We Should Talk to Our Enemies

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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/

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.

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...

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.