We Should Talk to Our Enemies

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: robertkjjj @ 10/26/2008 1:18:43 PM

    Sure. When even one person here can, in an informed way backed by history and facts, tell us how you can sit down and negotiate with people who believe that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and should be killed, I will gladly agree with the author, Until then, sorry, this is not possible. Some things are simply negotiable, and "convert or die" is one of those things.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:15:51 PM

      Want to see them back down--- just say, " Your move. Our retaliation will be total. No ground troops."

  • Posted By: Coloradan for Change @ 10/26/2008 1:06:47 PM

    I believe that talking would help. Evidently threatening, pushing sanctions, and causing wars don't work. Maybe civilized human contact would help. It has worked in Iraq with the Sunni insurgency. It is a fact of psychology. Humans react better and rationally to calm talks, discussions and the like. When violence, hate speech, threats and other no rational thinking comes into play, people get offended, angry and it just perpetuates into an all out mess. This is why a simple solution of rational speech will work. Unless there is a factual, and clear danger to the United States, there is no reason to have a conversation can not take place. It stopped the cold war with rationally speaking to Russia instead of having a stand off that wasted Billions of dollars. What a concept, eh? Looks like the pen (and rational conversation) is mightier than the sword.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:12:25 PM

      Other than your complete lack of knowledge of history and your belief that Iran has "talked nicely", you would suggest that we do a campfire talk?

      Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by telling them that we will build the anti-IBM missle system. They ran out of money. Case closed.

      You want Iran to stop- just explain to them that for one launched ICBM, 1000 will rain on their heads. Now, do you want to discuss anything else?

  • Posted By: irhona @ 10/26/2008 12:10:32 PM

    The reason that President Bush has not wished to engage with foreign powers is apparent. He simply lacks the intellect to play mental gymnastics with the leaders of foreign powers. Those leaders have been elected because they were the brightest and the best - how it should be - whereas, Bush was elected despite his lack of intellect; actually because of his lack of intellect. We were actually electing a beer buddy when we should have been electing a leader. Rather than subject himself to the sure humiliation that would have come at the hands of much more intelligent world leaders, he chose to behave like the proverbial schoolyard bully, costing our nation greatly.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:04:11 PM

      So you would trust someone with no international foreign policy experience and no military experience to challenge the threats to a democracy?

  • Posted By: rr52 @ 10/26/2008 11:21:35 AM

    If we can in earnest say that America seeks the most peaceful means of attaining peace throughout the world, isn't it logical that those means would be intelligent conversation with each party honestly trying to put themselves in the other's shoes in order to see all sides. Without accomplishing this first, the correct decisions about any given situation are almost impossible to make. Of course this type of conversation is automatically pre-empted in situations like the 9/11 attacks. To insinuate Obama would sit down with Bin Laden is absurd. The war the Taliban wages is religious in nature, showing the damage too much religion and politics causes. The attacks were hate, there is no discussion. BUT, and this is a big BUT, we should have been in Afghanistan to destroy Taliban efforts there, NOT in Iraq where so many have died for something totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. Lives for a lie? And we should align with McCain who backed Iraq all along...wants to stay there with permanent military posts?. Halliburton has contracts for those.

    • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 3:01:19 PM

      Incoherency of thought argues mostly against anyone listening to you.

  • Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/26/2008 9:47:52 AM

    During his tea with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama will request that Iran cease its nuclear program along with its call for Israel's destruction. I'm wondering, will he ask him nicely or will he use harsh language? Either way, Ahmadinejad will say no as this has been tried already. Obama seems to overlook the basic concept that third world kingpins like Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein can't be reasoned with. Like school yard bullies, they only respond to the threat of overwhelming force.

    So now that Obama has given Ahmadinejad world credibility by "sitting down" with him, and Obama has been handed his hat, what will he do? We know the obligatory, corrupt UN resolutions and following sanctions will be worthless as they were with Hussein, and Obama's vote regarding Iraq tell us that he will raise the white flag and walk away. Iran will have its nukes, and Israel will be at the least extremely vulnerable and at the most, vaporized.

    Next on the agenda, Obama will "sit down" with Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin to discuss Russia's placement of nuclear missiles in Venezuela. Obama's pacifism will rear its head and the results will likely be the same... only it us that will now be vulnerable.

    Make no mistake, Iran wants its nukes and Israel destroyed. Putin wants to return Russia to its glory days and restore the Russian Empire. To this end, there is no middle ground with these people, and Obama's skills as an 'orator' to deal with them will simply be ineffective.

    If Obama takes a stand, world opinion will regard him as another George Bush. If he does not, a Jimmy Carter. Guess which one he prefers.

    • Posted By: yonnie1947 @ 10/26/2008 1:56:54 PM

      You people are sickening when someone doesn't agree with you or when your team is LOSING. I would hardly think that Senator Obama will be sitting down one on one with all these individuals. He is simply not as unintelligent as you all seem to be. Republicans take a rest and rebuild your fractured party while the rest of us try to rebuild the nation that you've fractured.

      • Posted By: Forty4 @ 10/26/2008 2:50:46 PM

        I don't think this post mentioned anything about winning or losing the election. However, I guess you've been living up under a rock somewhere..... Obama has said he will meet with Iran without preconditions. He's also said he would meet with others as well.

        Climb back under your rock. You're happier there.

      • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 2:49:15 PM

        Let's see, do I remember him saying he would or would not talk to terrorists states? I think he said he would. Why have his original words been sanitized?

  • Posted By: Bizcinci @ 10/26/2008 2:49:14 PM

    How can all you Obama supporters be such fools. (Blame the Republics for the economy) Banks are failing because of the bad mortgage and foreclosure, The democrats work of art. (Talking to a dictator) There have always been talks with dictators in all administraions. Talking however does not cook rice. Iran wants money and that's what every dictator wants. However, somtimes talks work sometimes they do not. This is not great Obama wisdom. These are talking points to differ with the exact time and moment. Any remember the Russia/Georgia wisdom from Obama??? Great moment.
    Now to the great Obama strategy to end the economic crisis. If his plans are so good why hasn't the democratic run House or Senate worked these policies and passed them through, Any of them, one of them. They have control and can even overrule a veto? If they are such great plans why not try? What are the dems waiting for? Oh that's right, nothing, like most of his ideas, Nothing that free market will fix on it's own.

  • Posted By: CouldCareLessAnymore @ 10/26/2008 2:46:54 PM

    NUKE IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: CouldCareLessAnymore @ 10/26/2008 2:45:07 PM

    Looks like newsweek once again agrees with hussein obama and his muslim blood brothers...

  • Posted By: DaneLover @ 10/26/2008 2:44:12 PM

    When confronted by a Kodiak bear or an African crocodile, it is best not to offer your hand.
    Making peace with someone who has threatened to kill you will get you killed. Their ideology having not changed a bit.

    When confronting a bully, do you kiss his ass, or stand tall and refuse to submit to further humiliation?

    The world view, kumbayah peace freaks assume that an offer of peace or co-existance will be taken seriously by your adversary. It is not. Not until they are threatened with extinction does your adversary realize his stupid challenge.

    Better to have your adversary kiss your ass than the alternative.

  • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 10/26/2008 10:35:29 AM

    OBAMA is no pacifist. When the T-ban/AQ were building the now 160+ camps in the tribal areas, wat did Bush do? NOTHING. He continued to throw money at a 2 faced dictator who beat the US taxpayers for $10BILLION. Obama will strike in P-stan, when there is actionable intel, regardless of wat the P-stani's say. When Putin tries to put nukes in Venezuela, and he will try, the US will blockade Venezuela, strangling thier already beat economy. Of course, 1 bullet can change the whole game, and Chavez should have been gone long ago. The REPUKES put this country in this situation, voting for Mc CRAP would be utterly STUPID.

    • Posted By: Forty4 @ 10/26/2008 2:34:36 PM

      What a bullsh!t post. Even Obama won't be stupid enough to invade an ally.

  • Posted By: alexey2008 @ 10/26/2008 2:28:40 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: rhonda_t53 @ 10/26/2008 2:19:26 PM

    MCain and Palin DID NOT say we shouldn't talk to our enemies.....their point was Obama was willing to do so without preconditions. There is a difference. There was also an attack on our own soil (9/11)--the first time since Pearl Harbor. There are countries out there who hate America and we have to be careful. The Bush Administration may have done a lot of things wrong but one thing that has been done right is the prevention of another terroist attack on our soil. If anyone thinks the "Bin Ladens" out there are going to stop hating America because Obama is in office; think again. We open ourselves up to further attack if we rest on our laurels.

  • Posted By: airforceguy26 @ 10/26/2008 2:04:38 PM

    I believe you are completely wrong on this issue and just because Iran is a powerful nation in the middle east and Venezuela is a high oil profile nation, we should never let that influence our judgement because the fact of the matter is that those two nations despise not just republicans, or democrats, or President Bush, but AMERICA and AMERICANS as a WHOLE. They are dangerous people leading dangerous nations and unless they come clean then we shouldn't have talks.

  • Posted By: airforceguy26 @ 10/26/2008 2:04:23 PM

    I believe you are completely wrong on this issue and just because Iran is a powerful nation in the middle east and Venezuela is a high oil profile nation, we should never let that influence our judgement because the fact of the matter is that those two nations despise not just republicans, or democrats, or President Bush, but AMERICA and AMERICANS as a WHOLE. They are dangerous people leading dangerous nations and unless they come clean then we shouldn't have talks.

  • Posted By: itsjustmyopinion @ 10/26/2008 1:38:14 PM

    Well said. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.

  • Posted By: rmax2 @ 10/26/2008 1:31:35 PM

    McCain And Palin never said not to talk with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. But said not to talk without preconditions as Obama wants to do. I Know That MSNBC And other are all for Obama. But why don't you do your job correctly and inform the public on the truth and facts? Not your twisted opinions.Obama will be the BIGGEST MISTAKE THIS COUNTRY EVERY DO IF HE IS ELECTED

  • Posted By: rmax2 @ 10/26/2008 1:31:23 PM

    McCain And Palin never said not to talk with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. But said not to talk without preconditions as Obama wants to do. I Know That MSNBC And other are all for Obama. But why don't you do your job correctly and inform the public on the truth and facts? Not your twisted opinions.Obama will be the BIGGEST MISTAKE THIS COUNTRY EVERY DO IF HE IS ELECTED

  • Posted By: rmax2 @ 10/26/2008 1:29:43 PM

    McCain And Palin never said not to talk with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. But said not to talk without preconditions as Obama wants to do. I Know That MSNBC And other are all for Obama. But why don't you do your job correctly and inform the public on the truth and facts? Not your twisted opinions.Obama will be the BIGGEST MISTAKE THIS COUNTRY EVERY DO IF HE IS ELECTED

  • Posted By: robertkjjj @ 10/26/2008 1:21:17 PM

    Sure. When even ONE person here can, in an informed way backed-up by history and facts, tell me how one can sit down and negotiate with people who truly believe that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and should be killed, I will gladly agree with the author. Until then, sorry, this is not possible. Some things are simply non-negotiable, and "convert or die" is one of those things.

  • Posted By: rr52 @ 10/26/2008 11:27:00 AM

    If we can in earnest say that America seeks the most peaceful means of attaining peace throughout the world, isn't it logical that those means would be intelligent conversation with each party honestly trying to put themselves in the other's shoes in order to see all sides. Without accomplishing this first, the correct decisions about any given situation are almost impossible to make. Of course this type of conversation is automatically pre-empted in situations like the 9/11 attacks. To insinuate Obama would sit down with Bin Laden is absurd. The war the Taliban wages is religious in nature, showing the damage too much religion and politics causes. The attacks were hate, there is no discussion. BUT, and this is a big BUT, we should have been in Afghanistan to destroy Taliban efforts there, NOT in Iraq where so many have died for something totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. Lives for a lie? And we should align with McCain who backed Iraq all along...wants to stay there with permanent military posts?. Halliburton has contracts for those. Proposing that Obama would chat with the Taliban is projecting your own limited thought process on Obama, who looks to me like he plans on working with teams of experts on many issues, you know change the old system of shooting from the hip like a stupid cowboy.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse