Yes, we can.

[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.