What is it about Barack Obama that makes our enemies like him?

[Xavier_Onassis]

And lastly, for Reagan to meet with heads of state is nothing unusual, even small and marginalized nations do that.

====================================
Every year, the six Central American States (Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama) all get together.

So do the six Bolivarian States (Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) and the Mercosur States (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, and I think, Peru).

There have been no serious wars between any of these countries since the Chaco War in 1938. Only a few skirmishes.

[Plane]

And lastly, for Reagan to meet with heads of state is nothing unusual, even small and marginalized nations do that.

====================================
Every year, the six Central American States (Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama) all get together.

So do the six Bolivarian States (Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) and the Mercosur States (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, and I think, Peru).

There have been no serious wars between any of these countries since the Chaco War in 1938. Only a few skirmishes.

Colombia and Venezuela are working on it , could start one any time now, if you don't count the skirmishes as a start already.

What is the diplomatic solution?

[Michael Tee]

<<And when he learned you were Jewish , he would stop takeing you seriously right then.>>

I thought we were talking about what OBAMA would say to Ahmadinejad. 

Michael Tee wouldn't be the right guy to talk to Ahmadinejad, not initially at any rate.  Part of the art is to send the right negotiator.   But you still gotta map out how the negotiator is going to handle this.  If I really wanted to negotiate face to face, someone would have to sound out Mr. A. on what it would take or even IF it could be done.  I wouldn't pre-judge Mr. A. on what he says in public against Jews (actually, nothing, as far as I know - - most of his vitriol seems to be reserved for the State of Israel, not Jews as individuals.)

Given that the Bush administration would love to invade Iran next and control its oil too, the MSM cooperatively churns out reams of bad propaganda about Iran and its leaders, and of course Ahmadinejad comes in for his fair share of it.  A lot of it is even true.  They DO do a lot of barbaric and inhumane things.  Just like the U.S.A.  Worse, even.  But at the end of the day, until you actually sit down and talk to the guy, you'll never know what he's really all about, and even then you won't know if he doesn't lay his cards on the table.  Talking obviously can't guarantee resolution, some talks don't succeed, either because the differences can't be bridged or because the other guy is jerking you around.  Talking presents the CHANCE to move forward.  Not talking just kills that chance.

I think if the Republicans continue to push the line that Obama's a schmuck for wanting negotiations, it could backfire on them, because most people have the common sense to know that's bullshit.  But unfortunately, it seems that Obama's already starting to backtrack because he's a schmuck for other reasons, so this is becoming a non-issue.

[Plane]

"...or because the other guy is jerking you around. ..."

What if you have very good reason to expect this?

[Michael Tee]

<<What if you have very good reason to expect this [that your potential negotiating partner will be jerking you around]?

I'd say you have to consider (a) the importance of the unresolved issues and (b) the "goodness" of your "good reason" to expect being jerked around and (c) his skill and ability to jerk you around and (d) your own skill and ability as a negotiator to break down the other guy's assholism and get him to negotiate sincerely in spite of himself.

Add 'em all up, especially factor (a) and if that factor is a big deal like war or peace, then I'd probably downplay all the rest of it and go forward with a "What have I got to lose?" attitude. 

I don't think any country looks forward to being bombarded by the U.S., let alone invaded by them.  The idea that Ahmadinejad or Chavez would jerk around a U.S. negotiator when war is a likely consequence is, frankly, ludicrous.  The U.S. does not want to negotiate with Iran for very good reasons, but fear of being jerked around is not one of them.

Basically, the U.S. is afraid to negotiate with either Chavez or Ahmadinejad for the simple reason that:
(a)  it has no real case against either one of them;
(b)  Iran and Venezuela have very reasonable cases against the U.S.;
(c)  America's real objectives are to subvert and overthrow the existing governments which do not kowtow to U.S. interests and replace them with pro-American puppet governments as they are attempting to do with mixed success in Iraq and to gain a firm control over the oil of both countries so as to assure themselves of a stable and reliable source of energy controlled by them.

Any real negotiations would soon make this apparent.  As I said in an earlier post, by NOT negotiating with either opponent, the U.S. government and its cheerleader media control the narrative, speaking both for itself and for its "opponents" and once again bamboozling the American sheeple as to its objectives and (if able to go to war) the "reasons" for the war.  Why we "must" invade (a) Iran (b) Venezuela. 

[Plane]

<<What if you have very good reason to expect this [that your potential negotiating partner will be jerking you around]?

I'd say you have to consider (a) the importance of the unresolved issues and (b) the "goodness" of your "good reason" to expect being jerked around and (c) his skill and ability to jerk you around and (d) your own skill and ability as a negotiator to break down the other guy's assholism and get him to negotiate sincerely in spite of himself.

Add 'em all up, especially factor (a) and if that factor is a big deal like war or peace, then I'd probably downplay all the rest of it and go forward with a "What have I got to lose?" attitude. 

I don't think any country looks forward to being bombarded by the U.S., let alone invaded by them.  The idea that Ahmadinejad or Chavez would jerk around a U.S. negotiator when war is a likely consequence is, frankly, ludicrous.  The U.S. does not want to negotiate with Iran for very good reasons, but fear of being jerked around is not one of them.

Basically, the U.S. is afraid to negotiate with either Chavez or Ahmadinejad for the simple reason that:
(a)  it has no real case against either one of them;
(b)  Iran and Venezuela have very reasonable cases against the U.S.;
(c)  America's real objectives are to subvert and overthrow the existing governments which do not kowtow to U.S. interests and replace them with pro-American puppet governments as they are attempting to do with mixed success in Iraq and to gain a firm control over the oil of both countries so as to assure themselves of a stable and reliable source of energy controlled by them.

Any real negotiations would soon make this apparent.  As I said in an earlier post, by NOT negotiating with either opponent, the U.S. government and its cheerleader media control the narrative, speaking both for itself and for its "opponents" and once again bamboozling the American sheeple as to its objectives and (if able to go to war) the "reasons" for the war.  Why we "must" invade (a) Iran (b) Venezuela. 

That Chaves is ordering the death of Colombians and Ahmadinejad is ordering the death of Americans doesn't count as a case against?

[Rich]

>>I find it difficult to believe that you have forgotten your blessed Richard Milhouse Nixon going on his trip to China to visit with mass murderer Chairman Mao Zsedong. Or that you could forget all those meetings between Ronald Reagan and assorted Heads of State from the USSR. Or that you could forget the summit between Gorbachev and Bush 41. How about Carter's Camp David Accords? What about the SALT Treaties?<<

Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.

Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.

[Brassmask]

Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.

Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.

Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad.  Do you?

My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.

[Michael Tee]

<<That Chaves is ordering the death of Colombians and Ahmadinejad is ordering the death of Americans doesn't count as a case against?>>

Chaves is helping guerrillas fight a war of Resistance against a right-wing U.S. puppet regime that's in bed with right-wing death squads and always has been.  IF you believe hard drives fortuitously "found" by said regime in the laptops of murdered Resistance fighters.  Which I don't.  I think Chavez has a case against the U.S.A. for plannng, orchestrating and prematurely celebrating his short-lived "overthrow" as democratically elected leader of an independent state and fellow member of the UN and a case against the Colombian government and its U.S. puppet-masters, paymaster and armourers for armed and deadly incursions into Venezuelan national territory and I think the Colombian people have a case against their own puppet government and its army for paramilitary death-squad activities which for decades have tortured and murdered teachers, labour union organizers, priests, farmers and villagers, and a case against the U.S. government for arming, paying and advising the said government, death squads, paramilitaries, etc.

Ahmadinejad is helping a neighbour drive out illegal invasion forces who happen to be Americans.  If they want to get out voluntarily, well and good.  If they don't, then blame their leaders for their deaths, not Ahmadinejad.   Nobody asked them to come into Iraq and nobody is stopping them from leaving either.  The invasion and the occupation are criminal.  Face up to it.  Nobody who kills a criminal in the course of committing a crime is guilty of anything. 

Your problem is projection:  you are so clearly and obviously the bad guys in this scenario but instead of just owning up to the crime you continue to act virtuous, fooling absolutely no one but yourselves, and try to paint everyone else in the area as the true evildoers.  What a load of bullshit.  It just won't wash.  Ahmadinejad is no choir boy, but he sure is when compared to Bush.

[Rich]

>>Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad.  Do you?<<

That's what he's saying. No preconditions. Which is incredibly stupid. But then the guy doesn't know how many states are in the union so ...

>>My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.<<

Is the president and the adminstration saying that? If so, could you provide a quote?

[Brassmask]

That's what he's saying. No preconditions. Which is incredibly stupid. But then the guy doesn't know how many states are in the union so ...

That is what he is saying if you take the literal meaning of his words but come on, use your common sense.  He was meaning that he would talk to Iran without first demanding that they dismantle the nuclear programs.

Is the president and the adminstration saying that? If so, could you provide a quote?

You know that Cheney and Bush are way too slick to actually say they're going to bomb Iran but lots of their surrogates are going around saying that the "Bush administration" should/could/is planning on/will bomb Iran before being dragged out of the White House to jail.

[Rich]

>>That is what he is saying if you take the literal meaning of his words but come on, use your common sense.  He was meaning that he would talk to Iran without first demanding that they dismantle the nuclear programs.<<

If that's the case, why does he keep repeating it and Alan Colmes keep defending it? Not just Colmes (Colmes defends anything), but every liberal talking head and all the lefties in here? If he diodn't mean it, why doesn't he retract it? I'll tell you why, because the guy is clueless. He has no earthly idea what he's talking about. And like a typical democrat he lies about what he said. He simply denies it. Now that's change for you.

>>You know that Cheney and Bush are way too slick to actually say they're going to bomb Iran but lots of their surrogates are going around saying that the "Bush administration" should/could/is planning on/will bomb Iran before being dragged out of the White House to jail.<<

I thought Bush was a moron? So he's a slick moron?

[BT]

you're living in a world of lies.

Speaking of lies, could you quote the passage where McClellan claims Bush lied?

I seem to have missed that.

[Plane]

Brass ... do you actually believe these meetings just happened one day? Nixon called up Mao and said, "He Mao buddy! Let's get together next week and chat." Conditions had to be met. Promises made. That's diplomacy. The same is true of all you're other examples. They didn't just happen.

Read some history for cripes sakes. You look foolish and uniformed.

Rich, I agree with you that he didn't just call up Mao and go over for a chat, but surely you don't think that is the way that Obama would meet with Ahmanenadjad.  Do you?

My point with mentioning these things was that Nixon and the rest didn't necessarily have people running around saying that China had to be bombed and bombed in order to get China to agree to some position of vulnerability.

It isn't too late for Obama to make it clear that he would put conditions on a summit meeting, nor is it too late for him to state that he would empower his emissaries in the style that Nixon empowered Kissinger.

But that is a political consideration , it is unfortunate that Obama made a political football out of diplomacy , Nixon didn't run on the idea that he would normalize the relationship with China , doing that would have given China a lot of leverage in negotiations as Nixon tried to live up to a campaign promise , it might have made the deal impossible to negotiate at all. Nixon empowered emissaries who dickered diplomatically with the Communist Chinese , the failure of this negotiation would have hurt neither the US nor China so the secrecy allowed the negotiation to succeed  under little pressure.

Will President Obama be expected to go abroad and bring back results? That is a pernicious self defeating expectation.

[Plane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/the-persian-question_b_104361.html

"......one the Supreme Leader will ultimately decide for Iran (and will need to explain to the millions of supporters of the regime not just in Iran, but throughout the Muslim world, who believe that Iran is the last influential and significant power that stands up against the hegemony of the West).

The Supreme Leader himself will not be someone the US will talk to, as tempting as it may be for Senator Obama to believe, now that he has revised his position vis a vis Ahmadinejad, that that may be possible. The Supreme Leader does not travel outside of Iran and does not grant audiences to non-Muslims except in rare instances, nor would he, to borrow Hillary Clinton's terminology, confer legitimacy on the US president by granting him a meeting until he was sure Iran's interests would be protected. (Yes, the Iranians can think exactly the same way we do, and gee, doesn't it sound arrogant?) Whoever the next US president is will have to begin the process of talking to Iran, if he or she decides to do so, by first exploring avenues to the Supreme Leader, whether through Larijani, Velayati, Mottaki (Iran's foreign minister), Khazaee (Iran's ambassador to the UN who reports to the foreign ministry as well as the Supreme Leader and who conveniently has an office on Third Avenue in Manhattan), or even someone like Khatami and his trusted lieutenant Sadegh Kharrazi, who despite their diminished roles in Iranian politics, still have the ear of the Supreme Leader."