Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. 

 

 

I believe that negotiation is the best way forward in disputes between people and countries.  After the war, Churchill said 'Jaw jaw is better than war war' and wherever possible British governments have pursued this course.  The lengthy negotiated peace process in Northern Ireland has been a good example of this policy, and the negotiations which the Americans have brokered between Israel and Palestine.    

 

 

 

 

Bentley wrote: 

What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

As I've said I'm new to studying history but there are some ideas about the field that are forming in my mind and I'd like to share them.  I haven't organized my thoughts on this so bear with me.  

 

I've been watching the History Channel dvd on churchill.  The last disc is about how he "won the war but lost the peace".  That Yalta was a terrible mistake.  That losing the empire was a tragedy.  This is a kind of mantra that's been rolling around and accepted in America, at least.  It occurred to me that there are two ways to look at history.  One is to try to understand the period in context.  What was the reality of the time?  Why did people do the things they did?  Kind of a time machine approach.  Then, there's the other approach, years later.  History is re-written in light of what happened after.  Judgments are made.  It's basically what's going on in the book, at the same time.  Churchill is writing in his young voice, explaining his thoughts as a  young man.  But there's another voice, of a 56 year old man, laughing and judging his younger self.   

 

I think what interests me most is the time machine approach.  That's why I love hearing Choisya's thoughts so much.  As I've said, they're the same as my father's.  It's a POV that runs counter to the prevailing one.  But it explains a lot.  America became so anti-communist, so quickly, after the war that I think it distorted the thinking of the people during the war.  Anyway, I thought I'd share this insight, which is probably obvious to all of you but is new to me.  LOL!  I've learned so much! 

Frequent Contributor
Oldesq
Posts: 373
Registered: ‎10-07-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

Great thoughts Timbuktu.  I also think we have to remember what influences were brought to bear on WSC's generation by WWI.  I think it is hard to recall that less than a generation span happened between the wars and as WSC cried in MEL there was a gap in a "generation shorn by the war."  My last note, I think WSC was a great man but a man nonetheless and in some ways his need for love, his foibles, his great self assurance mixed with extreme doubt is much more appealing to me than some mythological hero. 
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

 

Bentley wrote: 

What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe


 

I see my statement taken out of context so I will post it here myself and respond again.

 

Clinton stated the truth; in fact in Clinton we saw a terrific president who also had some great personal flaws.  Even this opinion has many who agree and many who may disagree; but recent polls of the greatest presidents still give him high marks.  

 

I would have much rather had Clinton (with all of his flaws) in the past 8 years again versus Bush.  Why? Because we are in a needless war because of him since someone has called this a discussion about war I guess we can cite this here.  There were no weapons of mass destruction.  Bush is another example of a son trying to prove his father correct or to do what his father could not or would not do.  Unfortunately in Bush's case and in our own, this has been a costly endeavor for the Iraq people and for us; including Great Britain.  I bring that up because Great Britain has been involved.

 

Negotiation is always a wonderful thing.  But as Chamberlain found out and was made a fool of all over the world (also by the English people); negotiation does not always work with some people ever.  Negotiating with terrorists is another one of those difficult situations where most countries state that they will not do this.  I believe that Great Britain has also made that statement more than once in recent times.

 

I doubt negotiation would have worked or would work with Osama Bin Laden; so not being a warlike person; I do not want my words taken and twisted around meaning something completely different.  Since this is a friendly discussion, I thought I would re-explain what I posted.

 

There probably is nobody on this board who would not say that negotiation is not the best way forward; please let me know where these posts are because I have never heard or seen any.  As far as Churchill and what he has said, Churchill has often said that World War II should have been called the unnecessary war; by the way not because of negotiation but because of a lack of follow through on the part of the Allies when they saw things going awry in terms of what they had agreed to.  Also the reparations which were supposed to be paid for were actually being paid for by huge loans being made to these countries by the US and others.  These loans were used to build up the country again that had already been humbled much to everybody's chagrin.  

 

The British government in more recent times of which I believe Tony Blair was a part of at the time endorsed the Iraq War.  I will leave it at that.  And I believe that the British Empire over the centuries was not achieved by negotiation.  And I believe that this statement is true as well.  However, history in retrospect does not look poorly on what Chamberlain was trying to do with Hitler; aside from the fact it was an utter failure as he only too well found out.

 

Yes, the negotiation peace process did finally turn out well for Britain and Northern Island after many, many problematic years and too many needless deaths.  But what made it possible is that both sides finally wanted peace and with many others were spirited to end the bloodshed which they finally did.  That key ingredient "wanting the peace to work" is critical; without it, there is no peace. The Americans have attempted peace between Israel and Palestine and that works sometimes and sometimes it does not.  Should more be done for the Palestine people, of course that is the case.  

 

I think it is difficult to understand ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world.  And I do believe that we should fight for our liberties and our freedoms and the rights of our allies to live as a free people.  However, we should not go into places where that was never the idea in the first place.  

 

As far as negotiations, is it being said that negotiations would work with the Taliban, Iran for that matter or with those who want to destroy a certain country in the middle east.   I think much has been tried, and history has shown much has failed.  I think you have to ask yourself do the Taliban want peace for the nation or power, does Iran want peace with its neighbors so everyone can co-exist?  If the answer is yes because they really are ready for lasting peace, then negotiations work, if the answer is no, then there are few alternatives.  But I do not think that anybody should invade just because they do not like their answers.

 

I also think that the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations could have worked and could work better if peace was the goal of the countries involved and negotiations.  That is the group who should be negotiating and keeping the peace.   However, it seems to be a group fraught with much self interest (enough to go around for everyone).

 

Timbuktu: Your response was a beautiful one especially the middle section.

 

Oldesq: I could not agree more with the assessment of Churchill and why MY EARLY LIFE is and has been such a powerful read and I admire Churchill even more because of it; despite his foibles and self doubts, and yes flaws that every human has; we are not making him a God here but admiring his life as a great man despite them.

 

Choisya: I love Great Britain too; but your country is an old one so it has an old past which was not built around negotiations with the groups it conquered and occupied.    I think its attitudes have changed and mellowed over time; primarily probably because of the lack of funds to maintain an empire, and maybe because the English people themselves feel differently about the prospect and have exercised their will which before with absolute monarchies they may have been afraid to do; because they would have lost their head (as you so aptly cited).

 

I liked and like Tony Blair aside from his association with Bush and the Iraq War and Gordon Brown seems to be alright (with a little less charisma); and I have always had great admiration for Queen Elizabeth too (she certainly has a lot on her plate to contend with).  But I think just like any great man (Churchill being one of them); I think we want to talk about him without constant detractions which everybody reading the book already knows about to start with and likes him anyways; and because he never lived in a vacuum and was a force globally so everyone has already heard about his foibles in addition to every person who has wanted to cash in by writing a book about him or where he is ad nauseum mentioned again and his life resurrected to pick at.  

 

Churchill wrote 40 of those books picking and poking at himself to begin with.  Nobody is making him a god.  We do have the Off Topic Cafe which is a great place and also The Opposing View thread where those contrasting opinions can be voiced and I do applaud everybody's abilities to post them; but since I was quoted and may be misinterpreted; I responded in kind.

 

Bentley 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

Sorry Bentley. However, I did not take your post out of context - I was replying to a specific point.

 

Clinton/Bosnia: I too prefer Clinton to Bush, by far.  But he was not right about Bosnia because Europe entered that conflict for the reasons I stated, not as a matter of altruism.  Countries do not commit their troops and millions of pounds for altruistic reasons - politics is not like that, although our politicians may like to pull the wool over our eyes so that we agree with their decisions. 

 

Negotiation:  Britain has negotiated itself out of many conflicts, particularly within the Empire. There are those who always say 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' but if you look at history you will see that we nearly always do and it often works.  Peace has to be 'brokered', it does not just happen. 

 

WMD: Blair also lied to the British people about WMD and has paid the price.  The difference is that the British people did not believe him in the first place and did not support the war from the outset.  (A Bill has now been passed in Parliament preventing a Prime Minister going to war without the full consent of Parliament.)

 

Chamberlain: Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler because he knew that Britain could not afford to go to war or sustain another war against Germany (which was proved when Churchill had to beg for aid from Roosevelt).  He was acting honourably and I do not believe he 'made a fool' of himself - he misread the situation, along with thousands of other people anxious to avoid another war.  Attlee and the Labour Opposition agreed with Churchill and forced the Division which unseated Chamberlain. Attlee was in favour of Churchill leading us during war. Salisbury (a Tory 'grandee') was a friend of Chamberlain and another 'appeaser'. In his diaries, the King favoured them and appeasement but this was not made public.  Folks might have said that a King with German origins was favouring Hitler or going the same way as his fascist-sympathasing brother Edward.  They might not have agreed that he too favoured peace.  

 

Bin Laden: Perhaps Bin Laden would not have been so influential now if he had not been financed by America to fight against the Russians in the first place.  Eventually we will have to negotiate with these fundamentalists, as we have done with many others.

 

Reparations:  I am not sure of your meaning here. Yes America made huge loans but they were repaid with interest either in dollars or trade.  In Britain's case repayment of Lease-Lend and Marshall Aid crippled our economy for many years - we only finished repaying Marshall Aid last year.  Roosevelt explained to Congress in 1940 that America would eventually do well out of these loans and they did.  They were the only country to profit financially out of both world wars.  But thank goodness America gave such aid - in Britain's case we would have been invaded in 1941/2 if Lease-Lend hadn't started and in Germany and Japan's case it helped to keep the peace in Europe and the Far East for over 50 years.

 

Great Britain:  It is because our country is an old one that we have huge experience in diplomacy and negotiating peace settlements and treaties.  The Empire was not won by war in the main, it was won by negotiaton and trade, albeit it over weaker and less well armed people.  Our monarchy and our political system has evolved through centuries and our democracy is the oldest in the world.  Such experience is not usually taken lightly and what we did in relation to WWII, rightly or wrongly, is part of that experience.  That we won through in our 'darkest hour', when we stood alone against Hitler, it a tribute to our people's sense of history and worth, not just of Churchill's leadership. 

 

Churchill:  I do not disagree that Churchill was an excellent wartime leader and the right person for the time.  But I do disagree that the discussion of My Early Life should just centre around the good things he did and not tell about his flaws or the problems he and his Party caused for Britain before the war.  His early life was a time fraught with difficulties for the British People, difficulties which were in no small part caused by the Conservative Party. It is easy for Americans to remain aloof from these problems - of poverty, of dispossession and oppression - and to assess him only on his wartime successes.  We never did have rosy spectacles about Churchill or his family so our viewpoint about his life is bound to be different.     

 

I hope this clarifies matters and explains my differing Brit POV without causing rancour. 

 

  

 

 


bentley wrote:

 

Bentley wrote: 

What Clinton said was true; I also think and believe that you should fight for your friends and allies as they fight and protect you. What happened to the jewish people was abhorrent; I am not jewish but you do not have to be to know abhorrent when you see it. The world should have done something but they did not. Very hard to understand. It is hard to understand that kind of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world especially today. But that is a very sensitive subject as I believe


 

I see my statement taken out of context so I will post it here myself and respond again.

 

Clinton stated the truth; in fact in Clinton we saw a terrific president who also had some great personal flaws.  Even this opinion has many who agree and many who may disagree; but recent polls of the greatest presidents still give him high marks.  

 

I would have much rather had Clinton (with all of his flaws) in the past 8 years again versus Bush.  Why? Because we are in a needless war because of him since someone has called this a discussion about war I guess we can cite this here.  There were no weapons of mass destruction.  Bush is another example of a son trying to prove his father correct or to do what his father could not or would not do.  Unfortunately in Bush's case and in our own, this has been a costly endeavor for the Iraq people and for us; including Great Britain.  I bring that up because Great Britain has been involved.

 

Negotiation is always a wonderful thing.  But as Chamberlain found out and was made a fool of all over the world (also by the English people); negotiation does not always work with some people ever.  Negotiating with terrorists is another one of those difficult situations where most countries state that they will not do this.  I believe that Great Britain has also made that statement more than once in recent times.

 

I doubt negotiation would have worked or would work with Osama Bin Laden; so not being a warlike person; I do not want my words taken and twisted around meaning something completely different.  Since this is a friendly discussion, I thought I would re-explain what I posted.

 

There probably is nobody on this board who would not say that negotiation is not the best way forward; please let me know where these posts are because I have never heard or seen any.  As far as Churchill and what he has said, Churchill has often said that World War II should have been called the unnecessary war; by the way not because of negotiation but because of a lack of follow through on the part of the Allies when they saw things going awry in terms of what they had agreed to.  Also the reparations which were supposed to be paid for were actually being paid for by huge loans being made to these countries by the US and others.  These loans were used to build up the country again that had already been humbled much to everybody's chagrin.  

 

The British government in more recent times of which I believe Tony Blair was a part of at the time endorsed the Iraq War.  I will leave it at that.  And I believe that the British Empire over the centuries was not achieved by negotiation.  And I believe that this statement is true as well.  However, history in retrospect does not look poorly on what Chamberlain was trying to do with Hitler; aside from the fact it was an utter failure as he only too well found out.

 

Yes, the negotiation peace process did finally turn out well for Britain and Northern Island after many, many problematic years and too many needless deaths.  But what made it possible is that both sides finally wanted peace and with many others were spirited to end the bloodshed which they finally did.  That key ingredient "wanting the peace to work" is critical; without it, there is no peace. The Americans have attempted peace between Israel and Palestine and that works sometimes and sometimes it does not.  Should more be done for the Palestine people, of course that is the case.  

 

I think it is difficult to understand ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world.  And I do believe that we should fight for our liberties and our freedoms and the rights of our allies to live as a free people.  However, we should not go into places where that was never the idea in the first place.  

 

As far as negotiations, is it being said that negotiations would work with the Taliban, Iran for that matter or with those who want to destroy a certain country in the middle east.   I think much has been tried, and history has shown much has failed.  I think you have to ask yourself do the Taliban want peace for the nation or power, does Iran want peace with its neighbors so everyone can co-exist?  If the answer is yes because they really are ready for lasting peace, then negotiations work, if the answer is no, then there are few alternatives.  But I do not think that anybody should invade just because they do not like their answers.

 

I also think that the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations could have worked and could work better if peace was the goal of the countries involved and negotiations.  That is the group who should be negotiating and keeping the peace.   However, it seems to be a group fraught with much self interest (enough to go around for everyone).

 

Timbuktu: Your response was a beautiful one especially the middle section.

 

Oldesq: I could not agree more with the assessment of Churchill and why MY EARLY LIFE is and has been such a powerful read and I admire Churchill even more because of it; despite his foibles and self doubts, and yes flaws that every human has; we are not making him a God here but admiring his life as a great man despite them.

 

Choisya: I love Great Britain too; but your country is an old one so it has an old past which was not built around negotiations with the groups it conquered and occupied.    I think its attitudes have changed and mellowed over time; primarily probably because of the lack of funds to maintain an empire, and maybe because the English people themselves feel differently about the prospect and have exercised their will which before with absolute monarchies they may have been afraid to do; because they would have lost their head (as you so aptly cited).

 

I liked and like Tony Blair aside from his association with Bush and the Iraq War and Gordon Brown seems to be alright (with a little less charisma); and I have always had great admiration for Queen Elizabeth too (she certainly has a lot on her plate to contend with).  But I think just like any great man (Churchill being one of them); I think we want to talk about him without constant detractions which everybody reading the book already knows about to start with and likes him anyways; and because he never lived in a vacuum and was a force globally so everyone has already heard about his foibles in addition to every person who has wanted to cash in by writing a book about him or where he is ad nauseum mentioned again and his life resurrected to pick at.  

 

Churchill wrote 40 of those books picking and poking at himself to begin with.  Nobody is making him a god.  We do have the Off Topic Cafe which is a great place and also The Opposing View thread where those contrasting opinions can be voiced and I do applaud everybody's abilities to post them; but since I was quoted and may be misinterpreted; I responded in kind.

 

Bentley 

 


 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Noel Coward's take on the Germans

Here is an amusing Youtube video of Noel Coward singing 'Don't Let's be Beastly to the Hun' which was a satire about the 'political correctness' of the time:smileyhappy:
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

Choisya, i can't understand how you can say that Chamberlain was wrong but that we will have to negotiate with terrorists?  How will the negotiations go?  The terrorists will say "Convert to Islam or die".  What do we counter with?  They're like Hitler.  They want to destroy us.  How do you negotiate with that?
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.


Choisya wrote: 

 

Clinton/Bosnia: I too prefer Clinton to Bush, by far.  But he was not right about Bosnia because Europe entered that conflict for the reasons I stated, not as a matter of altruism.  Countries do not commit their troops and millions of pounds for altruistic reasons - politics is not like that, although our politicians may like to pull the wool over our eyes so that we agree with their decisions. 

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

The USA entered the conflict for altruistic reasons; there was nothing to be gained for us.  Ethnic cleansing was the reason.

 

 

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.


Choisya wrote:

 

Negotiation:  Britain has negotiated itself out of many conflicts, particularly within the Empire. There are those who always say 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' but if you look at history you will see that we nearly always do and it often works.  Peace has to be 'brokered', it does not just happen. 

 


Bentley responded:

 

Not negotiating with terrorists is a statement that I personally heard out of Tony Blair's mouth many times.  When you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope with no return.  I disagree strongly on doing that.

 

As far as the Empire negotiating, conquering other countries and taking them as one' s own is not negotiating.  In our American conflict, the colonists tried to negotiate their way out of the onerous taxes and sent appeal after appeal to the King which was never even entertained: hence America.  So here in this country we have a long memory of non negotiation.  Maybe the King thought that the Concord colonists and the Sons of Liberty were terrorists and that is why they refused to listen to their own people: the Colonists.  So the tea went overboard into Boston Harbor; I think that caught his attention.   

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Noel Coward's take on the Germans


Choisya wrote:
Here is an amusing Youtube video of Noel Coward singing 'Don't Let's be Beastly to the Hun' which was a satire about the 'political correctness' of the time:smileyhappy:
LOVE this Choisya!  Thanks so much, I'm sending it to everyone I know!
 
I've often wondered why the world had changed so much, why was it that the only "evil" we could talk openly  about is Nazi evil.  Apparently things weren't entirely different then. 

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Noel Coward's take on the Germans


Choisya wrote:
Here is an amusing Youtube video of Noel Coward singing 'Don't Let's be Beastly to the Hun' which was a satire about the 'political correctness' of the time:smileyhappy:
Hysterical; although tongue in cheek about giving them financing to rebuild their fleets; but humorous nonetheless.
Thx.  Couldn't have been done right without the English accent.  
 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe

Hey everyone,

PBS has a new series comming out "chasing Churchhill" Churchhill's grandaughter traviling to all the places that shaped Churchhill. It starts next week if anyone is interested.  

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe


TiggerBear wrote:

Hey everyone,

PBS has a new series comming out "chasing Churchhill" Churchhill's grandaughter traviling to all the places that shaped Churchhill. It starts next week if anyone is interested.  


Terrific Tigger Bear; thank you.  Be sure to vote on the upcoming selections and we still would love for you to join us; but we appreciate your just stopping by to let us know.  Do you know what day it is on?  
Thanks,
Bentley 
 
 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe

[ Edited ]
Wens in my neck of the woods but it'll varry between states. Best bet is to go to PBS online. They've a section where if you give them your zipcode they let you know the date and time for a premers in your area.
Message Edited by TiggerBear on 07-19-2008 11:06 PM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe


TiggerBear wrote:

Hey everyone,

PBS has a new series comming out "chasing Churchhill" Churchhill's grandaughter traviling to all the places that shaped Churchhill. It starts next week if anyone is interested.  


Thanks for the heads up Tigger.  My life has become Churchill 24/7!

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
TiggerBear
Posts: 9,489
Registered: ‎02-12-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe

Well I was reading these post and the blub for it came on. Serendipidy, really.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe

[ Edited ]

TiggerBear wrote:
Wens in my neck of the woods but it'll varry between states. Best bet is to go to PBS online. They've a section where if you give them your zipcode they let you know the date and time for a premers in your area.
Message Edited by TiggerBear on 07-19-2008 11:06 PM


 
Bentley responds:
Tigger, thanks so much: I found this and it looks like in my area it is going to be on Monday at 10PM, starting the 21st for three Mondays.  There are some taster clips in the blurb I found as well:
 
http://www.celiasandys.com/html/tv_presenter.html 

 

Message Edited by bentley on 07-19-2008 11:30 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

Not negotiating with terrorists is a statement that I personally heard out of Tony Blair's mouth many times.  When you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope with no return.  I disagree strongly on doing that.

 

Yes, and out of many other politicians' mouths.  The fact remains that peace negotiations HAVE taken place with many terrorists.  Tony Blair was very successful in negotiating with IRA terrorists and is currently in the Middle East negotiating with Palestinian Hamas terrorists - Bush negotiated with the late Yassar Arafat, a Hamas leader.  The Mau Mau conflict was ended by negotiation with terrorists, as was the Turkey-Cyprus one.  The Zionist founders of Israel like Ben Gurion were nearly all terrorists and international negotiations took place with them.  Apartheid in South Africa was ended by negotiation with terrorists like Mandela.  History is littered with such negotiations.    

 

I wrote that some of the Empire's conflicts were solved by negotiation.  But the conflict with America was not one of them. 

 

 

 


bentley wrote:

Choisya wrote:

 

Negotiation:  Britain has negotiated itself out of many conflicts, particularly within the Empire. There are those who always say 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' but if you look at history you will see that we nearly always do and it often works.  Peace has to be 'brokered', it does not just happen. 

 


Bentley responded:

 

Not negotiating with terrorists is a statement that I personally heard out of Tony Blair's mouth many times.  When you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope with no return.  I disagree strongly on doing that.

 

As far as the Empire negotiating, conquering other countries and taking them as one' s own is not negotiating.  In our American conflict, the colonists tried to negotiate their way out of the onerous taxes and sent appeal after appeal to the King which was never even entertained: hence America.  So here in this country we have a long memory of non negotiation.  Maybe the King thought that the Concord colonists and the Sons of Liberty were terrorists and that is why they refused to listen to their own people: the Colonists.  So the tea went overboard into Boston Harbor; I think that caught his attention.   

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

I don't think Chamberlain was wrong to negotiate with Hitler, he was wrong to think that he would succeed - the writing was already on the wall and Churchill (and Attlee) saw that.  Negotiations are already taking place with fanatical Muslims in Palestine - the Hamas.  Bush himself negotiated with Yasser Arafat, a Hamas leader and a Muslim to broker peace between Israel and Palestine (2003).  Current Islamic terrorists 'want to destroy us'  because they believe our foreign policies and what we are doing in their countries are wrong.  They are not fighting about converting us to Islam.  The real problem we face is that there is no overall leader to negotiate with - they don't have the equivalent of a Pope! It is a mistake  to think than Bin Laden leads them - he is a Saudi Wahaabi for instance, the majority in Iraq are Sunnis and those in Iran are Shias - they can't agree with each other let alone us!   Eventually we will find people to negotiate with - we are already making a start in Palestine. Let us hope Tony Blair has some success there,  just as he had success with the IRA, who also wanted to kill us and who had been terrorising the British mainland for well over 20 years.   

 

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world at the present time but not because of forcible conversion.  It is mostly because of their higher birth rate which in turn is partly because their countries are mostly poor. (Poor historically and because half of their populations do not work - the women!) We can't continue to aggravate such a large group of people, we must negotiate or inflame even more of them and so increase terrorism. 

 

  

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:
Choisya, i can't understand how you can say that Chamberlain was wrong but that we will have to negotiate with terrorists?  How will the negotiations go?  The terrorists will say "Convert to Islam or die".  What do we counter with?  They're like Hitler.  They want to destroy us.  How do you negotiate with that?

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.


Choisya wrote:

Not negotiating with terrorists is a statement that I personally heard out of Tony Blair's mouth many times.  When you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope with no return.  I disagree strongly on doing that.

 

Yes, and out of many other politicians' mouths.  The fact remains that peace negotiations HAVE taken place with many terrorists.  Tony Blair was very successful in negotiating with IRA terrorists and is currently in the Middle East negotiating with Palestinian Hamas terrorists - Bush negotiated with the late Yassar Arafat, a Hamas leader.  The Mau Mau conflict was ended by negotiation with terrorists, as was the Turkey-Cyprus one.  The Zionist founders of Israel like Ben Gurion were nearly all terrorists and international negotiations took place with them.  Apartheid in South Africa was ended by negotiation with terrorists like Mandela.  History is littered with such negotiations.    

 

I wrote that some of the Empire's conflicts were solved by negotiation.  But the conflict with America was not one of them. 

 

 

 


bentley wrote:

Choisya wrote:

 

Negotiation:  Britain has negotiated itself out of many conflicts, particularly within the Empire. There are those who always say 'we will never negotiate with terrorists' but if you look at history you will see that we nearly always do and it often works.  Peace has to be 'brokered', it does not just happen. 

 


Bentley responded:

 

Not negotiating with terrorists is a statement that I personally heard out of Tony Blair's mouth many times.  When you start doing that, you are on a slippery slope with no return.  I disagree strongly on doing that.

 

As far as the Empire negotiating, conquering other countries and taking them as one' s own is not negotiating.  In our American conflict, the colonists tried to negotiate their way out of the onerous taxes and sent appeal after appeal to the King which was never even entertained: hence America.  So here in this country we have a long memory of non negotiation.  Maybe the King thought that the Concord colonists and the Sons of Liberty were terrorists and that is why they refused to listen to their own people: the Colonists.  So the tea went overboard into Boston Harbor; I think that caught his attention.   

 


 

 
There's a dirty little secret that no one wants to admit.  Terrorism works.
 
However, in the cases you mentioned there was a limited political goal.  When the goal is annihilation of a people or a culture, there's no compromise to be had.