He does NOT understand that sitting at a table with someone is par and course with endorsing their policies. (By calling them friend)
.
The notion that having face to face talks with a rogue state entails an endorsement of their policies is patently silly. Was Roosevelt endorsing communism when he met with Stalin along with Churchhill? Was Truman naive when he had talks with Stalin at Postdam, well aware of the fact that Stalin was responsible for the death of millions within his own country? How about President Nixon when he met with Chairman Mao? Was that an endorsement of the "cultural revoution" program that resulted in the death of 500,000 people that was occuring at the time? There are scores of other examples that I could give from third world countries similar to Iran.
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."--John F. Kennedy
The notion that having face to face talks with a rogue state entails an endorsement of their policies is patently silly. Was Roosevelt endorsing communism when he met with Stalin along with Churchhill? Was Truman naive when he had talks with Stalin at Postdam, well aware of the fact that Stalin was responsible for the death of millions within his own country? How about President Nixon when he met with Chairman Mao? Was that an endorsement of the "cultural revoution" program that resulted in the death of 500,000 people that was occuring at the time? There are scores of other examples that I could give from third world countries similar to Iran.
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."--John F. Kennedy
Really? I disagree. Did you know that in ancient times, if an enemy came to your house, you were obligated to show him hospitality? BUT...although you would offer your enemy food and drink, you were not to sit and eat with him, because if you "shared the salt" it was equivalent to calling a truce.
I agree with Henry Kissinger and McCain. Sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad does not endorse his policies in reality, but it does so in the perception of others, most importantly, countries, leaders and peoples, OTHER than the citizens of the United States. In our culture, we understand how to converse with an enemy and still oppose him--but that is not the case internationally.
Therefore it IS a dangerous, perceived endorsement that a President should not participate in. Refusing to sit down with someone who has not complied with certain conditions is, conversely, a message to the international community that we don't agree with certain policies, nor will we support them. And if others want to dialogue with us, then it is clearly understood that it isn't free, cheap and easy.
This is not negotiating out of fear, but negotiating on a level playing field.
Americans are so self-centered sometimes. LOL!!! We think because WE know that it isn't an endorsement, and because WE don't mind the round table discussions, that no one else will either. Newsflash: We are not the only ones watching the news and watching who the President of the United States has dinner with.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Really? I disagree. Did you know that in ancient times, if an enemy came to your house, you were obligated to show him hospitality? BUT...although you would offer your enemy food and drink, you were not to sit and eat with him, because if you "shared the salt" it was equivalent to calling a truce.
I agree with Henry Kissinger and McCain. Sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad does not endorse his policies in reality, but it does so in the perception of others, most importantly, countries, leaders and peoples, OTHER than the citizens of the United States. In our culture, we understand how to converse with an enemy and still oppose him--but that is not the case internationally.
Therefore it IS a dangerous, perceived endorsement that a President should not participate in. Refusing to sit down with someone who has not complied with certain conditions is, conversely, a message to the international community that we don't agree with certain policies, nor will we support them. And if others want to dialogue with us, then it is clearly understood that it isn't free, cheap and easy.
This is not negotiating out of fear, but negotiating on a level playing field.
Americans are so self-centered sometimes. LOL!!! We think because WE know that it isn't an endorsement, and because WE don't mind the round table discussions, that no one else will either. Newsflash: We are not the only ones watching the news and watching who the President of the United States has dinner with.
Brattified, but in my opinion simply ignoring a big threat is not the solution either. It is silly and irresponsible. Is the gameplan that maybe on its own these rogue nations will decide to see the light and come to Jesus and quit developing tactical nukes and quit hating us and quit posing a threat to our future generations?
And I don't see how in the examples listed above, the sit down talks could be interpreted as an endorsement of the other's policies. If our official foreign policy position is that we will either ignore you or fight you...heaven help us all.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Brattified, but in my opinion simply ignoring a big threat is not the solution either. It is silly and irresponsible. Is the gameplan that maybe on its own these rogue nations will decide to see the light and come to Jesus and quit developing tactical nukes and quit hating us and quit posing a threat to our future generations?
And I don't see how in the examples listed above, the sit down talks could be interpreted as an endorsement of the other's policies. If our official foreign policy position is that we will either ignore you or fight you...heaven help us all.
Who's ignoring the threat?
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
A standing refusal to engage in tough diplomacy is ignoring the threat in my opinion. In the wake of this relatively new foreign policy position, many of the problem nations have been getting more dangerous.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
A standing refusal to engage in tough diplomacy is ignoring the threat in my opinion. In the wake of this relatively new foreign policy position, many of the problem nations have been getting more dangerous.
Look, the only way I would personally see a benefit would be if there were completely private meetings held with enemy leaders. No press. Period.
The point is not that there should be no diplomacy (tough or otherwise). The point is that our leaders should not present an opportunity for the world to see what it could view as an alliance or affinity for an enemy nation.
If the President wants to hold secret meetings for the sake of tough diplomacy, I don't mind a bit, as long as no one finds out it happened, until after the diplomacy has reached it's goal.
Obama would use such opportunities for grandstanding and even ingratiating himself to people who deserve no such favor, IMO. I do not believe Obama even understands the concept of "tough diplomacy." He seems to be more of the ilk, "I can eat dinner with anyone, even if I disagree with them. See how socially advanced I am?" That may work in one's personal life, but it doesn't work in foreign policy.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Look, the only way I would personally see a benefit would be if there were completely private meetings held with enemy leaders. No press. Period.
The point is not that there should be no diplomacy (tough or otherwise). The point is that our leaders should not present an opportunity for the world to see what it could view as an alliance or affinity for an enemy nation.
If the President wants to hold secret meetings for the sake of tough diplomacy, I don't mind a bit, as long as no one finds out it happened, until after the diplomacy has reached it's goal.
Obama would use such opportunities for grandstanding and even ingratiating himself to people who deserve no such favor, IMO. I do not believe Obama even understands the concept of "tough diplomacy." He seems to be more of the ilk, "I can eat dinner with anyone, even if I disagree with them. See how socially advanced I am?" That may work in one's personal life, but it doesn't work in foreign policy.
I won't attempt to psychoanalyze Obama or predict his true motives for wanting tough diplomacy. My issue is with the notion that tough diplomacy in and of itself is a laughable propostition worthy of being mocked...regardless of who is doing the talking.
I don't think you give the rest of the world enough credit. I don't think they have seen tough talks with the nations that we were obviously unhappy with in the past as an affinity or alliance on our part. I think having the world's super power involved in the parts of the world that give most people cause for concern can be perceived as leadership. Do we expect that by ignoring these leaders we will hurt their feelings enough that they will quit proliferating or posing a threat?
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I won't attempt to psychoanalyze Obama or predict his true motives for wanting tough diplomacy. My issue is with the notion that tough diplomacy in and of itself is a laughable propostition worthy of being mocked...regardless of who is doing the talking.
I don't think you give the rest of the world enough credit. I don't think they have seen tough talks with the nations that we were obviously unhappy with in the past as an affinity or alliance on our part. I think having the world's super power involved in the parts of the world that give most people cause for concern can be perceived as leadership. Do we expect that by ignoring these leaders we will hurt their feelings enough that they will quit proliferating or posing a threat?
tstew, now I feel like you are the one focusing on a "talking point."
Who says we are "ignoring" the leaders? The stipulations have been made clear to them, through various sources, and they clearly understand what they have to do in order to achieve certain privileges. I don't call that "ignoring" them. I call that offering them an opportunity which they can meet or ignore.
It's not as simplistic as trying to "hurt their feelings." That would be assuming that a terrorist has feelings that can be hurt. However, there are instances in which their pride will cause them to choose one way or the other, because of how they want to be perceived. So in that way, I can see it as a valuable tool, toward cultures who do like to "save face."
I do believe that having a sit down meeting with the President, covered by the press, and with all the red carpet rolled out, is a privilege, and it should not be a freebie offered up to any world leader who wants to use such a photo-op to his advantage.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
tstew, now I feel like you are the one focusing on a "talking point."
Who says we are "ignoring" the leaders? The stipulations have been made clear to them, through various sources, and they clearly understand what they have to do in order to achieve certain privileges. I don't call that "ignoring" them. I call that offering them an opportunity which they can meet or ignore.
It's not as simplistic as trying to "hurt their feelings." That would be assuming that a terrorist has feelings that can be hurt. However, there are instances in which their pride will cause them to choose one way or the other, because of how they want to be perceived. So in that way, I can see it as a valuable tool, toward cultures who do like to "save face."
I do believe that having a sit down meeting with the President, covered by the press, and with all the red carpet rolled out, is a privilege, and it should not be a freebie offered up to any world leader who wants to use such a photo-op to his advantage.
I didn't say that it should be a red carpet Emmy affair. I'm just saying that I do not see why tough diplomacy is a laughable proposition especially in light of the fact that we have engaged in it before. I stated in several of these posts that there may well be something that I am totally missing, but to date I have not found that.
I don't see tough diplomacy as a "privelege" to be enjoyed by our enemies. I see it as a tactic that can be employed by us to address very real issues.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I didn't say that it should be a red carpet Emmy affair. I'm just saying that I do not see why tough diplomacy is a laughable proposition especially in light of the fact that we have engaged in it before. I stated in several of these posts that there may well be something that I am totally missing, but to date I have not found that.
I don't see tough diplomacy as a "privelege" to be enjoyed by our enemies. I see it as a tactic that can be employed by us to address very real issues.
Honestly, I don't think "tough diplomacy" is a laughable proposition--I'm just (very) unconvinced that Obama is capable of being tough. If real tough diplomacy was going to take place, I wouldn't be objecting all that much. I can see McCain being tough. I can see Bush being semi-tough. I can see Bill or Hillary Clinton being tough.
As for a privilege...it just seems that the press turns everything into a big ordeal, so I'm going to stick with my personal opinion that IF it takes place, it should not be covered by the press whatsoever. Both so they can't make it a public spectacle, and so they can't express opinion on the proceedings for the rest of the world to watch and read.
In the debate, I really felt that Obama over-simplified the matter. Whether he did that ignorantly, or whether he was being deliberately obtuse, I don't know. Either way, it made him look clueless in regard to dealing with our enemies--or our allies. (IMO, of course)
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
I'm just saying that I do not see why tough diplomacy is a laughable proposition especially in light of the fact that we have engaged in it before. I stated in several of these posts that there may well be something that I am totally missing, but to date I have not found that.
Linear Mode
