Skip to comments.
Rice: No Negotiations With hostage-Takers: The President does not negotiate with terrorists
VOA ^
| 4-19-04
| Paula Wolfson
Posted on 04/18/2004 11:04:37 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: Indy Pendance
Then why did we decalre a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations?
2
posted on
04/18/2004 11:09:29 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Indy Pendance
Senator Kerry said the administration's diplomacy has been stunningly ineffective, and said if he is elected he will pursue a more multi-lateral approach.First he'll shoot one of the wounded enemy in the head, then he'll accuse his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes, then he'll throw his medals over a fence, then he'll take part in a discussion of assassinating US Senators. This is about as multi-lateral as it gets....
3
posted on
04/18/2004 11:12:23 PM PDT
by
freebilly
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: BearBryant
I have no answer because your point was too well stated.
5
posted on
04/18/2004 11:14:25 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: BearBryant
PS: I am also for killing lots of them till they let our guys go or not dare take anymore. Whichever is easier.
6
posted on
04/18/2004 11:15:43 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: BearBryant
That is because "civilized" nations that follows treaties and war doctrines. Terrorists do not and they perpetuate attack to further their goals. Remember the Al Qaida hijacking of an Indian airliner? The Indian government caved and let out a bunch of crazies some are loose on the streets of the world today waiting to kill and maim your fellow countrymen.
8
posted on
04/18/2004 11:43:29 PM PDT
by
endthematrix
(To enter my lane you must use your turn signal!)
To: Destro
Then why did we declare a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations? It wasn't over hostages because they were taken later. I don't agree with the ceasefire but it allowed the "Iraqi leadership" to gain some sense of relevance in the process. Is it smart, I don't know but it is at least defensible.
9
posted on
04/18/2004 11:49:16 PM PDT
by
Texasforever
(God Bless And Keep Our Troops)
To: Texasforever
Civilians are hostages - soldiers are POWs.
10
posted on
04/18/2004 11:53:05 PM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Destro
Why did you think I didn't know the difference? The civilian hostages came AFTER the "unilateral ceasefire" That was my only point.
11
posted on
04/18/2004 11:56:24 PM PDT
by
Texasforever
(God Bless And Keep Our Troops)
To: Destro
Then why did we decalre a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations?
Breaking News: politicians lie.
12
posted on
04/19/2004 12:00:03 AM PDT
by
jaykay
(Government: half parasitic, half incompetent.)
To: Texasforever
Sorry - I was talking only about the POW. A quirk of war's laws allows the exchange of POWs but since civilian hostage taking is criminal negotiations over them would set a bad precedent, unless you can argue that those civilian contractors were working for the military supplying logistics tasks usually done by soldiers in the past and in that case the rules of war may apply to them as well - a gray area for sure.
13
posted on
04/19/2004 12:01:29 AM PDT
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: Destro
Well like I said, I agree with you about the unilateral ceasfire. If I had my way there would be a lot of large gaping holes where these "freedom fighters" used to be. Having said that I can also see where it could be argued that giving the IGC a bit of street cred would be strategically helpful down the road.
15
posted on
04/19/2004 12:08:39 AM PDT
by
Texasforever
(God Bless And Keep Our Troops)
To: Indy Pendance; Destro
The president of the United States does not negotiate with terrorists
Oh? Somebody help me understand what it is we're doing in Fallulah and with Sadr if not negotiating.
16
posted on
04/19/2004 12:11:40 AM PDT
by
pt17
To: BearBryant
Well, the prisoners we are holding are terrorists suspected of attacks against U.S. soldiers. If they are released, they will go back to staging such attacks. So the question is, if freed will they end up killing more U.S. soldiers than if they just kill those that they are holding? Also: negotiating with them will encourage more kidnappings.
How about we announce the execution of all prisoners in our custody if the hostages aren't freed within 24 hours?
17
posted on
04/19/2004 12:11:59 AM PDT
by
jaykay
(Government: half parasitic, half incompetent.)
To: pt17
Somebody help me understand what it is we're doing in Fallulah and with Sadr if not negotiating.
Bargaining.
18
posted on
04/19/2004 12:17:06 AM PDT
by
jaykay
(Government: half parasitic, half incompetent.)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: BearBryant
If they're willing to swap to me one American for one of their persuasion??? I'd swap in a heartbeat. It's idiocy to do otherwise. I know it's awful that they have our hostages. Horrible.
But we can't swap and give in to their demands. It would set a terrible precedent and the situation would just get worse.
20
posted on
04/19/2004 12:21:36 AM PDT
by
Allegra
(No two taglines are alike.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson