digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Obama:"Strong" Presidents Aren't Afraid To Meet With Enemies

tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoin… — Obama, in Montana, responded to McBush's failed "cowboy diplomacy". Why shouldn't we have the courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, and that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • neognostic, on 05/20/2008, -29/+209Nice, it just keeps on getting better and better. Darn that history Bush/McCain, you know smart people can look up this stuff in just a few seconds on the internet (that's the thing with the tubes).
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -39/+9I read it on tah intrawebs, it must be true.

      What did smart people do before them? Read a book?

      Negotiations didn't do us a heck of a lot of good with Tehran back in the late '70s. Some of the hostages believe that Ahmadinejad was a hostage taker.

      http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.pre ...

      /sarcasm
      Hey, he seems like a reasonable guy to me. Let's go have a bit of a chat with him. I am sure that Obama's silky smooth voice, alone, will be enough for him to fall in line. There's nothing to be lost by unconditionally negotiating with Iran.
      /sarcasm off

      Obama needs a way-back machine to go back and change those words in that debate. He won't be able to bury them with a digg-like thumbs down, which I am looking forward to getting for saying that the presumed emperor has no clothes.
      • aliengoods, on 05/20/2008, -3/+12First, let's get Obamas quote right. I'm not sure which speech you're referring to, so I can't look it up for you. But feel free to post the quote or a video link to the speech, and then we'll debate policy. Just throwing a bunch of ***** in sarcasm tags without a quote does nothing for your argument.

        Also, without diplomacy the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned into WW3, nuclear style.
        • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -11/+10Note the "without precondition" and "I would."

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24tr ...

          (YOUTUBE QUESTION) In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

          COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

          Senator Obama?

          OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -3/+16Well, would you kindly explain the harm caused by negotiations? Shouldn't you at least try to resolve the conflict peacefully at first?
        • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -15/+6You are the last superpower and on your way down, due to a president who is, simply, not a smart individual.

          Iran is a terrorist supporting state, trying to work its way up with nuclear weapons and anti-Israel threats and rhetoric.

          Negotiations without preconditions would imply tacit approval to Iran's actions and rhetoric. Why? That's just the way diplomacy works. All kinds of talks are possible with any state, no matter how big the gap, but *unconditional* negotiations are, traditionally, only held between states that are pretty close to begin with.

          It's a lot more complex than that; I tried to keep it simple.

          For example, I would expect that Israel would crap a collective brick if the President were to meet, unconditionally, with the leader of a country sworn to its destruction.
        • asspants, on 05/20/2008, -2/+17He wants to negotiate to find out what the ***** is wrong, and see if we can all come to an agreement.

          Why are you so insistent that there is absolutely no way to reason with the Iranians, and that doing so is just a waste of time and the only option is to preemptively strike them?

          I don't give two ***** or one ***** if Ajmehidandjihad has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. That doesn't mean we can't put our best foot forward and ask them not to.

          ***** Israel, let them crap their collective brick. They're not exactly over there spreading sunshine and brotherly love amongst the people of the middle east either.


      • hipnerd, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4krumbknuts: "Negotiations didn't do us a heck of a lot of good with Tehran back in the late '70s."

        Actually, Warren Christopher and President Carter negotiated the release of the Iranian hostages at the very end of Carter's term via the "Algiers Accords." We did not rescue the hostages via military force. It was diplomacy and negotiation.
        • StasisRat, on 05/20/2008, -3/+0Uhh, They negotiated because it was obvious Reagan was going to immediately bomb them after he was sworn in if they didn't release the hostages.
        • hipnerd, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Well, even discounting the "Octoberr Surprise" theories, Reagan didn't adopt a tough stance with the Ayatollah. He illegally sold Iran weapons, then used the money to illegally fund the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

          He even sent the Ayatollah a cake and an autographed Bible.

          There's your "get tough with the Iranians" policy in action.
      • Fordi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Sarcasm tags: ur doin it wrong.
    • flink405, on 05/20/2008, -16/+20The Talking Cure?

      In their litany of American presidents who met with hostile dictators, supporters of Barack Obama cite John F. Kennedy and his meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. They leave out how it went.

      http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDUwNTRmMDI1N ...
      • Jexie, on 05/20/2008, -5/+19That doesn't make talking to the enemy wrong overall. Of course its not going to work every single time! History has proven it's done much more good than harm overall, and Bush's retard cowboy diplomacy has been 100% negative.
        • QuadZeroRoute, on 05/21/2008, -3/+0Why didn't you read the article liberal dick?

          QUOTE: "Has the Bush administration been too diplomatically inflexible? Maybe, but it has allowed the EU-3 (Great Britain, France, and Germany) to take the lead with Iran, and the Europeans have offered incentives for the suspension of its nuclear program. It has engaged in prolonged negotiations with North Korea, winning the (dubious) promise of the suspension of its nuclear program. It has relentlessly promoted Israel-Palestinian negotiations."
      • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -4/+12national review?
        "It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion"
      • TubaTechno, on 05/20/2008, -13/+3Talking to enemies vs going to war is NOT the issue. Ignorant people are trying to force this topic into a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or situation here.

        What the current president's policy (and most every other national leader's policy from my understanding) is that in order for presidents/prime ministers to meet and talk, preconditions need to be met. These conditions could be military or humanitarian in nature.

        Obama is in support of meeting with leaders who are considered hostile to the US without ANY pre-conditions.

        Stop trying to twist this into an either/or situation of we either talk with them or go to war. It'll show your ignorance of this topic and politics in general.
        • Jexie, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5To say preconditions must be met first is telling the enemy to relent on some of the things that were going to be talked about before actually talking....dichotomies do exist and openly talking or not is not a false one.
        • scubaman5000, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"What the current president's policy (and most every other national leader's policy from my understanding) is that in order for presidents/prime ministers to meet and talk, preconditions need to be met."

          Sounds like it's time for change. Talking about your problems is never a bad thing especially when the other side is unwilling to meet preconditions. Come on people this is stuff we learned back on the playground in grade school.
        • petebot, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Jexie--I've always thought the preconditions thing was kind of stupid. "In order for us to meet so I can convince you to not be an *****, first you have to stop being an *****." It's just another way for governments to stall the peace process. The problem with setting preconditionsd is that it doesn't go just one way. The other side will inevitably wants some preconditions met as well, and when no one budges, they can blame the other side.
      • t0x2c, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3That article basically supports what Obama said, it just doubts that he's going to actually do it. Did you even read the article you tried to use as evidence?
    • flink405, on 05/20/2008, -20/+3The Talking Cure?

      In their litany of American presidents who met with hostile dictators, supporters of Barack Obama cite John F. Kennedy and his meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. They leave out how it went.

      http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDUwNTRmMDI1N ...
      • RealHyperX, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3Don't show the young dumb liberals what could happen when a leader is thought of as weak. I can't wait to see Obama in the office. Really can't.
      • Bimmel, on 05/20/2008, -9/+0Flink405, you know Obama supporters don't want to hear facts, they only only want to believe in platitudes of the Obama. The fact is when an American President meets with any leader of a country it elevates his standing with his people and the world. That is one of many reasons US presidents don't meet with dictators.
    • Wormfather, on 05/20/2008, -5/+77Better, it just got 50x better. Obama just announced that his running mate is going to be the 3G iPhone.

      Obama/iPhone '08
    • hittnrun, on 05/20/2008, -23/+2Yet the black vagina hide from Fox News for how many months? Pa-leeze.
      • orangefly, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3i hear obama wont do an interview with the globe either....
        • hittnrun, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Obama is a failure in waiting, plain and simple.

          He's NOT READY.
    • justinx0r, on 05/20/2008, -10/+6To be fair John McCain said he would meet with Ahmidinejad with preconditions (like halting the uranium enrichment program). Even Bush has said "I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them." They're just against meeting with leaders like that without preconditions which is what Obama said he would do. Now you can agree with that stance or not, I don't really care, but you should try and not lie by saying that John McCain doesn't want to meet with the Castro's or Ahmidinejad's of the world under no circumstances.
      • kanabiis, on 05/20/2008, -5/+21I love this talking point..... set completely unrealistic standard in which to 'agree' to meet with your enemy, use it as some sort of forced compliance to meet, and then use it as a political crutch to further propaganda as to why the enemy is evil.

        This is not diplomacy...... it's childish tactics most civilized human beings grew out of in high school. No dispute has ever been settled at gunpoint, or under unconditional ultimatums, people who have not figured this out are not fit to run super power nations.
        • TubaTechno, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3How is that a completely unrealistic standard? Iran to stop enrichment of Uranium to weapons grade material. Uranium used for light-water nuclear reactors only need Uranium enriched to 3-5%. Weapons grade uranium needs to be 90% enriched. There is a major difference between enriching uranium for power plants and weapons.

          Iran is not allowing verification for it's enrichment program in order to allow the world to see if it's for peaceful purposes or not. This is why the UN passed many sanctions and resolutions that have received unanimous support from it's members that "punish" Iran for not doing so.

          I can tell you really really hate Bush's policies, however, to blame this solely on Bush would be an ignorant mistake...
        • MikeSD34, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4If he really wanted them to stop he would be willing to meet with them to discuss it rather then only agreeing to meet after they've stopped. The way it is now they can't even discuss reasonable alternatives until they've abandoned their existing plans. It's ridiculous.
        • kanabiis, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9There is no proof that Iran posses the technology yet alone the ability to enrich weapons grade Uranium.

          Furthermore, after developing a nuclear warhead you must have a delivery system. There is absolutely no proof, not a one ounce of evidence to suggest that Iran is actively working on developing a sophisticated nuclear weapons delivery system.

          Modern nuclear weapons programs are not built in peoples basements, they require billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of man hours, and actual testing facilities. You don't just build a nuclear weapon based on faith, its not that simple.

          For this very reason Iran is not allowing the inspections, because it would expose the saber rattling that they are doing for what it is, pure propaganda without substance. They do not have an active enrichment process, they don't even have a cold war era class delivery system. Hell, they can't even develop their own war planes, they are still relying on aged F-14s we gave them in the early 1970's. If they had any sort of military technological advanced industry don't you think they could have at least reverse engineered one of those planes and at least produced some spare parts for their aging fleet rather then purchasing components off of e-bay right? But noooo the American propaganda machine would rather attempt to convince me that while Iran can't develop a tactical paper bag, they have some how figured out the intricate details of modern nuclear weapons technologies. That's a pretty extreme leap of faith if you ask me.

          To suggest that they bypassed simpler technologies to develop much more complex nuclear weapons is a pretty far fetched fantasy when you actually put some logical thought into it. Instead of worrying about Iran developing the nuclear weapon, we should be much more interested in insuring that they dont PURCHASE one from countries who actually have nukes and might not be as friendly to the US.

          Which is exactly why we should be in discussion and talks with Iran..... maybe not to be their best friends, but a more US friendly Iranian regime would be much more advantageous.

      • hittnrun, on 05/21/2008, -2/+1Sooooo, Obama is Bush II now?

        Well, I guess he's figuring it out as he goes along. i hope you lemmings will to. If Osamabama wants to get elected, GWB's policies will need to be nuanced into "his".
        • aardfox, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1What the *****? This is sarcasm, right?
      • wliebkem, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Wow... the comment above is rational, reasonable, and well presented, yet is has -4 diggs currently.

        Shame on those of you who have marked it down. Thumbs down is to hide a comment from other viewers, not to debate the content of the post.

        If you disagree with a reasonable comment, hit "reply." If a comment is inane, oscene, or completely off topic, then you hit thumbs down.

        If someone posts a well-though out comment that you disagree with, hit thumbs UP as kudos for a good post. Then hit "reply" to make your points.

        Otherwise this site just becomes a politically homogeneous, non-vibrant, polarized, decaying heap of *****.
    • bhamster, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2you're just emboldening the internets
    • kgblossom, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0Obama cites Kennedy as authority for the proposition that the president should be agreeable to meeting with America's enemies without preconditions. But does he really know Kennedy's position?

      1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates:
      MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Vice President, according to news dispatches Soviet Premier Khrushchev said today that Prime Minister Macmillan had assured him that there would be a summit conference next year after the presidential elections. Have you given any cause for such assurance, and do you consider it desirable or even possible that there would be a summit conference next year if Mr. Khrushchev persists in the conditions he's laid down?

      MR. NIXON: No, of course I haven't talked to Prime Minister Macmillan. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. The President is still going to be president for the next four months and he, of course, is the only one who could commit this country in this period. As far as a summit conference is concerned, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I would be willing as president to meet with Mr. Khrushchev or any other world leader if it would serve the cause of peace. I would not be able wou- would be willing to meet with him however, unless there were preparations for that conference which would give us some reasonable certainty - some reasonable certainty - that you were going to have some success. We must not build up the hopes of the world and then dash them as was the case in Paris. There, Mr. Khrushchev came to that conference determined to break it up. He was going to break it up because he would - knew that he wasn't going to get his way on Berlin and on the other key matters with which he was concerned at the Paris Conference. Now, if we're going to have another summit conference, there must be negotiations at the diplomatic level - the ambassadors, the Secretaries of State, and others at that level - prior to that time, which will delineate the issues and which will prepare the way for the heads of state to meet and make some progress. Otherwise, if we find the heads of state meeting and not making progress, we will find that the cause of peace will have been hurt rather than helped. So under these circumstances, I, therefore, strongly urge and I will strongly hold, if I have the opportunity to urge or to hold - this position: that any summit conference would be gone into only after the most careful preparation and only after Mr. Khrushchev - after his disgraceful conduct at Paris, after his disgraceful conduct at the United Nations - gave some assurance that he really wanted to sit down and talk and to accomplish something and not just to make propaganda.

      MR. McGEE: Senator Kennedy.

      MR. KENNEDY: I have no disagreement with the Vice President's position on that. It - my view is the same as his. Let me say there is only one uh - point I would add. That before we go into the summit, before we ever meet again, I think it's important that the United States build its strength; that it build its military strength as well as its own economic strength. If we negotiate from a position where the power balance or wave is moving away from us, it's extremely difficult to reach a successful decision on Berlin as well as the other questions. Now the next president of the United States in his first year is going to be confronted with a very serious question on our defense of Berlin, our commitment to Berlin. It's going to be a test of our nerve and will. It's going to be a test of our strength. And because we're going to move in sixty-one and two, partly because we have not maintained our strength with sufficient vigor in the last years, I believe that before we meet that crisis, that the next president of the United States should send a message to Congress asking for a revitalization of our military strength, because come spring or late in the winter we're going to be face to face with the most serious Berlin crisis since l949 or fifty. On the question of the summit, I agree with the position of Mr. Nixon. I would not meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level - foreign ministers or ambassadors - which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success, or a useful exchange of ideas.
  • GrouchoMarx42, on 05/20/2008, -22/+93I was there for that speech this morning, and Senator Obama incredible in his points on Iran. Check out the whole transcript of the town hall meeting here:
    http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.as ...
    • dibling, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3How did the internets get to Montana? :P
      • swicken, on 05/20/2008, -0/+8Via a series of tubes
        • Tommyhawk, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Are you sure it wasn't a truck that you dump things on?
    • westkoast, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Video Link:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc&eurl=ht ...
    • noprtyaff, on 05/20/2008, -9/+0No doubt McCain wants to keep the U.S. in Iraq for the next 100 years. However, the multiracial leftist cult object Obama wants to let other countries determine what the indoor temperature of your house should be.

      Osama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

      Now there is a "strong" President for you. What else will he allow other countries to mandate for the U.S.?

      Three remaining poor candidates. How sad. Have a nice day.
      • chromerium, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Sorry, I couldn't read your comment because you used "multiracial" as a racial epithet and from that point onward all I could see was:

        WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME WAH WAH WAH IM A RACIST ***** WAH WAH WAH DONT LISTEN TO ME.
        • noprtyaff, on 05/20/2008, -4/+0"you used 'multiracial' as a racial epithet"???

          OK. I'll play along. But...wouldn't it be a multiracial epithet?

          ...your emotional swearing response aside though, you didn't catch my Islamic epithet: "Osama:"

          Anyway, I'm pleased you were able to read my post. Have a nice day.
    • doublebummer, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1When you were at that speech, did Obama explain why he just voted for the Farm Bill? You know, the "bill that rewards rich farmers who do not need the help while doing virtually nothing to help the world’s hungry" (http://tinyurl.com/66nxvm) A bill that includes tax breaks for racehorse breeders.

      I'm guessing that didn't come up.
  • Hillsfar, on 05/20/2008, -26/+304That's right. Obama said in his speech in Billings, Montana, "Here is the truth. The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Kruschev and he got those missles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do. That's what strong presidents do. That's what I'll do when I'm President of the United States of America!"
    • theprez98, on 05/20/2008, -24/+51Kennedy didn't talk to Khrushchev to get the missiles out of Cuba. There was a summit between them in 1961, before the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Khrushchev perceived Kennedy as weak, and that was considered one of the root causes of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Fortunately for us, Khrushchev was wrong.
      • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -12/+20Please don't confuse everybody with actual facts. Once again, this is a great demonstration of the state of our educational system. There was a time when a politician twisting history like that would have been greeted with confused looks on the crowd's faces. Now the crowds just cheer because they don't know better, even about such a recent and important historical event....sad.
        • xBDVx, on 05/20/2008, -2/+13You're missing the point. Diplomacy between the US and the USSR ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. It could have ended another way.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missle_Crisis#A ...
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -6/+4@xBDVx

          Except it was the initial screw-up in diplomacy that created the crisis in the first place. Against advice to the contrary, Kennedy met with Khrushchev and it was a disaster, the fallout of that meeting likely led to the later missile crisis. It was saved at the last minute, but it was likely more luck than anything else. It's about the worst example to use as a diplomatic success. In fact, it was about as big of a diplomatic screw-up that you could of had - it wasn't a matter of losing trade concessions or losing face on the international stage - instead, it almost cost the life of most Americans and Russians (and whichever other allies would have joined in).
        • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Sillyrabbits: please see my comment in the main body of this thread.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2@foofightrs

          I did. The Bay of Pigs may have been the final straw (and you're right, it did fail as a direct result of the last minute changes he demanded), but it was the series of prior missteps and Kennedy himself that created the situation - and it began with that first meeting. Khrushchev himself was quoted in later years as saying he never would have considered placing the missiles there if Nixon had been president at the time. People seem to give Kennedy a lot of passes on some of his decisions. However, at the time, although he was very popular with some portions of the US population, his standing on the international stage was very different. I don't disagree with some of his goals, it just seems that he didn't know how to effectively achieve them.
      • OwdenBowden, on 05/20/2008, -16/+8May I also add the fact that:

        One can REASON with the RUSSIANS (the reason - they have similar dreams, desires, wishes and wants as the rest of reasonable peoples and reasonable Governments).

        One CANNOT REASON with ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST (the reason is simple - it is either Allah or death.)

        Obama will have better success talking to a wall - But knock yourself out.
        • yammy1688, on 05/20/2008, -2/+7Islamic fundamentalists are in the minority, just as christian fundamentalists are... There just happens to be more of them because they have forcefully subjugated in the interest of furthering western agendas of for decades.

          I'm of the belief that he vast majority of Muslims simply want to live life in peace, just like us. Your blanket labeling of whole groups of people is rather sickening. Russians=reasonable, Muslims=unreasonable. Right.
        • makkaveli19, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2oh my god. do you guys actually believe this *****? what has MSM done.
        • lustyrusty, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0@yammy1688

          Honestly, how well did you read his post? Where did he say "Muslims=unreasonable"? And where did he blanket label an entire group? I read it as "one cannot reason with Islamic Fundamentalists" because that is exactly what he said. I agree with you that a VAST majority of Muslims are no threat whatsoever, and are, just like the majority of the entire world, simply concerned with their own lives. I just have to respond because your response really doesn't apply here.
        • Lazydriver, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Greed changes the minds of everyone, from the Saudi prince to the Ayatollah Khomeini, or, at least, the people that actually carry out his orders.
        • OwdenBowden, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Hi All - I understand where some of you are coming from about Islam. I know all about the religion of Islam and you are correct that Islam is a rather peaceful religion. However What I am talking about is ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST. These are the hard core unreasonable people I talk about. And, if you do know anything about them then you could agree with my statement.
      • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Actually, your point that t was the summit meeting in 1961 that encouraged event is rather debatable at best.

        during the later years of the Eisenhower presidency the CIA developed and trained an army of Cuban exiles in South America. Eisenhower however refused to make use of this asset until an exile government with popular support could be organized. Unfortunately for Ike, the exiled Cubans were never able to rally around a single government and thus the plan was shelved.

        In the early years on the Kennedy presidency Kennedy rather frequently appealed to Eisenhower for advice on foreign policy matters. With the window of opportunity closing Kennedy asked Eisenhower if he should make use of the army which had been built up. To this, Eisenhower suggested that Kennedy should make use of them.

        Unfortunately, this is where the blunder that convinced Kruschev that Kennedy was weak came in. Kennedy had insisted that the exiles be sent in in a manner which would not allow the invasion to be tied back to the US. Therefore, in April of 1961, the exiles invaded Playa Giron (Bay of Pigs) without air support or adequate communications equipment. And thus, they were crushed and the mission was a failure.

        After the incident's failure Eishenhower more or less called Kennedy a fool and chastised him saying how could anyone think that we were not involved in the invasion. Kennedy had thought that if the Americans were caught giving support the Soviets would have created trouble in Berlin. To this Eisenhower replied, " Mr. President, that is exactly the opposite of what would really happen. The Soviets follow their own plans, and if they see us show any weakness then is when they push us the hardest. The second they see us show strength and do something on our own, the nis when they are very cagey. the failure of the Bay of Pigs will embolden the Soviets to do something they would not otherwise do." And that something was the Cuban Missile crisis; created due to a covert military operation rather than diplomacy as you assert.

      • solistus, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6foofightrs has come the closest, but nobody has mentioned the actual proximate cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We moved mid-range nuclear weapons into Central Europe in late 1961. Khrushchev demanded that we remove them; we said no. He then sent ships armed with nuclear weapons of his own toward Cuba and repeated his demand, telling Kennedy that he viewed Cuba as reciprocal to the CE nukes. Kennedy removed the nukes, and Krushchev ordered his boats to turn around.

        This is what some of us would call successful diplomacy averting a military catastrophe.

        Owden: you can reason with anyone. You're a bigoted idiot for thinking that "all them Muslims don't care about anything but Allah." Ahmadinejad isn't even that religious; he's a populist power-monger who has made clear, limited demands on numerous issues. You just don't happen to be educated enough to know about them. Do some reasearch on proposals for an "Iranian Grand Bargain" and you'll know what I'm talking about. Obama is NOT talking about negotiating with Al Qaeda or something; he's talking about SOVEREIGN NATIONS like Iran.
        • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3you're quite right as well. I think it was probably both items combined. but great call.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -32/+26Anyone who was alive in the late 70s may have a different opinion on how "tiny" a threat Iran is. They had us by the short and curlies and weak-ass Carter couldn't do a thing about it. This is not a country to show weakness with.
      • Brownds, on 05/20/2008, -13/+13No facts please.
      • kanabiis, on 05/20/2008, -4/+14LOL yea, huge threat Iran posed, without a navy, air force, intercontinental ballistic weapons... The best they could do was hijack an airliner and kidnap a bunch of Americans, the same 'threat' they could pose now.

        Those are the facts......
      • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12knumbknust, I hope you realize that the US and the UK are mostly to blame for the Mullahs taking power.

        Read up on "Operation Ajax"...
        • solid12345, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Operation Ajax would never have taken place if Mossadegh the fool had not tried to limit the authority of the Shah and tried to take control of the government himself. Pahlavi was the one who appointed Mossadegh prime minister in the first place and the sniveling little rat tried to make backdoor deals with the Islamist and Communist parties to overthrow Iran's regime himself by demanding full control of the military and emergency parliamentary powers, even going as far as dissolving the parliament which by Iranian law, he had no authority to do. He even had the nerve to throw the Shah's sister out of the country months before the coup. Sorry but the Shah had all due right to be pissed.

          By the way, the so-called "democratically elected" leader Mossadegh won a rigged referendum getting 99.93% of the vote on the eve of the coup, how convenient.
        • makkaveli19, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2solid, did you get these facts from fox or something. mossadegh was hugely favored and he was loved by all. he was the khatamiX2 of his time. he wasnted to nationalize irans oil and the brits didn't like it. simple as that.
        • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3solid, you are oversimplifying what really happened. For starters, the goal of the American and British were not to defend democracy in Iran - it was to avoid nationalization of Iran's oil, which is what Mossadegh wanted (and the vast majority of Iranians as well).

          Second, guess who gave him Emergency Powers? Yeah, it was the Parliament, and he didn't force them in any way - he actually had to convince them. And what did he use those powers for? To strengthen the democratically-elected political institutions by limiting the monarchy's unconstitutional powers. I mean, the gall of that man, to strengthen democracy. I do have to wonder, however, why *you* hate democracy...

          About the referendum, you realize this happens *after* Operation Ajax had started, as Mossadegh became increasingly fearful of being overthrown (with good reason, too). Did he go too far in that regard? Yes he did, but only after being painted in a corner by the threat orchestrated by the CIA and MI-6.

          As for the Shah's sister, you conveniently omit the fact that she's the one who convinced her brother to consent to Operation Ajax with the British and the American. In other words, she conspired to go against the democratic wishes of the people. That's a nice bunch of people you're defending: autocrats, conspirators, monarchists...

          The point still stands: Iran had a democratically-elected governement which the US conspired to overthrow. No amount of half-truths, omissions and outright lies from you will change the fact that the US was wrong to do this, and that these actions eventually led to the formation of the Iranian theocracy we have today. Blowback indeed!
      • caramba420, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Right, weak-ass Carter couldn't do anything. And then your boy Reagan gave them a bunch of weapons in exchange for the hostages. Real tough. Who's the appeaser now?
        • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I never said anything about Reagan. That fool almost got us into WWIII in 1985.
    • coffee200am, on 05/20/2008, -26/+16Kennedy told Khrushchev off. He threaten war if the USSR didn't remove the nukes from Cuba. There was no peaceful talks.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -2/+39Um, Khrushchev only agreed to remove the missiles after Kennedy removed missiles from Turkey.
        • mfc5200, on 05/20/2008, -2/+38But both sides got what they wanted, missiles taken away from nearby areas. Such situations are called "win win". Thats what usually happens with talks, negotiations, and diplomacy.

          I have no intention of voting for Obama, but he is dead on with this. I'm just sad he didn't take it farther by agreeing to talk with Hamas, but I understand why he would say no to that, there is a lot of political jewish pressure that even he can't ignore.

          But sitting down and talking isn't appeasement. You don't have to shake hands, agree, or anything. Hell, you can even sit down and make threats, that's still talking. The idea that not talking to a regime is some sort of punishment is ridiculous. If you have issues with a country (which we obviously do with certain countries) then we have to sit down and realize the best way to make things go forward. Ignoring them (ala North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Hamas, etc.) is obviously not the solution because IT DOESN'T WORK.
        • markgl, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3and what are to exchange in order for them to not build nukes?
        • Nenb, on 05/20/2008, -1/+9Less military presence in the region? Less "hold Israel behind our backs with vetoes in the UN"? More open trade? And that is just on top of my mind.
        • xBDVx, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6markgl: loosening of sanctions, maybe? Because they don't work either. Exhibit A: Cuba. We sanctioned Cuba for some 50 years and the same regime managed to keep power.
        • solistus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4markgl: in addition to the things already on the list, how about:
          -A say in the reconstruction of Iraq, currently a huge threat to Iran's security
          -A guarantee that regime change is off the table
          -Some sort of extension of Russia's civilian power compromise deal (currently underway as the result of successful TALKS between Russia and Iran)
          -US support in one of numerous border disputes (mostly with Iraq, see: the British troops / "Iraqi" waters incident)
          -End of US support for anti-regime groups within Iran
          Etc.

          There are other things we could demand besides no building of nukes, too; ending support for Hezbollah and similar groups, staying out of Lebanese affairs altogether, making the Strait of Hormuz internationally secure (i.e., eliminate the situation in the status quo where Iran could easily mine and blockade the Strait during any conflict), etc.
      • jkoski, on 05/20/2008, -2/+11"There was no peaceful talks."

        My history book and the History Channel must have missed the war or armed conflict that you were referring to here. If you mean that the talks were heated and contentious, then say so. Any negotiation that doesn't include some sort of physical confrontation (like an attack) by definition are "peaceful talks".
    • akamurph, on 05/20/2008, -13/+16Um, you forget the whole blockade of Cuba with Destroyers and other 'war machine' ships... not peaceful talks.
      • jkoski, on 05/20/2008, -1/+16You keep saying this word peaceful. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -2/+15Was there violence? Was there bloodshed? In the grand scheme of things, I'd have to say that that's pretty damn peaceful.
      • xBDVx, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Your point? You need to have things like blockades and nukes. These are things that the big boys negotiate with. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. The deal was that the USSR moved the nukes out of Cuba and the US would move their nukes out of Turkey. If we hadn't come to that deal you can be damn sure that none of us would be here right now.
        • divrekku, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2xBDVx,

          so this means that the only way any two countries can really negotiate with each other now is only if both sides have enough firepower to level the other side?

          Damn...I wonder what we did before we had nukes and we needed to talk to someone else...
    • jgambleii, on 05/20/2008, -13/+5Ron Paul was saying the EXACT same thing more than a year ago.
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7Paul doesn't have a patent on the truth. Others can repeat it freely.
        • Kingmichael, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Yes, but when Ron Paul said it, people thought he was nuts.
        • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You can thank Rudy Guiliani and the talking heads for that one.
        • darienphoenix, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1People thought Paul was nuts long before that comment.
      • solistus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Also, Ron Paul is an isolationist in all matters other than trade. It would be damn hypocritical, and an abandonment of campaign promises and rhetoric for a President Paul to focus much effort on resolving the world's geopolitical disputes. Paul is apparently not very well-read on Hegemonic Stability Theory.
    • imNotaCylon, on 05/20/2008, -7/+5LETS GET THE MEASURING TAPES OUT BOYS!! Seriously, while Im sure everyones impressed with how much more you want us to think you know about history, I believe the point of Obama's statement is that in a similar situation in the past, speaking with our enemies proved fruitful in diffusing a critical situation, thus highlighting the contrast in Bush/McCain's narrow minded approach to foreign policy.
      • solistus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Obama happens to be right, but his "point" is only valid BECAUSE of the history. One HAS to debate out the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis to evaluate Obama's claim. I know it makes you feel cool to point out that other people are *gasp* discussing something seriously and with nuance on the internet, but please keep it to yourself so the rest of us can have a conversation.
    • bobjohnsonmilw, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Actually it was rumored (referencing 'Brothers' by David Talbot) Bobby Kennedy was the key factor in the removal of the missiles. Apparently Bobby was CRYING on the phone, 'Please just remove them, if you do not our generals are basically in control at this point, and if you do not move them, we're all dead"

      No Joke. Read the book.
    • ThinkFr33ly, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9All of the above replies are wrong. We DID negotiate with Kruschev, and these negotiations played a critical role in resolving the crisis.

      Without this communication, it is very likely that the crisis would have escalated and you would be dead. (Or never born.)

      See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis# ...

      Obama is completely correct. Strong leaders are not afraid to talk. Fear mongers, on the other hand, are... because it's hard to make somebody out as the boogie man if you're having meetings with them.
      • solistus, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3All of the above replies? Half of them say what you just said.
      • geneticlone, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah what solistus said, oh and I was in the USSR at the time so i would have been fine :-P,
        • solistus, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Right, because the US wouldn't retaliate...? Methinks you're not terribly familiar with the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction.
    • SacraBos, on 05/20/2008, -4/+4The negotiations with Khrushchev did not result in a complete settlement, or obviously the peace that Obama would like you to think occured. The UUSR was trying to get us to reduce our forces and capabilities without effectively reducing their ability against us. The only reason Khrushchev removed the nukes from Cuba was because we forcibly blocked them from coming in. This was not a "negotiation", but a overt, non-verbal, no-comprimse show of military force. Probably the closest we've gotten to having WWIII on our hands. Again, another demonstration of Peace through Strength.
      Obama has repeatedly stated that he will negotiate with Iran with an open mind. This is incredibly dangerous and ignorant. Anytime you go into negotiations, there are always "deal-breakers". If you are willing to negotiate without having the guts to walk away from a bad deal, then you are a poor negotiator and should not be doing that in the capacity of the President of the United States. I fear that it is more important to him that a deal be struck, than the security of the US and it's Allies.
      • ThinkFr33ly, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4You are simply wrong.

        The blockage was both to prevent NEW missiles from coming in, and to show strength. This was obviously important. But it did NOTHING to get the missiles out of Cuba that were already there.

        In fact, we NEGOTIATED with Kruschev and agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey.

        Furthermore, the blockage itself didn't cause an escalation thanks to secret talks Kennedy had with Kruschev.

        Do you honestly think that Obama thinks Iran are nice guys that are just misunderstood? Are you really that dense or blinded by partisanship? Of COURSE there are deal breakers. Get a grip man.
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3I think that Obama, who has very little real life experience in anything, overestimates the power of his charm.
          Come ON! Obama has never done anything. Never run a soccer team. A small business. A county. Nothing. He's surrounded himself with America-haters for decades. And you think Americans will put him in charge?
          Don't bet on it.
        • scottc, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1@140Suffolk: While it's easy to deny Obama's long record of success in both the private and public arenas because it's not well known to people outside of Illinois, you can't deny his recent success in this campaign. He managed to overcome the tremendous odds of beating a well-known, heavily-funded candidate, and he did it by running a campaign that went against all conventional political wisdom. He had the vision to foresee what our country wanted before most of us could even identify it and he had the intelligence, determination, and perseverance to deliver the goods. In private business that would make him a millionaire; in politics it will make him the President.

          Now, how do you define success?
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1scottc -
          Oh? What has Obama done? He was a 'community organizer". I know what that is. It means getting non-producing people angry. So they demand stuff from producing people. Gimme.
          I know Obama was a civil rights lawyer. I've read that he NEVER had his name as attorney-of-record on any cases. Cause he's a zero.
          I know he was a Illinois legislator. I read that the few bills that he "sponsored" were actually sponsored by other Democrats. But they took their names off and put Obama's name on. To create a resume for Obama.
          Obama did take a stand there though. He had a chance to vote for a bill that would require doctors to preserve the life of an infant that managed to survive a late-term abortion. Obama took a stand and voted "present". Note: when he left the Illinois legislature the bill passed very quickly.
          Now tell me which part of this is inaccurate.
        • scottc, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1How do you define success?
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1scottc asks "How do you define success?" He's referring to Obama's career.
          Scootc - I haven't said he wasn't successful. To be successful you've got to DO something.
          Again -- what in the world has Barack done?
      • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Pick up a goddamn history book before opening your mouth again. Honestly, the level of ignorance about basic history around here is incredible.
    • bobh1234, on 05/20/2008, -8/+4Typical liberal distortion of the truth. Kennedy might very well be the worst President the USA ever had. It was Reagan that cleaned everything up. You can't negotiate unconditionally with leaders who routinely kill (their own) people.
      • dyoungdigger, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2I'll just say that I think that some countries can be negotiated with and some cannot. You can't negotiate with people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up busses and buildings. You just get rid of them. You CAN negotiate with countries that have governments who care enough to negotiate and acctually want peace.

        -just sayin.
        • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1"You can't negotiate with people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up busses and buildings. You just get rid of them."

          Technically, they've already gotten rid of themselves by blowing themselves up.

          Then, you have to consider the fact that you *can't* fight terrorism through conventional means. The best way to fight it is to address the root causes. If the US hadn't been so one-sided in its approach to Middle Eastern politics, it wouldn't be in the situation it's in today.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Hey, and guess how Reagan helped bring about the end of the Cold War - by negotiating! Oh, and don't forget Bush's role, too. Point is, the single most dangerous conflict the world has ever faced was brought to an end without a single bullet being fired. So I think it's hilarious that you're gonna trash the idea of negotiating when your #1 guy right there did so much with it.
        • 140Suffolk, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2No. By walking OUT of negotiations.
      • foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You're right he was a terrible president. Just like Lincoln, McKinley, and Garfield. What good president gets shot and then dies? Clearly he was no Teddy Roosevelt:

        October 13, 1912: Three and a half years after he left office, Roosevelt was running for President as a member of the Progressive Party. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, John Schrank, a saloon-keeper from New York, shot Roosevelt once with a revolver. A 100-page speech folded over twice and the metal glasses case in Roosevelt's breast pocket slowed the bullet. Amidst the commotion, Roosevelt yelled out "Quiet! I've been shot." Roosevelt insisted on giving his speech with the bullet still lodged inside him. He later went to the hospital, but the bullet was never removed. Roosevelt, remembering that William McKinley died after operations to remove his bullet, chose to have his remain. Schrank said that McKinley's ghost had told him to avenge his assassination. Schrank was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.

        /sarcasm off

        (I doubt he even knows that Kennedy was a staunch cold-warrior.)
      • makkaveli19, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1dyodinger, when has iran ever strapped bombs to itself and killed anyone? khatami wanted to speak to bush twice and he ignored him. what does that say about your logic?
      • desqjockey, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1troll. Perhaps if you even tried to support your argument I would not block you. "Oh noes Im a liberal and just cant face the truth" - yeah unsupported assertions arent exactly going to educate others on your pov.
        blocked.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2STRONG LEADERS DO TALK - but only with preconditions and not unconditionally for the other side. Kennedy did this with Khrushchev. And Khrushchev was not, nor ever verbally threatened to attack the USA or any other country - it was implied they would defend themselves but not attack. Iran, hamas, and hezbollah all have threatened the destruction of other nations.

      Mccain is right, and is not afraid to speak with IRAN, HAMAS, or others. But he will insist on preconditions - Obama stated that he did NOT need preconditions. That will give these nutty countries and organizations FREE PUBLICITY by showing they can say NO to the USA.

      Mccain asked a simple question: What are you going to talk to them about?

      Basically saying that they DO HAVE COMMUNICATIONS - just not on the presidential level and Iran has not agreed to anything.

      Why dont you guys get your facts right .... EVER?!!
      Thanks liberals for being the most retarded POSes on earth.

      • archiesteel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2"That will give these nutty countries and organizations FREE PUBLICITY by showing they can say NO to the USA."

        That simply doesn't make any logical sense. Since when do countries get "free publicity" because the US negotiates with them? It's not like they're a store, or something.

        No, the reason neocons oppose talks with enemies is that they need these enemies as "bogeymen" to better control their gullible base, and tools like you eat it up like candy.
      • desqjockey, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1"And Khrushchev was not, nor ever verbally threatened to attack the USA or any other country"
        Hungary.
        And remember "We will bury you!" that sounds like a threat, mistranslated as it was. Actually if i thought you had some knowledge on the subject I might point out further instances where you are completely wrong, but you have such poor grammar I hope you are only 9 or so.

        Khrushchev would be as belligerent as his role demanded and the same goes for the leadership of iran, hamas, hezbollah. Khrushchev couldnt get away with as much without starting wwIII, whereas the latter are so weak their roles demand that they do so against a powerful rival. Its a catch 22.

    • MacBigot, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Vienna 1961, Kennedy met with Khrushchev early in his presidency. Afterwards, Kennedy believed Khrushchev sensed inexperience and weakness in him. Kennedy later said of Khrushchev at that Vienna Summit, "He beat the hell out of me," at the negotiation table. The Russians came away from the meetings believing American resolve was faltering. Two months later, the Berlin Wall went up. A year after that, we faced the Cuban Missile Crisis.

      By way of contrast, Reagan built up American military strength in spite of being characterized as aggressive, imperialistic, and warmongering. He did not negotiate with Brezhnev, Andropov, or Gorbachev, until the Russians began the Perestroika & Glasnost reforms under Gorbachev. In 1987, speaking in Berlin, Reagan actually demanded that Gorbachev, "tear down this wall." The result? In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down, and in 1991, the Cold War ended.
      • Pillage, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2wait, you mean to say there were pre-conditions that needed to be met before Reagan sat down with the soviets? Well according to Obama Pre-conditions aren't needed, so take that!
      • lustyrusty, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Hey, we could also call in the example of Detente under Nixon (sorry, I don't know how to make the accent). The more Kissinger negotiated and worked with the USSR, the more they took. It was a clear-cut case of the old adage, "if you give a mouse a cookie". Sorry if that brought up any unpleasant memories of crooked-nosed Ford in "Air Force One," but seriously, look it up. There is a huge amount of journal articles about the American decline, due (in part) to Detente. During the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon era, the USSR pushed the US limits. They built over 1,000 more warships during that time, and toward the end of Nixon's era surpassed the US in Nuclear Weapons. SALT I accomplished very little in terms of lowering the USSR threat.

        I think negotiations are needed, but there are simply those people you shouldn't/can't negotiate with. Let's face it, the 6-party talks in North Korea didn't keep Kim Jong-Il from pushing the nuclear limits. Sanctions...have they ever really worked without military intervention? And in response to the inevitable Obama comment, no I don't actually think he has thought it through enough.

        Isn't it funny that a veiled comment from Bush is decried as being horrible in irresponsible, but Obama's continuous criticisms of Bush are just fine?
        • caramba420, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1We had a pact that started under Clinton to deliver a set amount of fuel oil each month in order for them to put the brakes on their nuclear program. They honored their end of the agreement. We had inspectors there making sure that their nuclear facilities were used only for energy production. Then, in 2001, Bush decided to pull the plug on the agreement without warning. DPRK immediately expelled all UN weapons inspectors. Fast forward 5 years, and they detonate a nuke. That's where our toughness got us.
      • caramba420, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Right, absolutely none of that had to do with Soviet economic conditions. It's all because your beloved figurehead made a speech. Reagan worshippers are ***** delusional.
    • Jackson0909, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0It has nothing to do with courage. It has everything to do with the United State's long stance of not negotiating with terrorists. Iran is a rogue state; a terrorist nation. The USSR, on the other hand, was one of the world's two super powers. They were our equal. We should not legitimize a country such as Iran's government by having our President hold conversations with their "president." Obama is naive and ignorant.
      • desqjockey, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2The rest of the world at least recognizes Iran as a legitimate nation, only we and Israel do not. This attitude that 'they are not legitimate and meeting with them would make them so' doesnt really exist out of your own mind and the right wing of this country. You arent convincing anyone, you are just reiterating that they are our enemy. If you were around at the time we attacked the USSR for the same reasons: they were helping kill our boys in Vietnam, they were backing evil dictatorships in latin america devoting to killing christians, because they did not believe in hell they were not deterable, they provided material assistance and training to terrorist groups such as the Red Brigades and they Bayer-Mayenhoff (sp) Gang.
        They are a country, we are a country. That makes them our "equal" just as much as you are a person and I am a person and we are therefore "equal." Though some of us are more equal than others.
  • fancypantscz, on 05/20/2008, -27/+77Obama -- who appears to be trying to do nothing less than redefine what it means to be "strong" and "tough" on foreign policy

    WAIT... /sarcasm/ You mean a person (or policy) can be strong and tough AND smart and reasonable at the same time? I was lead to believe you only got strong and tough by being a buttfaced *****.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -22/+5unconditionally negotiate != strong and tough
      • GeekXian, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14Seriously. If the President is going to have a meet and greet with those asshats he should at least put some good conditions on it... like his M&M's must be sorted by color, all of his beverages must be maintained at 35 degrees, and only wild lillies in his dressing room, too. That'll show 'em who's strong and tough!
        • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3Would you settle for the condition that they admit that Israel has the right to exist? How about the precondition that they swear off weapons-grade nuclear material production and submit to international monitoring to that end?

          There are some preconditions that might be beneficial to our interests.

          Your response is flip and indicative of a small-minded sheep who can't defend his point of view with a rational argument.
        • GeekXian, on 05/20/2008, -2/+6One would imagine that your 'conditions' would be on the list of things THEY WERE THERE TO ***** TALK ABOUT! So, no - I don't think those are good conditions for opening a dialogue of some sort -- THOSE ARE THE VERY THINGS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT!

          "Oh, goody - the US will talk to us, of course we'll end centuries of hate and give up our centrifuges!"
          ???
          Your 'conditions' mean that we won't be talking to anyone - my flip response is merely indicative of the contempt I hold for your irrationally ridiculous world view.
        • thcobbs, on 05/20/2008, -4/+1@knumbknuts

          "Would you settle for the condition that they admit that Israel has the right to exist?"

          "How about the precondition that they swear off weapons-grade nuclear material production and submit to international monitoring to that end?"

          If they would do that, then I have no problem. However, every time we ask, threaten, file UN resolutions, etc... they just thumb their noses.


    • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7A butt-faced *****, huh? I'm having trouble forming a mental image of that one.
      • fancypantscz, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1I really have to spell this out?

        A Buttfaced *****: A malicious and belligerent person who only talks *****
      • t0x2c, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Well if you impose a butt onto an *****... which, if my anatomy is correct, is imposed on a butt...
    • Logicexe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10That's what happens after 8 years of Bush's tough guy talk.
    • incredibilistic, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3"The question is... is... are our children learning"
    • BertEatsDirt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3Dugg for "buttfaced *****"
    • chromerium, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Its the same way "Republican" has been redefined to mean right-wing war loving aggressive nut-job and "Democrat" has been redefined to mean a weak hippy loving liberal.

      Neither is true to the history of the parties, but thats the best way to keep the politics divisive!

  • p0s3r, on 05/20/2008, -86/+31"Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has rejected any compromise, saying that "we will forcefully continue on our path and will not allow the oppressors to step on our rights."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

    I'm sure Obama can get him to change his mind. Maybe if he calls the Ayatollah "sweetie" he'll just melt!
    • Hillsfar, on 05/20/2008, -4/+30Kruschev said the same thing, and guess what? Kennedy got the missiles out of Cuba.

      What are G.W. Bush and John McCain so afraid of talking for?

      Talking tough and refusing to listen to others who have a different opinion... doesn't that sound like what got us into the Iraq War?
      • p0s3r, on 05/20/2008, -19/+7a.) Kennedy held private talks with Krushev and agreed to remove our nukes from Turkey.
        b.) The condition of that was that if the talks were made public the offer would be null.
        c.) Kennedy deployed our military forces in the stand off with Russia over the Cuban nukes.

        What Obama is proposing isn't what Kennedy did.
      • OffPiste, on 05/20/2008, -8/+2How did that Bay of Pigs thing work out for Kennedy?
      • SoulDrift404, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3"What are G.W. Bush and John McCain so afraid of talking for?"

        Have you ever listened to G.W. Bush talk?
    • smacksaw, on 05/20/2008, -3/+7Bluster and posturing is a huge part of the Muslim world today. It's like gangsta rap.

      Spend some time familiarising yourself with the chest-thumping culture that goes on there. I don't really care what links you post in support of your opinion until you develop a better/more informed one.
      • p0s3r, on 05/20/2008, -10/+5Maybe you can point out what concessions the EU3 have been able to illicit out of Iran in the past 4 years of negotiating with them? Other than more nuclear progress by Iran.
        • Hillsfar, on 05/20/2008, -1/+8Here's an example, since you're so ignorant of current events: Iran now trades their oil in euros instead of dollars. So now countries save up their euros and accept payments in euros in order to buy oil in euros. They used to pay Iran in dollars.
        • p0s3r, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2Thats an example of nuclear concessions by Iran? WTF, are you seriously stupid?
        • MmmPi, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3We should give them more missiles like Reagan did.
          Where's your Olly North now!
    • Kizilbash, on 05/20/2008, -6/+21*****, Iran has made offers after 9/11 (which they condemned in terms as strong as any other country's), the Bush regime rejected them.
      • Julik, on 05/20/2008, -7/+3So maybe the US should just accept any offer Iran makes?

        Who said those were fair offers?
        • toshibu, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3They literally offered peace in the Middle East in return for them to be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear industry.
          Sounds fair to me...
        • Julik, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Sorry I did not realize they let Digg member in on the meetings...

          Also they had no intention of stopping their nuclear weapon program when they made any offers. Also if you believe that they would offer peace in the middle east, I got a bridge to sell you.
      • 11b1p, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4Outline these offers please
        • malex, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6Are your Googlin' fingers broken?

          If you want to argue that Iran's offers were not made in good faith, then you should present supporting evidence of such. Or, you could just admit that you, like most FOX News viewers, had never heard of it before.
        • toshibu, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
          There's one of em. Enjoy.
        • biotch, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2malex...
          It is not our responsibility to go and search out every claim made here on digg..
          If you or anyone else makes a claim, it is the poster's responsibility to source it. Otherwise it will be dismissed.
    • orion846, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6you idiots should stick with putting "bitter" into everything that has nothing to do with it. while nobody took you seriously than either... at least a COUPLE people directly involved were actually offended that time. the reporter involved in the sweetie comment, the only person who has any right to make smartass remarks over it, didn't even care.... which makes you... just.... kinda pathetic bro.
    • exronin, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Last time I checked US believed in free speech isn't that why KKK and Nazi's still exist?. Iran can say whatever the hell they want, If Iran acts on it, then they will feel the wrath of the most bloated military budget in the history of mankind. Simple.
    • dudeguy1234, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1The leader of Iran is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...
      • DarkColossi, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Wrong. Do some research before you talk. He's the face, not the leader. Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about knows Ahmadinejad has to answer to the Ayatollah. *Sigh*
    • Lyk4n, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1DFT
  • madfrogurt, on 05/20/2008, -13/+251It's amazing that even after Iraq there is still a portion of the populous that would rather choose war over negotiation.
    • mikephimikephi, on 05/20/2008, -2/+52They should send Samuel L. Jackson in, that way you have a war and a negotiation
      • alpha19, on 05/20/2008, -11/+5Sam Jackson got dissed by pussy Anakin Skywalker... how can you even respect the man anymore...
      • brstilson, on 05/20/2008, -0/+14"English ***** do you speak it?!"

        "No"

        "Oh........well.................alright then"
      • Chassit, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1BMF
    • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -24/+7This is not a war that we can afford to surrender we can be thought of as weak any longer if they see us as weak we will have a hundred 9/11s or worse coming our way because they will think that we wont do anything but bow down to their wishes.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/20/2008, -5/+3Technically, it's not our war - it's the Iraqis' war, we're just fighting it for them.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -5/+7"we're just fighting them."

          Fixed it for you.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 05/20/2008, -3/+16OMG, that's 91,100!
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -6/+3What are you talking about?
        • withincontext, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6It's a Team America reference, David.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Ah ok, never saw that movie so I didn't get the reference.
      • akamurph, on 05/20/2008, -8/+7unfortunately some diggtards don't rationalize like this... you had the first twin tower bombings, the embassy bombings, the Cole, then 9/11 and finally in 9/11 we had a president who fought back and nothing since (NOT JUSTIFYING IRAQ HERE DIGGTARDS).
        • JoeVet, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5They don't need to come here and kill us now. They can stay home and kill our military until we are too weak to fight back. >4000 dead and countless wounded. Have you not learned anything?
        • jkoski, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Too bad he didn't focus on the guys who actually did all that stuff.
        • Chassit, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Go ***** yourself.
      • drakethegreat, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2News flash, most the world thinks we are weak for not admitting we let the situation get out of control and we can't afford to continue. Its like a kid who says girls have coodies then we all realize that they don't but he continues to suggest they do while its obvious they don't just because he thinks changing his opinion will make him weak. Its called retard logic and you have it.
    • BilliGun, on 05/20/2008, -13/+15How are you going to negotiate with Ahmadinejad? His grip on reality is tenuous at best. According to him, there are no gays in Iran. See the transcript from his speech at Columbia. Do you think we could gain anything from talking with him?
      • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -12/+3Gay is how you define the word and the deed. Our version of gay is alot different from theirs since they think its ok for guys to walk down the block with their arms around each other.
      • pintomp3, on 05/20/2008, -2/+14the same way you would negotiate with Bush, who has an equally tenuous grip on reality. if we had negotiated before, a hard-liner like Ahmadinejad wouldn't have been elected. right after the iraq invasion, the first reformist president of iran, Khatami, offered a truce. we responded by placing iran on the "axis of evil". people gave up on pursuing peace with the west and elected Ahmadinejad.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+21So because Ahmadinejad is homophobic (like most of Iranian culture, and most of American culture, for that matter), we can assume beforehand that any negotiation with him would be futile, and, instead, we should just bomb the ***** out of the whole country?

        Your logical leaps are astounding. Have you considered participating in the Olympics?
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Good thing there's someone that can pull Ahmadinejad's strings that we can negotiate with, then. There's something to be said when you're called the "Supreme Leader."
      • noderunner, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2>>
        >>..His grip on reality is tenuous at best..
        >>
        Did you watch the speach? He didn't say there were no gays, he said there were no gays "like" we have, meaning flamboyant openly gay. I thought his grin made it clear it was more of a joke than a factual statement.
      • davidnormal, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1There will be a presidential election in Iran in 2009. Ahmadinejad is very unpopular in Iran, and so it is likely that there will be someone different in office to be negotiated with in the future. Hopefully the next president of Iran is more reasonable, and at that time perhaps some real progress can be made in Iran's strained foreign relations.
      • krazikamikaze, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2The point is we should at least make an attempt to negotiate. If we find out he's uncooperative and dangerous, THEN we bomb the ***** out of him, but only after we stop making progress in negotiations. If you aren't even willing to sit down and talk with the enemy you're severely limiting your options.
    • PabloMac, on 05/20/2008, -11/+5Negotiation is give-and-take. What are you willing to give to our enemies?
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6We can start by giving them you
      • r337ard, on 05/20/2008, -1/+3What are they prepared to take from you? The threat of retaliation does not go as far as you may think.
    • funkyloki, on 05/20/2008, -3/+4There is also a portion of the population that still believe what they hear from MSM, especially if it is from FoxNews. Probably the same portion. There are people everywhere who will believe anything being told to them, they are incapable of critical thinking, of taking what they have heard and discerning reality from fantasy.
      And it will always be that way. Fear is a great motivator.
      • mcquitty, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2You are right. Fear is a great motivator.

        There are people who will believe anything. It doesn't matter the source. There are many people so caught up in a cause without knowing anything about it.

        A great fear motivator of the day? Global Warming. Terrorism.

        Is there a difference? It is about controlling what you can do.
      • StasisRat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Wow, you are right. But wait, how do I know I can trust what you just told me? Ohh Grand critical thinker you.


    • Veretax, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Why is it so surprising? It seems to me those that expect us to change our minds have a rather poor assessment of the Human Race in general.
    • XdigitalXdeathX, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I'm so damn sick of this war. It's sad when I think back to before 9/11 and consider those years my "Golden Years" it's a ***** shame.
  • retzed, on 05/20/2008, -30/+66Obama makes so much sense. He has brought peace to the Niger Delta and he'll do more than McCain to bring peace to the Middle East. How can someone with the same foreign policy as Bush (and will be hated by the world just as much) claim that he's better positioned than Obama at dealing with Iran. The only reason the Ahmadinejad is in power is because of Bush. He feeds of the Iranian's hate of Bush to maintain power. As an Australian it is obvious that the rest of the world is hoping for Obama.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -5/+35Niger?

      Please.
    • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -19/+4So that proves that he shouldn't be President. And don't give to ***** what the rest of the world wants especially since most of those countries are having controlling their Muslim populations from throwing out the traditional values of those countries. Why should we listen to people like that? or care for that matter.
    • serif69, on 05/20/2008, -2/+27He didn't bring peace to the Niger Delta. He brought the possibility of maybe considering coming to an agreement to bring peace to the Niger Delta.
    • Julik, on 05/20/2008, -6/+12Why can't he bring peace to the streets of Chicago?
      • 11b1p, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3OH SNAAAAPPP
      • compu73rg33k, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Because Daley is the king, err mayor and will be until he dies. And then his son will take over. Yey for royal families.
        • Julik, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1So he can't figure out how to handle Mayor Daley, but he will figure out the problems the middle east has been having for centuries...
    • Sharky35, on 05/20/2008, -2/+4And he walked across the Dead Sea! That's where Obama's magic healing water comes from.
  • smacksaw, on 05/20/2008, -15/+39As Americans we're used to offering diplomacy at the barrel of a gun. But childish actions are for a childish nation. It's amazing that as a fledgling nation we knew better, but as we've gotten older we've become so belligerent. It's almost like regression.
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -4/+6You remember a guy named Roosevelt, no?
    • spade, on 05/20/2008, -1/+5Which one, the one with the big stick? Or the one that saw his uncle's white fleet die at Pearl Harbor because it was a military threat to Japan. All of it over oil, over oil? THe more things change I suppose.
    • SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Wow, I'm just trying to figure out were you learned your history...
      /shakes head
    • Gemfinder, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Actually, we've always been the pugilistic sorts. American history is full of firearms pointing at people and going off. But this country's 220 years old and it's time to grow up. Poland, Tibet and Mongolia started out as warrior nations, but they got over it.
      Choosing your battles wisely doesn't automatically mean "wimpification."
      • edyang, on 05/20/2008, -2/+0Following your train of thought, being overrun by Nazis (Poland) or Communists (Tibet) is better than being a pugilistic nation? I fail to see how that grass is greener.
        • Memitim, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3And what is the name of this mystical fairy wonderland that will somehow conquer a nation that possesses sufficient nuclear capability to convert the entire population of China into a glowing green afterthought? We've already measured our collective dick and, yes, it is huge. Now we can stop snapping everyone in the ass with an explosive towel and start talking like grown-ups.
    • bob501337, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Do you recall the size of Mongolia when they were a warrior nation?
      Here is a good question...What ratio accurately represents the size of Mongolia today versus the size it used to be as a warrior nation.
      That is the history of mankind, we kill, take land, take advantage of the people of that land, and repeat.
      How do you think the US economy is where it is today?
      • oscenester, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1So we should continue this policy of pirate plundering! Its what we know!
      • smacksaw, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Canada.
      • Gemfinder, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2"How do you think the US economy is where it is today?"
        Slaves to Mongolia's neighbour that built a wall to keep them out.
        The Khans guaranteed safety to all travellers on all roads in the empire. A maiden with a sack of gold could walk from one end of the empire to the other, unmolested. And they did it without wiretapping or surveillance cameras on every corner. We still can't do that good; a girl-child with a sack of gold couldn't make it through San Francisco in one piece, never mind the whole of the I-80 corridor.
        I'm not talking about nukes, amigos.
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Actually, it's sounds like the beginning of senility.
  • stranglethorne, on 05/20/2008, -13/+153It is not only the strong Presidents who meet with enemies, but it is also the smartest Presidents who meet with enemies.

    War should always be the last resort.
    • pjpark, on 05/20/2008, -10/+3Ramsay MacDonald
      Neville Chamberlain
      Jimmy Carter
      Bill Clinton

    • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -15/+12But the President should NEVER meet with enemies from a position of weakness strength is what these people understand. Giving up in a war before you talk to someone who wouldn't think twice about destroying us or our allies is not just STUPID but very dangerous.

      • Veretax, on 05/20/2008, -13/+6Exactly, someone needs to pull Obama in for a game of Poker. There are times to Bluff, times to call, and times to slide away from the table. We need a President who knows when to play on, and when to bluff, Obama seems to have a single minded foreign policy to me.
        • Julik, on 05/20/2008, -3/+2I agree with you, all these other countries know that he has told all the people in the US that he is going to bring peace and end wars and blah blah...
          That gives the other side a pretty good look at his hand, so to speak.
        • oscenester, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4I love how your all equating foreign relations to a game of poker.

          I'm sorry, but its much more complicated than that. Especially when they hate us because we've been dicking them in the ass for the past 80 years.
      • Theisos, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5Strength has many faces. America's strength is no longer rooted in the well being of the global community. It has now become a tool of global recklessness. America's military power has now been reduced to a killing machine. Such a perception of America's "strength" earns them only disrespect. What America needs to do is show the ***** world that they care about the people they live among - and that doesn't include marching into every country that looks at you the wrong way. Earn the world's respect. Show real strength through restraint and diplomacy. Words before bombs. Obama '08.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -6/+2But you have to make sure those you talk with know that your willing to pull the trigger when you talk to them or else it will just be a huge waste of time that they could use to get in to a kill position. I don't want respect from a world that blames us for all there problems.

          Europe can't control the Muslims entering their countries and trying to take over. Tell me why should I ask for their respect when they don't even respect them selves enough to protect their own heritage.

          Tell me why I would want the respect of a country that kill people that aren't the right kind of Muslim. Tell me why I would want the respect of a country that won't let anyone question whats in their holy book when it says the opposite of the leaders of the religion says.

          Go ahead explain why I would care if any of those countries respected me.
        • oscenester, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1I'm pretty sure they know we're not ***** around. We pretty much decimated Hiroshima if you don't remember...
      • MacEnvy, on 05/20/2008, -3/+12Who ever said anything about doing that? You're buying the Bush/McCain lie hook, line, and sinker. Obama already said that preparation and leverage were implicit in any negotiation - but you idiots still think he just wants to go over and have a little casual chat.

        The only way McCain could win the WH is to continue to mislead and misinform people. And sadly it looks like it's working.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1McCain will win the WH cause Obama doesn't know anything about forgien policy or domestic policy and he has more skeletons in his closet then anyone ever realized.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Bush won the WH, twice & he sure as hell doesn't know anything about Foreign policy.

          David I understand that you believe what you hear in the US, but please take the time to review some news from global sources. I think you might be surprised to find that the US(because of Bush's 'Foreign Policies') is not just unpopular in the middle east right now but has also lost a lot of support from other developed countries in Europe, Asia/Pacific, etc.
          Regardless of whether you believe you are right & everyone else is wrong, it can't be good for the US or the rest of the world for the US to become more & more isolationist in its foreign policy
      • Arramol, on 05/20/2008, -2/+2Actually, if we're thinking a confrontation with Iran is likely, pulling out of Iraq, which we never should have entered in the first place, would be a smart decision since it would free up more of our military for a war with Iran. The type of gun barrel diplomacy the Repubs are advocating doesn't work if you're already pointing your guns somewhere else.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -3/+1Yeah that's smart if we get in a fight with Iran lets leave the country that would give us a perfect launching platform for land based offensives.

          That kind of thinking just screams liberal stupidity.
        • Arramol, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately for your ad hominem attack, I'm not a liberal. Good try though. Iraq's no good for a base of operations, we don't have the country secured. A base of operations needs to be secure territory. Think it through - if our forces are already tied up trying to occupy the territory, they're not going to be able to launch an offensive in addition to holding down the fort.

          A carrier strike force would be a much better option, especially since a lot of the objective can be accomplished by air strike. The last thing we need is another drawn out occupation.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -2/+1Didn't say you were a liberal said it was "liberal stupidity" and as for it not being a good place to star an offensive the only reason why its not secure is because of jerk offs from Iran and Al-queda(don't think I spelled that right). Iran supplies alot of the men and material used in Iraq if they were attacked the attacks would probably would shrink and fewer civilians would get blown up while attending funerals for the those who got blown while going to market.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -1/+6"strength is what these people understand"

        Your irrational xenophobia is showing.
        • DavidS9, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1No my personal experience is showing. I've already done 2 tours in Iraq and have just plain experienced life. Like with most bullies they will keep pushing until someone pushes back and that's what has to shown that we can do and will do. I for one will not be pushed around by some up start 3rd world ***** hole.

          If that's what you want then go ahead and send me your lunch money and go home.
    • Cyrus042, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2We do meet with our enemies, we do engage in diplomatic relations with our enemies. Are they between the heads of states? No. I think people fundamentally misunderstand what both camps are saying. Obama has been getting criticism because he has made the commitment to meet with all "enemies" on a Presidential level. Its interesting that he invokes Kennedy, as stated before, talks with the USSR were a disaster.

      • darkciti2, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Do you remember the Bay of Pigs incident and how Kennedy called their bluff to win it? That's called ace diplomacy. It enabled Reagan to win the cold war.
    • marillion, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Smartest / Strongest ... In the context of the Presidency, they're synonymous.

      Furthermore, there is a long and wide gap between talking with enemies and capitulating to them. Anyone who says that talking to enemies is capitulation is both weak and stupid.
    • ABadPerson, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1King Leonidas begs to differ, but agrees with you in principle.
  • LeadOffMan, on 05/20/2008, -43/+25legitimize a terror sponsor with a personal summit? Shows how clueless Hope-Boy is
    • neognostic, on 05/20/2008, -7/+16Perhaps your glorious leader Bush missed his opportunity. FTA
      In 2003, the United States ignored an Iranian proposal—transmitted through the Swiss embassy in Tehran—to open discussions on all outstanding issues, including a broader Middle East settlement. It is ironic that the United States ignored such an approach after it had insisted, in the aftermath of the 1986 Iran-Contra fiasco, that it would talk to Iran only through the “official” channel of the Swiss protecting power. By all accounts, that 2003 decision came from the illusory euphoria of an easy military victory in Iraq and the view, popular with some in Washington at the time, that “real men go to Tehran [in tanks].”
      http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr199.pdf Take a look at the author, very impressive resume on Iran. You source is what, FOX news?
    • amoro99, on 05/20/2008, -3/+11LOL 'Hope-Boy' is supposed to be some kind of insult...
  • pjpark, on 05/20/2008, -18/+41Treaty of Locarno
    Munich Agreement
    Paris Peace Accords
    SALT II
    Oslo Accords
    Agreed Framework between the USA and the North Korea
    • serif69, on 05/20/2008, -9/+12You're getting dugg up, but I think it's because diggers think you're referencing things that worked. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, diggers.
      • Tyorant, on 05/20/2008, -8/+1Oh yeah?
      • shermanthetank, on 05/20/2008, -5/+2Why wouldn't he reference things that work? I think everyone knows negotiations don't work. That's why you do them, to find out whether or not they'll work that time.
      • shermanthetank, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Sorry. Meant to say: I think everyone knows negotiations don't ALWAYS work.
    • bob501337, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Ha, yeah. Do you think either the US or Russia abide by SALT II? Even if we did, that means each of us are entitled to hundreds of ICBM launchers. Meaning: next to none of either country would exist.
      As serif said, none of these work(ed).
      • pjpark, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2You mean you didn't get your ICBM launcher?
    • blackjack75, on 05/20/2008, -0/+10In any case it's better to try negotation and fail and try again than to try war, fail and try it again.


      • pjpark, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3In an overly-simplistic world, yes. Unfortunately, in the real world appearing weak has dangerous and deadly consequences. What you can accomplish through negotiations comes from the strength of your posture, not the strength of the negotiator -- a point that is lost on Obama who seems to think his strength and persuasiveness will win the day. You cannot negotiate from a position of strength when you have already made it clear that your military strategy is to flee.

        A moron with a gun can out-negotiate any "intellectual" with his back to the wall and his hands in the air.
        • darkciti2, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1An intellectual wouldn't find himself with his back to the wall and with his hands up. He would have payed attention and wouldn't step into the dangerous back alley without adequate support.
        • pjpark, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2Can you not see that you are supporting my point?
    • Chassit, on 05/20/2008, -4/+2You forgot the Treaty of Versailles, you know THE CAUSE OF WWII!!!!

      ***** traitor.
      • pjpark, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3The conditions leading to WWII were more complicated than that; plus, the Treaty of Locarno more or less superseded Versailles. Moreover, Locarno was a negotiated treaty while Versailles was a diktat, so Versailles would not have helped my point. I wasn't trying to go all the way back in time anyway. I could have started with the Peloponnesian War.
    • TantrooM, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3You forgot:
      The Iraq War Resolution
      The Patriot Act

      Ya, you only hate appeasement when it doesn't work in your favor.
      Those are the two appeasements, one which caused this war, only it was the Dems giving the neocons what they wanted. And not sitting Iran down will do the same thing, appease to the neocons. If you don't have tough negotiations with Iran, YOU are appeasing John McCain and Bush. What's the difference?

      By the way, Iran hasn't taken a country yet, Bush has taken Iraq... so who is more Hitleresque here? Yeah, Germany already had Poland before they were appeased. You gonna give him Chec too?
  • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -24/+13Unconditionally negotiate?
    • knumbknuts, on 05/20/2008, -3/+5Ah, the quintessential Obamabot thumbing down has begun.

      When asked if he would meet without precondition with the leaders of Iran & other states hostile to us, Obama replied, "I would."

      I post two words on the thread "Unconditionally negotiate" (to would Obama has replied "I would") and the thumbs down start pouring in from the machines.

      Think people! Use your brains! Obama said it, deal with it. Admit it. He is not a perfect candidate. He is a damned good one, the best the dems could have put fo