Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
“The point is there has to be a negotiated solution in Iraq, but we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” Warren said. She said, “This is partially a question of whether the U.S. government negotiates or whether we have the Iraqi government doing these negotiations, and how we help support them as they try to maintain an integrated country, and a country that better represents all of the people who live there.”
What exactly does she mean by that? There has to be a negotiated solution in Iraq, but we don't negotiate with terrorists. This sentence doesn't even make any sense.
I re-read that a few times as well; it's like she's really trying to say negotiate with terrorists but a undertone -- think of how people say something along the lines of "I don't believe in stealing, that would be something really nice to steal, but I don't steal." it just raises suspicions by you even implying that it would be nice to steal.
I sort of understand her position, she hopes to see some good in ISIS but at the end of the day this isn't like Hamas or Iran, there isn't a structure to negotiate with especially when the people they will negotiate with will only be seen as foes. Where could we even negotiate at anyways? "You can have 10,000 sq miles for your new Islamic State to slaughter whoever is there." There is nothing we can do but hope to halt this, but then again, we thought al-queda was the worst of the worst now ISIS assumes that role, what comes after ISIS? Scary thoughts to say the absolute least.
"
“The point is there has to be a negotiated solution in Iraq, but we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” Warren said. She said, “This is partially a question of whether the U.S. government negotiates or whether we have the Iraqi government doing these negotiations, and how we help support them as they try to maintain an integrated country, and a country that better represents all of the people who live there.”
What exactly does she mean by that? There has to be a negotiated solution in Iraq, but we don't negotiate with terrorists. This sentence doesn't even make any sense.
She thinks Iraq should negotiate with us helping in the background. As if we she encourage it even. Its insane.
Funny this was posted. When I was watching the ISIS stuff really unfold over the weekend, I quite literally said to myself, 'wow, imagine if that maniac Elizabeth warren was our president, how she would deal with this'.
Well, now I guess I know
I grew up under Bush. Bush had a robust, yet at times still too compassionate stance against Islamism. I always found people like Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak good sense and be in the defense of Western values.
Islamic terrorism was the chief study of my last three years in undergrad. The more I studied, the more hardened I became against Islamic radicalism, and to be frank, Islam in general. At that time, my politics were more liberal otherwise than they are today. My politics have radicalized to the hard right largely because of the Islamic threat.
Still, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are harmless people just going about their day-to-day lives. Most aren't radical or ever will be, but their religion is itself so radical that it is frightening if it is taken literally. as in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4294.
To see someone like Elizabeth Warren take such a serious threat so lightly is disappointing, heartbreakening, and frustrating. Disappointing in the sense she does not see the evil. Heartbreaking that she views the hellspawns as negotiable (they are not). Frustrating in the sense that no matter of evidence, no number of children being beheaded and their headless corpses with blood upon the ground broadcast on the news could convince her otherwise. Make no mistake, Senator Warren would be one of the first beheaded under ISIS, as her hand futilely remains outstretched and as her last whimper begs for negotiation.
ISIS is the scariest threat in my lifetime. These people are not working toward very clear political ends. They are alienating most Muslims and everyone in their path. They kill anyone who does not pledge support, they kill some of those who feign allegiance. This movement is something out of hell, the worst of mankind - whatever you want to call it, they are completely drunk on killing, and the only way to stop them is to kill them first.
I hope our leaders have better wisdom than Warren has or all our throats will bleed out upon our own soil.
I do not for one moment believe Elizabeth Warren thinks these people are reasonable, but it's better to say let's negotiate than it is to say it's not our problem if these people are killing people left and right, at least from a political standpoint. She knows Obama holds much of the blame for the current situation, despite the mess caused by Bush's initial policy in Iraq. If Obama had done something to help the Syrians early on in the conflict, or worked harder to get a status of forces agreement from Maliki, then ISIS wouldn't be there right now.
Frontline had a very good show about this topic recently, and talked about how Bush would talk to Maliki nearly every day about what was going on, encouraging him to be inclusive of the Sunnis and Shiites, but Obama hardly ever took his phone calls or waited days to call him back. When Maliki figured out the Americans weren't going to be there to help him, he cut loose all the Sunnis and stuck with the people he knew. Had he continued to be more inclusive of the Sunnis, ISIS may not be there right now.
It seems to me this was a mistake on the same level as the Bush Admin. decision to exclude any former members of the Baath Party from Iraqi government jobs in the weeks following the fall of Saddam Hussein. That's what caused the huge insurgency against the Americans during the Bush years. Obama helped create this current crisis himself.
eliz warren is a nut case...completely unelectable
I still wonder about her but in the end you make a good argument for her. Those in the past that were right about so many things, from the housing mess to entering Iraq were considered nut cases. That leads to me to think we need to pay closer attention to what the "nut cases" are saying.
I re-read that a few times as well; it's like she's really trying to say negotiate with terrorists but a undertone -- think of how people say something along the lines of "I don't believe in stealing, that would be something really nice to steal, but I don't steal." it just raises suspicions by you even implying that it would be nice to steal.
I sort of understand her position, she hopes to see some good in ISIS but at the end of the day this isn't like Hamas or Iran, there isn't a structure to negotiate with especially when the people they will negotiate with will only be seen as foes. Where could we even negotiate at anyways? "You can have 10,000 sq miles for your new Islamic State to slaughter whoever is there." There is nothing we can do but hope to halt this, but then again, we thought al-queda was the worst of the worst now ISIS assumes that role, what comes after ISIS? Scary thoughts to say the absolute least.
Al Qaeda is no better than ISIS, and neither is better than the Taliban. They're all cut from the same cloth. It just seems that ISIS felt Al Qaeda should be moving at a faster pace. The Taliban are every bit as cruel as ISIS. They've cut off women's noses, thrown acid in their faces, and that's just the nice things they've done. They've also executed people for minor offenses, sometimes during halftime at sporting events. They've hanged little boys in the streets for allegedly spying, not to mention other horrific things they do to boys. All in all, they're no better than ISIS.
I mention the Taliban because Pres. Obama has actually negotiated with them. Remember the prisoner swap - one American soldier for five Taliban leaders.
Last edited by katygirl68; 08-11-2014 at 10:44 PM..
I still wonder about her but in the end you make a good argument for her. Those in the past that were right about so many things, from the housing mess to entering Iraq were considered nut cases. That leads to me to think we need to pay closer attention to what the "nut cases" are saying.
Oh, we pay plenty of attention to what they're saying. obama, for example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
