Who is Right: Hillary or Obama? Where do you fall?

Question

Talk to enemies or talk with pre-conditions.

Answer 1

I think it is imperative to keep lines of communication open. We do not have to accept what we do not want, nor do we have to give what we are unwilling to give. Maintaining dialogue, however, is absolutely necessary. Even in the most antagonizing situations, we need a venue to talk.

Answer 2

There is a way of thinking in the world that has worked for centuries to avoid war and get what you want. It's call 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." And, dialogue is important especially with your 'enemies'. Even Reagan understood this with the USSR. I think Obama has the right idea. You can't get what you want unless you use diplomacy and gentle 'force'. It saves alot of money and is proven to save alot of lives. Hillary is nothing but another corporate neocon who will prove how Republican she is just like her husband did.

Answer 3

Let's start with a basic political axiom...politicians don't do anything thinking their actions will not be advantageous to themselves. Thus, there will be no talks between the next U.S. President and the axes of evil unless both sides feel they have the upper hand over the other side. So international political experience is a plus when comtemplating a state visit.

Former President Carter made the lack of Washington D.C. ties and experience a major selling point in his election campaign. Then, after the American voters voted him in, we learned the lack of experience meant Iran could run all over the U.S. by taking U.S. citizens hostage. Check this out:

"Jimmy Carter’s one-term presidency is remembered for the events that overwhelmed it -— inflation, energy crisis, war in Afghanistan, and hostages in Iran. After one term in office, voters strongly rejected Jimmy Carter’s honest but gloomy outlook in favor of Ronald Reagan’s telegenic optimism" [See source.]

It is a mistake to think the lack of D.C. and international political experience is a good thing for a U.S. President. Of the two, Clinton and Obama, I would choose the one with the most D.C. and international savvy.

Answer 4

Talks with pre-conditions.

Answer 5

Obama. We should always talk to anybody who will talk to us. This stuff about becoming a propaganda tool is nonsense. Nothing good has ever come about from isolating another country. Castro is still in power, Saddam stayed in power long after sanctions were imposed. We may not agree on all issues, but we can still usually agree on some.

Answer 6

We ought to gather up all the politicians and religious zealot leaders and put them on an island where they have to live with each other. The people of the world would probably get along quite well, not to mention peacefully, as long as all these power hungry scum suckers were out of circulation.

Answer 7

I like them both very much but on this issue, I'm going with Barack.

One of the MAIN problems we're in such a god damn mess in Iraq is because dubya is too damn stubborn to talk to people that he has disagreements with.

Liberal perspective is that when you have disagreements with someone, you TALK to them to resolve an issue in a civilized and peaceful manner.

You don't have to have bilateral dialogs to resolve disagreements if you don't have any disgareemtns to begin with. That's the approach we need to adopt towards our adversaries.

So I fully support Barach's approach on this issue.

Answer 8

A President of the United States should not give credibility to terrorist by meeting with them.

Answer 9

Talk... They blow themselves up. I don't think they are interested in talking, just in getting their way. And, preconditions never worked before, why would they now?

Answer 10

I'm with Obama.