Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
and then

Is the US negotiating with Hezbollah?

12 posts in this topic

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173579#.UnhRyPmsj0t

IF this story is accurate I will be disappointed but not surprised. Hezbollah and Iran seem to be more agreeable partners for negotiations than the republican party leaders these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Hezzbollah the democratically elected government?

So yeah, it makes sense that they governments would discuss and negotiate.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Hezzbollah the democratically elected government?

So yeah, it makes sense that they governments would discuss and negotiate.

They are part of the government in Lebanon. They are also active in the Syrian civil war on behalf of Assad and are clients of Iran. They are indisputably responsible for killing 241 US servicemen and 58 French paratroopers as well as being an ongoing threat against Israel. By negotiating with them Obama is making it clear that he is willing to compromise with one of our enemies while he refuses to even talk with the opposition party in the US government - that doesn't strike you as a bit odd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really more of a congressional issue as far as the people not talking in our government.

I'd say any opportunity to turn an enemy into an ally is a good opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really more of a congressional issue as far as the people not talking in our government.

I'd say any opportunity to turn an enemy into an ally is a good opportunity.

Chamberlain felt the same way once upon a time. I agree fully that peace has to be given a chance but only when it is a realistic attempt. NOTHING these people have done is indicative of someone trying to achieve a peaceful end to hostilities.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'd agree to that, but because of that, because of the things they're willing to do. I'd say its even more important to attempt to make them an ally.

Having a terrorist organization on your side would have deffinite benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l'm inclined to think that in reality everyone negotiates with everyone else who is at all important all the time. There are ways to "negotiate" other than sitting at a table giving speeches. In fact that tends to come at the very end of the process.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT, I believe that the posi-probability of US--Hezbollah negotiations is markedly different from Obama "refusing to negotiate" with the Republicans (or, alternatively, the Republicans playing rope-a-dope about their willingness to talk and about what and under what conditions/preconditions, etc.).

One, as SkepB pointed out above, is a purely internal tripartite governmental issue; the other is taking the opportunity (apparently) to talk, to at least ratchet down the bellicose rhetoric flowing from Teheran, the jihad wing in Lebanon ("starring" Hezbollah), Damascus, Washington and Jerusalem. Certainly there are times when negotiation is pointless. At this point in time, I think, it is irresponsible not to try talks.

Frank's point above is well taken. We humans are great at negotiating a "peace" after years of war, but not so good at averting war by negotiating first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT, I believe that the posi-probability of US--Hezbollah negotiations is markedly different from Obama "refusing to negotiate" with the Republicans (or, alternatively, the Republicans playing rope-a-dope about their willingness to talk and about what and under what conditions/preconditions, etc.).

One, as SkepB pointed out above, is a purely internal tripartite governmental issue; the other is taking the opportunity (apparently) to talk, to at least ratchet down the bellicose rhetoric flowing from Teheran, the jihad wing in Lebanon ("starring" Hezbollah), Damascus, Washington and Jerusalem. Certainly there are times when negotiation is pointless. At this point in time, I think, it is irresponsible not to try talks.

Frank's point above is well taken. We humans are great at negotiating a "peace" after years of war, but not so good at averting war by negotiating first.

I think that's because prior to the war we think we can impose our will without compromise. Kind of like what this president has done for 6 years (I won). This guy bows before Saudi kings and gives the finger to anyone he has power over. Just a punk and a bully, really. You can find them everywhere but this particular one was created in Chicago. Treating the Hezzies like negotiating partners is foolish since they have NEVER shown any desire to compromise on anything. They have a degree of political ability as witnessed by their position in Lebanon but that comes down mostly to buying votes with Iranian money and Shia dogma.

But in spite of all that I see no harm in having a chat with them as long as it is done carefully and with proof that they will keep agreements. It would be a first for them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's because prior to the war we think we can impose our will without compromise. Kind of like what this president has done for 6 years (I won). This guy bows before Saudi kings and gives the finger to anyone he has power over. Just a punk and a bully, really. You can find them everywhere but this particular one was created in Chicago. Treating the Hezzies like negotiating partners is foolish since they have NEVER shown any desire to compromise on anything. They have a degree of political ability as witnessed by their position in Lebanon but that comes down mostly to buying votes with Iranian money and Shia dogma.

But in spite of all that I see no harm in having a chat with them as long as it is done carefully and with proof that they will keep agreements. It would be a first for them though.

You're probably right about thinking we can impose our will, but it rarely turns out that way. People have to die and things must be destroyed before we wake up and do the right thing--negotiate. Negotiation is an art form, and Chamberlain was no artist. Neither was anybody in the Bush Admin.

There's nothing charming about Nasrallah and Hezbollah (although he's a folk hero throughout the Arab world for fighting Israel to a standstill in '06, with classic asymmetrical warfare techniques). They are, however, a transnational army of proven capabilities. It would be better to talk them back than to try to kill them off, only because--well, frankly--I'm not sure how easy that would be. They are also a social services, educational, medical and rescue force and, as such, already have the hearts of many, many Lebanese.

So, I think, one either talks or doesn't, and one deals with the Administration at hand, however allegedly Chicago-corrupt, inept or incompetent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably right about thinking we can impose our will, but it rarely turns out that way. People have to die and things must be destroyed before we wake up and do the right thing--negotiate. Negotiation is an art form, and Chamberlain was no artist. Neither was anybody in the Bush Admin.

There's nothing charming about Nasrallah and Hezbollah (although he's a folk hero throughout the Arab world for fighting Israel to a standstill in '06, with classic asymmetrical warfare techniques). They are, however, a transnational army of proven capabilities. It would be better to talk them back than to try to kill them off, only because--well, frankly--I'm not sure how easy that would be. They are also a social services, educational, medical and rescue force and, as such, already have the hearts of many, many Lebanese.

So, I think, one either talks or doesn't, and one deals with the Administration at hand, however allegedly Chicago-corrupt, inept or incompetent.

Well the negotiations will happen if that's what Obama wants - 'cause what Oby wants, Oby gets. Allowing Nasrallah to be lionized was another bit of ineptitude on Ohlmert's part back then. If the day comes when Hezbollah tries it again I suspect the world is going to be shocked with the outcome. Not to mention being furious (as usual) with Israeli "brutality". Fighting a war among civilians with high explosives is a nasty, messy business. Israel fought with kid gloves comparatively speaking. Their leaders have since made it clear that if their is a next time - world opinion be damned - they are going to end Hezbollah.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Hezzbollah the democratically elected government?

Shhhh...dude...they're A-Rabs!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.