What are your thoughts on a US President meeting with EVIL Dictators?

Question

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html
It was highlighted by a clash between the top 2008 Democratic contenders after Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The Bush administration considers the nations regional troublemakers.

Ms Clinton, the New York senator, disagreed, saying such meetings could be used as propaganda purposes.
"Certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria, until we know better what the way forward would be," she said.

Answer 1

A wise man once said: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"

Having a better understanding of what they are doing could do no harm - only give us a superior edge.

Answer 2

I dont totally agree with either side but for clinton to use propaganda as a reason to not meet with people that are potentially a threat to our national security is just pathetic. she wasnt afraid of propoganda when she voted for the war!!

They make it seem as if we have just met these dictators like they are new to the playground and havent been checked for germs. We have had talks with Iran, N Korea through the IAEA, hell Bushs family are business partners with Saudi Arabia ministries.

Lets get a grip people. The only person who we have not had any contact with is the Chavez character who is relatively new to mainstream "evil empires", I doubt Castro would want to meet with us since he is about to kick the busket anyway. Preconditions such as safety should be established but this whole deal with testing the waters with the likes of condi rice is overated. It just show you that Hillary is entangled into the politics of diplomacy and not getting the job done. Obama 08'

Answer 3

There is a difference between meeting with leaders of countries that are hostile against the US and ones that are dictators. Even though most diplomatic attempts usually fail with dictators (because well they are dictators and don't take kindly to people telling them how they should run their country) its still one of those things where its better to try than just to bomb them out of power. Now crazy dictators that want to destroy or eliminate another country or participate in genocide on their own peoples should not be tolerated or given the distinction of diplomacy. If you want a good example of what to do and what not to do with enemies of the US look at how FDR handled Hitler (what not to do) or how Carter handled the US Embassy hostage situation (also what not to do) and then look at how well Reagan handled the Soviets during the cold war. Not a shot was fired and the situation was resolved. The prior situations were a result of diplomacy being tried over and over again with extremists (Hitler and the Ayatollah) which ended with millions being killed and hostages being held for OVER A YEAR. Both of which is unacceptable in my book.

Answer 4

Senator Clinton has a point --- BUT it is imperative to have discussions and conversations with everyone involved in the global community ---
keep your friends close -- and your enemies closer
P.S.-- Bush and Cheney talk to the Saudis regularly
I worry more about them than I do Iran, Syria, Venezuela,
Cuba or North Korea --
We were attacked by Saudis on 9/11 and they make up most of those killing our soldiers in Iraq today.

Answer 5

I think we should open up the lines of communication as often as possible.
there is no such thing as 'evil', everyone has some good in them. I'm not saying we can be peaceful with everyone, but its things like this that make its harder for us to get try and get along- name calling.

what would it hurt to talk with other nations, even if they
oppose us?
they don't oppose us that much if they will speak with us.

as far as waht hillary says- its true people would be attacked for trying to save lives and bring peace by speaking with others, but a good leader does what is right no matter what (including how it makes them look)

Answer 6

Reagan had no problems meeting with anyone. Even leaders who he felt were leading terrorist organizations. I think a meeting would cool the tensions greatly because now you have to talk face to face and that usually isn't conducive to saber rattling. Stuff gets accomplished face to face.

So if Obama and Clinton are ready to man up and go face to face with the world to do America's business then so be it. Hopefully one or two of the Republican candidates have enough sack to do the same.

Answer 7

I think our leaders should meet with leaders of other states. How else can we work out differences? War?
You go to war when all diplomatic avenues have failed. Bush would rather shoot first and ask questions later. That's why most of our country and the rest of the world consider him a lousy world leader.

Answer 8

Birds of a feather flock together.

He meets with evil dictator because he is another evil dictator, as simple as that.

By the way it is rumoured that Chavez pays people to surf the internet all day to whitewash him when someone posts something against him/communism.

Answer 9

well,u said it yourself " The Bush administration considers the nations regional troublemakers".this doesn't have to be true just because they said it.Ms clinton said that "such meetings could be used as propaganda purposes" this means she's only worried about her own campain.

Answer 10

Iran, Syria, Cuba, & North Korea would'nt have a problem meeting with a Muslim anyway. Better to destroy a country from the inside out, than from the outside in....

Answer 11

Why wouldn't Bush want to meet with EVIL DICTATORS? (I too like using all caps for enhanced dramatic effect)

I'd bet Bush could get some great pointers on how to be an even bigger dicktator than he already is!

Did I mispell dicktator? Not in my opinion I didn't!