|
Lawry, You’ll note I’m saving you exertion by answering using your
name. Your Bush point was indeed well made. Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thank you – and well said. Lawry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From: Lawrence
deBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Agreed, Harry. In kidnapping situations,
‘no negotiations’ probably means that future kidnappings will be
fewer. But the Bush administration and the
Israelis use the phrase not to refer to kidnappings in particular, but the
matters of negotiating peace with militant groups. I wish both those
governments knew enough to make the distinction that you, correctly IMO, make. Cheers, Lawry From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris
and Lawry, We are
mixing apples and The “no negotiation” applies to specific
instances - such as kidnapping. The argument - surely a good one - is that
negotiating the release of a victim merely encourages more kidnapping. No
negotiation might mean fewer kidnaps. This is
very different from (say) negotiating a peace. Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
