[quote=larrylujack]straight from the discredited neocon Bolton. Case in point: the success in N Korea in that negotiations resulted in them dismantling their nuclear power capability. Does neocon Bolton say that the US should not have negotiated with N Korea? [/quote]
Here let me put it in terms maybe you can understand because obviously you don’t know the details of the negotiations.
In a divorce, you have two lawyers, one representing the husband, one representing the wife. In a normal process, the two lawyers vigorously represent their client, trying to use the facts, leverage, and laws to their clients’ benefit. At the end of it, the two lawyers will come out with something that will have some sacrifices and benefits to their clients.
If you think that the negotiations with North Korea are falling along those lines, you would be devastatingly wrong.
The scenario with North Korea is more like this: the husband’s lawyer fights vigorously for his client, while the wife’s lawyer is only interested in making a deal happen and even harbors sympathy for the husband. Even worse, the wife’s lawyer believes that it is the wife’s fault that they are in divorce in the first place. The wife’s lawyer believes that if he gives up little things and some major things, that the husband’s lawyer will eventually agree to some major things. Anyone who knows how to negotiate knows this is absolutely the worst way to negotiate.
(husband’s lawyer: North Korea. wife’s lawyer: U.S., for the unclear)
Maybe you don’t believe me. The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for three years. They’ve been using this technique for all that time. It has gotten them JACK.
So maybe once you read that the thesis above was by John Bolton, maybe you just said “neocon” and dismissed him. Go ahead it is certainly your right to do so. But that doesn’t mean he is wrong. That doesn’t mean that what he talked about didn’t happen or isn’t happening now.
But I do like the most incredible thing that I heard here in this thread:
[quote=larrylujack]Also, Israel negotiates routinely with their enemies Hamas and Hezbollah to obtain prisoner exchanges, for example, so frankly, negotiations can and do work, and are a far better option than the neocon macho posturing of no negotiation which has shown such incredible success in Iraq and Iran (note sarcasm). [/quote]
You again show absolutely no knowledge of the “negotiations” between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Every time you hear that there is a “truce” between Israel and Hamas, I would like you to recall this word: “hudna”. In islamic law, muslims are allowed to call a 10 year truce, or “hudna”, in order to allow themselves more time to get more powerful so that they will continue their war against the infidel. If you look at Hamas’s statements, they use the word “hudna.” The mainstream media translates this into a truce.
Israel has been trying to use negotiation for years, but like the wife’s lawyer, they have been unwilling to assert their authority and zealousness for their client. They have been conceding and conceding for years. Each concession has made Hamas and Hezbollah stronger. The rocket attacks from the Palestinians still occur, despite the truce. The statement in Hamas’s constitution states that it will drive Israel to the sea and obliterate it – that is still there. Hezbollah and Hamas still have Israeli soldiers hostage. You call these negotiations successes?
I would like to post exactly how many times Israel has been screwed over by the negotiation process, but if you don’t know this much history, you’re pretty much a lost case already. God help us from your “negotiations.”
To emphasize: there is nothing wrong with negotiations when you have two zealous sides trying to obtain maximum benefit for their clients. That is not what we are getting and it is not what Obama, the Europeans, our State Dept., and frankly Bush is promising.
“The North [Koreans] would clearly prefer to negotiate with softer and inexperienced Americans.” – James R. Lilley, former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea and China, November 9, 1998.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The Europeans have been trying a carrot and stick approach, and the results have not been heartening.
[/quote]
Correction: The Europeans have been trying a carrot approach. No stick. A carrot and stick approach would be a refreshing change of pace. Also, the Europeans’ approach has been to sell us (the U.S.) out.
[quote=afx114]
John Bolton: Yosemite Sam diplomacy, mustache and all.The dude’s credibility is nil. He’s a big part of the reason why so many nations have had issues with us these past 7 years.
[/quote]
Yes, those nations having a problem with us for OUR United States Ambassador sticking up for us. Yeah, sucks for them, doesn’t it? For us having to actually insist that we benefit, right?
Again, I highlight the attitude of many people:
John Bolton: “It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”
How can you POSSIBLY negotiate for your client (The U.S.) when you hold that attitude? How can Obama?
And by the way, bring a better argument than “John Bolton is a neocon weeny.” Try facts and logic.
