Precondition or No Precondition...?

[newpolitics]

According to McCain, the main point of issue would be "legitimizing" the rogue leader. I think that this is a out dated bullshit concept left over from the conquest of the planet by Western Civilization, but that is my opinion. We all get to formulate our own on this one and see if it influences our vote.

America is so cool!

-Joe

Okay, so let's talk hypothetical. Obama is sitting across the table from the Ahmadinejad, and listens to him. So then, Ahmadinejad feels better, and is going to then launch Nuclear weapons?? I don't understand how us going over there, would, to him, legitimize his intentions. Ahmadinejad wants to do regardless of what the heck we think. We are not going to aid that along at all, even if we wanted to. We may be able to give him a face of diplomacy to this nation we call America, and the gesture of actually talking to him may make things personal, as opposed to distant. Having a personal rapport with a man like that may thwart his attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, if he feels like the most powerful country on Earth wants to be his friend. I don't know. I can't assume to know the pyschological ramifications of such actions, all I know is that talking can't hurt. Some people need to get over themselves.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You don't talk with a child. You tell them what to do. Otherwise you lower your own stature and raise yours.

Not totally correct for an effective , but a stupid analogy anyway since you aren't their parent.

They aren't children and they have big bombs. You talk to them and neutralize them through diplomacy before you blow them up.

Tuff concept to get your arms around?

 

[newpolitics]

You don't talk with a child. You tell them what to do. Otherwise you lower your own stature and raise yours.

To continue along with this analogy, that would depend on what parenting style you choose, which would dictate results. Everyone has a different parenting style. Kids who just get told what to do generally can't make decisions for themselves, and then lash out at some later point, sometimes violently. Sound familiar? On the other hand, when a parent talks to their children, and shares information on an adult level, that child develops the capacity to see the other side, and make decisions on his own, containing future catastrophes. Bam!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Read Kissinger's statement: http://www.usmessageboard.com/806448-post1.html

Or this statement:

9/16/08

Yesterday five former American secretaries of state including Republicans Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and James Baker all reaffirmed their support for direct talks with Iran. Kissinger went as far as to say that there must be high-level talks with the Iranians “without conditions.” These statements reaffirm Barack Obama’s position for the need for tough direct diplomacy with Iran. Even the Bush administration has started to come around after years of pursuing a failed policy of refusing to engage. It is only John McCain who continues to call this approach “naïve” and instead clings to a reckless strategy that has clearly failed to make us safer.

(Emphasis mine)

Secretaries of State Agree that We Must Talk to Iran | National Security Network

-Joe

 

[Ravi]

Okay, so let's talk hypothetical. Obama is sitting across the table from the Ahmadinejad, and listens to him. So then, Ahmadinejad feels better, and is going to then launch Nuclear weapons?? I don't understand how us going over there, would, to him, legitimize his intentions. Ahmadinejad wants to do regardless of what the heck we think. We are not going to aid that along at all, even if we wanted to. We may be able to give him a face of diplomacy to this nation we call America, and the gesture of actually talking to him may make things personal, as opposed to distant. Having a personal rapport with a man like that may thwart his attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, if he feels like the most powerful country on Earth wants to be his friend. I don't know. I can't assume to know the pyschological ramifications of such actions, all I know is that talking can't hurt. Some people need to get over themselves.

Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority in Iran to negotiate. The Iranian Supreme Leader is the only one that does, either him or the person he appoints as his spokesman.

 

[newpolitics]

Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority in Iran to negotiate. The Iranian Supreme Leader is the only one that does, either him or the person he appoints as his spokesman.

I sit corrected... whoever! Whoever is in power... whoever is the object of our discussion. I am aware that Ahmadinejad is not the highest in power, but talks might include him. Besides, this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. If we were talking to any oppositional leader...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Okay, so let's talk hypothetical. Obama is sitting across the table from the Ahmadinejad, and listens to him. So then, Ahmadinejad feels better, and is going to then launch Nuclear weapons?? I don't understand how us going over there, would, to him, legitimize his intentions. Ahmadinejad wants to do regardless of what the heck we think. We are not going to aid that along at all, even if we wanted to. We may be able to give him a face of diplomacy to this nation we call America, and the gesture of actually talking to him may make things personal, as opposed to distant. Having a personal rapport with a man like that may thwart his attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, if he feels like the most powerful country on Earth wants to be his friend. I don't know. I can't assume to know the pyschological ramifications of such actions, all I know is that talking can't hurt. Some people need to get over themselves.

It is not a question of legitimizing a rogue leaders intentions... the worry is that if the world sees Ahmadinejad talking to the US President, everyone has to take him seriously because he is perceived to be in the same league as the leader of the free world. Like I said, outdated bullshit concept. But, that is my opinion of the concept. You get to make up your own mind how you feel.

-Joe

 

[Ravi]

I sit corrected... whoever! Whoever is in power... whoever is the object of our discussion. I am aware that Ahmadinejad is not the highest in power, but talks might include him. Besides, this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. If we were talking to any oppositional leader...

Sometimes I just can't help myself. Carry on.

 

[newpolitics]

Also, I don't think talks have to be on the terms of negotiations, or in other words, don't have to be only with people who will be negotiating to reach some political end. The action of talking with foreign leaders, in and of itself, holds significance, in showing America's willingness to reach out, re-painting our reputation as a more tolerant nation, more friendly, to be respected... that kind of thing.

 

[newpolitics]

Sometimes I just can't help myself. Carry on.

What was that?

...I'm hyper-sensitive

 

[Richard-H]

Diplomacy's purpose is create an avenue of dialog between two or more conflicting partries as an alternative to military action.

Talking only with our friends is NOT diplomacy.

We have to understand that Iran is the immediate neighbor to Iraq and therefore HAS a Legitimate stake in Iraq.

Diplomacy is the avenue that can be used to convince Iran to stop military intervention in Iraq by giving them a diplomatic mechanism for persuing their interests in Iraq. The same is true of all the countries that border Iraq.

To think that Iran does not have a valid interest in Iraq is just childish.

 

[Richard-H]

I am very sorry that Obama did not have a more aggressive attitude towards McCain in the debate last night.

When McCain jabbed Obama by saying that a meeting between Obama & Ahmadinejad would be Ahmadinejad saying that he will destroy Isreal and Obabma would just say "No". Obama should have gone on the attack by saying that if Ahmadinejad were to threaten Isreal, he would take advantage of the dialog and make it very clear to Ahmadinejad that if Isreal were attacked by Iran, in a strategic way, the United States would respond by INCINERATING IRAN.

Sometimes direct diplomacy gives the opportunity to unequivocally lay down the LAW to people like Ahmadinejad.

 

[jillian]

Read Kissinger's statement: http://www.usmessageboard.com/806448-post1.html

That must have been after the interview he gave to katie couric.

And no one has said you START discussions at the presidential level.

Be careful you don't hurt yourself while you're twisting yourself into a pretzel.

I know nuance escapes you, intentionally or otherwise, but joe's link was the correct and HONEST one. Try it sometime.

Secretaries of State Agree that We Must Talk to Iran | National Security Network

 

[jreeves]

What a silly talking point the Republicans keep trying to make on this issue

The POTUS cannot meet with somebody unless there are preconditions?

Why can't they?

Says who?

I'm sorry, but something has happened to the GOP.

Republican are now (with some rare exceptions, of course) complete idiots.

This decline in intellect of the GOP is somewhat shocking to me.

When I was a kid, the average Republican was a far better educated person that the average Democrat.

They were generally better spoken, better educated, more logical than the average Democrat.

Even when you didn't agree with them, their arguments were founded in fact, and their arguments logical.

Those days are done.

Now the Republican spin machine gets some goofy thought in their heads and just keeps saying it as though it made sense.

Like this argument, for example.

What happened to this party, anyway?

Ok name one time a President met directly with a leader of rogue nation without preconditions?

 

[jreeves]

Dude... Kennedy said it. Not me! It wasn't a problem of JFK being gutless and unprepared, It was the perception of weakness.

-Joe

Kennedy said gutless and inexperienced, does that seem familar?

 

[jreeves]

You literally, did not answer my question, even with this man's statement. I asked, specifically, what are the fears associated with talking with a foreign leader like the leader of Iran? What is the worst that can come out of it?
As I see, only positives can come out of it.

I am really just curious, if someone would just enlighten me. I can see, in the case of Kruschev, how the perception of fear would be impactful, if, as was the case with Russia, we were on the brink of Nuclear war. But with Iran, they are trying to even get there. I think this is the PRIME time to talk with them. Once they have the weapons and launching capability, talking is too late!

It's not a fear of talking to him. It's having the POTUS meeting directly and making long term commitments without the proper amount of time to consider the ramifications of his commitments. Also, yes we would legitimize rogue leaders by having the leader of the free world meeting directly with these leaders. We weren't on the brink of a Nuclear War with Russia, until Kennedy met with Kruschev directly without preconditions. After their meeting the Cuban Missle Crisis ensued.....

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

No pre-conditions


Also can we stop putting chavez in the same league as the Iranian prez, plz, he’s not killing gays, or funding terrorism groups come on

 

[jreeves]

I sit corrected... whoever! Whoever is in power... whoever is the object of our discussion. I am aware that Ahmadinejad is not the highest in power, but talks might include him. Besides, this has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. If we were talking to any oppositional leader...

Ahmadeinejad is a talking head for the Iranian supreme leader though. So his statements regarding Israel and the US would hold true for the Iranian Supreme leader also....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Kennedy said gutless and inexperienced, does that seem familar?

Yeah, but don't worry... if McCain wins and dies, we can that Karl Rove will have time to get Sarah up to speed.

-Joe

 

[newpolitics]

It's not a fear of talking to him. It's having the POTUS meeting directly and making long term commitments without the proper amount of time to consider the ramifications of his commitments. Also, yes we would legitimize rogue leaders by having the leader of the free world meeting directly with these leaders. We weren't on the brink of a Nuclear War with Russia, until Kennedy met with Kruschev directly without preconditions. After their meeting the Cuban Missle Crisis ensued.....

Hence, preparations, as Obama as said repeatedly. I don't agree that it would legitimate anything, despite ONE historical, albeit, significant example, which is the example of Kennedy and Kruschev. Was it necessarily causal though, the relationship between that encounter and the ensuing cold war? I dare say that, in this one instance, history would not necessarily repeat itself, and should not be cause for precedence.