Precondition or No Precondition...?

[jreeves]

What if we hire a guy who carries himself with confidence and prepares himself for the meeting so that he does not appear to be inexperienced with no guts?

Just a thought...

-Joe

Come on now, Kennedy didn't prepare? You don't think Kennedy sweat confidence?

 

[glockmail]

What the hell does your poll question have to do with "precondition or no precondition'??

Its a stupid question with relevance to your topic...

Exactly. Another bullshit poll.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

All diplomatic activity is the perigative of the executive branch, so much so that when the senate demanded to see George Washington's correspondence concerning his diplomatic efforts Washington told them to go pound sand.

The legislative branch only has oversight when it comes to voting yea or noy on a given treaty.

Of course the real question is SHOULD a president meet with every one and any one?

Long answer: no

 

[elvis]

3 people voted no on this poll. I'm curious why they would want the top executive restricted in how he conducts diplomacy.

Look at it this way...

Should Obama have a sit-down with Osama?

 

[newpolitics]

What, excactly, is the danger of meeting with leaders of hostile nations? What harm does talking do to simply talk to someone?

I truly don't understand what people are disagreeing with when they badmouth Obama for wanting to hold meetings with rogue nations without pre-conditions. What's the big deal? Someone, please enlighten me?

What's the fear?

 

[editec]

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?

 

[jillian]

Yes. Except Obama didn't say he's GOING to meet with ANYONE. He said he "reserves the right" to meet with people ... EVEN PEOPLE WE DON'T LIKE ... if he feels it is IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF KEEPING US SAFE.

I thnk that's reasonable.

What's STUPID is not talking to bad people until AFTER they agree to everything we want to negotiate with them. That's kind of retarded. And THAT is what Bush has done for 8 years... and is part of why we're in such a mess.

Golda Meir used to say "who are we going to negotiate with? our friends?"

she was a pretty smart lady.

 

[glockmail]

What, excactly, is the danger of meeting with leaders of hostile nations? What harm does talking do to simply talk to someone?

I truly don't understand what people are disagreeing with when they badmouth Obama for wanting to hold meetings with rogue nations without pre-conditions. What's the big deal? Someone, please enlighten me?

What's the fear?

You should have just stopped at the bold text. Any more and you go from ignorant, which is easily curable, to stupid, which is not.

 

[newpolitics]

Would you mind explaining why I should show restraint with my letterface, and please answer my question?

 

[glockmail]

Would you mind explaining why I should show restraint with my letterface, and please answer my question?

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

 

[newpolitics]

As I have an idea of what you're opinions may be, and why you have them, I will counter, pre-emptively, by saying that the talks with Kennedy and Kruschev were fundamentally different, by context, than talks that may arise between the leader our nation with those of hostile nations in the Middle-East. If you compare our two enemies during these two different times- Russia and any number of countries today (North Korea, Iran, Syria...), Russia was a SUPER-POWER. It was not trying to become one, unlike, especially Iran, who is like a little child playing with his daddy's guns, although they are not exactly guns anymore, but nukes. They NEED to be talked to, because they don't get it. A lack of information to them, will only result in them continuing along a path. If we at least talk to them, perhaps WE can get an idea of just how serious they are, or how far along they are in their convictions, and possibly even ascertain the why. Whatever it may be, It would only be MORE INFORMATION. What is wrong with THAT? The worst that could happen is that we get no new information out of the deal, and then we simply continue along the path of sanctions and such, which we were doing anyway.

The idea that we will legimiate their convictions is such a crock of SHIT. What have they sold you?

 

[newpolitics]

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

I saw that in the news this morning. You still haven't answered my question. This man's credibility doesn't answer anything.

 

[glockmail]

As I have an idea of what you're opinions may be, and why you have them, I will counter, pre-emptively, by saying that the talks with Kennedy and Kruschev were fundamentally different, by context, than talks that may arise between the leader our nation with those of hostile nations in the Middle-East. If you compare our two enemies during these two different times- Russia and any number of countries today (North Korea, Iran, Syria...), Russia was a SUPER-POWER. It was not trying to become one, unlike, especially Iran, who is like a little child playing with his daddy's guns, although they are not exactly guns anymore, but nukes. They NEED to be talked to, because they don't get it. A lack of information to them, will only result in them continuing along a path. If we at least talk to them, perhaps WE can get an idea of just how serious they are, or how far along they are in their convictions, and possibly even ascertain the why. Whatever it may be, It would only be MORE INFORMATION. What is wrong with THAT? The worst that could happen is that we get no new information out of the deal, and then we simply continue along the path of sanctions and such, which we were doing anyway.

The idea that we will legimiate their convictions is such a crock of SHIT. What have they sold you?

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

 

[glockmail]

I saw that in the news this morning. You still haven't answered my question. This man's credibility doesn't answer anything.

Right- you know so much more than he does.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Come on now, Kennedy didn't prepare? You don't think Kennedy sweat confidence?

...Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”...

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

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Exactly. Another bullshit poll.

Is there any other kind? Lighten up and join the bullshit session! You know that you want to!

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Look at it this way...

Should Obama have a sit-down with Osama?

With his usual Marine escort?

Bring 'em on!!!

-Joe

 

[newpolitics]

Right- you know so much more than he does.

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!

 

[newpolitics]

Obama is a different story. There is nothing to talk about. That man should be killed, immediately.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What, excactly, is the danger of meeting with leaders of hostile nations? What harm does talking do to simply talk to someone?

I truly don't understand what people are disagreeing with when they badmouth Obama for wanting to hold meetings with rogue nations without pre-conditions. What's the big deal? Someone, please enlighten me?

What's the fear?

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