Do you agree with Obama's foreign policy of meeting with the US' enemies?
Yes, meet with all of them
Side Score: 46
|
 |
No, it empowers our enemies
Side Score: 21
|
|
|
|
|
I think that we need to meet with our enemies so we can understand their viewpoints and try to negotiate peaceful resolutions with them. Ignoring them and hoping that they go away or hoping that they will feel less legitimized is a very immature negotiation strategy. We need to understand their interests rather than their positions, and then leverage that to come to mutually beneficial agreements. Of course, I think that most of this should be done away from the media spotlight, and then once we have come to amenable terms with these enemies the information can be disseminated to the public. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
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. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
Our enemies have in the recent past been allies. Just because we meet with them does not mean that we are weak. In fact, listening to their viewpoint gives us greater intellectual ammunition. If we can examine how they think, we can better use their own 'logic' to corner them and negotiate peaceful conclusions. By turning our backs on them and refusing to even listen, we are acting like stubborn children who insist they are right without having all the facts. It's time America grew up and learned to communicate. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
3
points
how has NOT engaging in talks with our enemies helped us at all? it's hypocritical of the current administration and mccain to say it will do no good when talks with north korea and less recently, russia, have helped the state of the union rather than being detrimental. engaging in conversation beats war, and the loss of lives of millions of people. even if talks DON'T work, at least we can say we tried and then consider other options at that point. i don't see how talks with enemies is empowering them at all. it's not like we would be saying as a nation, here, we'll give into all your demands. it's simply trying to talk it out. i think it's a sign of a strong leader and strong nation to want to engage in talks with those that aren't considered our allies. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
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. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
Absolutely. How can we expect any resolution to our differences if there isn't a dialog. It's pretty clear the "wack'em with a big stick" mentality didn't work out for Iraq. Sure no more Saddam .... but now we're committed to fixing the mess we made or risk it becoming more of a problem. We don't have the will or the resources to fight another war ... and our enemies know that. How about we start acting like adults rather than kids on a playground??? Side: Yes, meet with all of them
Meet with them? First we must find out who they are. Eat is not the wrong verb for the consumption of propaganda. Perhaps, force-fed would be more accurate. We all eat it. Some people find it indigestible. Others are full of it. Persuasion is the wrong method to reach victims of propaganda. They are unaware of their chumpness, and direct exposure of that embarrassing fact frequently fails. Asking people if they eat propaganda is much better than telling them they are victims of propaganda, because one can be force-fed propaganda without fully accepting it. Pride can be salvaged. The awareness that we live in a world of lies is growing, and it makes an opening for discussion about the lies. However, we need an amnesty for victims of propaganda so they won't be too embarrassed to be seen in public. The lie we need is just that we never believed it in the first place. Barry Side: Yes, meet with all of them
Why must America feel that it must always use force or some form of power to interact with the rest of the world? Just because we have the strongest military doesn't mean we need to be the toughest people around. Meeting with some of our enemies may not get us all the results that we want but the potential that something good could come out of it is too great. If it doesn't work did we lose anything? The world can see that we tried diplomatically and that would do us some good seeing how the last 7+ years have done with our world standing. Also we need to stop adding all sorts of conditions on our meeting them. the world ins't fare and we shouldn't expect to get everything we want. our agenda and image should not be a roadblock to resolutions and possibly peace. Obama is right in thinking we need to meet with our enemies without strict conditions because the worst could happen is some lost time and maybe our no bargaining stance is weakened(but has that really help recently?), while the best the that can happen well are solutions that economical and bloody wars can't bring. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
1
point
Meeting means you are willing to listen to the others point of view. This itself is the first step towards growing relationships. It does not make younsmaller any bit, but reflects a magnanimous approach, something that the US desperately needs of late. It displays a maturity in foreign policy and is definitely a step towards the right direction. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
1
point
"Beat 'em with BATNA." BATNA = Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. People often have a limited view of a situation. This includes powerful people, who have layers of security and gatekeepers which keep them from hearing alternative viewpoints. Without such communication, the worst-case scenario is more likely to become the reality. Side: Yes, meet with all of them
-4
points
|
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. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
4
points
It sounds like you are against communication AND compromise, not against communication in and of itself. Bush has given North Korea a ton of incentives to stop their nuclear program. Where was all the vitrol from the right when that was happening? Side: Yes, meet with all of them
1
point
The issue isn't whether the US should communicate and compromise with its enemies. The issue is who is going to sit down and talk with them. As you note, the Bush administration has met directly with North Korea. They have also met indirectly with Iran. These meetings do not bestow a high level of legitimacy on these countries. A country's government already has a base level of legitimacy simply from the fact that they are the government. Talking with them does nothing more than acknowledge that legitimacy. A sitting US President meeting directly with these regimes, in the absence of an important deal having been struck, would increase the legitimacy and stature of those regimes. It would send a message that the leaders of those countries were so important and powerful that the US President must kowtow to them. Imagine the impact on the reputation of a golfer that Tiger Woods would go out of his way to play. The same sort of boost would occur for Iran were Obama to meet with them face to face absent a deal. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
2
points
We've communicated with the enemy many times in the past, and always will a successful fall out. If anything, I would thing ignoring them out of contempt would be the most effective way of legitimizing them, because the United States are more or less disliked around the world and to be hated by them could come off as an honor. And besides, who are we legitimizing them too anyway? Not people in the west obviously, because we know more than that. That only leaves people in uncivilized, under-developed countries. Who cares if they see them as legitimized? Side: Yes, meet with all of them
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. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
We should not meet with them unless we very publicly denounce what they are doing and frame the meeting as a very forward attempt at getting them to change practices that we disagree with. There is also a security concern in meeting with many of these leaders, there are plenty of crazy people in these countries that would be seen as a hero for assassinating the US President. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
So you want a sitting US president to get up infront of the world and say "Hey world, we're going to go talk to these guys, but we totally think they're douchebags and they're 100% wrong." That certainly sets a lovely precedent for the dictators or whoever that thought the US was going to hear them out. Let's put this into context, when someone is being held hostage the police don't loudly proclaim "we don't negotiate with hostage takers," the listen to their demands, and try as best they can to resolve the situation without a violent incident. Side: No, it empowers our enemies
|
