle Eastern Muslims.

Answer 2

logical and negotiation don't mean jack!

to negotiate means to give someone what they want! reguardless how logical it is!

and in return you get something -
Some humans can be a pain about it (chances are they dont know what they want so nothing will be negotiated.)

There for if our president has ran out of options (never really happends) he has tried every thing he WANTED to. Then the next action is required what ever that may be War, martial law, Whatever.. the point is you try to negotiate and if you use your wit you will find out what they need and want and use that to your advantage!

I don't know what i fall in to or if i'm liberal I honestly don't give a rats behind!
I just do what i feel is right even tho that is selfish as all heck.
but i can say if libbies can negotiate very well that's because they can put them self in anothers shoes. Leaving the negotiate impossible to refuse! But thats if your good!

Logic yes 1+1 =2 but not everything is black and white!

Answer 3

The biggest problem now is the same as it was in Korea, Viet Nam and all those other skirmishes, as in Panama, various Carribean Island nations, Lebanon, Afghanistan, et al: The American Public. The American Public and the Liberal Media do not want America to free any endangered peoples anywhere. Here in this country, they are for "women's rights", "black rights", "Chicano's rights", "gay rights", ad naseum...rights for everyone except white males and working people, honest people of whatever race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.
But when it comes to people being gassed (a weapon of mass destruction) in their own village by an insane dictator, The American Public and the Liberal Media get all riled up, claiming it is for oil only.
Well, gee, the ENTIRE REGION supplies only 10% of our oil needs, fellows! If every one who drives up and down the road in gas-guzzling SUVs, vans, cars, PICKUP TRUCKS, ATVs, snow mobiles, golf carts, etc., etc., would quite driving when not necessary, there would be no need at all to import oil from the Terrorist Muslim Nations of the Mid East.
We DON'T NEED THEM; but, THEY DO NEED US!
So, what do we do when negotiations won't work? First, tell The American Public, the Liberal Congress and the Liberal Media that if you want your lifestyle to continue, we are going to go to war and we will bomb the enemy into submission!
I realize that a lot of people CLAIM that negotiations work most of the time. To them, I say, "Read your history books!" If negotiations worked, there would not be a divided Korea. There would NOT have been a divided Germany. There would Not have been a divided Viet Nam. Israel would have ALL of its lands returned to them! Illegals would NOT be in the U.S. of A. The Mexican President would not be allowed to dictate American immigration policy. (Nor the Liberal Media nor the Liberal Supreme Court.)
For those who claim Liberals win war, again I say: "Read your history books!" Kennedy did not win in Viet Nam. Johnson did not win in Viet Nam. Nixon did one hell of a fine job, but the Liberal Congress, the Liberal Media, and The American Public crucified him for it.
For those of you who have not read "The Ugly American", go to your library and get a copy and read it. While you are "educating" yourselves, read:
Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failure Unleashed Global Terror and Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror by Richard Miniter, a fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Then check out:
Forms of Government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

Perhaps you criticizers should also read the Preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, all the other Amendments, the Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto and other such books and works.
Then maybe you will have something useful to say.
In the meantime, bomb them into oblivion.

Answer 4

If "the enemy" "won't agree to logic," then you use methods such as sanctions, embargoes, and, yes, as a last resort, military force.

My question in this case is, "Who is the enemy?"

Okay, genius. Here's the scenario:

George W. Bush will be given the unconditional surrender of "the enemy" today. All he has to do is send an emissary to recieve it.

Where does he send the emissary? Who does he accept the surrender from?

I seem to remember the last intelligent president using air strikes as a tool against Iraq when necessary, military force in Bosnia and Somalia as necessary. That is when you use force, when negotiations fail.

You don't just invade because you want to and you think it will make you look like this grand War Chief.

You don't assume that everyone in the country you invade will thank you profusely, drop all of their traditional conflicts, and embrace Jeffersonian democracy because we tell them to.

Ever notice that the Dems tend to be the veterans? They have a different view of war because many of them have experienced it and its horrors and do not believe that it is something to be entered lightly or continued indefinitely for political purposes.

Answer 5

He made a ham-handed, bush-league mistake, and then compounded it. i assume i won't be ready to be all that afflicted via that because of the fact i did no longer think of he had lots adulthood or experience besides. And all people who's somewhat in his corner will the two clarify it away or secretly relish any anti-Bush and anti-American implications of the remark. __________ playstation The greater i think of approximately it, the greater i've got self belief the Petraeus checklist will merely finally end up being a Rorschach try for the pro-conflict and anti-conflict aspects. the two aspects will "spin" the checklist to assist their place no count what it says. To me, all of it boils all the way down to whether necessary US hobbies are at stake. in the event that they're (and that i've got self belief so), a unfavourable checklist in basic terms potential we ought to continually try greater sturdy - if this is that considerable we gained't have adequate money to lose. If there are no necessary hobbies at stake, it is not proper and we ought to continually decrease our losses now. The checklist won't do lots to respond to the question of "is it well worth it." returned, i think of that's. save the coolest questions coming! thank you.

Answer 6

Events such as the Iranian hostage crisis show what happens when you negotiate with people who do not want to negotiate. The Carter administration would have left those hostages in Iran for 800 days if needed since they saw no reason not to just negotiate with terrorists.

Answer 7

Who are we asking to negotiate with? bin Laden and his group? Hezbellah? Syria? Iran?

1. Please show me were we one of the candidates has asked to sit down with bin Laden and discuss this.

2. Let Israel take care of them, they seem to be able to take care of business when dealing with terrorists.

3. See answer #2.

4. See answer #2 & 3.

I expect a President before going into any war to have exercised ALL options before doing so.

I expect a President to PLAN for EVERY possible outcome from us starting a war. Is civil war possible? Let's plan for it even if we don't think it is. Iraq? HE KNEW that was a possibility, his FATHER knew.

I expect the President to be 100% sure about the intelligence before invading another country.

I expect that the President should focus on finding the man who was behind the killings of 3000+ people on our soil, not to bring down a dictator just so he can have a legacy.

Answer 8

You missed the point of negotiating. You do it first, not last.
Screwing up the way Bush did, he left us with nothing to threaten, nothing to negotiate with. With nothing left to lose, and no clear 'other' side, we don't even have a negotiating partner.
Look at it this way, usually you say, "Give me "XY and Z" and I won't bomb your country into tar." You look for X and maybe Y, but settle without the Z.

Oops...too late for that one huh?

So, do we tell them we will stay there at full strength of 120,000 troops for the rest of their natural days? They don't care. They already enjoy killing us, they are prepared to do it for the next 300 years, its an example of the nothing logical you speak of.
Negotiation won't work, no leaders, no threats.
Continued presence won't work, they can hold a killing grudge for centuries and they have already proved it.
We have been maneuvered into a Mexican standoff.
How would I get out of it?
Declare we won. Saddam is dead, elections have been held, twice at least.
Dance in the streets of the US as our troops come home.
Throw a big hooray USA party.
Then let the nasty little terrorists kill each other without our complicity.
Dance in the streets

Answer 9

The point, genius, is first you try to negotiate. MOST issues can be resolved that way.

If an enemy refuses to negotiate and takes military action--THEN you blow them off the face of the planet. But not until.

And none of this Busco "occupation war" like in Iraq. We should never have been Iraq--and its far too late to salvage the mess he made. But if you do get in a war, you WIN it. Yu'd think the cons would at least hae learned that much from Vietnam, even if they're too wound up in theirideology to understand that war is the last--and usually unneccary--option.

Answer 10

Agreed. Like Hitler, for instance. How would someone negotiate with Hitler when his stated objectives were things including take over other countries and kill all the Jews (and everyone else who was not a perfect Aryan)???

Some people are just too irrational to negotiate with.

Answer 11

I blame a lack of public information on this subject. Negotiations with terrorists has been going on for decades (just ask Carter). Those negotiations have in many instances failed.