Originally posted by jtma508
There is absolutely no reasonable argument for NOT talking with any party. In any dispute or disagreement what possible benefit does either party get
by not talking? What advantage does that provide? What possible avenue toward resolution does it create? The act of refusing to talk --- whether it
works or not --- is infantile and ignorant. It's no different than your SO giving you the 'silent treatment'. Solves nothing. Resolves
nothing.
Unless the party refusing to talk has no intentions of resolving anything...
Here, I will give you a reasonable argument for NOT talking to states who threaten violence.
1. A rogue state like Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map.
2. The President of the United States decides to talk with this rogue state without pre-conditions.
3. Now ANY agreement that comes from these talks without pre-conditions is seen as positive reinforcement for making the original threat.
4. Other terrorist-leaning states will then make threats as well in an attempt to extort concessions or money from the U.S.
This is why the whole concept of "pre-conditions" is critically important in these discussions. Obama knows he screwed up and misspoke when he
first made the statement about talks without pre-conditions, and he's backed off that position since.
