I do not understand this position. I do not accept the notion that sitting down with someone confers any credibility, nor enhances their standing with regard to their political views.
I agree. Could someone please explain this to me?
Exposing outrageous and ignorant positions to the public, to show just what kind of thought processes produce them, and if appropriate to produce ridicule, is *fighting *ignorance, not accrediting it. At the very worst, it’s “know your enemy”. At best, if it’s just posturing for the folks back home (as it so often is, and I suspect is usually the case with Ahmadinejad), it shows that for what it is.
But, outrageous or not, those positions do not affect who is actually in power in those countries, or their strength, whether absolute or relative, or what they mean in terms of global political/economic relations. Those positions and that power are political realities. Realities must be faced and dealt with. Dealing with realities via diplomacy is always better than dealing with fantasies via warfare.
Thank you for your retraction.
I hope I demonstrated, at least to some degree, that much of that so-called “fawning” is a direct result of having investigated Senator Obama’s accomplishments, both in his pre-politics personal life and his Legislative career, and genuinely coming to admire him, what he stands for and what he will bring to this nation as its leader. In addition, I believe that the ability to inspire hope and excited participation by the electorate is as great an asset to a President as any accomplishment on his record. This is a position that even Ronald Reagan agreed with during his 1979 Presidential campaign.
No, I don’t see the problem. Nor did Reagan. If you haven’t already watched the video I linked to just above, take a moment and do so now. The relevant portion to your concern is addressed as follows:
Additionally, there is no evidence to support the idea that Barack Obama would skip straight to a personal, one-on-one meeting with Ahmadinejad. In fact, his website specifically says:
Edited to modify slightly. I [mostly] disagree with this opinion. I believe even Israel would disagree with this opinion, as they have historically (and currently) agreed to talks with enemy nations, including Egypt and now Syria. However, Senator Obama has said that he would NOT meet with Hamas or Hezbollah because they are terrorist organizations and not legitimate parties to have negotiations with. Iran,m as a country, does not fall under that category.
I would expect management to sit down and discuss his position. I would expect them to explain that expressing that opinion in the workplace could be seen as harassment and is unacceptable. I would expect him to be written up and put on official warning. If the company I worked for did not protect me in this manner, I would pursue a law suit the likes of which they might not have ever contemplated.
I’ve already addressed this point above. I’ll just reiterate, I don’t agree with you.
Trust me on this, I (and every other Obama supporter I know) recognize the dire and real-world consequences of this issue, at this time, in this election. That’s why I (and others) are standing up and speaking up so loudly, that we cannot continue to isolate and alienate everyone in the world as a foreign policy. The last 6 years have been an extraordinarily obvious illustration that this policy simply doesn’t work.
It might not mean that definitively, as opinions are likely to vary, but that doesn’t preclude us believing that his position is right, and attempting to illustrate why and how. Sometimes it is possible that there is one answer that is more right than another.
Thanks for sharing your concerns.
They let Powell present the lies for getting into Iraq. If he can do that ,the bar is low.
The US was in a much better position to improve its relationship with Iran after 9/11 and before the election of Amadinejhad.
Iran offered to help us fight terrorism, but we spurned their help:
Our refusal to to cooperate weakened the moderates and strengthened Amadinejhad and his allies.
I hate to contemplate negotiations now when we were in a much better position 5 years ago. We could have gotten them to stop supporting Hezbolla, but instead we’ve provoked them into building nuclear weapons and threatening Israel.
I’d rather we had gotten the dialogue going back before we confirmed that Islam as a whole is our enemy. If McCain gets elected, we might as well start WWIII and get it over with.
On a strictly practical and pragmatic level, what good is a stalemate? Two countries folding their arms and refusing to engage in dialogue is counterproductive. It solves nothing, furthers no progress and looks rather silly.
Diplomacy is a subtle and complicated thing. I am not saying that we should always make ourselves available to every nation, all the time. But surely the way to peace n the middle East is through establishing trust and lines of communication? Grandstanding and sabre rattling accomplish nothing (except in certain circumstance, none of which I’ve seen in the last oh, 8 years).
We are seen as a bully and an immature jerk in most of the rest of the world. It’s not like we are starting from a position of acceptance and camaradery. Whatever reputation we had post WW2 with the Marshal Plan etc is long gone. We used up that goodwill and actively threw the post 9/11 goodwill away. (thanks, W!).
I have heard this from various Israeli people in the past few years: they won’t deal with terrorists. Okay, fine. How’s that working for them? I take “deal” to mean talk to, recognize in negotiations as the opposing party. I do not mean give in to their bully tactics. But if the impetus for the terror is constantly there and you refuse to engage, then the terror will continue; it will never end.
No.
Iran began its nuclear program roughly a decade before W. became our president.
We know this, because Iran confirmed it.
While there are numerous problems with the Bush administration’s approach to dealing with Iran, the newly popular meme that Iran’s nuke program was caused/provoked by Bush is simply false. Further, if the NIE stated with a high degree of confidence that Iran actually suspended its nuclear weapons program (perhaps temporarily) after we invaded Iraq. I certainly seems that Bush’s cowboy diplomacy may very well have convinced the Iranians that he was on a hair trigger, and they backed down.
Which doesn’t even address the fact that Iran was actively collaborating with Al Quaeda up until 9/11, even once Bin Laden’s ideology, methodology and goals were totally clear. They did, however, stop their relationship after 9/11.
Whether Iran truly would have helped deal with global terrorism, or stopped supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, etc… is anybody’s guess. I tend to doubt that Khatami could have actually done anything, as Iran’s relationship with groups like Hezbollah is, to say the least complicated. Still, would’ve been a good avenue to opening up dialog and putting pressure on Iran to rejoin the community of nations.
Back to the meat of the thread:
I’d like to point out that making a demand, and having an offer of a reward for that demand, is negotiation. You don’t have to look beyond the denotation.
Now, of course, it’s not robust negotiation, and the carrot held out for the ‘first round’ of talks would be further issues being brought up at the table… but saying “you do this and then we’ll do that and we’ll hash out various issues” is nothing but negotiation.
He’s still PO’d (as the rest of the Neocons) at Zapatero for fulfilling his promise to the Spanish electorate to withdraw Spanish troops from the bogus Iraq invasion within three months of him being elected. Which he did.
OTOH, he doubled our troop commitment to Afghanistan and has deployed a significant contingent to UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
In a word, Zapatero thinks Spain shouldn’t be a US puppet, but rather a willing ally when mutual benefits are to be derived – thus he is to be reviled unlike his predecessor, Aznar, who spent time with Bush at his Holy Ranch and was even given a nifty pair of Cowboy boots.
McCain is stuck pretending he really meant to show down the Spanish government whenever it gets uppity - and Obama stuck him there.
If he doesn’t play along, he has to look pretty damned foolish about that interview question. The former route is much safer politically.
McCain is pretty desperate if he thinks this issue is a momentum changer.
“DON’T VOTE FOR OBAMA. HE IS WILLING TO TALK WITH FOREIGN LEADERS!!!”
Or you could argue that it wasn’t really a “gaffe” but rather a non-response for the very reasons I stated above. The reporter that made said interview appears to have gotten the same vibe – after all, hard to believe that after being told three times that this was Spain she was asking about, McCain would still be in limbo – unless he’s totally lost it, I almost a hundred % sure he knew/knows exactly where Spain is and what its current Gov stands for:
McCain’s Spain-Gaffe Interviewer: McCain Not Confused, Just Ducking Question
Anyway, interpretations aside, I am glad Obama took him to the mat for it.