Posted on 06/06/2004 7:12:52 PM PDT by FairOpinion
But why should we negotiate at all during this terror war?
Because our scant alternatives look problematic. Outright victory -- i. e., forcing an end to terrorism -- is very unlikely.
So, a treaty to end the terror war could be pretty simple. Bin Laden would make a new videotape ordering an end to global jihad, and we would redeploy our troops out of various Muslim countries. We would insist on the right to continue international police, intelligence and special forces efforts against any terrorist activities -- though we would probably agree, quietly, to end the manhunt for bin Laden in Waziristan..
Now is the right moment for somebody, on either side, to step forward and begin the tortuous process of talking peace.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Wow, this guy is smoking some powerful stuff!!!!!!!!
It's NOT interesting. It is stupid.
It overlooks every salient piece of information we have about the islamo-facists, their goals, methods, and ideology. In his simple mind, the Islamists would be interested in "negotiations" to end their global Jihad when they have said repeatedly and unambiguously that they want no such thing.
They want the victory they have been promised by their god, and they will continue until they get it - or they are dead.
Talk of negotiations - suing for peace, in other words, would only embolden them and would prove counterproductive in the extereme.
The entire idea is just plain stupid.
Of course, if Yasser Arafat genuinely wanted peace with the Israelis, there'd be peace right now. The trouble is, these people (terrorists) use negotiation merely as a means to distract their perceived enemy while building up a position of strength from which to attack.
I say let's surrender NYC, Boston, and San Fran to OBL.
There's a few Freepers I know who could have written this article with complete and utter naive sincerity.
Mr. Arquilla is welcome to travel to the Middle East to negotiate on my behalf. I'll hold his hat. He won't be needing it.
If we give in, our ultimate fate is a to become a Muslim nation. So the only real alternative is to fight.
That is all.
"Peace in our time", from San Francisco of course.
"Asia for the Asiatics!" America needs to apologize for Pearl Harbor!
This cartoon describes it perfectly.
Liberals just don't get it.
I concur that negotiation with terrorists is worthless; but Bush seems hellbent on encouraging the Israelis and PLO, er, "Palestinians," to negotiate. Why is it so specious, so 'stupid,' to even speculate the U.S. might itself surreptitiously do the same with other Islamists? We're talking about the same U.S. government that is forced to negotiate RIGHT NOW with Islamist Afghan warlords--warlords who are growing their own arsenals with profits reaped from heroin destined for the world market, mind you--in efforts to assure 'bad' Islamists like Bin Laden and the Taliban are rooted out. To assume that our government will not negotiate with those who are clearly evil, in an effort to exterminate or end what it considers a greater evil, is to view the world quite naively.
After all, as I've mentioned, Nixon quit Vietnam. I guess he thought Communists taking over South Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad as a continuation of U.S. soldiers dying there. And he was pretty anti-Communist in his day. He made a hard choice.
Seeing this amorphously winnable war on terror end without some sort of Gulf War I-esque 'we achieved our objectives, we won, let's go home' Powell-ish, victory declaration seems unlikely. Would that be better?
EXACTLY
Do you have any idea what it would mean to the US to have terrorists set off a nuke or even a dirty bomb, or unleash some chemical or biological weapons in the US?
"Negotiation" with terrorists and other bad guys goes on all the time at the tactical level. I have no problem with that if the battlefield commanders feel there is something to be gained and less to be lost from local arragngements with warlords, opium growers, smugglers or whatever.
The case of the Palestininans can be distinguished from general islamic global jihad by the fact that they are at least a quasi nation with territorial ambitions that could conceivably be tempted by some sort of compromise.
What I deride is the notion that some sort of strategic final settlement could be negotiated with the global jihadis, when every single fact on the ground points to its absurdity, futility and utter unobtainability.
Hey, this was quick! :)
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.