ftl wrote:gazes_also, at the end of the day you're arguing against results. {...} But at the end of the day, what he did at TBfGK worked and saved his side. Do you at least see why your argument isn't at all convincing?
You CAN argue with results. You can't argue with necessity.
My take on this discussion is that some of the tactics used by Parson were underhanded. Of course, they worked. Were they absolutely necessary, was there no other course of action? Maybe, I can't tell.
But that's not what the discussion is. So is Parson a good negociator? He's not bad when he needs to negociate (the fake surrender thing I'd not count as a negociation).
(rant)
More generally, does negociation need trust? YES. Emphatically, yes, canines of the female persuasion. Even in "real-politik" and so on, unless there is some measure of trust* among the parties involved, negociation is futile**. Issues are further complicated in that you, country A, never negociate as such with country B. It falls down to can Reagan trust Gorbachev('s staff) and vice-versa etc***.
*: in real-life, "trust" is a broad notion. Can we trust "them" to hold up their end of the bargain? Well, anything from accepting their word at face value, to being able to reliably check, provides an answer.
**: which is not to say that it isn't done, but in that case I'd wager it's about posturing not negociation. As in, show to whoever matters that the talking road was attempted first.
***: repeat negociation of course requires trust. One of the reasons even foreigners like stability in country X. Means they'll talk with the same faces, which they've grown, maybe, to trust.
(/rant)
