Specifically Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. I believe this potentially diminishes the office of President, to meet with leaders from 3rd world nations who speak ill of the U.S. Diplomacy, yes, of course, but pandering to these nations inflates thier importance, yes?
2007-07-24 03:49:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Folks, almost all of you are answering as if I said that diplomacy is a bad idea with hostile nations, which, I didn't. Read my comments again!
2007-07-24 04:05:27 · update #1
You are right my American friend.
2007-07-24 03:55:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is never wrong to meet with leaders of hostile nations. Those meetings sometimes have positive outcomes. What is more frightening to me is the tendency of the current administration to isolate us further from these nations by threatening them and playing the cowboy.
EDIT: Sometimes the best DIPLOMACY is a meeting between leaders. Look at what Nixon's trip to China made possible, for example.
2007-07-24 11:05:44 · answer #2 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Talking and negotiating should ALWAYS be the first move. Do it until you are so exhausted and frustrate at a dead end and then use force. That means force as a last resort. Economic sanctions work too. Nixon had Kissinger shuttling back and forth as a result eventually Egypt and Israel made nice. We didn't go to war with the USSR and much more. Yes, Nixon was a crook but he did have some good things and his foreign policy was one of them. Considering modern presidents one could say that Nixon had one of the best foreign policies of any of them.
2007-07-24 10:57:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Not sure if it is wise, but NOT meeting with them, hasn't helped matters, and doing so might calm their fears of America only trying to exploit them for their resources.
When you include someone in a decision, you have a better chance of obtaining what you want. If you completely side-line them, and exclude them from any input whatsover, and only atempt to threaten them into doing something, all you'll accomplish is resistance.
Think about it in terms of a relationship, and behavior between two people. I know it is a bit of a stretch, but not really when you consider that it is still people that make decisions for each country.
only the outcome will tell if it is wise or not.
2007-07-24 11:02:34 · answer #4 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dialogue is the best way forward of course, there is no doubt about that, but I think Obama needs to think about what he is prepared or able to concede or compromise with, that's the only reason that this does not happen in the real world, it is a wise policy but one that can also backfire big time if you don't have all the answers, broken promises, going back on your word, non aggression treaties, can spark off quite a lot of ****, so he had better have his witt's about him.
2007-07-24 11:15:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even the Crips and Bloods sometimes have meetings. Who knows if anything good will come out of meeting with some of these thugs, but it can't hurt. We give up nothing by talking and sometimes there's a gain. If we can talk with total thugocracies like Saudi Arabia then we can chat up any country that we have diplomatic relationships with.
2007-07-24 11:00:28 · answer #6 · answered by Noah H 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is a wise policy. Without dialogue, you can not come to an understanding.
And trust me, there is a lot of misunderstanding with some of these nations!
Unless you talk to Iran, how are you to address the funding of terrorism that they are involved in? (The same with Syria.) And it is only through discussions that North Korea has agreed to shut down its nuclear reactor. Without diplomacy the USSR and the USA would never have made any agreements on nuclear weapons.
As for the 'importance' of these 'third world' nations, yes they are important. Saying that 'third world nations' are not important is arrogant.
2007-07-24 10:52:30 · answer #7 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Engaging in dialogue is a fine idea. I don't see how it would inflate their importance. That is immature thinking. These people are leaders of countries. If we don't speak to others how will anything be resolved?
2007-07-24 10:56:43 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Machiavelli said "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer"
Talking costs a plane ticket. War costs lives and billions of dollars.
Logic would tell you that talking might be a good idea, before you resort to war.
2007-07-24 11:22:14 · answer #9 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It never hurts to meet with foreign leaders especially those with which we have strained relations. It may not help but is worth trying.
2007-07-24 10:52:26 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
If you engage them, you can have influence over them....
There is a big difference between pandering and talking.
We talked the USSR to death. Imagine if during the cold war we just said we are not going to have any contact with Moscow?
Know your enemy, and use them
(hillaryhasno, is the perfect ignorant neocon, now Obama is a communist muslim, haha I love it)
2007-07-24 10:52:16 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋