[maxiep]

Originally Posted by mook

I understand this point, but it seems to only look at the downside. Isn't it also possible that by meeting with an Iranian president, our President might be perceived as more appealing among Iranians? It's pretty easy to demonize somebody who refuses to talk to you. How would a skilled, eloquent American president speaking in front of Iranians be perceived by watchers on Al Jazeera? Not just in Iran, but throughout the Middle East? My guess is that while the Iranian leadership might gain a little in world esteem, it's quite possible we would gain much more.

There are two assumptions here that I believe to be fallacious. First, that the opinion of the Iranian people holds any sway whatsoever. Regardless of the fact they hold shadow elections, they're not arms length, free or fair. This isn't a democracy; it's a theocracy. Mahmoud Ahmadenijad is not the leader of the country; the Ayatollah Khamenei is the Supreme Leader.

Besides, the Iranian people like America more than one would think based on the "Death to America" and "Great Satan" chants. Any interview snuck past the censors shows that very fact. Most Iranians don't wish to eliminate Israel; most Iranians don't expect to bring on the end of the world--they wish to live their lives just like everyone else.

Second, are you really expecting we're going to get a fair shake in Al Jazeera? It's a business that caters to its audience just like any other station. Heck, even Dave Marash had to walk away:

http://www.cjr.org/the_water_cooler/...why_i_quit.php

Originally Posted by mook

I'm not saying Obama's position is necessarily wise, but the arguments against it operate entirely from fear.

Just because they come to a negative conclusion, doesn't mean they operate "entirely from fear". In my opinion, they operate from prudence and experience.

Originally Posted by mook

Americans need to realize that we're increasingly living in a post-American world. Sure, we're still the biggest economy and the biggest military. But a lot of countries are becoming much, much wealthier and more powerful as our own economy and military sputters.

Ah, I can remember hearing about the end of the American Century in college. Back then, the flavor of the week was Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Today, it's Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World". The real strength of America is our combination of our political, economic and military strength. While countries or groups of allies come close or surpass us on one of those, no one entity matches all three. In fact, they don't even come close.

Originally Posted by mook

Whether we deign or not to talk to one leader or another is becoming slightly less relevant with each passing day. When you are in a room full of millionaires, is it such a big deal if one of them refuses to talk to you?

If it becomes less important every day, why is it so important that we meet with them without condition? I would argue that it is very important that we remain consistent with our values. We don't get dragged to the table by those that fund terrorism and declare their intention to finish the Holocaust, and we certainly don't come running willingly because we're acting out of hope.

[Diable]

the truth of it is that we don't deal with the Cubans because of the narrow political interests of our elected officials,especially those who wish to run for the presidency.They pose no legitimate threat to us and we've talked to dozens of people who were a lot worse than the Castro brothers.However in none of those cases were there hundreds of thousands of registered voters in a battleground state involved.

We are dealing with the Iranians behind the scenes because we don't have any choice.No real use in dealing with Ahmadijad since he likely won't be around much longer...He simply hasn't done a very good job domestically and lacks support.The Ayatollah Khamanei is the guy who calls the shots there,Ahmadijad is pretty much a clown,his level of competency is similar to George Bush's

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

But that's not what he said. He's tried to backtrack, but he said "without precondition". Diplomacy happens on some level or another between every country on the planet, but lending the prestige of the Presidency to a half pint ruler is crazy if not dangerous.

And no one ever said, "We won't talk to these people". Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain said that there has to be dialogue on some level and there has to be preconditions, but talking leader to leader isn't going to happen without the other side giving up some of their crazier stances.

I am pretty sure he said that he was willing to meet with leaders if preparation is done. Heck I remember one of those debates where he said the same thing.

Diable pretty much summed it up, they make such a big deal about Ahmadenijad, when the Ayatollah is truly the head honcho in that country

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

I am pretty sure he said that he was willing to meet with leaders if preparation is done. Heck I remember one of those debates where he said the same thing.

That's his standard line now. His policy is now exactly the same as the Bush Administration. If Iran drops their nuclear program and acknowledges Israel's right to exist, then we can talk. Of course, that wasn't his position when he answered the question--I applaud his willingness to change his position. For the record, he's done the same with ending our involvement in Iraq. Boy, it's funny what you'll do when the presidency gets within reach.

[HB]

I wish he had stuck with his original position though.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

I wish he had stuck with his original position though.

It just shows that he's not a change candidate. You know a guy like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul wouldn't alter their views so easily. Those two are the real change candidates.

[HB]

Well I agree somewhat, but those two guys you mention are extremists

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

Well I agree somewhat, but those two guys you mention are extremists

And if you look at Sen. Obama's voting record in the US Senate, that's what he is as well. However, he's showing that he's willing to alter his views to win an election. Most politicians do, but he can't run as a new kind of candidate doing the same old same old.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

And if you look at Sen. Obama's voting record in the US Senate, that's what he is as well. However, he's showing that he's willing to alter his views to win an election. Most politicians do, but he can't run as a new kind of candidate doing the same old same old.

Obama's voting record in the senate is not that different from Hillary's, the biggest difference being the war. Yet Hillary is the conservative democrat, something doesnt add up.