Fruitless Negotiation

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 02:35 PM

When Hitler began annexing lands prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the British and the French were at a loss as to what to do. They saw Hitler's expansionism and decided to negotiate with him. They conceded the Sudetenland to him, and assumed that would be it. Millions of lives ended because of it, and millions more were irreparably altered.

Bill Clinton, then the American president, wanted North Korea to scale back its militaristic ambitions. He negotiated with them, and in tandem with the South Koreans, erected a "sunshine policy" of payoffs. North Korea actually received money NOT to develop nuclear weapons. We now know that they were building them all along. Asia, and the world, now is in fear of this rogue state.

According to the road map, curbing terrorist attacks is the duty of the Palestinians. Yet Abbas, rather than be a true reformer, decided that he should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas broke off the talks, decided that too many concessions were being made. A thug from that organization dressed up as an orthdox Jew, got on a bus, and blew himself up. Moments ago, the Israelis retaliated, wounding 15.

So much blood and sadness -- and for what? Is this the price of taking the "peaceful" route?

Falstaff · Jun 12, 2003, 03:01 PM

But the Jews were gauranteed their ancestral lands in there relgious text and in the bible. It originally extends from Egypt to I think the presend day northern border. In 1948 it seems that it had become true. Fundamental christian support exists and still exiists for the jewish state until the second coming. I know it sounds outrageous to some, but this kind of relgious dynamic actually is a compenent of the problem with any form of appeasment and cooperation in the state of Israel. I do not personally believe that the Jews and palestinians will ever find common ground, even though genetically they are similiar the batle over ancestral lands will continue until bigger weaposn are used. I know Bush wants peace, wants a chance for the Israelies and Palestinians to get along, but I don't believe that America would tolerate or endorse an all palestinian state, but might easily back an all Israeli state. I just don't think there is a peaceful route for change in my lifetime, but then I never thought the Berlin Wall would fall, When the Israelis and palestinains are exhausted, then perhaps they might have chance for peace....

UberLord · Jun 12, 2003, 03:11 PM

I find it odd that in a previous post of yours you credited Bush with the peace talks progressing between Palestine and Israel. And yet now with the peace plan in tatters you post the above which critises Clinton for similar negotations - who in other postings of yours you have stated a great dislike for. So what happened to cristising "Dubya" - or are you no longer "crediting" him.

I dunno - maybe the stuff that Bush proposed was too much for the more militant groups and caused this latest "setback".

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
So much blood and sadness -- and for what? Is this the price of taking the "peaceful" route?

There will be just as much blood and sadness given the "military" route.
Also, there will be more hatred towards the "peace keepers" for their agressions.

Which is better long term? Why - no hatred of course!

So yes, it's a price. A very nasty price - but a price that never the less must be paid for peace.
For, find a better way.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
I find it odd that in a previous post of yours you credited Bush with the peace talks progressing between Palestine and Israel. And yet now with the peace plan in tatters you post the above which critises Clinton for similar negotations - who in other postings of yours you have stated a great dislike for. So what happened to cristising "Dubya" - or are you no longer "crediting" him.

I criticize Clinton on a number of levels for a number of reasons. The policy of giving North Korea money as a bribe to refrain from initiating a nuclear program is, simply put, stupid beyond words.

I credit Bush for marginalizing Arafat, and for helping push the road map. The fact that the Palestinians have a new leader and that an American president has said that there will be, unequivocably, a Palestinian state is not only helpful but necessary. So I praise Bush on that level.

I can only conclude that you are being facetious in regard to my criticism of Abbas' handling of Hamas. Because I can see no way that you honestly believe that support --because I do support Abbas over Arafat-- and unbridled partisan giddiness are the same thing. Abbas is the new figurehead; ipso facto, progress has been made. I condemn trying to negotiate with Hamas, but I commend the fact that Bush, by and large, refuses to deal with Arafat. Get it?

But there is a long way to go, and no plan by any president is ever going to work flawlessly.

Quote:

There will be just as much blood and sadness given the "military" route.

Really? So if the French and English said "Hitler, if you annex even one more acre of land, it is war!" that would have been more bloody than the Nazi regime's brutal Holocaust? Would an early strike against Hitler have been as bloody as WWII? That is a dubious claim at best, sir.

So, if the US, under the Clinton administration, threatened to blockade North Korea unless they swore to comply fully with IEAE regulations, that would have been WORSE than just letting them develop nuclear weapons?

Quote:

So yes, it's a price. A very nasty price - but a price that never the less must be paid for peace.
For, find a better way.

The better way is readily apparent to me. The better way is the path of action. Kill the Hitlers of the world before they kill millions later. Pressure the Kim Jong Ils to not build weapons of mass destruction, and help his subjects rise up against him. Kill Hamas terrorists and punish those that support them.

Negotiation, by and large, is a phantom hope. And it is deeply dangerous.

GOG · Jun 12, 2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
When Hitler began annexing lands prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the British and the French were at a loss as to what to do. They saw Hitler's expansionism and decided to negotiate with him. They conceded the Sudetenland to him, and assumed that would be it. Millions of lives ended because of it, and millions more were irreparably altered.

Bill Clinton, then the American president, wanted North Korea to scale back its militaristic ambitions. He negotiated with them, and in tandem with the South Koreans, erected a "sunshine policy" of payoffs. North Korea actually received money NOT to develop nuclear weapons. We now know that they were building them all along. Asia, and the world, now is in fear of this rogue state.

According to the road map, curbing terrorist attacks is the duty of the Palestinians. Yet Abbas, rather than be a true reformer, decided that he should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas broke off the talks, decided that too many concessions were being made. A thug from that organization dressed up as an orthdox Jew, got on a bus, and blew himself up. Moments ago, the Israelis retaliated, wounding 15.

So much blood and sadness -- and for what? Is this the price of taking the "peaceful" route?

In my opinion the roadmap is a joke, regarding a resolution from 1967 the Israelis shall leave the occupied territories fully. No compromises, no compensation. There is only one person in the world that can force the Israelis to do this, and that's your President. It's time to leave the US economical/military interests behind and act in the interest of human lives.

And JavaFox, this time the Israelis drew first blood. When one of their helicopters attacked that car belonging to one of the Hamas leaders, a woman and her 13-year old daughter also died. There are innocent people killed on both sides here.

For once, use your power to achieve something good.

UberLord · Jun 12, 2003, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
I criticize Clinton on a number of levels for a number of reasons. The policy of giving North Korea money as a bribe to refrain from initiating a nuclear program is, simply put, stupid beyond words.

I credit Bush for marginalizing Arafat, and for helping push the road map. The fact that the Palestinians have a new leader and that an American president has said that there will be, unequivocably, a Palestinian state is not only helpful but necessary. So I praise Bush on that level.

I can only conclude that you are being facetious in regard to my criticism of Abbas' handling of Hamas. Because I can see no way that you honestly believe that support --because I do support Abbas over Arafat-- and unbridled partisan giddiness are the same thing. Abbas is the new figurehead; ipso facto, progress has been made. I condemn trying to negotiate with Hamas, but I commend the fact that Bush, by and large, refuses to deal with Arafat. Get it?

Actually the point I was making is that in your eyes Pres Bush can do no wrong. You've never said a bad word against him - trying to justify everything he says and does. If America decided to bomb Ireland for harbouring and supporting known terrorists then I'm sure that you'd support his actions whole heartedly.

I remain perpetually amazed that you read a lot more into my posts. Nowhere did I mention Abbas, Hamas or Arafat. So your conclusion - as it is most of the time - is very very wrong.

But this is going very off topic of the thread now, so I'll stop here.

UberLord · Jun 12, 2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
The better way is readily apparent to me. The better way is the path of action. Kill the Hitlers of the world before they kill millions later. Pressure the Kim Jong Ils to not build weapons of mass destruction, and help his subjects rise up against him. Kill Hamas terrorists and punish those that support them.

And that encourages their children, friends and family to take up arms against you for killing their loved ones thus causing years of hatred, turmoil and blood letting futher down the road.

Quote:

Negotiation, by and large, is a phantom hope. And it is deeply dangerous.

Of course - how many lives were lost when the UK gave Hong Kong back?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GOG
In my opinion the roadmap is a joke, regarding a resolution from 1967 the Israelis shall leave the occupied territories fully. No compromises, no compensation. There is only one person in the world that can force the Israelis to do this, and that's your President. It's time to leave the US economical/military interests behind and act in the interest of human lives.

It's hardline views like that that make peace impossible. The Jews are people too and even if they do inhabit disputed territory, that doesn't mean they should be pushed aside like so many rodents.

Quote:

And JavaFox, this time the Israelis drew first blood. When one of their helicopters attacked that car belonging to one of the Hamas leaders, a woman and her 13-year old daughter also died. There are innocent people killed on both sides here.

No doubt. I don't mention Jewish retaliation with any sort of fondness, GOG. There is a sadness and a heaviness in my heart because of the recent attack/counter-attack -- nothing else.

JavaFox · Jun 12, 2003, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UberLord
Actually the point I was making is that in your eyes Pres Bush can do no wrong. You've never said a bad word against him - trying to justify everything he says and does. If America decided to bomb Ireland for harbouring and supporting known terrorists then I'm sure that you'd support his actions whole heartedly.

Nope. I have repeatedly condemned government subsidies and tarriffs on this board (Bush is well-known for strengthening steel tarriffs). I have expressed concern for the general drift of the Bush admistration vis a vis North Korea (my exact words were "Yet when [Bush] says that he seeks "a diplomatic" solution in Korea, I worry a little"). I think the Bush-backed Sarbanes-Oxley Act (corporate reform) is, by and large, a bunch of malarky. I like some aspects of Democratic stimulus plans more than Bush's (i.e., low income tax exemptions).

Anyway, I am somewhat surprised. Usually you do your research quite well, but it would have been easy for you to find at least two instances in which I have criticized Bush or a policy that Bush backs. But, seriously, I am a conservative -- I happen to agree with Bush on a few things.

The fact that you are a liberal (in the American sense of the word) and that Bush can do no good in your eyes has a lot to do with what you think is right and wrong, though I do sense there is some partisanship involved, just as there is some favoritism involved on my part.

Quote:

I remain perpetually amazed that you read a lot more into my posts. Nowhere did I mention Abbas, Hamas or Arafat. So your conclusion - as it is most of the time - is very very wrong.

Context is king, as they say. My praise for Bush as it relates to the Road Map, is premised on the fact that he supports Abbas. So, in talking about Bush, the Road Map, and my support, we were indeed talking about Abbas.

Jun 12, 2003, 02:35 PM	#1
JavaFox E Pluribus Unum Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 0	Fruitless Negotiation When Hitler began annexing lands prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the British and the French were at a loss as to what to do. They saw Hitler's expansionism and decided to negotiate with him. They conceded the Sudetenland to him, and assumed that would be it. Millions of lives ended because of it, and millions more were irreparably altered. Bill Clinton, then the American president, wanted North Korea to scale back its militaristic ambitions. He negotiated with them, and in tandem with the South Koreans, erected a "sunshine policy" of payoffs. North Korea actually received money NOT to develop nuclear weapons. We now know that they were building them all along. Asia, and the world, now is in fear of this rogue state. According to the road map, curbing terrorist attacks is the duty of the Palestinians. Yet Abbas, rather than be a true reformer, decided that he should negotiate with Hamas. Hamas broke off the talks, decided that too many concessions were being made. A thug from that organization dressed up as an orthdox Jew, got on a bus, and blew himself up. Moments ago, the Israelis retaliated, wounding 15. So much blood and sadness -- and for what? Is this the price of taking the "peaceful" route?

Jun 12, 2003, 03:01 PM	#2
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	This will no doubt be enflammatory But the Jews were gauranteed their ancestral lands in there relgious text and in the bible. It originally extends from Egypt to I think the presend day northern border. In 1948 it seems that it had become true. Fundamental christian support exists and still exiists for the jewish state until the second coming. I know it sounds outrageous to some, but this kind of relgious dynamic actually is a compenent of the problem with any form of appeasment and cooperation in the state of Israel. I do not personally believe that the Jews and palestinians will ever find common ground, even though genetically they are similiar the batle over ancestral lands will continue until bigger weaposn are used. I know Bush wants peace, wants a chance for the Israelies and Palestinians to get along, but I don't believe that America would tolerate or endorse an all palestinian state, but might easily back an all Israeli state. I just don't think there is a peaceful route for change in my lifetime, but then I never thought the Berlin Wall would fall, When the Israelis and palestinains are exhausted, then perhaps they might have chance for peace.... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."