• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats Reverse U.S. Policy, Negotiate With Terrorists-Even the Taliban

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    14
Negotiating with terrorists has been tried before, and I believe has always failed...100%.
But, then there is this... Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....
The Taliban is not necessarily our enemy....nor do I put a lot of stock into "friends and enemies"...
 
I would say that it is possible. But then anything is possible given the right knowledge and materials. Weather it happens or not I don't know.
 
Who's got their reservation to Afghanistan, I'm expecting it to be a tourist trap soon.
 
aquapub said:
Will this "change" of reverting back to the left's pre-9/11 "grovel, appease, and surrender" approach cause another 9/11?
Click to expand...

Interesting. So you mean that General Petreaus's strategy in Iraq was "grovel, appease, and surrender?"

One of the key successes was hiring a guy who used to try to kill Americans and get him to supply vast amounts of information that we later used to turn other insurgents as well as destroy those would would not turn.

The hypocrisy here is absolutely amazing. When a Republican President follows the strategy of a nonpartisan General and wins, they give him all of the credit and praise the General. When a Democrat President does the exact same thing they accuse only the president of being a terrorist appeaser. And yet they ignore how the tactic was from the nonpartisan general.
 
earthworm said:
Negotiating with terrorists has been tried before, and I believe has always failed...100%.
But, then there is this... Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....
The Taliban is not necessarily our enemy....nor do I put a lot of stock into "friends and enemies"...
Click to expand...

Yeah, how could Islamic fundamentalists who deliberately facilitated the murder of 3,000 Americans possibly be misconstrued as an enemy? :lol:
 
jallman said:
I don't think negotiations accessorized by a Stryker brigade and platoons of marines is neccessarily what I would call "grovel, appease, and surrender". But let's not let facts get in the way of your blogging enjoyment.
Click to expand...

A military presence at a negotiation with terrorists makes it something other than negotiating with terrorists? Um...sure.

Besides, this act alone is not what I'm identifying as the return to the left's "grovel, appease, and surrender" strategy that so utterly failed us with al Qaida. It's Democrats:

-ludicrously apologizing to Iran's Islamo-fascist psycho-in-chief Ahmadenijad for America's policies,

-incompetently botching critical U.S. alliances in the War on Terror,

-surrendering missile defenses as the racist lunatic regime they installed in Iran goes nuclear,

-negotiating with and giving hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars to terrorists,

-releasing al Qaida terrorists from Gitmo,

-removing all U.S. pressure against the tyrannical Castro regime in Cuba,

-re-inflicting deep military budget cuts,

...and so on.

Thanks for the ad hominem BS though. :coffeepap
 
obvious Child said:
Interesting. So you mean that General Petreaus's strategy in Iraq was "grovel, appease, and surrender?"

One of the key successes was hiring a guy who used to try to kill Americans and get him to supply vast amounts of information that we later used to turn other insurgents as well as destroy those would would not turn.
Click to expand...

This "Bush worked with the Sunnis" red herring was already addressed in the article. Learn how to read. :roll:
 
There are some locally focused Taliban who have no interest in global politics and some Taliban who are part of the global Islamist threat.

The idea is to get these two factions to fight each other.
 
bhkad said:
There are some locally focused Taliban who have no interest in global politics and some Taliban who are part of the global Islamist threat.

The idea is to get these two factions to fight each other.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's how we did it in Iraq. That's how the Brits did it in Malay. It played somewhat of a role in Ireland.

But apparently if a Democrat does it, it's appeasement.

Apparently Aquapub thinks that divide and conquer is a bad strategy.
 
I'm with Bhkad on this. Only a fool discards worthwhile options out of hubris. Afghanistan is an extremely divided area, and it would be a mistake not to use that to our advantage. We have nothing to lose by talking to the Taliban, and it could bring in some substantial benefits.
 
I know that Bush and Cheney are out of office. I know that Bush loved war and death. It did not matter whether they were men women or children.
Seems to me that Bush had two goals. One was to have wars and kill, the other was to get his cronies who are very rich, much richer.

Bush succeeded in practically destroying the United States. We have do many enemies now. It may take 30 years to repair the disaster caused by Bush and his cronies.

Maybe by negoiating we can find out why they are terrorists and solve problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh,,, Solve Problems? ----- Us Right Wingers don't want to solve problems, we want create problems and start wars for no reason with everyone.

We Right Wing Republican GOP people want war. We want to kill, we want to rule the world. Let's drop Nuclear weapons on Iran, France, North Korea, Venezuala, Chile, Canada, Israel, Palestine, Ireland, Cuba, Alaska, Russia and Mexico.

Then we could get on the evening news and be happy republicans. Heck if we just release Green House gases, and raise the water level by a couple hundred feet with melting ice, then the earth would do our killin for us.

God Bless the USA.
 
dragonslayer said:
I know that Bush and Cheney are out of office. I know that Bush loved war and death. It did not matter whether they were men women or children.
Seems to me that Bush had two goals. One was to have wars and kill, the other was to get his cronies who are very rich, much richer.

Bush succeeded in practically destroying the United States. We have do many enemies now. It may take 30 years to repair the disaster caused by Bush and his cronies.

Maybe by negoiating we can find out why they are terrorists and solve problems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh,,, Solve Problems? ----- Us Right Wingers don't want to solve problems, we want create problems and start wars for no reason with everyone.

We Right Wing Republican GOP people want war. We want to kill, we want to rule the world. Let's drop Nuclear weapons on Iran, France, North Korea, Venezuala, Chile, Canada, Israel, Palestine, Ireland, Cuba, Alaska, Russia and Mexico.

Then we could get on the evening news and be happy republicans. Heck if we just release Green House gases, and raise the water level by a couple hundred feet with melting ice, then the earth would do our killin for us.

God Bless the USA.
Click to expand...
What kind of a terrible message is this. We will overcome, and we will have war and death.

All US Good GOP-ers agree, to heck with the American people, we want war. WAR WAR WAR, STARVATION AND DEATH, and profits for the very rich.
 
aquapub said:
A military presence at a negotiation with terrorists makes it something other than negotiating with terrorists? Um...sure.
Click to expand...

No, it makes it a demand with the muscle to back it up. Which is almost exactly what Bush would have done had he focused on Afghanistan before walking into Iraq.

Besides, this act alone is not what I'm identifying as the return to the left's "grovel, appease, and surrender" strategy that so utterly failed us with al Qaida. It's Democrats:
Click to expand...

With you, it always is the Democrats.

-ludicrously apologizing to Iran's Islamo-fascist psycho-in-chief Ahmadenijad for America's policies,
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything close to making that hyperbole true.

-incompetently botching critical U.S. alliances in the War on Terror,
Click to expand...

Like?

-surrendering missile defenses as the racist lunatic regime they installed in Iran goes nuclear,
Click to expand...

That hasn't been done yet either.

-negotiating with and giving hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars to terrorists,
Click to expand...

Well, yes, we are giving money to the Palestinians.

-releasing al Qaida terrorists from Gitmo,
Click to expand...

And moved to another prison.

-removing all U.S. pressure against the tyrannical Castro regime in Cuba,
Click to expand...

Which is an island that can't touch us currently.

-re-inflicting deep military budget cuts,
Click to expand...

I thought you would be all about slashing the federal budget any way we could.

...and so on.

Thanks for the ad hominem BS though. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. You get what you give, sparky.
 
aquapub said:
This "Bush worked with the Sunnis" red herring was already addressed in the article. Learn how to read. :roll:
Click to expand...

Only you would think this addressed that:

"But now even that has been thrown under the bus, and Democrats are running up the white flag, "reaching out" to Islamic fundamentalists who murdered thousands of Americans, as the news media rush in to excuse it by hilariously likening it to Bush working with the Sunnis in Iraq. The problem with this, of course, is that Sunnis are not some extremist regime. They are a faction of a religion."

Incorrect. We reached out to specific groups that had been tied to foreign religious fighters. This includes Sunnis and Shias. We did not reach out to every Sunni in Iraq. Furthermore, we specifically went after tribes that were strongly tied to the foreign religious fighters. One of key people we tried to kill for years in Iraq is now one of our employees. Newsweek did an article on him and how we felt about working for the people he tried to murder.

And the fact that they are a faction of a religion is quite irrelevant. Iraq (among others) proved that moderates and the half hearted can be separated from the extremists, turned against them and be made instrumental in bringing about peace. The British have all kinds of stories from Malaya were insurgent bosses switched sides and then helped the British forces decimate the Communist rebels. The British cite many of these turncoats as the reason why they turned a losing war against an insurgency into a peaceful, stable democratic nation.

Extremist regime or faction of a religion has no relevance here.

Furthermore, your poorly thought out article ignores how many in the Taliban are not the same as those in 2001. It is as if the author thinks that the Taliban who waged a crusade against opium is the same Taliban who now actively protects opium crops, harvests it, transports it and funds its operations against the NATO forces from the proceeds.

Those who have studied history disagree with you. Only those who are only in it for hyperpartisan hypocritical ranting agree with your position.
 
rathi said:
I'm with Bhkad on this. Only a fool discards worthwhile options out of hubris. Afghanistan is an extremely divided area, and it would be a mistake not to use that to our advantage. We have nothing to lose by talking to the Taliban, and it could bring in some substantial benefits.
Click to expand...

What we'd have to lose is face. But pride goes before a fall. We would certainly lose all before we won or if we tried to "win" as we have "won" in Iraq.

I suggest those who disagree take an hour to watch this eye opening show.

FRONTLINE: the war briefing | PBS

Alexander the Great. The British Empire. The Soviet Union.

All tried and failed to win in Afghanistan through conventional warfare.
 
I see the other side in theory, however how is this different than when posters like dragonslayer and other leftists post pictures of Saddam and rumsfeld or chastize the right for backing afghanistan against russia....


Isn't this the same thing? And again, how does one negotiate from the position of your death?
 
bhkad said:
There are some locally focused Taliban who have no interest in global politics and some Taliban who are part of the global Islamist threat.

The idea is to get these two factions to fight each other.
Click to expand...

Do both of these sects not shelter and aid al Qaida?
 
obvious Child said:
Agreed. That's how we did it in Iraq. That's how the Brits did it in Malay. It played somewhat of a role in Ireland.
Click to expand...

Yet when Ronald Reagan used it in the Iran-Iraq war, liberals spent two decades tirelessly smearing him as what's wrong with our arrogant foreign policy approach.

Funny how quickly the tone changes when liberals finally have to present ideas that actually work for a change...then, and only then, are they willing not only to duplicate the strategy, but to do it with those sheltering and aiding bin Laden.

Aren't liberals the ones who told us finding bin Laden was "the real mission" and fell all over each other to hysterically denounce Bush for working with the Saudis and Pakistan (governments that were against al Qaida)? Yet now it's just a common sense strategy to ally ourselves with an actual terrorist sponsor that cause 9/11?

And liberals are crying hypocrisy?!? :rofl

Did you people seriously think no one would notice the gaping holes in your blatant Obama-apologist spin?

:donkeyfla Hilarious.

obvious Child said:
But apparently if a Democrat does it, it's appeasement.
Click to expand...

If a Democrat...contradicts everything they have claimed to stand for...to negotiate with those shielding al Qaida...after spending five years using "the real war" in Afghanistan to undermine the other war Democrats voted for in Iraq...that is surrender...on a monumentally hypocritical scale.

obvious Child said:
Apparently Aquapub thinks that divide and conquer is a bad strategy.
Click to expand...

Apparently oblivious child is to busy derailing to sneer at people to realize that the difference is working with terrorists vs. working with those who oppose terrorists.

Way to think it through. :applaud
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
I'm with Bhkad on this. Only a fool discards worthwhile options out of hubris. Afghanistan is an extremely divided area, and it would be a mistake not to use that to our advantage.
Click to expand...

The problem with this: According to the arguments hysterically put forward at every turn for the last eight years by liberals, such "arrogant meddling" in the Islamic world would excuse another decade or two of terrorist attacks against America and continue making us the aggressors for daring to fight back.

Welcome to the national dialogue that thinking, reasonable adults must have with liberals.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
No, it makes it a demand with the muscle to back it up.
Click to expand...

Um...we have the military might to back up our demands...regardless of where various units are currently stationed. And our enemies know this. Having military units nearby as we negotiate with terrorists in no way transforms what we are doing into something less objectionable than...negotiating with terrorists.

Weak attempt at a counterpoint. :thumbdown

jallman said:
Which is almost exactly what Bush would have done had he focused on Afghanistan before walking into Iraq.
Click to expand...

Bush would've ever, under any circumstances, negotiated with the people protecting bin Laden? Meanwhile, on planet Earth, those of us who watched Democrats tear him to shreds for eight years straight for refusing at every turn to negotiate with the lunatic fundamentalist regime they installed in Iran, the North Korean regime they helped go nuclear, or the Syrian regime they protected from diplomatic pressure can't help but notice that all the facts and evidence directly contradict this claim.

And even if your first hilariously mind-numbing point here weren't unmistakably false on its face, Bush couldn't station a brigaide nearby while negotiating with those protecting bin Laden...because the tiny fraction of our overall troops that were deployed at the time also included some in Iraq?

Um...sure. :sarcasticclap

Moving along. :roll:
 
aquapub said:
The problem with this: According to the arguments hysterically put forward at every turn for the last eight years by liberals, such "arrogant meddling" in the Islamic world would excuse another decade or two of terrorist attacks against America and continue making us the aggressors for daring to fight back.

Welcome to the national dialogue that thinking, reasonable adults must have with liberals.
Click to expand...

This is anything but reasonable. In fact, your entire spin is nothing but unadulterated dishonesty.

No one has suggested we don't fight back and not retaliating attacks made against us has never been a serious part of the national dialogue.

But again, let's not let reality get in the way of your hyperpartisan ranting.
 
obvious Child said:
Only you would think...
Click to expand...

Fine, let's have a show of hands. How many here think there's a difference between working with the terror-sponsoring regime that facilitated 9/11 and continues to aid and shelter bin Laden to this day and using the fact that al Qaida had turned the Sunnis in Iraq against them to bring an alienated religious sect of the country to the table for unity governance and anti-al Qaida efforts?
 
I urge those opposed to the current Afghanistan philosophy to read this interview and go beyond a one dimensional view of the challenges and opportunities we face there.

“Dealmaking is a part of what can be a successful counterinsurgency campaign. ... But it needs to be the right kind of deals, the kind of deals that will deny Al Qaeda that opportunity to plot and plan.”
Click to expand...

FRONTLINE: the war briefing: interviews: henry crumpton | PBS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom