Gallup: Americans Favor President Meeting w/ US Enemies

[Axxman]

As has been said before, meeting with someone doesn't mean appeasing. How can something be resolved if an enemy is never contacted? Violence seems to be the only solution if we refuse to speak with enemies. I think that the lines of communication should ALWAYS be open. That does not mean that we should fall to the demands of the enemy, nor does it suggest appeasement.

The fruit of meeting with the enemy is appeasement. Do you libs really think Obama is going to meet with Ahmadinejad and make peace without offering concessions? Presidents who have a back-bone don't meet with enemies because they are smart enough to know that they are not going to give ANYTHING up anyway so why bother.

Bush meeting with Ahmadinejad: "You are going to this. We expect you to do that."

Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad: "What do we need to do to avoid war? How can we make you happy?"

Many Americans, like the ones polled, are largely ignorant about how things work in Washington. One could make the case that Obama is largely ignorant about Washington too. He keeps citing these examples of Presidents who have met with enemies (Nixon, Kennedy) but he doesn't seem to realize that those "enemies" had to make great concessions and agree to major preconditions before those talks ever took place. Its disturbing that Obama doesn't even seem to know that. He acts like he's going to go on an enemy nations world tour if he's elected...and he won't.

[Guest yod]

As has been said before, meeting with someone doesn't mean appeasing. How can something be resolved if an enemy is never contacted? Violence seems to be the only solution if we refuse to speak with enemies. I think that the lines of communication should ALWAYS be open. That does not mean that we should fall to the demands of the enemy, nor does it suggest appeasement.

But that's just it, my delicious friend, we HAVE both contacted AND communicated a desire for a diplomatic solution through the world community's voice at the United Nations and that has met with utter ridicule from Iran.

So Obama has some kind of magic key whereby he will wield it and Ackmindinajarhead will suddenly see the light and begin respecting America, Israel, and the western world, eh? That's not only a political slogan designed to obfuscate Obamas inexperience but it's also dangerously naive speculation which could seal a lot of people into a miserable fate.

[Rick-Parker]

Lorax, did you even look up the word, or did you come up with your definition on your own?

Appeasement: The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles. (Dictionary.com)

The trick with polling is all in how you phrase the question. You can get any answer you want that way. If Gallop had asked the question like this "Generally speeking, do you think that it is a good or bad idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran without preconditions?" you would get a different outcome. Or "Generally, do you think it is a good idea for the president of the US to meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of countries that are considered enimies of the United States?" the statitics would be different. It's like asking "would you like to maintain social welfare payments?" 60% would answer yes. If you add "at the current level" to the question, the outcome would be vastly different.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

The fruit of meeting with the enemy is appeasement. Do you libs really think Obama is going to meet with Ahmadinejad and make peace without offering concessions? Presidents who have a back-bone don't meet with enemies because they are smart enough to know that they are not going to give ANYTHING up anyway so why bother.

Bush meeting with Ahmadinejad: "You are going to this. We expect you to do that."

Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad: "What do we need to do to avoid war? How can we make you happy?"

I would prefer a meeting in the middle of those examples actually. Your "Bush" example is a bully system, and your "Obama" example is an appeasement system.

Ideally I would like it to go something like this: "You want this, and we want that. How can we come to an agreement we'll both like?". I'm not a fan of appeasement or concessions, but I am not a fan of bully-politics neither, as it is part of the reason we are so distrusted. I also think that Obama recognizes this.

But that's just it, my delicious friend, we HAVE both contacted AND communicated a desire for a diplomatic solution through the world community's voice at the United Nations and that has met with utter ridicule from Iran.

So Obama has some kind of magic key whereby he will wield it and Ackmindinajarhead will suddenly see the light and begin respecting America, Israel, and the western world, eh? That's not only a political slogan designed to obfuscate Obamas inexperience but it's also dangerously naive speculation which could seal a lot of people into a miserable fate.

First off, I like 'my delicious friend'

The UN is admittedly a pretty faulty system that doesn't ultimately have much power unless countries like the US act as the world police. Iran knows this, and doesn't seem to be taking UN threats very seriously. The US on the other hand has the power, and we have also shown we are willing to use it. If we directly attempt talks with Iran, I feel like we can get a bit further in determining how we can come to a solution we are both happy with. Ultimately Iran wants to avoid being attacked, which is part of the reason they are trying to work on nuclear power. Ironically, this desire for defense is also part of the reason they are viewed as a possible threat.

Iran as a whole won't just snap out of their dislike for western culture overnight, however in order for anything to get accomplished diplomatically there needs to be a basic level of respect. If we refuse to even talk to them, it only perpetuates disrespect. If we at least keep the lines open, it is up to them to take us up on the offer and communicate, or ignore us and then suffer the consequences if they don't.

[Rick-Parker]

Ideally I would like it to go something like this: "You want this, and we want that. How can we come to an agreement we'll both like?". I'm not a fan of appeasement or concessions, but I am not a fan of bully-politics neither, as it is part of the reason we are so distrusted. I also think that Obama recognizes this.

What the United States is saying is "You want this, and we want that. We can both come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial if you stop enriching Uranium for nuclear weapons. As long as you insist on having nuclear weapons capability, we will not talk; in fact we are enemies." I could use a Chamberland/Hitler analogy if it would help in understanding of why America is taking the tact that it has.

[kat8585]

Ideally I would like it to go something like this: "You want this, and we want that. How can we come to an agreement we'll both like?". I'm not a fan of appeasement or concessions, but I am not a fan of bully-politics neither, as it is part of the reason we are so distrusted. I also think that Obama recognizes this.

This is what politicians in Washington have done to us for decades. That's why we're in the mess we're in on so many fronts.

[nebula]

Ideally I would like it to go something like this: "You want this, and we want that. How can we come to an agreement we'll both like?".

Well, it's kind of hars to come to an agreement that both will like when what the President of Iran wants is our destruction.

[The Lorax]

Lorax, did you even look up the word, or did you come up with your definition on your own?

Appeasement: The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace. To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles. (Dictionary.com)

...How does that definition disagree with what I said?

Granting concessions = GIVING to the enemy

Do you know what the word "granting" means? Do you know what the word "concessions" means? What exactly are you confused about?

The trick with polling is all in how you phrase the question. You can get any answer you want that way. If Gallop had asked the question like this "Generally speeking, do you think that it is a good or bad idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran without preconditions?" you would get a different outcome. Or "Generally, do you think it is a good idea for the president of the US to meet, without preconditions, with the leaders of countries that are considered enimies of the United States?" the statitics would be different. It's like asking "would you like to maintain social welfare payments?" 60% would answer yes. If you add "at the current level" to the question, the outcome would be vastly different.

Next time read the whole article. It clearly states what Gallup asked:

"Generally speaking, do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran."

No need for speculation and hand-waving. Your answer is right there.

[The Lorax]

It communicates a willingness to solve the problem.

With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

How does sitting at the table with a man who says: "Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started," going to solve anything?

You're taking the man at his word, and that's a problem. Ahmadinejad might talk tough, but the truth is he is deathly afraid of America. Sure, the destruction of America might be a happy fantasy of his--keyword: fantasy--but staving off his own destruction certainly comes up higher on his list of priorities.

Btw, there's an interesting double standard at Worthy. People here generally supported the War in Iraq even though it has ultimately empowered Iran. The regimes of Iraq and Iran kept each other in check, but with Saddam out of the picture, Iran is more powerful than ever. Maybe you guys are oblivious to that, because now you're worried that simply TALKING to Ahmadiejad will somehow empower Iran. Talk about utterly missing the point!

[Guest yod]

Ultimately Iran wants to avoid being attacked,

If we at least keep the lines open, it is up to them to take us up on the offer and communicate, or ignore us and then suffer the consequences if they don't.

that's what I don't think you really understand, Mr cheese-pickle-and-tomato-on-a-sesame-seed-bun

There are lots of people in Iran who don't want to be attacked...but that isn't the group in power unfortunately. The 12 see their entire purpose in life as bringing on the worst 7 years of chaos in world history so the Mahdi will appear. They think he is a 12 year old boy today living somewhere in the desert. They are planning to do this when it would cause the most damage possible. They would of course like to defeat Israel unscathed but they EXPECT the US to attack them so the Mahdi (talk about anti-christ?) will arise. These people are NUTS!

Think of it this way: Could we negotiate Charlie Manson into not murdering again? Would you like him living next to you if he said was sorry and they let him out?