|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004 Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:46 am Post subject: Generals to Bush:Negotiate w/Terrorists or face consequences |
|
|
Former Generals: Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer
by Aaron Glantz
Twenty-one former generals and high ranking national security officials have called on United States President George W. Bush to reverse course and embrace a new area of negotiation with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In a letter released Thursday, the group told reporters Bush's "hard line" policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.
Of particular concern for the generals was increased saber-rattling between Washington and Tehran over the development of an Iranian nuclear program.
"We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program," their letter read.
"An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq," they argued. "It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere."
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.
"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," said retired Lt. General Robert Guard, who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."
The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.
"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."
Former director of Policy Planning for the State Department, Morton Halperin, said the same goes for North Korea. The more belligerent the Bush Administration behaves, he said, the faster North Korea will work to develop nuclear weapons.
"The North Koreans want to talk to us directly," said Halperin, who now works for the Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress. "Their concern is about getting security assurances from us and about getting diplomatic recognition. We should not be afraid to talk to our opponents."
At the White House, Bush's spokesperson Tony Snow dismissed the letter.
"In a political year people are going to make political statements, including retired generals, and they're perfectly welcome to," Snow told reporters at his daily briefing. "It's an important addition to the public debate. But we're also � the president is a guy who has got real responsibility here. Now, I've got to tell you, just given to what I said...in response to the sort of ongoing cost of promoting freedom around the globe, do you not think a president will do everything in his power to succeed? And the answer is, yes. He's not sitting around saying, boy, I'm stubborn, I'm going to stick with it.
"That's not the way the president is," Snow said, insisting the Bush administration is planning policy changes while declining to offer specifics.
But the generals who signed the letter say Bush has been stubborn, and a poor student of history.
General Joseph Hoar, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Military Central Command under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, said the George W. Bush administration would be advised to remember the French occupation of Algeria, which lasted 134 years.
Nationalist rebels launched an insurgency against the French in 1954. After eight years of insurgent bombings and counter-terrorism operations, France was finally forced to quit Algeria in 1962.
Hoar says like the Battle of Algiers the current war on terror is a war of ideas.
"Until we get away from the idea that we can solve these problems through the use of military force and begin to change the political problems causing discontent by providing security and services, we're not going to win this war," he said.
http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=9564 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
The title of the thread is wrong. The generals are not saying negotiate with terrorists. They are saying negotiate with full-fledged nation states. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What BB said. The article is completely different from what the title leads one to believe. There are no retired generals advocating the Bush Administration negotiate with bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them. |
Can you two not read? Why make statements that are so completely inaccurate? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well there is no evidence in the article that indicates the generals mentioned terrorist groups. That is the only line in the entire article that mentions terrorists.
Poor journalism perhaps? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Quote: |
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them. |
Can you two not read? Why make statements that are so completely inaccurate? |
I think the red portion I highlighted is the important part. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does Bush call Iran a nation separate from terrorist organizations or does he straight up call it a terrorist nation? You're all arguing over a minor detail. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Quote: |
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them. |
Can you two not read? Why make statements that are so completely inaccurate? |
Funny that you would 'forget' the crucial part of that sentence and then have the audacity to try to take us to task for poor reading comprehension!
Does that article talk about negotiating with terrorists anywhere else but the portion of the sentence you highlighted?
No. In fact, just about everywhere else it talks about negotiating with States.
There is a crucial difference between a state and a terrorist organization which you apparently are unable to see.
EFL Trainer, I really didn't think you were this much of a moron but it looks like Gopher, Junior, Joo, and Bucheon Bum were right about you.
edit: I see BB and Huffdaddy have already made the case. The topic title is clearly misleading in terms of the content of the article- to view it any other way is to either not comprehend the difference or deliberately obscure it.
Last edited by Bulsajo on Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Does Bush call Iran a nation separate from terrorist organizations or does he straight up call it a terrorist nation? You're all arguing over a minor detail. |
No, it's not minor- there is a big difference between negotiating with a terrorist organization and a state. It's very easy to say a state "supports terrorism", for example. That charge doesn't hold much water if both sides make the accusation (which is the case between Iran and the US).
States can make- and be held to- negotiations that terrorist organizations cannot.
It's pretty hard to embargo a terrorist organization, for example. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo wrote: |
mindmetoo wrote: |
Does Bush call Iran a nation separate from terrorist organizations or does he straight up call it a terrorist nation? You're all arguing over a minor detail. |
No, it's not minor- there is a big difference between negotiating with a terrorist organization and a state. It's very easy to say a state "supports terrorism", for example. That charge doesn't hold much water if both sides make the accusation (which is the case between Iran and the US).
States can make- and be held to- negotiations that terrorist organizations cannot.
It's pretty hard to embargo a terrorist organization, for example. |
Terrorism will always exist, of course. But terrorists deprived of bank accounts, state supplied weapons, safe haven, etc. aren't really effective terrorists. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Bulsajo wrote: |
mindmetoo wrote: |
Does Bush call Iran a nation separate from terrorist organizations or does he straight up call it a terrorist nation? You're all arguing over a minor detail. |
No, it's not minor- there is a big difference between negotiating with a terrorist organization and a state. It's very easy to say a state "supports terrorism", for example. That charge doesn't hold much water if both sides make the accusation (which is the case between Iran and the US).
States can make- and be held to- negotiations that terrorist organizations cannot.
It's pretty hard to embargo a terrorist organization, for example. |
Terrorism will always exist, of course. But terrorists deprived of bank accounts, state supplied weapons, safe haven, etc. aren't really effective terrorists. |
right.. but they don't need nations to assist them in those endevors. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
right.. but they don't need nations to assist them in those endevors. |
BB,
You are one person whose short posts irritate me. but on the other hand, you are one of the only persons on this board who I truly feel speaks in an informed and nonpartisan, HUMAN and of the heart way......
Glad that happens and you post and contribute with such intention, whatever the post.
I'm writing this after a very long post and should have said this much earlier......
DD |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mindmetoo wrote: |
Bulsajo wrote: |
mindmetoo wrote: |
Does Bush call Iran a nation separate from terrorist organizations or does he straight up call it a terrorist nation? You're all arguing over a minor detail. |
No, it's not minor- there is a big difference between negotiating with a terrorist organization and a state. It's very easy to say a state "supports terrorism", for example. That charge doesn't hold much water if both sides make the accusation (which is the case between Iran and the US).
States can make- and be held to- negotiations that terrorist organizations cannot.
It's pretty hard to embargo a terrorist organization, for example. |
Terrorism will always exist, of course. But terrorists deprived of bank accounts, state supplied weapons, safe haven, etc. aren't really effective terrorists. |
So, MMT, I read this as us saying the same thing- a state can negotiate with another state to get them to stop supporting terrorists, but what sort of negotiations can you make with terrorists, right?
What can Israel do to satisfy Hezbullah?
What can the West do to satisfy bin Laden?
In both cases what can be done to enforce any sort of negotiations. Would negotiations have stopped Aum Shinrikyo?
Timothy McVeigh and his friend Terry Nichols?
Abu Nidal?
The PLO in Munich?
But back to the OP- let's face it, only through the most dishonest reading of that article can anyone take from it the idea that former generals are counselling the Bush administration to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
Well there is no evidence in the article that indicates the generals mentioned terrorist groups. That is the only line in the entire article that mentions terrorists.
Poor journalism perhaps? |
Or you posting with an agenda? Tomato, tomahto? Failing to read carefully? What differences does it make how many sentences are devoted to it? Why not just admit the obvious: Ooops! You missed it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
Quote: |
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them. |
Can you two not read? Why make statements that are so completely inaccurate? |
Funny that you would 'forget' the crucial part of that sentence and then have the audacity to try to take us to task for poor reading comprehension!
Does that article talk about negotiating with terrorists anywhere else but the portion of the sentence you highlighted?
No. In fact, just about everywhere else it talks about negotiating with States.
There is a crucial difference between a state and a terrorist organization which you apparently are unable to see.
EFL Trainer, I really didn't think you were this much of a moron but it looks like Gopher, Junior, Joo, and Bucheon Bum were right about you.
edit: I see BB and Huffdaddy have already made the case. The topic title is clearly misleading in terms of the content of the article- to view it any other way is to either not comprehend the difference or deliberately obscure it. |
Sorry, Bulsa, but not another thread about me to deflect from having to discuss the issues. FACT: I wasn't discussing the article. You know this. If you dont understand this, you're an idiot because the ONLY comment I made was that YOU TWO had mislead and/or simply missed it. There is no way to interpret my single little comment as relating to anything other than the fact that the two of you made posts that were WRONG because you either didn't understand what you read or didn't read carefully enough. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|