Are we doing anything right?

[Lanya]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2062489.ece
CIA is undermining British war effort, say military chiefs

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2496369,00.html

Secret American talks with insurgents break down

[BT]

Secret American talks with insurgents break down

I don't know about the first story but the talks with the insurgents should have broken down. Did you even read their demands?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't know about the first story but the talks with the insurgents should have broken down. Did you even read their demands?

==================================================================
So what?

What harm could there possibly be in talking?
Is not talking always better than killing?

This is Juniorbush's problem, too. He refuses to talk with anyone unless they concede the major points before even sitting down to talk.

He does this in Cuba, Iraq, Iran, with Hezbollah and North Korea. And what are the results? He has no results, which is the same as failure.

Worse than failure, because there is not even a mechanism to talk to the opposition.

The US refused to talk to the PRC for 20 years. Now it's a major creditor and partner.

You can sum up word  refusing to talk in two words: GUARANTEED FAILURE.

[hnumpah]

I don't know about the first story but the talks with the insurgents should have broken down. Did you even read their demands?

Crikey, isn't that what talks are about, getting them to modify their demands in exchange for us modifying ours, until we reach a middle ground both sides can agree to?

How many years did Kissinger shuttle back and forth for talks with the North Vietnamese? How many months did we spend sitting across from the North Koreans (after we spent who knows how long arguing over the size and shape of the conference table, and who sat where) before we came up with a cease fire both sides could agree to in the Korean War? How many decades and different administrations did it take holding summits with the USSR before they finally tore down the Berlin Wall and broke up the Soviet Union?

And we can't get past "No, that's unacceptable"? Does that speak to the unimaginativeness of Bush and his crowd, that they can't even come up with alternatives to discuss to keep the talks going?

[BT]

And we can't get past "No, that's unacceptable"? Does that speak to the unimaginativeness of Bush and his crowd, that they can't even come up with alternatives to discuss to keep the talks going?

If you had read the article you would have seen that the insurgents broke off the talks, because we were considering opening back door talks with Iran.

[hnumpah]

If you had read the article you would have seen that the insurgents broke off the talks, because we were considering opening back door talks with Iran.

And we couldn't come up with a way to keep the talks going? Or even make an effort?

I wonder how many times the North Koreans or North Vietnamese walked out on their respective peace talks. Didn't stop us from trying, though.

[Plane]

If you had read the article you would have seen that the insurgents broke off the talks, because we were considering opening back door talks with Iran.

And we couldn't come up with a way to keep the talks going? Or even make an effort?

I wonder how many times the North Koreans or North Vietnamese walked out on their respective peace talks. Didn't stop us from trying, though.

Talks are like buying something , have you ever been trying to buy a car from a really bad salesman?

Teddy Roosevelt won a Nobel Prize for hoasting negotiations between the Japaneese and Russians in 1910 , he wrote that the Japaneese were sneaks and that the Russians were stupid but he helped them find a peace.

Not a good settlement for Koreans but a peace of sorts that lasted thirty years.

[hnumpah]

...have you ever been trying to buy a car from a really bad salesman?

Yep; took 'im to the cleaners.

Which still does not address the fact that not talking accomplishes nothing; it's damned near impossible to come to any kind of deal without discussing it first. Just throwing your hands up and walking away accomplishes nothing. You don't get the car, and he doesn't make the sale, no matter how good, or bad, the final deal is for each respective participant.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Talks are like buying something , have you ever been trying to buy a car from a really bad salesman?

=================================================
A poor analogy, I say.

If you find yourself trying to buy a Sportsblodge v8 from a really bad salesman at Hometown Sportsblodge, you can cease discussions with him and proceed to Crosstown Sportsblodge.

You can only negotiate about Iran with whomever is running Iran. There are no alternative spokespersons.

As long as you are talking, no one is dying. This is usually the case. Even if fewer are dying it it therefore better for no other reason than not talking.

[BT]

Just throwing your hands up and walking away accomplishes nothing.

What part of "the insurgents were the ones who walked away" don't you undertand?

And no,  it is not the United States job to cave on issues just because you and the author do not like Bush.

[hnumpah]

What part of "the insurgents were the ones who walked away" don't you undertand?

And what part of my previous response confuses you?

"And we couldn't come up with a way to keep the talks going? Or even make an effort?

I wonder how many times the North Koreans or North Vietnamese walked out on their respective peace talks. Didn't stop us from trying, though."

Or did you look back that far?

[hnumpah]

...it is not the United States job to cave on issues just because you and the author do not like Bush.

Didn't say it was. Though it occurs to me that maybe the administration would like to actually be seen as trying to accomplish something, other than spending billions of dollars and dozens of American lives each month in Iraq.

[BT]

"And we couldn't come up with a way to keep the talks going? Or even make an effort?

When you consider that the first demand from the insurgents was to overthrow the newly elected Iraqi government and that the talks continued for two months afterwards confirms that we made good faith efforts to keep the talks alive.

We open back door channels for talks with Iran and the insurgents bolt and it is our fault that they didn't display any flexibility?

We didn't bolt when they demanded overthrowing the legitimately elected government, so how suddenly are we the bad guys?

[BT]

Didn't say it was. Though it occurs to me that maybe the administration would like to actually be seen as trying to accomplish something, other than spending billions of dollars and dozens of American lives each month in Iraq.

If the administration were more interested in style over substance they would have "redeployed" troops as soon as the unfavorable numbers crossed over 50%.

Glad they aren't.

[hnumpah]

Didn't say we were the bad guys, or that it was our fault; only that we might have made more of an effort to keep talks going.

Though you seem to want to use that to accuse me of wanting the administration to 'cave' on issues just because I don't like Bush. Actually, I can't stand the little cretin, though I keep my distaste for him separate from my criticism of the way he and his administration are handling their war efforts. Wouldn't matter if I loved the little bastid, if I felt he was wrong about something, I'd speak out about it. You seem to have no trouble believing others aren't sucking up or kissing Bush's ass because they support the war, but don't like his stand on other issues; why should you have any trouble believing my disagreement with some of his policies has nothing to do with how I feel about him personally?