But on the other hand, it appears that terrorism got them what they wanted. Not a good message to send.
As for Iraq, I can’t believe you said that. First, the goal of many of the insurgents goes way beyond just getting us out of Iraq and doing so gives them a victory. A victory over the US is a better recruitment tool than even anger at the US. And we haven’t even gone into how a civil war will be much worse than what we have now.
Thankfully both of the major party candidates know this.
It seems you’re a bit behind in the news, adaher, with respect to not negotiating with the “terrorists” or “insurgents” or whatever you think they are Iraq.
It amazes me how many of the posters on here have direct access to so many of the Iraqi insurgents. Not just one or two of their own pet insurgents, but like whole swarthes of them.
I feel so inadequate 
Also, the US and USSR never actually attacked each other. If Moscow dropped a nuclear bomb on New York, you can bet there would be little negotiating.
Quite frankly, I’m not sure why you think that negotiations are the answer here. There are people - religeous fanatics for example - who do not believe in negotiation or comprimise. These people cannot be neotiated with in good faith because they are unwilling to meet you halfway unless it offers them a tactical advantage. Not every problem can be “talked through”.
Of course, there is the other side of the coin: those who believe, like I do, that it is the US who is in the wrong because it started a war of aggression and, therefore, the US should not be allowed to prevail because that sends the message that the world community will allow a country to get away with that kind of behavior.
If we followed the same line of reasoning, there is no room for negotiation and only a complete an unconditional American withdrawal from Iraq would be acceptable. We these lines of reasoning you end up with permanent wars which never end until one side is exterminated.
As I have said before, my money is on the Iraqis. They are fighting for their home and have their back against the wall. If the fighting continues, America will get tired and go home. The sooner that happens, the lower the casualties on both sides and the lower the damage.
Well put.
So you have evidence of a secret treaty between the US and the Filipino insurgents agreeing to Filipino independence 40 years later, (with a clause allowing for delays in the event of Japanese occupation)? Otherwise I think it’s a stretch to say that the Filipino insurgents won their rebellion.
You need someone to negotiate with. You need a reasonable partner to negotiate with (or at least one who can feign reasonable and responsible behavior). Negotiation may not be possible if your enemy wants you utterly destroyed or has otherwise unreasonable goals. If the group that opposes you calls for the immediate dismantling of the Roman Empire by tomorrow or Pilate’s wife will be killed (and it will be entirely your fault) then there is really not all that much you can do.
If the complaints/demands of the terrorists/guerillas/opposition are reasonable and/or just then you have to decide how to behave reasonably/justly without creating the appearance of capitulation. You may have to find a third party to negotiate with (Sinn Fein vs the IRA maybe).
And the first rule is to not paint yourself into a corner by saying “we will never do X” because then, even if doing X is perfectly reasonable and just your people will say you are claudicating. It is like an argument between lovers where there is no substance to the argument and only pride to be maintained. What is stupid is getting yourself into that position in the first place and, after you have done that, not realising that substance should be what counts and not empty face-saving. My goodness, I remember criticizing the Chinese government for their childish face-saving during the Hainan incident but the position of the US now is a hundred times worse. They have painted themselves into a really stupid corner.
IMO, even if a nation does decide that a terrorist ‘cause’ is worthy and changes policy, those terrorists should still be hunted down and brought to justice. Terrorists should always be treated as criminals, their supposed causes notwithstanding. That’s a corner I don’t think nations should fear painting themselves into.
You do realize that the US has sponsored and funded terrorism, rebellions, coups, torture, and other fun things for decades, right? Including some certain people who we are now fighting?
I’ve heard some claims, yes.
Of course - understanding that, today, we have a different view of the morality of colonialism than was generally the case at the time France went in there. I was replying to what I thought was jsafricanus suggestion that the repressive methods France used succeeded in eliminating the Algerian secession movement and its terrorism (if that isn’t it, js, please explain) - the opposite is true; it just got more people killed without otherwise affecting the outcome. You and I are in agreement here.
Say what? They fought for independence, and for a long time. They got it. How is that not winning?
zwaldd, I don’t think any of these insurgents are still around to be hunted down and brought to justice, but I believe that their modern day successor can be found at Pennsylvania Avenue, Washingston DC, you could try to arrest him, I guess.
Yes, we agree. I think making general rules is difficult but if there is a rule which we can say has been quite universal in the last 100 years is that western countries have not been able to hang on to colonies / (occuppied countries) when the local population were determined to fight against them. I expect that the Iraqi resistance may gain wider support as the population sees they are fighting effectively. It is a cycle of violence where the Americans will kill many more Iraqis than the Iraqis can kill American, no doubt, but also no doubt the Americans will tire sooner. The Iraqis are fighting for their own country and have no alternative whereas the Americans can retreat and get out of Iraq. If the resistance continues to fight at this rate I believe America will begin to get tired pretty soon and president Bush will continue his rhetoric more and more isolated from the world and from the American people. In the end America will have to leave Iraq and the later it does it the longer the list of killed on both sides and the greater the resentment the experience will leave in Iraq. I think the situation in Irak will resemble Vietnam or Algeria rather than Japan. Time will tell
I said terrorists, not insurgents.
Fair enough. Who will decide which are which?
Here is an example where “we” negotiated with actual terrorists, and the results were disastrous. (The Jolo kidnapping in the Philippines in 2000)
Here is an example where I think “we” could have negotiated with a third party that could have helped eliminate the actual terrorist called Bin Laden. (From my earlier post in a different thread)
Iraqis fighting against the occupation for their freedom are not terrorists. Seems to me that a big issue with the topic in the OP is not whether to negotiate with terrorists, but deciding who you think are terrorists.
I suspect it was precisely africanus’ point : if you’re on the wrong side, the sensible thing to do is to cave in the “terrorists” demands.
For instance leaving Irak would obviously put an end to the attacks against american forces in Irak (not that I particularily support this move).
Maybe I misunderstood ** africanus **, though, but it’s the way I interpreted his comment.