We Should Talk to Our Enemies

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Trevor A. Campbell @ 10/26/2008 4:07:59 PM

    This is my comment on Nicholas Burns artcle 10/26/08. This is a brilliant article, perfect english, profoundly analytical and intellectually inspiring. This is why I will vote for Obama. Mr. Burns, you are a genius. I hope whoever wins is listening to you.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:35:41 PM

      I then suggest Nicky go to Iran and convince them to stop making uranium-grade bomb materiels.

      Well, at least you tried. Fantasies can float through the head like dreams after a Friday night binge.

      Nicky, go get a drink.

  • Posted By: RedPar8 @ 10/26/2008 2:54:59 PM

    Every USA president has tried to have a dialog with Iran since the Jimmy Carter years. The problem has not been US Policies, but the mad men in Iran who are bent on bring nuclear destruction to Israel. For 8 years the Clinton Administration could not find a solution. The UN gave up on trying to reach a peaceful solution.

    Nicholas Burns politically bias article wants to blame the USA for not being able to reach an understanding with Islamic fanatics. Islamic Fanatics who are in power in Iran have openly express their intentions to destroy Israel. They think the USA is the "Great Satan" who needs to be destroyed.

    Iran is the one not interested in talking. The truth is, the Islamic Fanatics of the Mid-East are hoping that Obama will betray Israel. They know that if Obama weakens the USA backing of Israel they can freely move against Israel.

    • Posted By: Trevor A. Campbell @ 10/26/2008 4:32:32 PM

      Redpars8, when did you lose your sense of history? Have you forgotten Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi? He was a close friend of the United States, he recognized Israel and tried (under US influence) to modernize Iran. We handled that relaship very badly beacuse we failed to recognize the religious and cultural differences between Islam and our world. Now we are in this mess. But our situation is redeemable. Lets try to talk again.

  • Posted By: Bagwiss @ 10/26/2008 3:46:04 PM

    It is downright juvienile not to talk to non-friends. Yitzak Rabin is right: You make peace with enemies - not friends.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:27:34 PM

      Rabin was assassinated by his "new" friends.

      End of argument.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/26/2008 3:44:53 PM

    We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by talking first.

    If need be we can always just go kill everybody afterwards as many republicans would have it.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:24:53 PM

      The first part of your comment showed intelligence. The second part indicates you may have a brain tumor.

  • Posted By: Bagwiss @ 10/26/2008 3:42:49 PM

    Refusing to talk with non-friends is downright juvenile. Dubya and McCain should grow up.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:19:26 PM

      Your beloved "non-friends" would saw off your head and feed your genitals to a crocodile.

      Get real.

  • Posted By: newsweekthisweek @ 10/26/2008 3:35:48 PM

    Without giving up everything we stand for, it is very possible to come to an
    understanding, more specifically, with countries we consider to be enemies.

    It is of utmost importance to get involved with countries whose beliefs differ from
    ours in order to satisfy our hunger for peace and commonalities. We need this
    for growth and expansion. The U.S. is renown for its so-called "intelligence" in
    reaching out to other countries. It is incumbent upon the U.S. to find solutions,
    and means of communication with countries who build weapons of destruction.
    This is called survival. Period.

    The need for sensitivity, diplomacy and proper communication is essential. We
    must tread softly. If certain countries feel threatened by the U.S., then they are
    within their rights to defend themselves in any way that is appropriate to them;
    however, should their needs be reasonably met, they will do away with
    destructive weaponry.

    There is lack of respect on behalf of the U.S.; they meddle with other countries'
    philosophies and differences and they want these countries to think like them.
    This will never happen; however, a diplomatic and sensitive approach to
    understand their differences in order to work together, is very do-able.

    An enemy is an enemy by virtue of one party denying the other party's rights in
    some way, shape or form. Our own ignorance on how others view life is
    depriving us from our own peace. We must reach out not to combat, but to
    engage in a positive light as a result of our differences. Killing people is not
    the answer; working alongside one another's differences is.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:15:09 PM

      Why don't you explain this to Great Britain, the Dutch, Spain, and Rome.

      I am sure they might enjoy your concocted view of the world.

  • Posted By: button @ 10/26/2008 3:25:22 PM

    So much for the myth that Reagan ended the col d war. A recent NPR progeram had the US ambassador to Moscow during this period along with the Soviet ambassador to Washington durng the final years of the Soviet Empire. Both empathecally agreed that the real reason for the Soviet collapse was the fact that Gobechiev wanted the eliminate the Stalinist influence the the past sixty years.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:11:54 PM

      The NPR couldn't even predict the demise of the Soviet Union.

      Why do you re-intellectualize them now?

  • Posted By: bighappy @ 10/26/2008 2:37:16 PM

    Bomb first, then talk. In such case negotiations are always the most productive.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:02:57 PM

      Talk, bomb, talk.

      The third part will be easy.

  • Posted By: RangerDan @ 10/26/2008 2:35:57 PM

    Antagonistic foreign policy assumes that our enemy is inherently evil. This is dangerous and extremely expensive. I fear any leader that will not talk to our enemies. It tells me they are closer to world ending nuclear war then they are to peace

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 4:00:34 PM

      If you do not assume your enemy is dangerous, then you need to begin sewing on a new flag.

      Preposterous that "feeling good about your enemy" will make your enemy not.

  • Posted By: alexey2008 @ 10/26/2008 2:28:06 PM

    Smart foreign policy dictates that we talk to our adversaries, it's painfully apparent that this administration did not engage its adversaries diplomatically because of president's lack of intellectual dept. What is shocking is that we are still having this debate in the 21st century; it shows how ignorant the most of republicans (neocons) are.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:57:22 PM

      "Smart", "dictates", "painfully".
      What is this- an AA meeting?

      I would "talk" to any lunatic, and "painfully" explain how his culture will become extinct if he continues to act "uncivilly." Your bid.

  • Posted By: wendydk @ 10/26/2008 2:19:40 PM

    Always better to try talking first. Antagonistic foreign policy is dangerous to America and Americans.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:52:38 PM

      Okay- it might go like this:
      Hi Iran- you have threatened to annihilate Israel, you continue to fund terrorism, and you want to create nuclear energy to light your homes when you are the fourth largest reserve of oil in the world- what do you think?

      You have got 4 mi9nutes before I build the first WalMart in downtown Tehran.

      Give me a break.


  • Posted By: buddyandtricia @ 10/26/2008 3:44:21 PM

    "We need all the friends we can get"...? At what cost? Our national security and the future of this country is not summed up in a popularity contest. We as a nation should not be likened to an insecure gen-x type whose self-worth is defined by which nation has the most friends on Facebook. Newsweek should just publish "We endorse Obama" each issue or print something of substance.

  • Posted By: david001 @ 10/26/2008 2:31:29 PM

    Sure, negotiate with terrorists. Might as well be friends with them.

    • Posted By: marley07 @ 10/26/2008 3:35:46 PM

      Obama probably is friends with them. The extremists have a goal of placing any enemy within the U.S. and we might actually elect Obama so they have it even more than they already do. It is a known fact he has a muslim background. Biden did not make a statement like that our of thin air. If he wins the gaurd will be let down. It is a fact. I am sure most of these dems like Obama feel bad that Iran's leader isn't feeling well and they would probably be willing to let him into the U.S. do get universal healthcare. what a joke this Obama is.

  • Posted By: jeanrenoir @ 10/26/2008 2:18:34 PM

    Not the least of the poisonous goals of the neocons in their effectively unilateral invasion of Iraq was to achieve the isolation of America in the world. These kooks wanted America to be isolated just like Israel. They wanted to make America and Israel the "screw you" rogue states of the democratic world, because they were convinced that they needed to shackle America to Israel--you and me against the Islamic world, and all the European sympathizers with it--as Israel's only hope for survival. Only with the Big Stick of aggressive Republican militarism and chauvinism at their side did these neocons feel Israel had a chance of survival. This approach was, of course, as stupid and disastrous for Israel as it was for Bush, the Republican Party as a whole, and America itself. The whole neocon program, including anathematizing talking to Iran in favor of determination to "bomb, bomb, bomb" it, has simply strengthened Iran, including make Europe MORE sympathetic with it, not less. Thank God Obama's about to drive the neocons in the sea, with a little help from the rest of the Republican Party, which now correctly blames the neocon war in Iraq for destroying it.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:33:01 PM

      Please go watch Noggin. "Have you used your noggin, today?"

  • Posted By: Texan_007 @ 10/26/2008 3:31:53 PM

    Obama, is to keep General Powell as an advisor, If elected and wants to re-start the draft. Perhaps its
    time since enlistment is at an all time low. He also wants to send troops to Afghanistan but take them out of Iraq. I sure will be glad when all this is over lol.

    "Why are some Democrats worried that Mr. Obama may not necessarily be headed to the White House?
    For starters, the American people like to have checks and balances. With predictions that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will grow their liberal power bases in the House and the Senate, more Americans than reflected in various polls may decide to apply the brakes to an Obama presidency.
    And I know you???ve heard this before, experience does matter. Joe Biden may have inadvertently made that case for John McCain when he recently said that the world will test Barack Obama in six months. ???The world is looking,??? he said. ???Watch, we???re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.??? I feel the American People should not have to go through this again.

  • Posted By: mslpimp @ 10/26/2008 2:03:23 PM

    No.The biggest mistake ever will be electing a puppet to the neo-con war hawks.They love to go to war instead of exhausting all options.Borrow the money to fight and put the final nail in our economic coffin.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:30:01 PM

      Do you really understand the words you use. Looks doubtful.

  • Posted By: fuzzytruthseker @ 10/26/2008 1:53:55 PM

    This is, of course a very sound, perceptive article. I do NOT agree with Mr Burns that " [Iran's] hard-line, theocratic government poses the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East today and [That] It is funding and arming most of the region's terrorist groups shooting at us, Israel and our moderate Arab friends [at the same time that] it has complicated our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan [and it] is seeking a nuclear-weapons capability that would change the balance of power in the Middle East}

    The truth that " we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances" is as true for Iran as it is for Pakistan as it is for Russia and ,indeed as it is for China and even Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Just as the long threatening (and foreseen by many of the most perspicacious and even myopic observers) financial meltdown was inevitably going to adversely strike every country in a globally interdependent world, in the same way, the rumblings of ancient Moghul power in Uzbekistan, Turmenistan Azerbaijan, Armenia and other Central Asian States, as well as left-leaning political shifts in Latin America, are watched with interest by all the regional and non-regionl countries in view of possible opportunities as well as potential threats. The fact that "China, India, Brazil are rising to share power in the world with, America" certainly reinforces the urgency for America 'to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and rivals {not foes} alike".

    The historian/statistician scholar of 'cliodynamics', Peter Turchin, has constructed an excellent 'systems-theory' -inspired model of the 'complex' factors impacting on centrifugal and centripetal forces in geostrategic/historical alignments to balance a rapidly-changing population-dynamical/military/energy resource development/economic-and-societal-developmental landscape, especailly in the Eurasian and Latin American landmasses that captures the very best that state-of-the art analysis can offer.

    The new foreign policy team that will be put together by President Obama would be well advised to famailiarize itself with its content and decide whther it might like or not to incorporate some of the lessons of that model in the foreign policy strategy thatit carves out post-January 20, 2009.

    Peter Turchin's web page is at http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:27:28 PM

      You have got to be kidding. Go eat some more moon pies.

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 10/26/2008 11:05:28 AM

    Maybe we can get Monte Hall and do a 'Let's Make A Deal' remake with the Taliban? After 911, Americans were in no mood to negotiate with the monsters that committed that war crime. Suddenly with the new 'Obama for Change' insanity, we should now sit down and have a chat? Obama, if elected, may bring 'change', but it won't be the 'change' you were expecting.

    • Posted By: Irmanator @ 10/26/2008 11:42:51 AM

      I want a president and government that has more than one response to hostile nations/groups. Before we send young people off to kill-or-be-killed, we should exhaust all the diplomatic and economic "carrot and stick" strategies we can think of.
      There is more than one path to peace and co-existence.

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/26/2008 3:26:11 PM

        hmmmm... Hussein played the UN for fools for over 12 years. How much is enough 'diplomacy'? 15 years, 20 or maybe 25 years? And what should Obama do when he's told "no" (and he will be) to the UN order that Iran end it's nuclear program? This is of course after the obligatory 17 resolutions and useless sanctions have failed as they did in Iraq. Bear in mind that giving in and allowing Iran to have nukes will probably mean Israel will cease to exist.

        Obama will have two choices: he can raise the white flag as he did with his vote regarding Iraq, or he and the allied nations can go in and force him them to comply. Take your pick.

      • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 2:54:23 PM

        Yep, let's sit around like the BeNeLux nations and wait for an ambassador of "Peace" to arrive while the Arrian foe drops bombs on our heads.

  • Posted By: Kiwi observer @ 10/26/2008 1:30:47 PM

    A sensible piece but one thing I cannot understand: including Chavez in a list of "disreputable" leaders. Chavez's policies have offended US oil companies and other interests, and that, so far as I can see, is the only reason the US has attempted to turn him into a pariah. But with all his faults, he is a democratically elected leader who has done far more good for and far less bad to his people than most leaders around the world. Just compare him to our leader: did Chavez launch an unprovoked war, killing upwards of a million and displacing four million more? has Chavez directed his spy services and military to commit acts of torture, to kidnap and "rendition" his enemies on foreign territority? has he exempted himself from the laws of his legislature with "signing statements", spied on his citizens without regard for the judiciary, politicized every branch of government, replaced civil servants by outsourcing government work to the private sector on an unprecedented scale, and so on and on? Chavez has done some of these things and not others, but none, so far as I know, on the scale of George W Bush and his regime. People who live in glass houses...

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:23:03 PM

      Too much kiwi renderes the brain full of seeds. Chavez was not elected, he is a militaryy coup result, with manufactured elections.

      Go to Venezuela and ask the man in the street (secretly) if he believes Chavez has done anything but ruin his country.

  • Posted By: buchajo @ 10/26/2008 1:22:00 PM

    We don't have to talk to Iran anymore. Because oil has tanked they now won't be able to balance their budget and that should keep big mouth busy for a few months. After that, he has to worry about getting re-elected. I ain't worried about Iran anymore.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:18:14 PM

      Be very afraid of the cornered rat. One nuke on Israel will open up all Hell on Tehran.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse