Precondition or No Precondition...?

[newpolitics]

If talks don't happen without pre-conditions, then talks will never happen. It's like circular thinking.

 

[Paulie]

Good point, although think of it this way.....

In a car dealership does the finance manager immediately meet with the potential car buyer? No, why not?

The potential buyer knows that the sales person has to consult with the higher powers(finance manager). If the finance manager was to meet immediately with the potential buyer, the manager would have to make snap decisions which would bind the car dealership to any deals the manager made immediately. There's a reason you get the run around at the dealership. Its so that the manager can carefully craft a deal with a buyer that gets the sale done as well as being as benefical to the dealership as possible.

The same is true in meeting with rogue nations. If the President meets directly and immediately with rogue leaders, then the President would have to make snap decisions, which very well could be concessions that are not in the country's best interest. Whereas, if surrogates for the President meet with these rogue leaders, the President can take the information ascertained and make informed decisions.

Any meetings between nations are better than NO meetings. This whole pre-conditions bullshit is being used as spin to smear the other candidate's position.

The fact is, there's no reason why the United States of America can not sit down with ANYONE and have a discussion. Refusing to have any dialogue whatsoever, precondition or not, is ridiculous. Bush should have the fucking balls to sit down with A-jad and make his case.

McCain should too.

 

[newpolitics]

Bush should have the fucking balls to sit down with A-jad and make his case.

McCain should too.

Perhaps the reason they won't is because they are too much hotheaded and know that if they did sit down with these people, they might start a war... seriously. McCain and Bush don't even have the capacity to sit down with these people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Obama does have the diplomatic capacity to sit down with these people. If anything was proved from last nights debate, it is that Obama CAN remain his composure when dealing with someone who is not in their own control.

 

[Richard-H]

Bush/McCain and A-jad all do not want to meet because they get more support on the home front from hate then they would from any peacefully reached agreements.

Obama knows the importance of communications and diplomacy, but he is a bit naive if he thinks that A-jad would jump at the chance of a meeting.

I want the U.S. President to meet with A-jad if only to make the point that if there is any strategic strikes against Isreal by Iran we will unequivocally incinerate IRAN from one end to the other.

I think that alone makes a sit down with A-jad worthwhile.

 

[frazzledgear]

Easy question... just curious!

Go on... Vote! You know you want to!

-Joe

This is not the question the thread title suggested it would be. Does a President have a "right" to meet with anyone who accepts his invitation? Well, duh. But just because he CAN doesn't mean its SMART. This "poll" and any results you get says nothing about whether it would be a politically smart move for a President to have a face-to-face meeting with whoever accepted his invitation without first knowing the specifics of who the invitation was sent to and for what purpose.

The question should have been about whether it was a diplomatically OR politically intelligent move for a PRESIDENT to meet face-to-face with the leader of a terrorist nation that has repeatedly said another member nation of the UN should be wiped off the face of the earth and is busy working on developing the means to do just that - with no preconditions on even the content of that meeting - or whether it would give that terrorist leader legitimacy as a significant world "leader" in the eyes of the world he did not have before that face-to-face meeting with the President and thereby encourage other hostiles to first step up efforts to pose a threat to other nations in order to get that same kind of legitimacy as a "world leader". The answer to THAT questions is NO, it would not be a smart or wise move on the part of that President. Again, duh.

 

[Shadow]

Not unless he wants to become a hostage, ha.ha.

Or "Kilt" as Obama would say..

 

[Seraph]

The question should have been, 'Should the president, without preconditions, meet with Ahmadinejad?'. Seeing as that's what we're talking about.

I gave answer 'yes' to the current poll question, but to this question I would say 'no, not at this time'.

 

[frazzledgear]

Perhaps the reason they won't is because they are too much hotheaded and know that if they did sit down with these people, they might start a war... seriously. McCain and Bush don't even have the capacity to sit down with these people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Obama does have the diplomatic capacity to sit down with these people. If anything was proved from last nights debate, it is that Obama CAN remain his composure when dealing with someone who is not in their own control.

Oh sure. We all know the only thing Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad really need is for the filthy American infidel President to tell them in the nicest way possible that we and filthy Israeli infidels aren't so bad after all -and can't we all just get along and hey, can't they stop working on trying to get those nukes that no one doubts they will launch against Israel? And hey, at the same time can't they just get over their violent interpretation of the Koran and adopt one that is much more favorable to us infidels? Even though neither the US nor Israel have any intention of tearing up our own constitutions in order to adopt Shari'a law and we have no intention of ever admitting or submitting that all us infidels are subservient to Islam, the only "perfect" religion?

That is bound to be an effective argument against their radical Muslim belief based on their interpretation of the Koran (which doesn't take much interpretation to find it since it is spelled out in many places quite clearly) -that God told Muslims the "real" plan was for global dominance of Islam with all nations eventually falling under Muslim control and all non-Muslims obligated to show subservience to Islam. Since the Islamofascist Ahmadinejad has already said that all "good" Muslims are obligated to bring that around as soon as possible even if it means doing so cost the lives of millions of Muslims - I'm pretty sure it will only take a sit down with the American infidel President to get him to suddenly change his mind and get in line with the way us infidels think, huh.

At the same time, ALL Muslims will just forget about that part in the Koran that tells Muslims that if Muslims ever once inhabited a land, it is theirs forever more and infidels have no right to that land even if they take it by force -and Muslims should never allow such infidels any peace until they wrest control of that land back to themselves and force the conquered infidels to admit their own religion is subservient to Islam -or die. And Ahmadinejad will stop talking like Hitler and referring to Israel as a "stinking corpse" that should be destroyed, huh?

I can see it now -will work like a charm. Wow, Bush is so stupid for not already doing that, huh?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Bush/McCain and A-jad all do not want to meet because they get more support on the home front from hate then they would from any peacefully reached agreements.

Obama knows the importance of communications and diplomacy, but he is a bit naive if he thinks that A-jad would jump at the chance of a meeting.

I want the U.S. President to meet with A-jad if only to make the point that if there is any strategic strikes against Isreal by Iran we will unequivocally incinerate IRAN from one end to the other.

I think that alone makes a sit down with A-jad worthwhile.

I still think that if a President met with A-jad with cameras rolling one of 2 things would happen. A-jad would be reasonable or the world would be on our side.

Talking, especially in public, is a win - win for reasonable people.

-Joe

 

[jreeves]

Any meetings between nations are better than NO meetings. This whole pre-conditions bullshit is being used as spin to smear the other candidate's position.

The fact is, there's no reason why the United States of America can not sit down with ANYONE and have a discussion. Refusing to have any dialogue whatsoever, precondition or not, is ridiculous. Bush should have the fucking balls to sit down with A-jad and make his case.

McCain should too.

Then give me this long history of our Presidents both Republican and Democrat sitting down with Rogue nations. Like I have said before, you don't want the President making long term binding agreements with a Rogue leader without the proper amount of time to consider a deal.

 

[editec]

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

What the fuck is a rogue nation?

 

[jreeves]

What the fuck is a rogue nation?

Good god are you that dumb?


Here you go....learn...

Rogue definition |Dictionary.com

 

[Richard-H]

Good god are you that dumb?


Here you go....learn...

Rogue definition |Dictionary.com

That means that which nation is or is not a 'rogue' nation is entirely a matter of opinion.

If a nation has a seat at the U.N., then we should be willing to talk to them (with appropriate preparations, but not with preconditions).

 

[jreeves]

That means that which nation is or is not a 'rogue' nation is entirely a matter of opinion.

If a nation has a seat at the U.N., then we should be willing to talk to them (with appropriate preparations, but not with preconditions).

I am still waiting for evidence that our nation's Presidents(Republican or Democrat) have engaged with talks with rogue nation's leaders?

Secondly, yes it is a matter of opinion, but it is not a matter of opinion for instance that Iran would be considered a rogue nation.

 

[jschuck12001]

Good god are you that dumb?


Here you go....learn...

Rogue definition |Dictionary.com

After the war in Iraq I'm surprised we arent on the list of Rogue Nations.

 

[editec]

This debate is specious.

McCain calls for preconditions and that makes sense.

Obama calls for talks with preparation and that also makes sense.

Basically they are saying the same damned thing.

Suggesting that they are wildly different is just more media driven partisan bullshit.

NIETHER of these guys are totally nuts, folks.

 

[editec]

Good god are you that dumb?


Here you go....learn...

Rogue definition |Dictionary.com

No, I am simply not going to let you frame the debate using inflamatory language which brings nothing to the discussion,

Again, what is a ROGUE nation?

There isn't such an animal.

Two nations can be belligerent to the point of war, but calling one a rogue is nothing more than iditoic hyperbole.

 

[jreeves]

After the war in Iraq I'm surprised we arent on the list of Rogue Nations.

That is the DNC position I will agree. That the US should be on the list of Rogue Nations.

 

[jreeves]

This debate is specious.

McCain calls for preconditions and that makes sense.

Obama calls for talks with preparation and that also makes sense.

Basically they are saying the same damned thing.

Suggesting that they are wildly different is just more media driven partisan bullshit.

NIETHER of these guys are totally nuts, folks.

Obama, has since said that preparations, after his advisors realized that talks without preconditions is dangerous. This goes to show Obama is very green when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[jreeves]

No, I am simply not going to let you frame the debate using inflamatory language which brings nothing to the discussion,

Again, what is a ROGUE nation?a state that does not respect other states in its international actions
There isn't such an animal.

Two nations can be belligerent to the point of war, but calling one a rogue is nothing more than iditoic hyperbole.

See the bolded area above....

Vienna: The UN's nuclear watchdog said yesterday Iran had failed to meet a February 21 deadline to suspend enrichment of uranium, exposing Tehran to possible new sanctions over concerns it hopes to produce an atomic bomb.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report Iran had installed two cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges in its underground Natanz enrichment plant with another two cascades close to completion.

This amounted to an effort to escalate research-level enrichment of nuclear fuel into "industrial scale" production.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," said the confidential IAEA report.

By ignoring the deadline, Tehran reaffirmed its rejection of a mid-2006 offer by six world powers of talks on trade benefits provided it halted enrichment, a process that can yield nuclear power plant fuel or bombs.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply concerned. I urge again that the Iranian government should fully comply with the demands as soon as possible and engage in negotiations with the international community so that we can resolve this issue peacefully."
Gulfnews: Iran defies IAEA deadline