Yes, we can.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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

But therein lies the challange...to argue your opponents point better than your opponent

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.

But what if one side is acting badly not out of a honest grievance but simply for the stuff the negotiating will get them(North Korea comes to mind)?

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.

Once again I am not saying don't talk at all....I am just saying don't reward these despots for their nasty behavior by honoring them with face time with our President.

[scaeagles]

"Negotiations" with North Korea during the 90s made them a nuclear power.

"Negotiations" with Hitler during the 30s emboldened him because he swore he'd stop after the Sudetenland (sp?).

"Negotiations" between Isreal and Arafat led to 97% of the land the Palestinians were demanding being offered to them, but it wasn't good enough because land wasn't the goal of Arafat.

Diplomacy is fine. Diplomacy, however, when performed by the naive, makes things much, much worse. This is my fear.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

"Negotiations" with North Korea during the 90s made them a nuclear power.

"Negotiations" with Hitler during the 30s emboldened him because he swore he'd stop after the Sudetenland (sp?).

"Negotiations" between Isreal and Arafat led to 97% of the land the Palestinians were demanding being offered to them, but it wasn't good enough because land wasn't the goal of Arafat.

Diplomacy is fine. Diplomacy, however, when performed by the naive, makes things much, much worse. This is my fear.

I'm sorry but that's kind of an empty argument. First off successful negotiations often lead to nothing happening. How do you cite a war that never happened? Of course the failures stick out like a sore thumb.

Also why pick on just "negotiations" when ANY policy by a naive leader leads to trouble.

If you think Obama is naive then let's talk about that. At least there I can understand your fear, especially when you look at the damage done by perhaps the most naive president we have ever had.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Prudence

I see negotiation at this point as having less to do with those involved with the meeting and more to do with world-wide perception. The US doesn't have the international backing it needs and playing the game perhaps will correct some of the damage done there.

So well put and me without mojo to give...

Though I feel that I see things from the SJ/SCA side, that negotiations don't always work and in some cases create a worse situation, I still prefer it to jumping right into some nonsense. I just don't know why we can't reside in the happy medium. I mean, it's medium, but happy for a reason.

[scaeagles]

Of course failures stand out more than success. Successful negotiations of a trade deal with Australia aren't much of a news story. Negotiations that lead to a rogue state becoming a nuclear power is. Trade deals with China that solved their problems with putting things in orbit is.

I think the difference is how one approaches these negotiations. Reagan met with Gorbachev in Iceland. Reagan had the cajones to walk out when he and Gorbachev couldn't agree on certain aspects. He took all sorts of heat, but he did the right thing. I do not see Obama doing that. I think Obama is a decent guy. Seriously. But I think he'd promise many things to leaders and countries who have no intention of keeping their end of the deal, such as happened with North Korea.

The reason I'm "picking" on negotiations is that was sort of where the currect conversation was. Of course there are other naive decisions. Thinking Iraq would fall into line easily after Saddam was gone was, indeed, naive. Thinking we will be able to pull out on a time table is more so.

Foreign policy is the biggest aspect of the Presidency (or so I would argue). I don't think any of the three will be any good at it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The reason I'm "picking" on negotiations is that was sort of where the currect conversation was. Of course there are other naive decisions.

He wasn't saying that you are picking on negotiations as opposed to other naive decisions, he was saying you are picking on bad negotiation examples. There are plenty of negotiation instances that led to good things.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...Foreign policy is the biggest aspect of the Presidency (or so I would argue). I don't think any of the three will be any good at it.

How much foreign policy experience did our current President have before taking office?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How much foreign policy experience did our current President have before taking office?

Our current president thinks anything outside of Crawford is foreign.

[Gemini Cricket]

Edwards is endorsing Obama.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm the only person under 60 and making more than $20K annual in America who still wants Hillary.