We Should Talk to Our Enemies

[AYHJA]

27 year career diplomat agrees with Senator Obama on need for diplomacy

By Nicholas Burns | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Oct 25, 2008

One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.

I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

More: http://snipurl.com/4qrkc [www_newsweek_com]

[raum]

Um, this is misleading, cause that is not exactly what happened/

McCain criticized Obama for saying he would have "unconditional" sit-down talks with leaders of enemy nations. Obama said this in the Democratic primary debates.

McCain argued that course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing. He also argued that the global limelight that our enemies are assuredly watching is not where to discuss sensitive issues of foreign policy.

And for the record even our enemies said they would not be willing to sit down without their own preconditions including the removal of all US forces from the middle east, and then Obama changed his tune in a live debate, and said of course he didn't mean THE PRESIDENT would do it; though that is exactly what he said he would do.

[AYHJA]

Umm, yeah...I saw those debates as well...They have the transcripts online and everything...He said unconditional...Not unprepared...And where was this so called tune change..? I obviously need to revisit it...

Between grown men, the leaders of nations at that...Having a condition is ridiculous when there is a need for diplomacy...

A condition is something mandatory...In other words, saying, 'raum, we won't read or respond to any of your posts unless you type them in a green font...' That's a dumb stance to take, if what you're saying is important...

If another webmaster came here...Or shit, just another poster...To this website...And said, 'I'd be willing to be a member of your site, and make lots of posts...But before I do, you need to remove certain content...' What are the odds that they'll be posting at AF..? Probably slim to none...Anyone that knows me even a little, knows what I will say...

So, if someone wants to draw out the semantics of this, fine...But in any situation, what Obama says make sense...All the mumbo jumbo around it you can muster won't change the fact that what we've been doing hasn't been working...

[raum]

Umm, yeah...I saw those debates as well...They have the transcripts online and everything...He said unconditional...Not unprepared...And where was this so called tune change..? I obviously need to revisit it...

He said without preconditions. That means something. Preconditions is a specific thing. If he didn't know what they were, which some people believe by his debate response - he should have said so.

Between grown men, the leaders of nations at that...Having a condition is ridiculous when there is a need for diplomacy...

Why is there a need for diplomacy? It is a save face, we have worked to undermine the iranian govt for decades, and we are not going to stop whoever comes into office.

A condition is something mandatory...In other words, saying, 'raum, we won't read or respond to any of your posts unless you type them in a green font...' That's a dumb stance to take, if what you're saying is important...

We are asking for them to stop illegal uranium enrichment. THEY WERE SEALED IN PROBATION AFTER FINDING NUCLEAR MATERIAL VIOLATING SECURITY COUNCIL MANDATES AND BROKE THE SEALS THEMSELVES. Comparing that to a font color is idiocy. The only reason we have not attacked them directly is because they are so close to revolution to Democratic unity, it may be only a generation away.

If another webmaster came here...Or shit, just another poster...To this website...And said, 'I'd be willing to be a member of your site, and make lots of posts...But before I do, you need to remove certain content...' What are the odds that they'll be posting at AF..? Probably slim to none...Anyone that knows me even a little, knows what I will say...

This is called pedantic argumentism, and is a fallicy of Socratic logic. In other words, you are simplifying things. Where does nuclear weapons fit into your anology?

So, if someone wants to draw out the semantics of this, fine...But in any situation, what Obama says make sense...All the mumbo jumbo around it you can muster won't change the fact that what we've been doing hasn't been working...

YES IT HAS. It has been working for a long time, and would have been done a long time ago, if not for bullshit Liberal politics. Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, all Bullshit Liberal agenda.

[AYHJA]

If he didn't know what they were, which some people believe by his debate response - he should have said so.

Did McCain mention what they were, or simply scoff at the notion as a whole..? McCain also said he wouldn't sit down with Spain...Every country has a different leader, and would call for different 'preconditions'...I don't recall there being any specific country in mind when the subject was brought up...

we have worked to undermine the iranian govt for decades, and we are not going to stop whoever comes into office.

Last stop for the Speculation Express..! You say things which such certainty that you don't have any control over...Maybe you're right, maybe you're not...

We are asking for them to stop illegal uranium enrichment.

The word 'illegal' means that its in violation of a law and someone should be doing something to stop it...So, who is that someone, and why aren't they doing it..?

This is called pedantic argumentism, and is a fallicy of Socratic logic. In other words, you are simplifying things.

And most would say you over complicate them...The principles are the same...

[raum]

Ask the right question and get a good answer, K?

Did Korea care about our preconditions? YES. But a fringe govt. in the North didn't and had stalinist support. That became North Korea. When Clinton let them attain nuclear weapons, we knew it was trouble. Then when they fired a missile over hawaii, we knew it was within their capacity to destroy Hawaii. We had to concede because they could extort Hawaii. Now, their demands that they knew what to do for themselves has led to no economic growth in the country, and further pursuit for other countries to get the nuclear bargaining chip.

Did PERSIA care about our preconditions? YES. But a part of Persia refuses to accept the outlay of the real world, outside of the National Socialist mythology of the area known as Aryana, which is known as Iran. Yes, the Iranian leaders believe they are the Aryan race Hitler was infatuated with, as their name comes from the Plateau of Persia they consolidated on due to its natural defenses. In the 1930's, Iran and Persia were used interchangeably. As for the fallout of preconditions, they were working until Carter conceded with the Islamic Revolution and their terrorism and cost the world untold damages throughout the Middle East.

However, comparing Iran, which is a founding nation of the UN and a former ally with a rogue nation like North Korea is comparing an Apple to a Worm. Social revolution is a desire of a great number of Iranians perhaps even a majority by now.

[raum]

Did McCain mention what they were, or simply scoff at the notion as a whole..? McCain also said he wouldn't sit down with Spain...Every country has a different leader, and would call for different 'preconditions'...I don't recall there being any specific country in mind when the subject was brought up...

McCain wasn't there. This was a debate with Hillary in the Dem primaries. Thought you saw this?

As for McCain not sitting down with Spain, Obama's got yo mind, dude:

Here is the transcript of the radio interview:

Spoiler:

QUESTION: Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?

MCCAIN: I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.

QUESTION: Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?

MCCAIN: I don't, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.

QUESTION: So you have to wait and see if he's willing to meet with you, or you'll be able to do it in the White House?

MCCAIN: Well again I don't, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.

QUESTION: Okay... what about Europe I'm talking about the President of Spain?

MCCAIN: What about me what?

QUESTION: Okay... are you willing to meet with him if you are elected president?

MCCAIN: I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not.

Pretty clear he was unsure how to answer. You can blame him for trying to answer a question about something without knowing. Politicians do that all the time, even Obama. But he did NOT say he wouldn't sit down with Spain. His reply is clear "Damn! Is there a reason he is asking me about that? Um, FUCK! what do I say. I know I'll say as long as there is not a reason to not sit with him!"

["raum"]we have worked to undermine the iranian govt for decades, and we are not going to stop whoever comes into office.

Last stop for the Speculation Express..! You say things which such certainty that you don't have any control over...Maybe you're right, maybe you're not...[/quote]

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publis ... _446.shtml

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/gavin.pdf

I have studied The Middle East for about 20 years, and as far back as Medes. You started using the term speculation express here last week. Go read about the Judullah, or just read "the Strangling of Persia", here is a link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=M3KI35 ... &ct=result

We are asking for them to stop illegal uranium enrichment.

The word 'illegal' means that its in violation of a law and someone should be doing something to stop it...So, who is that someone, and why aren't they doing it..?

That someone is the IAEA and they found Polonium 210 and other materials and plans for bombs, and they DID stop it. Iran tore the seals down and resumed their nuclear program. We have been TRYING to get someone to do something about it, and Iran is ignoring the call to sensible action and resolve, and basically daring us to do something about it. Remember something called the Cold War?