Hellsangel wrote:The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.

when did this policy come into being? before or after saint reagan?

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/state-dept-us-does-not-negotiate-terrorists wrote:
“The United States does not negotiate with terrorists,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Among the most pressing foreign affairs problems facing the U.S. during Reagan's tenure was the activity of various rogue terrorist organizations. In 1980, Reagan campaigned on a pledge to take a firm stand on terrorism. Under his watch, he promised, the U.S. would never negotiate with terrorists. During Reagan's eight years in office hundreds of Americans, including 241 Marines stationed in Beirut, were killed by terrorist acts. Particularly troubling to Reagan was the plight of several U.S. citizens who had been kidnapped and tortured by Muslim extremists in Lebanon. In an effort to win release of the hostages, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with members of the National Security Council and the CIA, sold weapons to Iran. Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S., was believed to have influence with the hostage-takers. The Iranians were overcharged for the weapons, and North then funneled the extra proceeds from the arms sale to the contras in Nicaragua. The operation resulted in several direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.

Investigations during the Iran-contra affair revealed a "shadow government," operating without public knowledge or congressional approval, being run out of the White House. For months, Reagan refused to admit that arms were traded for hostages -- that he had, indeed, negotiated with terrorists. Meanwhile, congressional hearings were convened to investigate the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. The all-too-familiar question of "what did the president know, and when did he know it," summoned up the ghosts of Watergate.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:victoria nuland? how about saint reagan who broke his own rule?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-foreign/

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:victoria nuland? how about saint reagan who broke his own rule?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-foreign/

You are wrong Reagan only made a "business" deal with the Iranians to supply the Contras. You see US did not "benefit" directly, and hence did not negotiate with terrorists...  

This is another one of my hypotheses that those who are by principle opposed to a group are allowed to deal with them - bcz they will never "compromise" on their principles.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:victoria nuland? how about saint reagan who broke his own rule?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-foreign/

You are wrong Reagan only made a "business" deal with the Iranians to supply the Contras. You see US did not "benefit" directly, and hence did not negotiate with terrorists...  

This is another one of my hypotheses that those who are by principle opposed to a group are allowed to deal with them - bcz they will never "compromise" on their principles.

You're right! we were part of terror outfit back then, we provided them terrorists err.. freedom fighters with modern arsenal and trained them but never compromised on our principles.

Hellsangel wrote:The plot thickens.