Poll - Who won the first debate?

That makes no sense. Meeting with a country that is in opposition on many things doesn't lend credibility to what they said at all.

What does that mean? Do you really think that if a meeting was set up, all of a sudden nations around the world would say, "Yeah maybe we should attack Israel."

Every nation that is opposed to us has said plenty of crazy things. In order to work on improving situations dialogue is necessary.

By meeting with the heads of the Saudi govt. does that mean we give credibility to laws that are oppressive to women?

 

One other comment: There is little doubt McCain will get some sort of surge before the election. Exactly when, how big or how long is the question. Even if Palin does poorly against Biden and Obama "wins" the next 2 debates with McCain, it won't be a 5-week tidal-wave of momentum. But it will be very tough for McCain to come back and win the election without a major gaffe from Obama or some unforeseen circumstance. Things are hardening now into a ~5% win for Obama. If McCain's campaign somehow continues to crumble and doesn't regain it's balance, things could get uglier.

 

Like McCain said, by meeting face to face with a leader of a country that is not an ally, especially Iran, you give a sense of credibility to what that leader is saying.
_____

No -- you meet with them and tell them face to face (like a man) what you feel about their policies and what is required to correct the issue.

 

I'm glad that someone like Ronald Reagan would never agree to meet face-to-face with an enemy that could've wiped us out with one push of a button (or however they would've initiated the launch of thousands of nuclear warheads that would've destroyed our country).

 

Riiiiight.

It would probably be more productive to have a discussion with a brick wall. At least the wall won't lie to you.

We, and our allies, had discussions with North Korea. They consistently broke every deal they ever made.

 

I'm always amazed that people that people become so blind in politics that they adhere to every single thing their candidate says like it's absolute gospel truth. Is that REALLY that hard to be open to other viewpoints?

Seriously. I don't think Obama is saying he would never use military force to deal with countries, but how about we try something like I don't know, NOT WIPING COUNTRIES OFF THE MAP for diplomacy with our first go around? eh?

Why do you think our image around the world is so ****ty?

 

Yeah, Palin's interview next week should be a cookie-cutter victory for the Obama camp. I'm not sure I even want to watch that debate without violently cringing multiple times, lol.

 

I'm not discrediting that, but I don't think a President should just go have a meeting with him without having lower level meetings and agreements in place.

But we can speculate all day about whether it's a good thing or not. None of us have been presidents so we don't know what goes on in these meetings as well as how they are set up.

 

Refman, I agree that there are times when meeting with the head of state of another country might not be a good idea. Gaddafi, for example, in the aftermath of the bombing of the 747 over Lockerbie, when everyone knew his government was behind it and meeting with him would have given credibilty to a pariah who deserved to be put on trial for mass murder. Bush later did open talks leading to normalization of relations, one of the few pluses in foreign policy I would give Bush, but it was after years of Gaddafi taking steps towards admitting responsibility for Lockerbie and paying reparations, as well as dismantling his program aimed at building nukes and other weapons of mass destruction. The last item occuring after high level negotiations with the US and others.

I don't think meeting with the President of Iran falls under that category. As Obama said, he isn't the most powerful man in the theocratic state and the population, from what I can understand by following events there for a while, wants relations with the West and free elections. Free elections being an election where the mullahs didn't disqualify the moderates and progressives from being on the ballot, something they have consistently done. Attempting a dialogue with Iran at the highest level possible could bring about a breakthrough. You don't know unless you try. I trust Obama to use good judgement, leavened with good advice, which I don't assume would happen with McCain in charge.

As for North Korea, they are run by a small group based on a personality cult, yet we have avoided war with them for about 55 years. And talked.

 

weslinder:

Is it your position that we should never do what Obama said he would do wrt Pakistan? Or just that we should never SAY we would do it?

McCain doesn't deny he would do the exact same thing (and Palin said she would). The only difference is McCain says we shouldn't "say that out loud."

It is, of course, hilarious that McCain would lecture Obama on the danger of upsetting volatile nations by saying things "out loud," given his very recent history of irresponsibly provoking Iran, Russia and N. Korea -- often even for laughs.

But I'm mainly wondering if your opposition to Obama on Pakistan is the fact that he said it "out loud." If it is, um, wow. If not, you should have the exact same problem with Palin and you should probably have the same problem with McCain.

 

Exactly.

There are two basic options here:

Try to negotiate a tenable situation with our enemies in hopes it doesn't become necessary to send in the military or plug your ears and bury your head in the sand until we have no choice but to go to war.

Obama said the other night he wasn't inviting anyone for tea.

In a face to face talk the US president can outline in certain terms what will happen if our enemies don't cooperate. He can also seek a diplomatic solution. When we refuse to communicate with our enemies, you can be sure that a diplomatic solution will never be reached.

In the cases of N. Korea and Iran, it's worth noting that our enemies are insane. Threatening them and then refusing to have a conversation is not all that likely to have a great result.

Nobody is suggesting rewarding bad behavior. The suggestion is that nothing is gained (and much is lost) by simply refusing to acknowledge those who engage in it.

 

I now understand why McCain doesn’t believe in direct diplomacy with enemies’; he probably wouldn’t look at them. I also noticed his voice was shaky at the beginning of the debate, but I doubt he was scared of Obama (at least I don’t think). I was always taught if a man can't look you in the eye while he is talking to you or about you then something is wrong with that man.

 

http://www.headlinejunky.com/permalink/2008_09_27_mccains_pakistan_flip_flop.php

McCain was for the gotcha answer before he was against the gotcha answer.

 

In other breaking news...

Looking forward to the VP debates.

Palin Brushing Up On Foreign Policy At Epcot
September 29, 2008 | Issue 44•40

ORLANDO, FL—Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin sought to silence those who have criticized her lack of foreign affairs experience Tuesday by announcing plans for a weeklong, 10-nation tour of Walt Disney World's Epcot. According to Palin, the trip—her first past Frontierland—will include speaking engagements at Norway's famous Viking ride, sausages at Germany's Kaufhaus, and, time permitting, a fact-finding mission to Future World. "This ambitious trip should finally demonstrate that I am ready to assume the vice presidency, whether by standing in long lines at Morocco's Tangierine Café or by sitting down face-to-face with Mexico's Three Caballeros," Palin announced during a campaign stop outside a Chinese restaurant in Tulsa, OK. "All of our neighbors deserve good diplomacy, from the Universe of Energy down to the French pavilion." Palin also promised a visit to the American Adventure exhibit before returning home, adding that she hoped to learn more about her own nation and the diverse peoples within.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/palin_brushing_up_on