 masbury says: McCain and Obama disagree; see last paragraph for a specific instance from history Forget abut McCain and BushTalk to them ..... Why not ???!!! .......... Direct negotiation solves all misunderstanding and disputes. sounds better than world war 3 to me. McCain is a no brain. Wouldn't be confident enough in himself to talk to someone he feared would be more intelligent. His type use bluff and bluster rather than brains. Shows how bad IQ tests are that McCain scored higher than Bush. Maybe he cheated. He HAD to succeed in the forces (family tradition) and was no good. Now he is running for president, he evokes fear with his stupidity combined with the rest of his makeup. McCain changes his mind every other day and forgets what he said the day before yesterday. Has anyone given him the mini mental status exam? When the phone rings at 3am McCain won't be able to find it and that would be a GOOD thing. Communication and negotiation is always a step in a positive direction. When we fail to do this is when problems escalate. The "not-talk" problem is, in order to go to war in a democracy, one's opponents must be portrayed as evil madmen, or the public won't sign on. Talking to enemies suggests they might be human, and then persuading the Congress to allow bombs away becomes much more difficult. Not talking is a way of controlling the spin, and making sure the Media repeats what you say, rather than what your enemy says. And who would you want to talk to? McCain or Obama ? A real no brainer there. A Cheshire cat, or someone you could play chess with. Obama rocks. If elected he sure has a hell of a mess to deal with. I don't see how we can immediately pull out of Iraq since we own the responsibility for the damage that has been done. "Saddam Hussein" was one evil bastard but there were other ways of dealing with his type. Drawn and quartered in a quiet manner might have worked better. How can you tell someone where do you draw the line if you don't talk to them? ratilfar You can't! So you don't, if your real desire is to find an excuse to wage war on them. And that's the neocon agenda - not our protection, but our domination. This clip is a straw man. First, it isn't about talking with our enemies, it is about Obama saying he would meet unconditionally with the leaders of certain questionable regimes. The question to him was, "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?" And he said "I would." So that makes the entire comparison to JFK and Khrushchev completely irrelevant since the only meeting Kennedy had with Khrushchev was in 1961 while the Cuban missile crisis was in October of 1962. There were... Ike met with Krushev, Nixon with Mao. I think the bone of contention is in the words "without pre-condition." The current administration has professed to being willing to talk with, say, Iran - if Iran gives the US what it wants before the talks begin. "Sure, we'll negotiate - if you agree to do what we tell you to before we negotiate." That isn't legitimate negotiation. So that makes the entire comparison to JFK and Khrushchev completely irrelevant since the only meeting Kennedy had with Khrushchev was in 1961 while the Cuban missile crisis was in October of 1962. There were negotiations with the USSR during that time, but they weren't unconditional and they weren't meetings between the heads of state. Matter of fact, the conclusion could just as easily be drawn that the meeting with Khrushchev was worthless because the Cuban missile crisis happened anyway.I don't think Obama is saying that he would personally travel to the country in question and talk with them face to face. I think what he is saying is that his adminis... jmjoness- I definitely agree with masbury here. Forcing the other side to concede to your will before negotiations even begin is not negotiation. Isn't that what dictators do? IT IS ABOUT WARIt is not about Obama or any thing els .... It is about stop, or at least reduce, conflicts and misunderstandings which cause War. i.e to eliminate and prevent war. Isn't that what dictators do?I don't know exactly what you're getting at here... If you're saying that dictators always demand preconditions before negotiations, I would have to say I haven't heard any such thing in regards to N. Korea, Cuba, and Iran. If it is true then obviously negotiations would be impossible, depending on the preconditions. But if that is what Bush is doing, demanding preconditions before negotiation, does that make him a dictator?? Just food for thought. I guess it depends on the guy. I really don't want the second coming of Jimmy Carter negotiating anything with mass murdering dictators. Appeasement never works. That's just my take. |
View the Top Clips from June 8, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
