Yes, we can.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

Although I'm not sure what you would hope to accomplish by meeting with someone "you can't" negotiate with.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, it's not hypocrisy because "meeting with" is not the same as "negotiating with".

You should probably point that out to Obama then:


http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008...mas_100345.htm

"I understand why Israel does not meet with Hamas," the Illinois senator said

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Although I'm not sure what you would hope to accomplish by meeting with someone "you can't" negotiate with.

I've already talked about this before. Information, engagement, knowledge. You will ALWAYS give yourself a better chance of acting intelligently if you have more lines of communication. You don't have to make a deal to gain something out of talks.

What doyu do with that information of course ultimately determines its value, and no amount of talking or information will mean jack-sh*t if you don't act intelligently on it. But to make the blanket statement that you're just going to close your eyes and plug your ears is, to my mind, a guarantee that you'll be working from an incomplete picture to make decisions.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But to make the blanket statement that you're just going to close your eyes and plug your ears is, ...

No one has been suggesting that: clearly we do talk and meet with our foes on a lower level basis; but what Obama has suggested in the past(but is running away from now I think) is that He personally should meet with our enemies....and I think Hillary Clinton has the best response to that:

Obama's position was "irresponsible and frankly naive" and said that as president she wouldn't meet leaders such as Fidel Castro or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," she said.

In other words, your very "meeting" with the bad guys, regardless whether you negotiate or give up anything at all, works to their advantage....they can show their people that they are legitimate since they got to meet with the President of the United States.

[wendybeth]

You don't think Sudan isn't playing this up to the hilt? They must be loving the fact that they got the Great Non-Negotiator to enter into talks with them. I love all the relativism being applied around here; it's not okay for one person to say that they would be open to talking with rogue nations, but when your own candidate actually does it then you practically snap in two trying to justify it away.

[scaeagles]

WB, you don't see a difference in acting as a mediator between sides in a civil war to prevent another million or so deaths and negotiating with a government that actively supports terrorism and is pursuing nukes? I do.

I don't even think its a stretch, much less a "snap in two" proposition. I did say I had a problem with the whole Syria thing, so I clearly draw a distinction.

[wendybeth]

I'd suggest you read up on the Sudanese government, Scaeagles. Precious little separates it from any of the others, aside from it's willingness to play reindeer games with us. Any assertions of noble intent on either our side or theirs is BS- we talk about wanting to help stop their civil war and prevent another Rwanda, but really we don't care. We are more concerned about our own interests in the area, not the ruling (Islamic) party. The Sudanese government is a well-known supporter of the Islamic jihad, btw. Here's an excerpt from the Council on Foreign Relations:

"
Does Sudan sponsor terrorism?

Despite increasing cooperation by Sudan, the U.S. State Department continues to formally designate it as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The State Department first labeled Sudan a sponsor of terrorism on August 12, 1993. Since then, the United States has accused Sudan of harboring members of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Abu Nidal Organization, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, each classified as a terrorist organization. In 1996, the UN Security Council placed sanctions (PDF) on Sudan for harboring suspects wanted for the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. The same year, U.S. investigators linked two Sudanese diplomats to a terrorist cell planning to bomb the UN building in New York. In 1998, al-Qaeda operatives based in Sudan were allegedly involved in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Throughout the 1990s, Sudan was also accused of supporting local insurgencies in Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Eritrea."



Yeah, they sound really nice.

[scaeagles]

So helping bring an end to state sponsored genocide in an internal civil war is a bad thing how? How does this help prop up the current government of the Sudan when they are the ones doing the killing? I have no illusions of them being great humanitarians. I just want to know how mediating a civil war between in the Sudan is the same as Presidential face to face unconditional talks with the leaders of Iran without condition.

[wendybeth]

I'm not the one who had a problem with it, Scaeagles. I just think the level of hypocrisy is interesting, that's all. You point out that talking to Iran's leadership is wrong in your estimation, and I believe that talking to the Sudanese is no different. If Iran get nukes, they'll do a hell of a lot more damage than the Islamicists have done in the Darfur region. You know, in Iran there are all sorts of human rights abuses going on right now, not just the potential for nuclear mischief. Maybe George can go and mediate an end to them as well. While he's on this humanitarian roll, he can stop by the Saudi kingdom and have a chat with them. I know, I know- they're our bestest buddies, not our enemies. China could use some talking to while he's at it. There's no end to places and people that could stand a little mediating with our prez. I just had no idea he was such a caring person, really. Someone should tell his former press secretary to stop saying bad things about him.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm....we have former Clinton officials and advisors who say bad things about him.....sort of par for the course.

I suppose the difference, WB, is that the Sudan wants some help in mediating their civial war. If Iran said to us "we want help stopping our blatant human rights abuses" or China said "we need help establishing freedom of speech", I'd say go for it.

Yes, Iran can do far more damage with nukes than the Islamofacists have done in Darfur, but think about that....the most recent Sudanese estimates are 2 million dead. That's a few nukes going off in major cities. So....I suppose that means you support an invasion of Iran to prevent that?