Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
5 comments:
You mean listen to people like General Petraeus who said, before the surge, that "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq" and "Military action is necessary to help improve security... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect." Still waiting on that political part of the solution from Bush. But what would Petraeus know.
Here's a link to the article where I got the quotes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6429519.stm
I agree with Patraues when he says a military solution is necessary but not sufficient. We obviosuly need political solutions as well. That is why we are talking and making deals with many leaders of insurgent groups.
I am not sure how your point is a counter to mine. Everyone of those people agree we need to stay their and get the job done.
Heck - Patreus just came out today and asked if some 15,000 troops can have their tours extended. He sees signs of progress and wants to ride the momentum. I stand behind Patreus.
"That is why we are talking and making deals with many leaders of insurgent groups." It's been 4 years! How much more "talking" can be done? And... are we talking? Who with?
"However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.
Last year, 11 Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shiite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, according to insurgent and government officials."
those excerpts taken from here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2934192
Bush's idea of talking and making deals involves dropping a bomb. If the Bush administration didn't like the conditions, make a counter offer! That's how negotiation works.
From a few paragraphs later in the same article: "The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported last year that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met seven times with insurgent representatives in late 2005 and early 2006. But the extremists broke off the contacts in April 2006 after the U.S. side failed to respond to a series of demands."
"Failed to respond to a series of demands." = not talking.
Failed to respond to a series of demands = not talking.
Let me get this straight - if the demands were Bush should leave office and we will quit fighting. Then we should respond to that. Just becuase we failed to respond does not mean we were not talking. It means we did not like the conditions of the terms being sent. Basically we are saying - Get real with your negotiations and we will gladly talk to you.
Failed to respond by definition means there was NO COMMUNICATION!!!
No matter how outlandish or stupid the demands were, at least at some point there WAS a dialogue. I would rather there be some kind of dialogue than none at all.
To use an analogy. Carlos Zambrano is in negotiations with the Cubs for a contract extension. As long as the two sides are talking, only good things can happen. As soon as one of the sides stops talking, then there becomes animosity between the two and Zambrano is more likely to leave at the end of the season. Talking=good. No talking=bad.
Post a Comment