"has no foreign policy experience, very little leadership experience". The same could be said about everyone's favorite Illinois senator. As we've heard for the last 6 months, there is more to a politician than his/her foreign policy and prior leadership experience. If everyone could take a minute and use CD2008 to learn about the canditate's stances and vote based on that info, then we would all be better served.

I think many of the people saying "Yes" are missing the point of the debate. The question is whether "face to face" meetings are the appropriate way to handle disagreements with leaders that disagree with american policy. Of course, ignoring these countries is not the answer, but my point is that face to face meetings are not the proper method. See the article linked below for a more articulate argument.

BOrme I think we are of the same mind but disagree on the means to the end. Meeting face to face primarily only serves as PR benefit. Much of the negotiations and compromise should be done outside the public eye. Once the media is able to latch on to one of these summits/meetings then the pressure for a quick resulotion is immense.

we are legitimizing them to their followers and potential followers. By even coming to the table, we would be allowing these groups to be seen as a legitimate political regime. As the article I originally linked to points out, much of the compromise and diplomacy can and should be done behind the scenes. Face to face meetings are the not the ideal way to handle international affairs with our enemies.

Obama feels that the President should sit down and meet face to face with the leaders of Iran, Syria, N. Korea and any other country that has problems with the US. In theory it sounds very diplomatic but the repurcussions are dangerous. Meeting with these leaders (typically dictators) is dangerous because it legitimizes them in the eyes of their followers and puts them on equal ground as the President of the United States. Furthermore, these face to face meetings create a need for resolution and to reach a resolution, compromise is usually needed. Unfortunately, compromise is not always an option when dealing with nuclear weapons, genocide, and terrorism.

"A Lebron James team is never desperate" - Queen James

Poor Lebron and the Cavs looked desperate yesterday as the one-man show tried to carry his team to victory. Unfortunately he didnt get enough flagrant 1 fouls to pull out a win. Better luck next year....whiny b*tch.

Lebron is a talented player but he has taken his acting too far during the year. Check out the video below where he overreacts to a love tap from Darius Songaila. The NBA even protected poor Lebron by suspending Songaila for game 7 of the series.

here is some "proof" that counters many of the non-free fall conspiracy theories.

The main crux of your argument is that because someone may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks then that person must have conducted and/or supported the attacks at the very least. From the US government planning and executing the attacks, to Larry Silverstein fraudently insuring the trade centers against terrorism, to Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission conducting widespread cover ups, your list of accomplises continues to grow to unbelievable lengths. Isn't it far more likely that a known anti-american terrorist group, that had previously attacked numerous US embassies, boats, etc. abroad, finally managed to succeed in an attack on US soil?

Here's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html