Question News & Politics

How do you feel about Barack Obama's position on meeting with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and other somewhat hostile nations?

Hitch May 21, 2008 01:15:35

Barack says it will make progress with other nations and McCain says it's naive. What do you think?
I support it.  Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

52%

12 votes

I don't support it.  It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

39%

9 votes

Undecided

Undecided

9%

2 votes

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Comments
  • Daymond Hoffman October 10, 2009 21:32:52
    Daymond Hoffman

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    (User did not leave a comment)
  • beatfreak July 18, 2008 10:21:43
    beatfreak

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    and I think its been proven recently with dubya's decision to talk with Iran that he was wrong all along. Experience does not equate to intelligence.
  • OBAMA THE TRAITOR July 17, 2008 07:04:07
    OBAMA THE TRAITOR

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    moderated...
  • NoMoreRWNJs July 16, 2008 18:45:57
    NoMoreRWNJs

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    How hilarious is it that, after condemning Senator Obama for months because he suggested that talking is a better thing to do than bombing, today (July 16) a senior Administration official is meeting with the Iranians!!

    U.S. Envoy to Join Meeting With Iranian
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS

    WASHINGTON — President Bush has authorized the most significant American diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, sending the State Department’s third-ranking official to Geneva for a meeting this weekend on Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said Tuesday.

    The decision appeared to bend, if not exactly break, the administration’s insistence that it would not negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programs unless it first suspended uranium enrichment, as demanded by three resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

    Still, after months of accusations and counteraccusations from the United States and Iran, the meeting raised the prospect of an intensified diplomatic push to resolve concerns over Iranian nuclear activity, not unlike the lengthy and painstaking talks that resulted in a deal last month with North Korea.

    William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, will attend a meeting on Saturday with the European Union’s foreign pol...
    How hilarious is it that, after condemning Senator Obama for months because he suggested that talking is a better thing to do than bombing, today (July 16) a senior Administration official is meeting with the Iranians!!

    U.S. Envoy to Join Meeting With Iranian
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS

    WASHINGTON — President Bush has authorized the most significant American diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, sending the State Department’s third-ranking official to Geneva for a meeting this weekend on Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said Tuesday.

    The decision appeared to bend, if not exactly break, the administration’s insistence that it would not negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programs unless it first suspended uranium enrichment, as demanded by three resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

    Still, after months of accusations and counteraccusations from the United States and Iran, the meeting raised the prospect of an intensified diplomatic push to resolve concerns over Iranian nuclear activity, not unlike the lengthy and painstaking talks that resulted in a deal last month with North Korea.

    William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, will attend a meeting on Saturday with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of an official announcement on Wednesday.

    At the meeting, Mr. Jalili is expected to present Iran’s formal response to a package of economic and diplomatic incentives that Germany and the Security Council’s five permanent members, Russia, China, France, Britain and the United States, presented Iran in June. Representatives from those countries will also attend the meeting.

    The United States did not have a representative at the June meeting.

    The package, which revived an earlier European offer to provide civilian nuclear assistance and increased trade, met at first with official disdain in Iran but has since prompted conflicting signals among senior Iranian officials. That led the administration to conclude that there could be more chance of a diplomatic resolution than some Iranian declarations and a battery of missile tests last week suggested.

    Mr. Bush approved the contact “to press the advantage,” a second official said. The officials emphasized that Mr. Burns’s participation was a one-time decision, that he would not meet one-on-one with Mr. Jalili and that he would reiterate the administration’s demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

    The United States, along with some other countries, contends that the enrichment activity is part of an effort to build nuclear weapons, which Iran denies.

    Clifford Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, a consultancy in Washington, said the meeting, even with strict limits, was “a much-needed and an extremely welcome correction” in the Bush administration’s policy.

    He said that there was now at least “a perception of opportunity” that the international confrontation over Iran could be resolved without war.

    Mr. Kupchan said that, more important, the meeting would deal with the fundamental dispute between Iran and the international community.

    “Disclaimers notwithstanding,” he added, “the precondition that Iran must suspend before the U.S. will talk about the nuclear issue will by every standard have been dropped.”

    After nearly three decades of isolation and hostility, American and Iranian ambassadors have met to discuss security matters in Iraq. Last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, both attended a regional conference in Egypt, sitting in the same room but not meeting.

    The administration has repeatedly said Ms. Rice was prepared to hold talks with Iran anywhere on any subject, provided that the country first stop enrichment.

    The decision to allow the contact follows what Mr. Bush and other administration officials have described as a strategy to intensify sanctions and other punitive measures while offering Iran the prospect of easing its isolation.

    “The message to the Iranian government is very clear: that there’s a better way forward than isolation, and that is for you to verifiably suspend your enrichment program,” Mr. Bush said in Germany last month, rebutting reports that he was determined to confront Iran militarily. “And the choice is theirs to make.”
    (more)
  • moe July 16, 2008 00:18:12
    moe

    Undecided

    Talking doesn't sound nearly as bad as negioting with pyonyang and giving them pre-conditions, and before they fulfill their obligations, awarding them with half of their demands without ANY further dialogue or sanctioning for years.
  • m July 12, 2008 19:23:27
    m

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    (User did not leave a comment)
  • DAVE July 09, 2008 23:09:45
    DAVE

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    He is so naive it is difficult to understand why anyone would support him. The current tactic is working as demonstrated by Irans interest in discussing sanction relief to stop nuclear development.. Please stay on top of current events, this is an important issue. Its not a matter of arrogance its a matter of sound political practice. Anybody see the old movie "the mouse that roared"
  • integrity July 06, 2008 16:07:46
    integrity

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    Have the Iranians told the truth over the years about their nuclear plans?...no...Do the Iranians supply bombs that are kiling our troops...yes. Can we ever build some type of peace with a nation that denies the holocaust existed and wants to do away with another country?...no Unfortunately history has proven that there are just countries and leaders of such that portray themselves in one way on the surface but with a hidden agenda down below. The United Nations, as limp as it is has been ( to evoke change) in imposing sanctions. In a sense the world has been trying to negotiate with this country which has maintained its rigid delusional stance. Now Iran threatens to shut down the gulf if attacked? That is a country that cares nothing for the entire world except itself. The last nation that held that philosophy was Germany. The only way to begin negotiations with that country is for that country to have sane people in leadership.
  • TripMarz555 June 27, 2008 15:40:34
    TripMarz555

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    Our last prez. refused to have diplomatic meetings with enemys...... see what happens! meeting countries telling expect change prez refused diplomatic meetings enemys
  • Cassie June 08, 2008 19:05:22
    Cassie

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    Negotiations are all about compromise, not just talking. How do we compromise with Iran? They have stated publicly, that they want Israel wiped out. How do you compromise with that?

  • Tracy May 21, 2008 13:12:34
    Tracy

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    It probably won't be the first time that obama has met with them
  • hurricanflower-Czar of Me May 21, 2008 11:56:19
    hurricanflower-Czar of Me

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    (User did not leave a comment)
  • gil May 21, 2008 04:50:41
    gil

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    (User did not leave a comment)
  • Bill May 21, 2008 03:34:46
    Bill

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    I should think it's best that everyone, here, read what Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel has to say in his defense of Sen. Obama against the cluelessness of Sen. McCain:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    Many have also suggested that McCain's politics will endager not only us, but also Israel. There are very good citizens in both Israel and in Palestian, and it's about time America's President puts his acts together and make a more serious and wise effort to bring peace to those nations to stop more unnecessary danger and death to their innocent citizens. A WW III is not only to help the world. We'd only see more bloodshed in not only the rest of the world, but also Americans who are sent to fight. Do American soldiers deserve to die because of another President's stupid and reckless mistake?
  • Sam May 21, 2008 03:24:41
    Sam

    Undecided

    There are too many issues involved with this matter and I need a lot more information before I can make an informed decision.
  • nightm4825 In god we trust May 21, 2008 03:02:08
    nightm4825 In god we trust

    I don't support it. It won't make a difference to the radicals whatever we say.

    (User did not leave a comment)
  • Mollybdamned American Atheist May 21, 2008 02:34:20
    Mollybdamned American Atheist

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    I support this. We as a Nation have sent Representatives to Nations that we were not friendly with before. Even Presidents have met with unfriendly Nations. It never hurts to dialogue. Where Bu$h screwed up last week was with the word "appeasement' that is MORE than talking. Coming to the table to dialogue is a way to get a grip on the problems and work with them.
  • MadHatter May 21, 2008 02:31:24
    MadHatter

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    moderated...
  • Bear May 21, 2008 02:31:00
    Bear

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    Simple enough, Obama loves peace, McCain loves war.
  • Ken May 21, 2008 02:12:07
    Ken

    I support it. Meeting with countries and telling them what you expect of them is the only way to make get them to change.

    moderated...
or
Cancel