Great idea. Let's sit down and have tea with nations that have never negotiated with anyone and only understand brutal force. Keep dreaming.

Negotiations work if the parties have some common ground. Let’s look at terrorism what do they want: a) we die, b) we convert and help them kill those who won’t. Since we will not accept either position talking allows them to recruit since it is a sign of weakness.
If you know about MEMRI TV a group that translates Islamic news and television a news program was devoted to the topic of negotiations with America. Their conclusion “the only negotiations they are going to get is the sword”.
Please tell me of the war that was won by talking.

If New Yorker is talking about Iraq (a sovereign nation) he is mistaken.
The current war is against faction groups - not entire countries.

America is not an innocent bystander and has made much money from the wars fought, much blood money before they became involved in WWII since then they have interferred in many a country with co-vort operations. America gets what it gives and takes at the expense of others blood

The problem with the cowboy diplomacy, which the UN and League of Nations were both set up to address, is that some of the swords used in the negotiations are pretty big, on both sides. Negotiations are really the only effective way to deal with a situation where both parties can wipe each other out, and a lot of the rest of us, too. If this isn't true we should take on China over the independence of Taiwan. But it is true. It's how the cold war ended (Reagan was along for the ride). It's why cowboys don't make good diplomats.

michaelh--
"Please tell me of the war that was won by talking."
You missed the point...wars aren't usually won by talking, they're prevented.
Of course, it takes intelligence and patience to talk rationally with someone we don't agree with, and many of us lack these qualities.

For negotiations to work, there has to be a reason that all parties would want to sit down at the table. As 7:11 pointed out, if the swords are large enough on both sides, then both side know that war would only mean their own destruction.

Also, negotiations would not work when one party has no concern for human life - either their own, or that of the enemy. If a group or a government can convince its people that it is better to die than to live, then negotiations would be useless.

It takes both fear of destruction and respect for the lives of the citizens to make a proud leader humble himself enough to go to the conference table.

"For negotiations to work, there has to be a reason that all parties would want to sit down at the table," says Mike Richards 8:27.

He must mean throwing around the L word (liberal) on each and every political discussion under the sun. To my knowledge, his comment above is the first in my recollection where he did NOT do the usual Rush Limbaugh song-and-dance in trying to denigrate and demonize liberals as the "final word" on any given subject.

But the day is young.

This is 2008 - not 1945.

Our world has become far too interdependent for any country to step in with their 'superior fire-power" and win the contest.

People only have to retaliate by blowing themselves up to even the score.

Turn off The Rush Limbaugh Show and start intelligent unifying discussion.

Trouble is, diplomacy only leads to agreements, not assurance.

Clinton tried diplomacy with North Korea. He gave them nuclear technology because they agreed not to use it for weapons. Of course, they broke the agreement and made weapons.

Some nations tried diplomacy with Hitler. They stayed out of his affairs and in return he promised to leave them alone. But once it suited his purposes, he invaded them - ie blatant violation.

Criminals hold hostages so they can force negotiations. We don't naturally negotiate with suspected criminals. We simply take them into custody. In essence, we take control of the situation first then sort it out and let them have their say. We don't ask for cooperation, we require it. If they don't willingly cooperate, we use force. The degree of force used depends on the amount of resistance. A suspect who refuses to set a gun on the ground gets shot, possibly killed.

So with terrorists, like Iran, we don't negotiate unless they are in a position to force negotiations. Ideally, we make demands and use whatever force is necessary to ensure those demands are met.

Negotiating with allies is another story. Perhaps you were thinking of that?

michaelh 6:19 a.m.: "Please tell me of the war that was won by talking."

Hitler won by talking with Chamberlain.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time.
- Thomas Fuller

In today's ever-expanding interdependent world, no country has the luxury of utilizing a might is right philosophy.

Especially when dealing with numerous splinter groups and radicals. Trying to bomb them into submission no longer works.

There will always be times for talking, negotiations, and finding ways to share the oil.

The vast majority of cultures on the planet will negotiate in good faith, with one notable exception.
Muslims will not, because they believe all others to be infidels (sub-human in their eyes).

"Payback", "Getting even", "Retribution", "Justice", "Revenge", etc. We as a society are wonderfully set up for these things. We just aren't much good, though, at reconciliation and compromise, even when dealing with FRIENDS, let alone our wide and growing collection of ENEMIES.

your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you listens to Rush Limbaugh is a classic form of politically correct arrogance: "I'm tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a bigot"
It also proves why it is impossible to negotiate - or even have a rational discussion - with some people

There is always a first time 10:30 a.m.: "A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time. - Thomas Fuller

A liberal believes you should first leap then look. - Anony

wrz (10:22)

"Hitler won by talking with Chamberlain."

Don't tell me you really believe that Hitler won a war by talking. My reading of history is that the war Hitler began in 1939 was eventually lost at great suffering and cost, and he forfeited his life for his failure.

If we settled disputes by only fighting, like the images of the Old West, we'd not only be waging war on those nations with whom we disagree, we'd be fighting everyone and everything with which we disagreed. There would be no room for talk because fighting would be the first and only option.

You'd be fighting with your kids, with your parents, with your spouse, with your neighbors, with your boss, with your co-workers, with everyone. We'd all be packing concealed weapons so that we would have the "ultimate decider" at hand in case we started to lose. However, to stay on the safe side, why even bother to wait, just whip out the ol' 357 Magnum and blast away.

The United States continued to talk with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Of course, Mike Richards is correct that negotiation is best when coming from a strong position.

Diplomacy without the credible threat of force is like settlement discussions in litigation without the threat of going to trial.

Negotiations are wonderful. Most cases settle. Sometimes, though, after talking things through, you discover that the opposing sides' respective bottom lines are irreconcileable. Then what do you do?

Most negotiate in good faith @ 10:35

Good point. Every few dozen years we get a Hitler, or or a Genghis Kahn, or a Tamerlane, or an Alexander the Great or another nut who thinks it his destiny to take over the world. Today we have the Muslims, as you point out.

Be careful "Most negotiate" 10:35 -
Your generalization of Muslims is grossly inaccurate. I know people from the Muslim faith here in Utah who are far from your conservative highly negative depiction of an entire group of people.
What you are saying is exactly the way The 3rd Reich depicted the Jews.

Hate to be the one to break this to you dear 9:42, but the bloated bigot Limbaugh's Utah audience is the largest in the country and the daily postings attacking their fellow Americans (liberals) reflects precisely the Limbaugh far-right radical philosophy that is trying to divide this country.

Thomas sounds like a mouthpiece for the wonderful Dick Cheney.

Perhaps its time to reevaluate the "...rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air" ideology. Before we are all blown away.

I know of no liberal whose philosophy is leap then look.
Considering the preemptive war on Iraq inspired and carried through be a neocon administration, (and an American first) I would say wrz would be better served staging his complaint against them.

What a bunch of drivel. In order for nations at cross purposes with us to be will to negotiate means we have to give them something. So if we want Iran to give up nuclear weapons we have to find out what they want and decide if its worth it. Libya and North Korea (apparently) decided that war with us was counter to their interest and gave up nuclear weapons. In return we are now leading efforts to provide economic assistance to both. If we give Iran economic assistance in exchange for giving up nukes that would be in our interest. But if they blackmail us it would not be. We could say we won't attack you if you drop your program. If they drop their program we could then cooperate economically.

No one in their right mind believes that negotiation without some leverage is valid as a strategy. Whether it is negotiating with a boss about a raise, negotiating with your kids about eating their spinich, or negotiating with another nation, there has to be something to support your side other than the simplistic moral argument that you are right.

Except for the Soviet Union, no nation before or since the beginnings of the Cold War has had the power of the United States. The argument that nation states like Iran are not rational entities is absurd. The Iranians are just as interested in survival as are the American people. The difference is that the United States could completely obliterate Iran.

The administration likes to use the talking point that we are at a disadvantage and somehow the other nation (i.e. Iran) poses a clear and present danger. This is laughable except that Bush keeps threatening to strike at Iran and that keeps me up at night. One last hurrah to bind the hands of the next president to another foreign policy debacle. Such bold talk coming from a man who never saw a shot fired in anger in his presence.

WRZ, the nut who thinks it his destiny to take over the world currently resides in the White House.

To try to pretend wars are fought for ideological reasons (as conservatives would like us to believe) went out with black-and-white television.
It's economics.
Always economics.
For a reasonable people there are always ways to find out how to (ie.,) share the oil.
But the group we have in power now with their preemptive tactics (an American first) are only interested in bullying to get their way. This is the same as Rush Limbaugh hanging up on a liberal caller who is getting the best of him.

I agree talking needs to come first, but talking CAN'T be your only option. Negotiation, when both parties know that both parties will never go beyond the talking stage, is futile.

That said, the real reason I decided to spout off today is... This revisionist history presented as "Fact" in the original article just bugs the heck out of me. Failure to "talk well" with others was the cause for WW1 and WW2? Of course communication is always one of the factors, but you have to admit that there were significant events that lead to both of these wars, not just some idiot not being willing to talk well with others. To insist you could have prevented these conflicts with more talk is just arrogant boasting.

I know many also believe President Bush and all Conservatives believe in a "War First" philosophy. I think IF you are honest with yourself, you know that isn't true and constantly pushing that message is just limbaugh-like hype.

We all know President Bush negotiated before resorting to military options. He and the UN negotiated with Hussain numerous times before the decision to back up the talk with military consequences occured.

TALK-is-always-the-best-option, but A-Government-that-guarantees-it-will-NEVER-go-beyond-TALK-can-not-affectively-protect-it's-people.

Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale

U.S. officials went to extremes to stifle our legal challenge to Bush's warrantless surveillance -- but a federal judge says the program is criminal, anyway.

On July 3, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California made a ruling particularly worthy of the nation's attention. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a key case in the epic battle over warrantless spying inside the United States, Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon.

Read more: George W. Bush, AT&T, Terrorism, FBI, Telecommunications, CIA, Opinion, National Security Agency, Jon B. Eisenberg

grossly innacurate. 11:24 a.m.: "Be careful "Most negotiate" 10:35 - Your generalization of Muslims is grossly inaccurate. I know people from the Muslim faith here in Utah who are far from your conservative highly negative depiction of an entire group of people."

How many are in the US military fighting against fellow adherents in Iraq or Afghanistan?

re: the wacky wrz 11:51 a.m.:

"I know of no liberal whose philosophy is leap then look."

That's right. They grab a Conservative and push him in first to see what might happen.

"Considering the preemptive war on Iraq inspired and carried through be a neocon administration, (and an American first) I would say wrz would be better served staging his complaint against them."

Dozens of liberal democrats stood on the floor in the Senate proclaiming that Saddam had WMD including nukes, and demanding that he and his WMD's must be taken out and the sooner the better.

An American first? What would you call Bill's preemptive strike against Belgrade and Kosovars?

Oscar | 11:57 a.m.: "The administration likes to use the talking point that we are at a disadvantage and somehow the other nation (i.e. Iran) poses a clear and present danger."

You should ask our friends the Israelis if Iran, who continues to vow that Israel will be obliterated as a nation and pushed into the sea, poses a clear and present danger.

Johny Fairplay @ 1:05 p.m.: "WRZ, the nut who thinks it his destiny to take over the world currently resides in the White House."

It's true that the current White House resident would like to see democracy around the world... He's said as much. And I agree with him.

Is that your point? Or did I miss something?

No, no, no Freddie!
Not a good idea to stereotype entire classes of people.
That's how Germany got into trouble.

Why are conservatives so ignorant that they cannot distinguish between peoples?
The fools above sound like they really believe that Muslims are of the devil - and that's that!
Do these tragic people black-and-white EVERYTHING

Anonymous | 2:23 p.m.: "No, no, no Freddie!
Not a good idea to stereotype entire classes of people. That's how Germany got into trouble."

If you are speaking of Muslims, they stereotype themselves... at least in one sense. Their leaders have proclaimed that the entire world will submit to Islam. And those who don't are judged to be infidels to be dispatched. I see little or no objection to that position voiced by the laity.

Never mind, Freddie.
Never mind.

wrz (1:57 p.m.)

Israel is not the United States! First, understand that. However, the United States has assumed responsibility for the protection of Israel through various treaties and alliances. Neighboring nations know that if Israel is threatened, the United States will come to that nation's assistance.

However, the adjoining countries should asssured that the United States supports a fair and just settlement to the problems of the Middle East. That means that the United States not be perceived as in the pocket of Israeli hardliners. Otherwise, we end up with a bully that chooses to throw it's weight around (Israel) knowing its big brother will step in at any time to save the day (United States).

The Israeli hardliners are as paranoid and aggressive as Dick Cheney, and they will spread do what they will to have their way. They continue to build settlements in occupied Palestinian territory in violation of the Camp David accords.

Nonetheless, the point is that no country much of a threat to the United States. Our military, although weakened by the Bush fiasco in Iraq, is still a potent force. To say that Iran is a major threat is just Bush administration propaganda.

WRZ,

a trillion dollars and countless lives lost to bring "Democracy" to Iraq.

What's the price tag for the whole world?

That's my point.

"Grossly inaccurate," I also know liberal Muslims. However, in order to believe as they do, they have to ignore an awful lot about what their religion actually teaches.

That's fine with me -- I think the only way to practice most religions, and remain a decent person, is to "pick and choose," discarding the more awful parts. (Any Mormon who doesn't discard the extreme notion of obedience taught in "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" is potentially indecent.) But the idea that extremists have "hijacked" Islam -- by emphasizing the combative streak that is indisputably there -- is simply not accurate. A decent person can make quite a nice silk purse out of Islam, if he really sets his mind to it, just as a fairly decent ideology can be cobbled together from wisely-picked-and-chosen parts of Christianity. It's just that with Islam, there's just a little bit more that has to be discarded.

I am quite sure any taxpaying Muslim living here in the United States would soundly disagree with good ol' Thomas.

Judging from many of the posts today, we can clearly see that few, if any, can stay on topic. Is that the same thing that happens at the conference table? Do the parties waste time and energy talking drivel?

The mud slinging going on, shows that those who sling mud have little to offer and so they offer their slimy mud as a substitute for reason and fact.

Would that be what we should expect at the conference table when the fate of nations are at stake? If so, would it be worth the time to be part of mud wrestling?

Mike Richards tells us:
"those who sling mud have little to offer and so they offer their slimy mud as a substitute for reason and fact."
I wonder if he includes his oft-repeated Limbaughesque attacks on liberals as an end-of-discussion debate tactic.

(now watch him say, Huh? I never denigrate liberals - ever!)

"Let’s look at terrorism what do they want: a) we die, b) we convert and help them kill those who won’t. "

Someone apparently knows nothing about the "Real word". You know the one that ACTUALLY exists? Not the one that Republicans tell you exist.

Osama HIMSELF said what his objectives were. He wants us OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Not exactly an absurd request since we wanted the Soviets out of the Americas.
Osama in his own videos said repeatedly they wanted the US out of the region.
Do I support or condone what the Terrorists did? NO! But that does not mean they don't have a legitimate reason to attack us.

Want to see islamo-fascism terrorist activities towards America disappear overnight?

Get the [bleep] out of Iraq and find other sources of oil and energy in general.

(now watch for the usual lame: "We're liberating people from tyranny!" BS)

These people don't want to convert you and me to their beliefs. We have Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons for that sort of thing.

How does that explain the terrorism in britain, france, denmark, spain, indonesia, philippines, former yugoslavia, chechnya, pakistan, etc etc etc?

Before any discussion, know your enemy.

Don't be blind, foolish, self-blaming, unknowledgalbe (ignorant) like the liberals.

(by the way that IS the point of intelligence gathering)

I forgot mention the iraqi on iraqi terrorism in iraq.

terrorism in syria , lebanon, isreal, egypt, and many other african countries.

terroism in cuba, venezuala, colombia, chile and most the south and cental american countries.

Must I go on.

And somehow if the US just goes away it will all end.

Truly you are either nieve ignorant or both.

Terrorism is everywhere Neocon bro.
Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh?
Trying to rid it from the world is as stupid as bombing Iraq to get rid of Bin Ladin.

Why are conservatives so gullible?

Do these chumps REALLY think BushCo is going to rid the world of terrorism forever and ever, amen?

Conservatives are so naive and ignorant they actually believe the war on terrorism is about halting terrorism.
This is all about economics Neocons.
Oil.
It's always about economics.
As long as there are people willing to blow things up and blow themselves up - we are going to have terrorism.
Gotta find another way to get along.
I know - what about sharing the oil and/or finding alternate energy sources?