Yes, we can.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Not what I am saying at all. It's just that if you state that you intend to conduct talks with any and all enemies you may find your list of enemies to grow rather than shrink.

Want something from the US.....go rogue and the US will "talk"(read, give you something).

But can't talk mean We'll put a boot in your ass as easily as you imply it means give you something

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

But can't talk mean We'll put a boot in your ass as easily as you imply it means give you something

I suppose, but there really is no need to deliver that kind of message in person..."talk" usually means "negotiate" which usually means both sides give in on something. If a bully says "meet me after school and we'll "talk" " he's probably not going to be giving anything up other than the behavior he is doing just to make you "talk" in the first place....and at that he will only give it up until he wants something else.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

If a bully says "meet me after school and we'll "talk" " he's probably not going to be giving anything up other than the behavior he is doing just to make you "talk" in the first place....and at that he will only give it up until he wants something else.

When I think of a bully, I think of someone who has a noticeable physical advantage and uses that advantage to coerce through intimidation and force. But none of the groups that Obama would talk to even remotely resembles that definition. We would be negotiating from a position of power - and that's a little different from the scenario you describe. In fact, from an outside perspective, we could often be viewed as the bully, or at least as having the potential to be. The other side, not so much.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

When I think of a bully, I think of someone who has a noticeable physical advantage and uses that advantage to coerce through intimidation and force. But none of the groups that Obama would talk to even remotely resembles that definition. We would be negotiating from a position of power - and that's a little different from the scenario you describe. In fact, from an outside perspective, we could often be viewed as the bully, or at least as having the potential to be. The other side, not so much.

Yeah, I displayed a pretty poor analogy there. What I was basically saying is that if you reward bad behavior with "talks" don't expect the bad behavior to decrease.....maybe you can help me with an analogy for what I am trying to say(help me, not you )

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

What I was basically saying is that if you reward bad behavior with "talks" don't expect the bad behavior to decrease.....maybe you can help me with an analogy for what I am trying to say(help me, not you )

Well, I don't know that I can offer an analogy that helps you, my friend since I don't agree with your position.

I don't see negotiation as a reward, per se. It is an attempt to come to a mutually beneficial agreement. And if it is successful, both sides give something up and both sides benefit - which would indeed cause bad behavior to decrease.

The alternative is to take the stubborn, unmovable approach - which often leads to plenty of unnecessary violence and death, and/or a backlash against the country that was unwilling to negotiate. In the end, you retain the "toughest guy on the block" status, but you are still viewed as a pompous bully, rather than a nation attempting a solution that could have kept the peace.