Obama the naive

Obama the naive

www.latimes.com

Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 5/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

this is the reason that other countries want obama to be elected as president . for the simple fact that he is a naive man when it comes to foreign policies and in short would be able to push him into things that are advantages to their plight .

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by ironman433


bright a open diolect with Iran and so on would be a good thing for the US,
maybe he can fix the mess bush brought on after he destroyed the very chance of the US and Iran letting biogons be biogons. before Bush took office Iran was warming up to the US.

but what the hell who in their right mind would want to avert war and the posibility of loads of people being killed.

only a true moron would want peace right?

I think it was churchill (probably wrong) who said that "jaw jaw is always better than war war"

I don't think dialogue is ever a bad thing - certainly it's better than all the ridiculous posturing we see at the moment.

Open dialogue does NOT mean conceding - it means trying to work out differences in a mature and responsible manner.

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...

iranian muslim extremist's dont understand jaw jaw . what they do understand is that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and needs to be eliminated . have we forgotten already ????? where do you think iran stands on that point ???? do you think they are sympathetic towards anyone who is not a muslim ?? duuuuuh! you cant talk and reason with a people who want nothing less than to see you and your religion decimated and your friends also for that matter . thats some of what makes obama so naive and his followers too . who would possibly want a rogue state and an enemy of any other religion other than their own to have anything nuclear or even firecrackers for that matter ?
this is not a new problem comming out of iran or the middle east either . the jawjaw has already been played out over and over again and obama has nothing new to bring to the table . well maybe exept for rolling over while being tricked into believing those people wouldn't attack us if they had the chance.

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.

Obama obviously realized that he was naive ... his stance on meeting with enemies without preconditions is now changing. For whatever reason, he's now correcting himself and shifting his original position. Things that make you go hmmmm ....

Four months ago I believed that Obama, though not my preference, would be a tolerable President. Now I'm feeling fairly certain that Obama winning the Presidency would be the worst thing our Country has ever seen.

Jemison

I see very few countries around the world invading and attacking other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Iran threatens when threatened - as do all nation states.

I would suggest that israel is the rogue state and that the US under bush is not far off - this is not a slight against the american people, but their leader.

reply to post by jamie83

and how many times will his naive way of thinking do this again while in office ? we cant afford to have that kind of naive thinker in office. i'm not a supporter of mc cain in any way either and let the truth be told none of the candidates have what it takes to run this country but unfortunately we will have to choose between which one of them will screw us less .