Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again, he said Castro and not all dictators. Secondly Castro is a dictator and not a terrorist. Secondly American Presidents have been meeting with dictators for ever. Saudi Arabia etc. The issue was not meeting with dictators but meeting with terrorist. Now Cuba being 90 miles away could do one heck of a job exporting terrorism if they want. Other then Panama when is the last time we won a war? If you can't beat your adversary and won't talk to them then what is next a boycott. Wait we need their resources.
Please use the attached identification of countries by government type and let us know which ones President Obama should be allowed to talk with.
I do agree that no President should meet with any unfriendly head of state, terrorist organization without pre-conditions. What I mean by pre-conditions is an offer by the unfriendly government, terrorist organization, to either stop terrorist efforts, supplying terrorist, or something as a goodwill gesture. This would be my prerequisite to start talks. It is how many peace agreements have been made and I still think is is a minimum to open a dialog.
People, there's a huge difference between diplomacy and the PRESIDENT PERSONALLY MEETING WITH DICTATORS! Do you do diplomacy? Of course you do, via the Secretary of State and the Diplomats! WHY doesn't the president sit down with the dictators personally (unless they've agreed to terms)? Because that provides a photo op. and legitimizes the despotic regime! THAT'S WHY! These are people who usurped power via coup d'etat, rigged elections, etc. They are not LEGITIMATE heads of state. Treating them as such is an affront and betrays their suffering people.
These are people who are in a position of power whether you agree with the methods by which it was attained or not. They don't need the US to legitimize their position. To ignore the leadership of a Nation because you don't agree with how they got there, yet expect them to bend to your will is kind of...elitist.
No one expects any President to meet with every organization that seizes power from some local group. But the ones that can raise cause for concern among the Worlds security communities - we might want to ask them what they want and how can we negotiate this process to a successful end.
I understand the perspective of some that might be bothered with the President meeting without preconditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, etc
However, I would point out that at this point, our elected leader has put us in such a position that we might have to go beyond what we would normally think of as appropriate steps in order to begin to find some kind of place to start a negotiation with these countries. It is obvious that what we have been doing for most of this administration is not working. I would also point out that negotiating is typically something that is only neccesary to do with your advisary, not your friend, so the idea of not negotioting with these countries until they just do whatever we tell them to do is just insane, and clearly will never lead to the conclusion that we desire.
Please don't include Cuba in this category at all. The only reason that Cuba continues to be an issue at all is the 25 electoral votes that Florida has and everyone is afraid to alienate the Cuban American community here.
#6, Read the entire article, please. He said he'd meet with dictators across the ***rd WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS.
This?
“I agree absolutely that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. … But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process. But I don’t think it should be offered in the beginning, because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of someone like Raul Castro.”
Did you read the above? Somehow I dont think ya really did.
Also, the article you yourself cited closed with this:
The moderator had barely begun the next question when the Republican National Committee blasted out a sheet of Obama’s quotes over the years that was headed “Obama's Stance On Cuba Is Completely Inconsistent & Incoherent.”
And the Clinton campaign issued: "Obama flip-flop on Cuba."
The reporter you're quoting is rolling his eyes. Like this
Once again, he said Castro and not all dictators. Secondly Castro is a dictator and not a terrorist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLLL98
Please don't include Cuba in this category at all. The only reason that Cuba continues to be an issue at all is the 25 electoral votes that Florida has and everyone is afraid to alienate the Cuban American community here.
He said he'd meet with Raul, who had not yet shaped up to be another Fidel.
The theme of this whole thread is misleading you/us into responding to a misleading headline and a misleading interpretation of the article.
“I agree absolutely that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. … But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process. But I don’t think it should be offered in the beginning, because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of someone like Raul Castro.”
Did you read the above? Somehow I dont think ya really did.
Also, the article you yourself cited closed with this:
The moderator had barely begun the next question when the Republican National Committee blasted out a sheet of Obama’s quotes over the years that was headed “Obama's Stance On Cuba Is Completely Inconsistent & Incoherent.”
And the Clinton campaign issued: "Obama flip-flop on Cuba."
The reporter you're quoting is rolling his eyes. Like this
Of course I read it. I even read the Obama spin on his website. Moreover, I remember exactly how poorly his statements were received and even his "fans" gave him many opportunities to change what he said. This guy fancies himself another Jimmy Carter and we all remember how well THAT Administration's foreign policy went. No one had any respect for him and he was a one-termer.
Of course I read it. I even read the Obama spin on his website. Moreover, I remember exactly how poorly his statements were received and even his "fans" gave him many opportunities to change what he said. This guy fancies himself another Jimmy Carter and we all remember how well THAT Administration's foreign policy went. No one had any respect for him and he was a one-termer.
He doesn't fancy himself another Jimmy Carter. His detractors try to paint him as another Jimmy Carter.
His "detractors" are simply picking up on his foreign policy ideas which sound a whole lot like Carter's philosophy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
