To negotiate or not to negotiate, that is the thread

[votetheoneyouhatetheleast]

I posted this somewhere else, but as I spent ages writing it I thought I'd give it its own thread.

I believe, we should try to negotiate with just about anyone (That's not everyone).

1. If we don't try then it's a potential solution that will never occur.
2. If we try and fail, we've lost nothing we just revert to the plan as per point 1.
3. If we try and are successful, then it will save more lives, money and cause less resentment.

So my point is we have nothing to lose by trying.

This does not mean I think we should be weak. Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness, it's a display of respect and a desire to solve problems through peaceful and rational means. However, negotiating will frequently require the threat of violence as an often effective tool. The carrot and the stick.

Respect: This is important (even when we don't like or agree with their actions) as someone who you do not respect, will never respect you in return. To get people to do what you want, you need their respect. Fear created by force or the threat of force is not respect, it's fear, and fear breeds resentment, which ultimately creates larger numbers of, and more determined enemies. This is why it is always best to use diplomacy wherever possible. Hence at very least trying to negotiate.

Solve problems through peaceful and rational means: As mentioned above, we need to gain peoples respect, not their hatred. Hatred spreads like a disease, if you kill one innocent person (or even guilty person) it creates more enemies, usually enemies that are highly motivated. (imagine if someone killed your mother or brother for example)


Now, another point which I've come across many times but you didn't mention, so I'll bring it up, is that meeting with terrorists/terrorist states creates or encourages them.

Creates: It does not create more terrorists/terrorist states. Terrorists/terrorist states are people who are prepared to take severe risks and even die for their cause. Agreeing to negotiate is not something that inspires people to do this, resentment over the seemingly unjust death of a friend or relative, severe disrespect (humiliation) of an individual, group, nation or religion and of course fear, does. It is something that is either already inside them or not. However, what it does do is make potential terrorists a little more likely to not become terrorists, as it suggests you are prepared to listen to their objections, without the need of violent action.

Encourages: Does negotiating encourage other terrorists/terrorist states to engage in acts of terror as a means to get a "seat at the table". Unlikely, it's more likely that it will have the opposite effect, as if they see we are prepared to listen, there would be no logic in causing more friction and potentially lose that chance. If we agree to meet with them, then why would they bother.

We could end up negotiating with everyone there isn't enough time in the day: Firstly, there has to be the use of common sense. For example, should we negotiate with al-Queda? As things stand, no. Al-Queda's stated objective is ridiculous (death to everyone who doesn't turn to Islam). That will never happen. If they retracted their ridiculous demands and toned down their rhetoric for a sustained period, then perhaps. This is both very unlikely and very difficult for al-Queda to do for many reasons. But mainly because it does not exist as an entity in the way we often think. It is an Ideology, basically a religion in it's self. People can say they are with al-Queda but have absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin larden other than sharing his beliefs. This is what makes it so dangerous. They infect the minds of the impressionable and those who feel oppressed or ignored. To counter this you need to deal with those issues which are causing this resentment (but I'm getting off topic).

Sometimes negotiations are impossible: If what one, or both sides want is unreasonable, then a settlement will not be reached. But you must try or you will never know. Public rhetoric in the media is about propaganda and saving face. Negotiations happen in private to remove this from the equation. What someone is willing to say in public and what someone is willing to say in private are often very different things.

I might have missed a few points and I'm happy to address them if you ask, but I wont respond to questions that are answered above but ignored.

[votetheoneyouhatetheleast]

Benedict, who met U.S. President George W. Bush during his Washington visit, called for "a deeper search for ways of pre-empting and managing conflicts by exploring every possible diplomatic avenue, and giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/ts_nm/pope_usa_dc

For once myself and the Pope are agreed.

[votetheoneyouhatetheleast]

Bump! 19 views. Amazing how logical threads don't get the same number of comments. Goes to show all that's wrong with our society, we just want to fight, we're not interested in being right.

[rodrigu3]

The problem is Bush wasn't capable of negotiating because he sounds like a blundering fool when he opens his mouth without having something in front of him to read. Even then, he has difficulty. So of course diplomatic negotiations couldn't go forward: 1) either no one understands him or 2) no one takes him seriously. Thus, he writes little love notes on bombs and sends those instead.

[BillyBob]

Originally Posted by votetheoneyouhatetheleast

Bump! 19 views. Amazing how threads about my gay sex life seem to create minimal interest.

At least you know your boyfriend is checking in occasionally....even if he has nothing to say.

[rodrigu3]

Originally Posted by BillyBob

At least you know your boyfriend is checking in occasionally....even if he has nothing to say.

Stop laughing BillyBob, we all know you don't have any teeth, but you don't have to display it. I'm sure your significant other loves your bare gums.

[CRIMSON MASK]

Originally Posted by rodrigu3

The problem is Bush wasn't capable of negotiating because he sounds like a blundering fool when he opens his mouth without having something in front of him to read. Even then, he has difficulty. So of course diplomatic negotiations couldn't go forward: 1) either no one understands him or 2) no one takes him seriously. Thus, he writes little love notes on bombs and sends those instead.

Ridiculous and ignorant statement. You watch too much SNL.

[CRIMSON MASK]

Originally Posted by votetheoneyouhatetheleast

I posted this somewhere else, but as I spent ages writing it I thought I'd give it its own thread.

I believe, we should try to negotiate with just about anyone (That's not everyone).

1. If we don't try then it's a potential solution that will never occur.
2. If we try and fail, we've lost nothing we just revert to the plan as per point 1.
3. If we try and are successful, then it will save more lives, money and cause less resentment.

So my point is we have nothing to lose by trying.

This does not mean I think we should be weak. Negotiating isn't a sign of weakness, it's a display of respect and a desire to solve problems through peaceful and rational means. However, negotiating will frequently require the threat of violence as an often effective tool. The carrot and the stick.

Respect: This is important (even when we don't like or agree with their actions) as someone who you do not respect, will never respect you in return. To get people to do what you want, you need their respect. Fear created by force or the threat of force is not respect, it's fear, and fear breeds resentment, which ultimately creates larger numbers of, and more determined enemies. This is why it is always best to use diplomacy wherever possible. Hence at very least trying to negotiate.

Solve problems through peaceful and rational means: As mentioned above, we need to gain peoples respect, not their hatred. Hatred spreads like a disease, if you kill one innocent person (or even guilty person) it creates more enemies, usually enemies that are highly motivated. (imagine if someone killed your mother or brother for example)


Now, another point which I've come across many times but you didn't mention, so I'll bring it up, is that meeting with terrorists/terrorist states creates or encourages them.

Creates: It does not create more terrorists/terrorist states. Terrorists/terrorist states are people who are prepared to take severe risks and even die for their cause. Agreeing to negotiate is not something that inspires people to do this, resentment over the seemingly unjust death of a friend or relative, severe disrespect (humiliation) of an individual, group, nation or religion and of course fear, does. It is something that is either already inside them or not. However, what it does do is make potential terrorists a little more likely to not become terrorists, as it suggests you are prepared to listen to their objections, without the need of violent action.

Encourages: Does negotiating encourage other terrorists/terrorist states to engage in acts of terror as a means to get a "seat at the table". Unlikely, it's more likely that it will have the opposite effect, as if they see we are prepared to listen, there would be no logic in causing more friction and potentially lose that chance. If we agree to meet with them, then why would they bother.

We could end up negotiating with everyone there isn't enough time in the day: Firstly, there has to be the use of common sense. For example, should we negotiate with al-Queda? As things stand, no. Al-Queda's stated objective is ridiculous (death to everyone who doesn't turn to Islam). That will never happen. If they retracted their ridiculous demands and toned down their rhetoric for a sustained period, then perhaps. This is both very unlikely and very difficult for al-Queda to do for many reasons. But mainly because it does not exist as an entity in the way we often think. It is an Ideology, basically a religion in it's self. People can say they are with al-Queda but have absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin larden other than sharing his beliefs. This is what makes it so dangerous. They infect the minds of the impressionable and those who feel oppressed or ignored. To counter this you need to deal with those issues which are causing this resentment (but I'm getting off topic).

Sometimes negotiations are impossible: If what one, or both sides want is unreasonable, then a settlement will not be reached. But you must try or you will never know. Public rhetoric in the media is about propaganda and saving face. Negotiations happen in private to remove this from the equation. What someone is willing to say in public and what someone is willing to say in private are often very different things.

I might have missed a few points and I'm happy to address them if you ask, but I wont respond to questions that are answered above but ignored.

You don't negotiate with terrorists and you don't negotiate with leaders like Irans President who calls for the destruction of Israel.

Negotiating with out and out terror groups gives them legitamacy in the eyes of their followers and their neighbors.

Bottom line, they don't want to negotiate. They want their demands met period. And their demands are often outrageous and warped.

If a creep stalked and raped your sister and openly said he was gonna get your other sister would you want the police to "negotiate" with him to find some kind of middle ground? Or would you want them to kick his door in and cuff-n-stuff him if not worse?

[rodrigu3]

Originally Posted by CRIMSON MASK

Ridiculous and ignorant statement. You watch too much SNL.

Just because he speaks better than you doesn't make him good with words. I don't watch SNL at all actually. Thanks for discrediting yourself, saved me a bunch of time.

[sunnyside]

In principle I agree with the idea of negotiating with almost everybody.

But there are a couple traps.

The first is the stall. This is especially relevant when the issue is nukes. When a country shuts down a plant to remove the fuel you've got a small window to hit the country. Just keep talking and they'll just build the thing (i.e. N Korea stupid Bush).

But this can happen in all sorts of situations. Attempts at ethnic cleansing are another favorite time of governments to negotiate.


Second is when you're rewarding someone for evil actions. If you blew them off, and then they blow up a couple hundred civilians and now you're willing to talk you're rewarding them. I think you should talk to them at some point. But first it's bloody vengence time. Then talking time.


These are what worry me about Obama.