I Don't Get This Ad

[Dan.Linehan]

Is It OK to Unconditionally Meet With Anti-American Foreign Leaders?

Well yeah, of course it is. Is the answer supposed to be no or something? What would the alternative be? Would it be to just not meet with them? Then you would be just that much more ignorant of their views.

I would think this ad was for Obama if it wasn't hosted on McCain's domain.

[Brutha]

In general meeting with someone is a gesture that acknowledge that the person you meet has something to say that is worth listening to.
In addition it is considered a bargaining chip to speak with someone.
If you give away your bargaining chips without getting something in return you acknowledge that your bargaining chip isn't worth anything, which means that you are weak.
A lot of American forgein policy is based on the idea of "dominance" and you need to show strength to have "dominance".

If you want to understand those neocons in foreign policy you have to understand the idea of dominance.

I would think this ad was for Obama if it wasn't hosted on McCain's domain.

You can also tell it by the picture that they have used for Obama.

[Still Growing]

Brutha you make a very good point.

Dan, it really is more complex than just sitting down and talking. Even as Obama gets closer to being elected he is slowly backing away of sitting down and talking without some expectations or demands being met.

You'll see if he's elected that he will too act according to US policy. The US has such an infrastructure of policy that supercedes the Presidency.

Imagine getting elected and then your top aides, advisors and so on all tell you that by simply flying over to North Korea and talking could be a disaster. Imagine not heeding their advise and then sitting to talk to Kim Jon Il and then him demanding this or that or he'll start launching missles at Japan. As a show of good faith he kills all protestors that are caught speaking up. This doesn't make the news but you can bet that it's crazy like that.

So then you come back to the US with your tail between your legs and you put on a smile and you do your best to cover up the mess you just got yourself into. Its a lot more insane than you can even imagine.

I don't agree with all US policy but sitting down to talk isn't as simple as it seems. Thats why Obama is starting to renege on his comments like all politicians do.

I'm no pro McCain but you can see it in his eyes that he thinks Obama has no clue about whats going on in the world. Maybe thats a good thing that he doesn't !

[Dan.Linehan]

Nice story, but why make one up?

Why would a dictator wait until a dialog was initiated by the American President before beginning to make demands? A dictator could easily make unilateral demands without two way communication in place.

[Brutha]

Brutha you make a very good point.

I didn't really intented to make one, I rather wanted to explain the perspective of the McCain camp.

I think that talking to Iran would be a good idea.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Nice story, but why make one up?

Why would a dictator wait until a dialog was initiated by the American President before beginning to make demands? A dictator could easily make unilateral demands without two way communication in place.

Nice story? Is it so far fetched?

Sometimes in negotiations its best to have representatives do what they do best. I would have to write a very long post about all the political implications of a President sitting down to negotiate over someone who is asking for money not to produce a nuclear weapon. This isn't to be taken lightly but don't you think that the gov't has ran analysis on statistical probabilities of meeting with Kim Jon IL and then determined that its best not for Bush to meet with him.

Some people think the gov't is all about the man but its a huge infrastructure of analysts, experts, advisors, boards, and most importantly "special interests". Its not so simple as Bush being hard headed but much more complex.

Obama has said he would meet with any foreign leader with no demands or expectations. Now as he gets closer to getting elected he is starting to back away from the comment. I don't blame him. He probably has good intentions and a good heart but the more he learns about how the office really works he'll realize that its the special interest who run the show not the President. He will follow the plan already set forth.

The US has told Kim Jon Il what we are willing to negotiate and what we are not. In the past we have paid his bribes and he broke his promises. Why would you continue to go , negotiate, pay money and then this dictator just does what he wants.

As for Iran, what is there to negotiate? They want us to leave Iraq so that their Shite friends can move in and seize control of Iraq and we want to stay in Iraq to build military bases as a defense mechanism over Israel. We want Iran to suspend their Uranium enrichment and to let Israel stay a country and Iran wishes to wipe Israel off the map and seize back control of the land's rightful and historic owners.

The US special interest have decided that Iran is a threat and that a US presence is needed in the middle east.

Regardless of whom is President, McCain or Obama, you will see that they are not the ones in power. No matter who gets elected the US will continue to build up its presense in Iraq for military security of Israel in the middle east.

Its about oil and Israel.

Politics, Rep vs Dems, this is all talk. Talk is cheap and you'll see that in the end we're in Iraq to stay. The people in the US and the entire world can say anything they want but it won't change the fact that the US is ran by special private banker interests.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I thought the add was funny because whether you click yes or no you end up at a sign up page for McCain.

[Barcs]

I think it's silly to spin that as a negative. I would much rather have a president that is willing to sit down and talk with our rival leaders, than someone who is just going to label any country like that an "axis of evil" and be done with it. Which one do you think is more productive? Do you really think that the president, visiting Iran and speaking with their leader is going to HURT US? I mean, let's be serious. Nobody's going to threaten another country simply because the US president is willing to talk with them. If anything it shows we are willing to negotiate instead of how Bush did it, which is one of the main reasons why there is so much animosity in the world towards the US. I'm afraid it's going to be a landslide for Obama.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I think it's silly to spin that as a negative. I would much rather have a president that is willing to sit down and talk with our rival leaders, than someone who is just going to label any country like that an "axis of evil" and be done with it. Which one do you think is more productive? Do you really think that the president, visiting Iran and speaking with their leader is going to HURT US? I mean, let's be serious. Nobody's going to threaten another country simply because the US president is willing to talk with them. If anything it shows we are willing to negotiate instead of how Bush did it, which is one of the main reasons why there is so much animosity in the world towards the US. I'm afraid it's going to be a landslide for Obama.

I agree with you in principle however, to sit down with someone and negotiate should not just be a pointless act.

For any negotiation you have to be flexible and the general int't relations method is for one that is give and take. They meet comprimises on each other's wish list.

My point is that the US gov't is unwilling to negotiate with Iran or North Korea. I am not saying that it is right but only that from a negotiation stand point I understand it.

We have spoken to Iran in the past and at this point the US has basically named its conditions. Iran refused. The US then said , "OK then we're finished until you agree to stop enriching uranium"

Now the US is lobbying to try to get other nations to put pressure on Iran.

Now if Bush goes and presses palms and talks it will clear the air and everyone feels better and it looks better. Is that the US's goal? Or is the goal to have Iran wonder what the US is thinking or planning and to feel the pressure to stop enriching uranium.

Like I said, I am not defending the US policy but am merely stating that "Lets go and talk, what would it hurt" isn't necessarily a slam dunk decision that the media reports.

[Barcs]

We have spoken to Iran in the past and at this point the US has basically named its conditions. Iran refused. The US then said , "OK then we're finished until you agree to stop enriching uranium"

That's the exact problem. That is not a negotiation. That is a demand. The US made demands and because Iran didn't bow into submission, we refuse to even speak with them. A negotiation involves comprimise on both sides, not just one.