Let me preface this by saying that I am almost indifferent to who becomes the next president. On election day, my decision may be made by the flip of a coin. Not kidding. Nevertheless, I pay a fair amount of attention to the election coverage. I listen to the left and right-wing political pundits bash each other for liking their respective candidates.
Here’s one thing I am confused about:
What is the big deal everyone is making about Barrack Obama sitting down for a good ol’ fashioned chat with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea’s Kim Jong-il? Seriously, that is not a slanted question in favor of Obama. It’s not a rhetorical question. Despite my limited knowledge of politics, I don’t see how this is necessarily such a bad thing.
Is it a symbolic thing? Is it viewed as fraternizing with the enemy? It’s not like he’s sitting down for a cup of tea with Osama. These are leaders of recognized nations. Hostile nations? Absolutely. But they are nations nonetheless.
Can someone offer me some insight into this?
Maybe Hitler wouldn’t have been such a mean guy if someone sat down with him. You know shot the breeze. Gave him a hug. Tickled his moustache.
Just saying.
I believe the idea is that if you don’t force preconditions before discussions you are allowing them to come to the table as equals, as if they have something to bargain with, when in many eyes that shouldn’t be the case. If there is no bargaining when it comes to a nuclear-free Iran or Korea, then what is there to discuss if they don’t agree to certain terms in advance?
Jason,
I understand that. As redundant as these meetings may appear to be, I don’t necessarily see why they have stirred such outrage.
First of all, why can’t these states be viewed as “equals” as they are still nations and part of the global community. They may be a pain in the ass to the U.N., but isn’t the U.N. an almost pointless conglomerate of nations trying to keep the spirit of the mid 20th century alive? Again, they are hostile, but they are still nations. I do not see the harm in sitting down with a leader of such a nation. Ultimately, I agree, a sit-down of sorts may lead to nothing. Certain individuals seemed to be appalled, however, at the prospect of such a sit-down. Does this have something to do with Bush’s “You are either with us or you are against us” credo?
Again, none of this is an Obama-favoring issue. I don’t care about his recent European trip and find his antics to often be amateurish. I just really can’t wrap my mind around why this is such an abomination to certain people.
No worries, it’s a legitimate question independent of Obama/McCain. But it does reflect a difference of opinion on how to conduct diplomacy in regards to hostile nations.
It’s similar to require a ceasefire before bringing two sides in a war to the table. In the case of Iran or Korea, they must show that they are willing to compromise on the issue of their nuclear ambitions by being willing to suspend them before coming to discussions where the other side is demanding complete dismanteling. If they aren’t willing to even suspend their operations, then how can one even believe that they are coming to the table open to the opposing side?
Barring concessions, you’re looking at a meeting that will do nothing except keep up the status quo and give these regimes something to plaster all over their own media and propaganda outlets: Iran stands strong against evil America.
Then again, the Obama argument (just to give it a name though it goes beyond him) says you must treat them as equals and understand that the conversation has to start somewhere and that strongarming won’t work.
In the eyes of some, talking without concessions is ceeding the high ground that we currently have. We’re bigger, we’re badder, we shouldn’t be cowtowing or even considering eqaulity when put side by side with dictators and regimes that only exist to support themselves, not their people or the good of the region/world. In the eyes of others, that’s arrogance that leads to war and no real solutions. Just to give the two extremes.
Mr. Obama is not the president. These visits are comparable to state visits, that the president makes. Obama is arrogant to think that he, a senator, who has made no legislative accomplishment, or ANY accomplishment of any kind, can go to europe and talk about his dream and then to list the “mistakes” that America has made in the past. These are not the things a candidate should say. Again, he is not the president. These people, in Germany and England are not Americans. These people cannot vote for him, and I believe the American people will not base their vote on what he said of his dream in Europe. To me Obama is arrogant. He IS a great speaker. He says wonderful words, but thats all, you cannot elect a president because he speaks well. What will he do for America? How will he make us safe. These are important matters, not hope.
David, I would love to see you become an online blogger/Twitter-er/journalist writing about international affairs, the Middle East and politics. Seriously, I think you would be great at it.
Also, I love having my mustache tickled.
I think a fair amount of it is also that some of the political positions, as well as certain perspectives on history or social and cultural issues, that both Iran and North Korea hold are, at the least, untennable, as well as offensive to some of our allies. Most specifically, I’m referrencing Ahmadinejad’s statements that the Holocost did not occur and his holding a conferrence with several other world leaders (and other individuals, not everyone who attended was head of a nation) who share this opinion.
Some of it may also be a lagging dislike for Communism within America/governmental systems. While many would argue that the threat of Communism is minimal to the U.S. (something I wouldn’t want to go into here even if I really knew the validity or lack there of), a fair number of political, governmental, and social leaders remember the “good old days” when we were all afraid Communism was going to conquer the world and sodomize all that was good and right in the world…and possibly launch a few hundred nukes in the process.
Just a thought.
- d
Do what? :)