The U.S. talks to Israel all the time.
Key quote:
"it's strange that the notion of freezing out our enemies has come to seem so mainstream."
Yes, it couldn't have anything to do with the Zionist control over AmeriKa's government, huh?
"Critical Faculties: Let's talk; McCain and Obama disagree on whether the president should meet with dictators and tyrants. But scholars suggest the answer is clear." by Mark Oppenheimer | June 22, 2008
Not a surprise that he finds it strange, is it?
IN THIS YOUTUBE election - think of Hillary standing peacefully on the tarmac in Bosnia, or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching angrily from his pulpit - it is fitting that Senator Barack Obama's most controversial position was elicited via YouTube, in last July's CNN/YouTube debate. Talking to the candidates from a big screen, Stephen Sorta, of Diamond Bar, Calif., said: "Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition {hellip} with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea?" Obama answered that he would, because "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
Obama's affirmative answer became a mainstay of attacks against him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain....
Tells you quite a bit right there, doesn't it?
But among international relations scholars, there is far less controversy. Virtually all specialists agree that meetings between leaders of regimes at odds can be a good thing, and that while the circumstances of such meetings have to be right for both sides, it's better to express an openness to them, Obama-style, than to rule them out ahead of time.
Next thing you know, the MSM papers will be hollering anti-Semitism!!!!
Most thinkers, in the mostly liberal academy and even in conservative think tanks, are deeply skeptical that we can "isolate" our enemies by refusing to talk with them; the very idea of isolation is, to use the words of Harvard's Graham Allison, "a radical exception and departure from the mainstream of policy under Republicans and Democrats forever, and for most of the practice of the last 2,000 years of recorded history."
Under their (Zionist Israel) thumb! HAS TO BE! No other explanation for this!
And the major fear that McCain, not to mention President Bush, has raised about meetings - that they confer legitimacy on enemy regimes - gets almost as little credence.
So what does that make me out here?
I have ALWAYS ADVOCATED TALKING, even before I discovered 9/11 Truth!
We should be TALKING to people because THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO US!!!!
For the last time, WE KNOW NOW that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!!!!!
"If you talk to anybody who works in regime stability and ask them the top 100 things that grant legitimacy to a regime, I don't think 'meets with the US president' would be on anyone's list," says Kenneth Schultz, an associate professor of political science at Stanford.
Ha-ha-ha!
Probably NOT MEETING with us HELPS!
Indeed, given that presidents as different as Carter and Reagan held summits among hostile foreign leaders - Carter presiding over the Camp David accords, Reagan meeting Mikhail Gorbachev - it's strange that the notion of freezing out our enemies has come to seem so mainstream.
Not if you understand the ZIONIST CONTROL over our government.
Then again, maybe the dancing around it is on purpose.
Allison may be exaggerating slightly when he says that "nobody believes it except John Bolton," the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, but it would be fair to say that this view has a unique popularity among certain neoconservatives favored by President Bush. The neoconservative worldview of Bolton, Vice President Cheney, and others grew up, after all, against Henry Kissinger's realism: the idea that we could deal with odious regimes, and often had to, in order to keep the peace. The Bush doctrine, by contrast, is more favorable toward preemptive war, spreading democracy by force, and unilateral action against other countries. (Less room for talking there.)
Like there is a difference between those monsters.
I heard Bush has Kissinger in like once a month to talk (get instructions?).
Those who emphasize the value of talks do not, of course, say that any dialogue is good dialogue.... Most countries throughout history have talked with their enemies - just ask Israel, currently in talks with Syria - and there is almost no country that the United States does not have some contact with, if not at the presidential level then through ambassadors or lower-level diplomats.
Israel is just for their own self-serving motivations, we've seen and heard that.
The day they actually do something and stop killing Palestinians is the day I'll listen.
Despite North Korea's being part of the "axis of evil," American diplomats have met with North Korean diplomats recently, in the "six-party talks." The United States speaks to Iran, too: Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker conveys the administration's position to Iranian diplomats.
So that "no talking" a crock of shit fooleys as well?
Sigh!
And there's a reason that those meetings often come without preconditions: Preconditions often assume the very victories that negotiations are designed to produce. "If you say, 'I won't talk with Iran unless they give up their nuclear program and recognize Israel,' they're not going to talk," says Harvard's Joseph Nye. "And so the danger of setting preconditions is then you can't talk about what you want to talk about. If you won't talk until they say they won't enrich uranium, then they say, 'But that's what we want to talk about.' "
It's called SETTING THEM UP!!!
.... Joshua Muravchik, of the American Enterprise Institute, says that an American president's meeting with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would "give the [Iranian] moderates a kick in the gut." But could it not just as easily exhilarate moderates and liberals just to be near an American president, especially if he came with a message of freedom? Given Obama's popularity abroad, it's possible to imagine that his meetings would embolden pro-American or pro-Western forces wherever he went.
But if one accepts that ill-conceived meetings could strengthen the hands of the wrong people, then it matters not only who represents the Americans, but also who represents, say, the Iranians. "Simply put, does the person with whom we negotiate in Iran have the power to make decisions?" asks the AEI's Michael Rubin (who is generally opposed to Obama's meetings without preconditions). "Why should we be having a discussion about meeting with Ahmadinejad when almost every other foreign leader - the Senegalese president, the Eritrean president, the Qatari foreign minister, the head of Hamas - meets with the supreme leader?"
So what is with the "New Hitler" shit, Zionist press?
Obama, in one of his many clarifications of his stance, has made a similar point. "There is no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he is actually in power," he said last month. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
There is still a common sense critique of Obama's position, one that by its nature is rarely spoken out loud: Maybe an openness to meetings is a good thing, but is it wise to announce that openness?
Question: Why not? Why must we DECEIVE and TRICK PEOPLE?
Don't we MEAN WHAT WE SAY?
Why the MIND FUCKS?
After all, diplomacy involves knowing when to talk and when to shut up; the better part of valor is discretion. Did Obama err by seeming too eager?
Did BUSH ERE by telling us scads of lies to get us into Iraq?
Actually, Obama did ere because it upset AIPAC and the Zionists, so he then had to go suck cheek.
Paradoxically, he may have strengthened his hand, should he get elected. In the game of negotiation, one signal of strength is sticking to a position, and of weakness, backing down from a position.
Even if it was something stoo-pid and murderous like Iraq, huh?
Sigh.
Thus, if Obama's original position is liberal toward meetings with foreign leaders, then coming to the table won't seem like a concession, says Andrew Kydd, the author of "Trust and Mistrust in International Relations" and a professor at the University of Wisconsin.
Obama's position could also give him wiggle room domestically. With his stated opposition to such meetings, President Bush would pay a steep political cost were he to meet, say, with Raúl Castro: liberals would claim victory, and conservative friends would turn on him. ("Audience costs," in the cant of political scientists.) McCain, with his tough talk, may be creating the same problem for himself. But Obama has more flexibility: if the meetings never come to pass, he can always blame foreign leaders.
They do that anyway.
And can't AmeriKa ever do anything because it is the RIGHT and PEACEFUL way to do things, instead of the cloak-and-dagger politics and diplomacy?
Ultimately, though, it comes back to the question of human nature. Do all people want the same things, or do only naive optimists think that way?
I'd say YES to that question -- because IT IS the TRUTH!
We all LOVE OUR CHILDREN and LOVE OUR FAMILIES -- no matter where you live!
Only war-mongers and those with delusions of world domination think otherwise.
Optimists hope that rogue countries' behavior can be curbed by building strong economic and cultural ties, ones that would be costly to rupture. North Korea and Iran may be very different from us, this thinking goes, but they are similar enough in important ways: If the Western world offers carrots like security guarantees and the riches that come with enhanced trade, these countries will be more likely to follow international norms against terrorism, or abide by United Nations resolutions against nuclear proliferation.
Then again, they may not be that different from us.
They want independence and self-determination just like anyone else!
And how about Israel abiding by the U.N. once in a while, huh?
Pessimists will point out that some people have views of the world incompatible with ours. Such people may refuse to trust us, ever.
And likely with GOOD REASON (think Kurds, readers)!!!!
Or they may value honor, glory, or jihad more than they value, say, wealth that would come with trade.
I guess you could never say that about the Jews ($$$), huh?
I'm so sick odf the Zionist-controlled shit rags and their slander!!!!
It's impossible to know what lurks in the hearts and minds of others. And meetings can yield foolish conclusions (as when Bush met Russia's Vladimir Putin in 2001, and "was able to get a sense of his soul," and found him "trustworthy"). So yes, there are good reasons not to talk.
Especially if you don't want to on either score!!!
Oh, Sig Heil!
But, as leaders throughout history have believed, there are good reasons to talk, too. Kennedy and Bush may have stumbled badly in their summits with Russians. But another president may have better luck in a different summit, with a different leader, at a different time. That, anyway, is the audacity of Obama's hope."
Somehow, I just can't see the Zionist controllers and their agents allowing any dialogue to occur (whooooooooosh, BOOM!).
