Former Bush State Department Official: We Should Talk to Our Enemies

You know Jake there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and low level meetings to begin.

Burns’ argument is based on a straw man. McCain and Palin have never said “never”. They have simply pointed out that Obama’s openly declared determination to talk to these leaders “without preconditions” is naive.
Indeed, it has always been clear to me (but I’m not a sophisticated D.C. insider) that McCain and Palin would agree with the proposition, “of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.”

McCain is being ridiculous and following the myopic nature of foreign policy Bush had adopted.
For example, in the case of Iran, the preconditions were that Teheran immediately stop the production of nuclear power, before they even start talking, WHEN THE TALKS were supposed to be to persuade Teheran to STOP THE PRODUCTION of nuclear power.
Does anyone find this ridiculous???

samhiguchi,
There is a difference between meeting without preconditions and low level meetings. But what Obama stated was… there will be preparation. Starting with low level meetings.

Barack Obama specifically said he would meet with the leaders of our enemies, within the first year of his presidency and without preconditions,
He and others have been trying to pretend he said something different. In the effort to change and obfuscate what Obama said, many have misrepresented what McCain/Palin object to and even what is currently being done.
It is a travesty that Obama isn’t forced to honestly confront what he said he’d do. Furthermore, he has said the US can’t hold out Presidential level meetings as some sort of prize, and the US can’t be seen to hold itself above other countries. Finally, he said Iran misbehaves *because* the US does not engage.
All of these positions of Obama’s were stated during primary debates, some even on ABC. It would be worth looking at those, rather than allowing the opinions of other people to misrepresent what Obama actually says and feels about the US role in foreign policy.

Once again, another sensible and experienced voice arguing against McCain. No doubt most current and former diplomats are voting for Obama (especially ones who have been on the receiving end of McCain’s temper).
George Bush’s foreign policy has been a complete disaster. And John McCain show’s his complete lack of vision and ideas by simply wanting to be a Bush ditto-head.
McCain can claim he has experience, but he hasn’t shown anything in the way of good judgment or temperament to lead our country’s foreign policy.
Take the issue of Georgia. McCain completely went overboard in a way that was totally divorced from our real national interests. He’s all about good guys and bad guys. He wants to be a demagogue on everything Russia… kick them out of the G-8, keep them out of the WTO, and embroil the U.S. in every ethnic conflict on the Russian border.
But for what ends? It makes absolutely zero sense for the U.S. to be any way involved in the Georgian conflict, other than to assure that U.S. companies can participate in an oil pipeline project.
But we have absolutely nothing to gain in having Georgia trying to fight and re-occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia, whose peoples are ethnically and linguistically completely different from the Georgians.
We already have 2 wars going. After seeing McCain’s performance in August, who can doubt that McCain would take on Iran and Russia in an overly beligerant way and drag us into another military and political miscalculation.
McCain is dangerous, just as GOP Senators Domenici, Cochran, and Smith have warned us.
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded.”
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi)

Hang the ego crap. If it would save the life of one soldier, we should talk to even Lucifer himself if need be. If all else fails, then war.

A: Two kids at school get in an argument and start fighting with words. You get them separated for a little “think time”. Then you get them to talk to each other and sort things out in a civilized fashion.
B: Two kids get into it at school. You get them separated. You tell them they are not to go near each other. You make sure they sit in opposite corners and never have contact with one another again until they are sorry for what they did.
Which is the better way of handling the situation? A or B
In the case of A by talking they may discover that they misunderstood one another—they may discover they agree on more than they disagree—they may discover nothing other than that each is hard headed.
In the case of B they will probably never know anything except that they are enemies—it will fester like a boil and erupt in all out war after school, on the way home, etc.

Now y’all can spin O’s statements anyway you want, but what he said is what he said.
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders
Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations “Without Precondition.”
QUESTION: “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition,
during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else,
with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to
bridge the gap that divides our countries?”… OBAMA: “I would. And the reason
is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment
to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this
administration – is ridiculous.” (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate
Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.
Senator Obama?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that ***we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.****
[snip]
CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
(APPLAUSE)

It is just sheer logic! We are already and frequently “talking” to our friends, but if we would like to resolve issues, we must be prepared to “talk” to our adversaries. This does not mean inviting them to our house for dinner, but rather, we can make initial contacts, through common friends and see whether anything can be accomplished. Unlike McSame who would like to raise the spector of another “cold-war” like atmosphere, driving factions further apart, to re-enforce his foreign policy credential – which of course is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG in this global world we now live in. He can only relate to the ancient past, where we are constantly bickering with one another for a one-upmanship. We should all reject the same old McSame policies and listen to the numerous voices of reasoning.

There is no way we can win in this world without talking! That is plain, simple, and direct.
If anyone thinks we can just blow our enemies away, I would say that you are a nut case.
You can talk abouit preconditions, preperations, and what they mean untill you are blue in the face, but facts are they probably mean something different depending on which country we are talking about, and who is talking.

this guy is a nitwit….
————
“I’m not saying the next president should sit down immediately with Ahmadinejad. We should initiate contact at a lower level to investigate whether it’s worth putting welcome to the president’s prestige on the line.
————-
Welcome to John McCain’s point you nitwit.

samhiguchi,
You’re right but I trust Obama to have preparation done before meeting with ex. Ahmadinejad.
It’s a much better policy then McCain’s which is the other side must give into our commands before we’re able to talk.
It won’t happen. If we follow this strategy Ahmadinejad will definitely obtain nuclear weapons.

The Europeans have been talking to the Iranians for the last 4 years regarding Irans plans to build a nuclear bomb.
There has been no positive results in all those talks, it has just emboldened and provided Iran more time to develop their programs.

jack,
Well, there are simply hardly any high-profile Democrats voting for McCain.
There’s lots of Republicans voting for Obama/Biden, though :)

We need CHANGE. We need to do things differently. The whole world is waiting. McCain and Bush are two in one.

“I’ve been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assualt on Obama.”
So have many of us. But then we’re dealing with someone who sang “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran;” said we should “annihilate North Korea;” thought invading Iraq was such a swell idea that we’d be greeted as “liberators;” and reacted with over-the-top bellicosity to the Russia/Georgia situation.
This guy scares me because I think he simply can’t help viewing everything from a military rather than strategic and diplomatic perspective. Teddy Roosevelt said “walk softly and carry a big stick.” John McCain wants to bellow and roar with little or no capacity to back it up.

Barack Obama specifically said he would meet with the leaders of our enemies, within the first year of his presidency and without preconditions,
Posted by: MayBee | Oct 27, 2008 11:35:51 AM
——
Obviously we have some second language learners on here.
The question was:
-”…would you be willing to meet…?”
Notice, Obama said he would be “willing” to meet, that doesn’t mean he promised to or said he would meet.
His point was that there is no reason to unilaterally declare yourself so impotent that you can not sit down and talk with people on basic issues.
So, perhaps some of you need to consult an online dictionary to learn the semantic differences between “willing” and “will”.

pshaw, pshaw, shame on you Jake for circulating mis-truths. The difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama said he would talk with the terrorist leaders “without any preconditions”. Even Sen. Biden said Obama gave “Wrong Answer” on negotiating unconditionally with hostile foreign leaders. In addition, both Hillary and McCain who are more experienced in Foreign Policy matters concur that Obama was naive and short-sighted. In Foreign Policy, McCain does agree and support talking to foreign leaders, with pre-conditions for the negotiations.

samhiguchi,
Biden was just saying any president would be tested. And it’s true. We have situations developing all over the world now- nothing to do with the election. The stand-off in Zimbabwe for one. The genocide in Sudan, for another. The Ossetian conflict.
McCain sees everything as having to charge in with guns blazing, to act “tough”. No boy cowboy antics, please. We don’t need to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” I would like to know if McCain thought about those Iranian women and children who have absolutely no control over the vitriol their president is spouting- Iran isn’t exactly a democracy, after all.

GreyMatter, yes I know what he was saying the parts you choose to ignore are when he said:
“And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
If Obama’s response to such a crisis isn’t apparent that it is right, then that would make it WRONG!

I’ll take Obama’s level head and reason over an eratic knee-jerk reactionary who still lives in 1950′s Cold War America.
And so will the MAJORITY of Americans.
President Barack Hussein Obama!

Straight Talking Maverick,
I think Joe Lieberman is the only one…

Wow. Top man on Iran for 3 years and did not ever meet an Iranian.
Republicans are stupid. Bush and McCain = dumb and dumber.

samhiguchi,
You left out this portion of the Biden quote.
“We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America”
The next president will be tested. Whether it’s McCain or O

samhiguchi,
You left out this portion of the Biden quote.
“We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America”
The next president will be tested. Whether it’s McCain or Obama.
It happened w/ Bill Clinton and Bush. With the state of our economy and our military stretch… the next president will be tested.
My #1 issue is the economy and that’s why I voted Obama.

I think Joe Lieberman is the only one…
—————
Half true. But he’s an Independent, not a Democrat.
He’s like the kid no one wanted on their kickball team. The Shleprock of national politics. Bad luck for whomever he supports.

I’m disappointed by this person’s IQ.
McCain agreed the talk in lower-level.
McCain agreed talk in president level only if precondition met.
McCain didn’t say ‘absolutely no talk with enemies.’
Understood?

Burns also said: “The brilliance of Gen. David Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq was, in part, to build bridges to formerly bitter foes in the Sunni militias and to cajole and entice them to switch sides. Some are now suggesting that we should deploy a similar strategy with the Taliban rank and file.”
Funny the guy who put his career on the line to advocate the Petreaus policy that Burns lauds is McCain, the guy he criticizes in this article. Conversely, Obambi was the one who wanted to cut off our negotiations with the Sunni tribal leaders and withdraw from trying to “cajole and entice them to switch sides.”
The Surge worked because we were able to get to the leaders on the ground in Iraq who were fighting for survival against Shia militias and Al Queada. You don’t get to talk to those people when you sit down with the leadership in Iran or even with their low level envoys. In fact, you harm the cause of those on the ground who are fighting the Iranian leadership.
I cannot believe that such unintelligent and immature thought can come from a guy who has been the top foregn policy official in both Democrat and Republican adminstrations?!!
If this is the best and brightest in the State Dept no wonder our foreign policy has been such a disaster over the last 20 years.

Bud-
If you think the argument is between whether Obama “would meet” or “would be willing to meet”, then I don’t know what to say.
The argument is that Obama said he would either be willing or would meet with the leaders in his first year, with no preconditions.
And people defend him by pointing out how others support some low-level talks.
There are people that think meeting with our enemies at a Presidential level without preconditions within the first year is a good idea. Find those people to defend Obama. But don’t find someone who says something entirely different to defend Obama (and attack McCain, when McCain actually does agree with the idea of low-level diplomacy).

George, the initial supposition is off by a bit, foreign policy relations is not about kids. You have a hostile leader who hates the US for years and has nuclear bombs and is ready to launch against your ally in the region, you go in without preconditions, which even Biden said Obama was wrong. Hillary and Mccain and most agree that Obama is wrong about his negotiations policy. Sen Liberman supports McCain, my guess is this probably had something to do with McCain has more experience, which gives McCain a clear advantage in developing sound approaches and policies in the Foreign Relations and Policy arenas.

McCain would shoot first and talk second.

remember “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?” McCain is a hothead. Does not have the temperment for a crisis.

The country will need to reinstate the draft if McCain gets elected. We will be fighting too many wars simultaineously to sustain the effort with an all-volunteer force.

Well-said, Mr. Burns!

The issue, Jake (Obama supporter from ABC, no surprise there) was about talking to them unconditionally. The guy you quoted seemed to leave out that key detail. You failed (surely just by accident) to point out that key distinction. Jake, you are such a great Obama campaigner.

Call the L.A. Times and tell them to release the Obama-Khalidi Tape.

What a crazy year 2008, I hear if Obama loses the election, we will have a civil war!!!

ROFLMAO.
“Hero” the last of the right wingers to actually believe the Berg & Martin stories!

Well, Grey Matter, you are changing the subject now. It’s legitimate to be uncomfortable with McCain, I just object to people arguing against a position he doesn’t have in order to pretend Obama doesn’t have a position that he actually does have.
It is interesting, though, that you are unhappy with the belligerence of McCain and yet criticize him for not being as belligerent about Pakistan as Obama has been. It’s about announcing you’ll invade an ally, not about being willing to follow BinLaden.
Check out what Pakistanis think of Obama.

Snore. This is irrelevant to the controversy over Obama’s off-the-cuff gaffe-redefined-and-morphed-into-policy. The question to Obama in the debate was whether HE (not “we”) would sit down and talk “without precondition” with “the leaders” (not some lower level diplomats) of NK, Venezuela, and Iran during his first year in office. He said he would. Everyone, including now him, knows that that was extremely foolish. So don’t get fooled by the new phony debate over whether “we” the “United States” should talk. Even the Bush admin does this, if only through third party channels.

Gallup: Jewish voters nationwide have grown increasingly comfortable with voting for Barack Obama for president since the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination in June. They now favor Obama over John McCain by more than 3 to 1, 74% to 22%.

Sure! let’s have a chat with Mullah Omar!
Oops!

Media Bias
what story?

We are in the end times.

head for the hills DEPT….
OxyCon is quoting Alice Cooper as a reason to be anti-Obama…..
back away from the stereo…….

I wonder what McCain considers to be “preconditions?” Are we talking “our way or the highway” or just the shape of the table?

Looks like the College Republicans were the ones who sent the hoax photos to Drudge
“Mr. (Dan) Garcia took the widely published picture of Ms. Todd with her injuries. He said he took several photographs with a digital camera to document what had happened. He said he only gave copies of the photos to police and Ms. Todd’s employer, the College Republicans. One photo appeared on The Drudge Report on Thursday, setting off a storm of media attention.”

Oxycon,
Actually Alice Cooper ran against Nixon in 1972.
It was more of a promo tour, but he was running against Nixon (whom McCain has been often compared to this year because of his nasty campaign).

Concerned in OH
He hasn’t banned any news stations from interviews. Unlike McCain if you ask the slightest question unfavorable you get kick off his plane no matter where the plane is.

Here in NY a blue state we have 2nd and 3rd generation welfare families carrying cell phone, wearing designer clothes while hey there are still job listings in the local papers everyday.

To me, John McCain does not look well physically, mentally or emotionally.
He looked dreadful during some of the debates – off balance and almost unhinged at times.
I will not be putting any of my fate into his hands.
And Sarah Palin has revealed herself as basically a soap opera character with little depth of intellect and a very one-dimensional, almost cartoon view of the world stage.
Again, I would not put any of my fate in her hands.
It’s a pathetic Republican ticket.
8 years of Republicans was enough. The electorate will be rightfully booting the Republicans out of office.
Landslide Democratic win despite all the attempt to use smear tactics during the next few days.

This article is outrageously deceitful. It is actually attempting to misrepresent both candidates’ positions, and most outrageously, to lie about McCain’s position and essentially present McCain’s real position as Obama’s. McCain has not said there should be no negotiations with these countries at any level. He has only made a point over and over again to rule out the talks at the president to president level “without preconditions” because that is what Obama said was his position in a Democratic primary debate, which McCain believes is dangerous. Anyone who actually researches this in some depth, to get to the bottom of the matter, will find that is the case. This article is spin, and it is shameful that parts of it are reprinted here without any “fact-checking.” How many times on this blog have the McCain side’s arguments been “fact-checked” (although it also seems that the fact-checking itself often isn’t so accurate). But here Nicholas Burns and Mr. Tapper provide NO quotes from the candidates, much less any attempt to look at this opinion piece from a self-described “career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations” about the positions of the two candidates.
The facts, however, support these conclusions (And note: this issue can easily be distorted because it’s somewhat complicated. There’s the difference between presidential and non-presidential talks to keep in mind, as well as the talks having preconditions or not, and that preconditions are much more crucial for presidential talks, as Nicholas Burns himself implies when he talks of starting at lower-level talks with Iran. There’s also the questions of what preconditions and “preparation” are – “preparation” being what Obama at some point added to his stated position):
1. McCain has consistently supported talks between the U.S. and hostile countries. But he has not held Obama’s position, which is for the President to sit down with these leaders face-to-face without any preconditions. THAT is what Obama said was his position at a primary debate last year (and the original question mentioned “during his first year in office”). Only after some time did he change that to something tougher, “without preconditions but with preparation.” This is McCain talking about his position during the first debate:
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition… The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika. Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.
And:
MCCAIN: Of course he (Kissinger) encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.
Doesn’t McCain’s view happen to be what Nicholas Burns is arguing for – tough diplomacy starting below the presidential level and backed up by the possibility of resulting to force (that is Burns’ position in the article) – even though Burns is also dishonestly saying it’s not McCain’s position? But according to Burns, McCain is against talks and only for the use of force:
“Talking to our adversaries is no one’s idea of fun, and it is not a sure prescription for success in every crisis. But it is crude, simplistic and wrong to charge that negotiations reflect weakness or appeasement.” And, “we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.”
2. Obama has held a number of positions at the same time. He first said at a primary debate that he’d meet with these leaders “without precondition” during his first year (for a long time never mentioning “preparation,”) yet he also has said that he holds McCain’s actual position, of not starting out at the Presidential level. And at the first presidential debate, Obama lied about his and McCain’s positions. He denied that his position has been having presidential meetings without preconditions, and when McCain criticized him for that, Obama brought up that Kissinger favored talks between the U.S. and Iran “guess what, without preconditions.” But that was confusing the issue and misusing Kissinger’s words, because, again, Kissinger was only talking about talks below the presidential level, not what Obama favored, at the presidential level. And again, McCain was only ruling out such talks at the presidential level, not at lower levels.
Here are the parts of their remarks most relevant to this particular point (text has been removed):
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.
MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president — and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not.
And:
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not — he would not say that presidential top level.
OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.
McCain was right. Kissinger only advocated non-presidential level meetings without preconditions, not presidential ones. Obama said nobody was suggesting presidential ones. But that continues to be his stated position – he’d have presidential talks “without preconditions but with preparation.” If he’s also saying “nobody’s talking about” having presidential talks without preconditions, then he must be conceding that his talk of “preparation” really is precondition, which means that his position has changed even though he’s said it hasn’t. Why else would he so firmly deny supporting presidential talks without preconditions during the debate, saying that of course there would be preparation. He’s trying to have it all ways here.
OBAMA: “There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.”
While on the face of it precondition and preparation are two entirely separate things, they are also very related. If the U.S. president requires “preparation” – low-level talks – before he’ll meet these leaders, it is for the sake of our preconditions. There is no reason to have talks (preparation) before a presidential meeting unless that preparation is meant to bring some success on preconditions we set for having presidential talks. And if no progress (no movement towards our preconditions) seems to be made, the presidential meeting won’t happen. As Obama says, lower-level talks “may not work.” Failure in “preparation,” then, can only mean not making progress on our *preconditions* for a presidential meeting. In Iran’s case, if its positions were the same after talks as before them, a presidential meeting won’t happen. See also McCain’s words that I quoted above on Reagan with the Soviets and Nixon with China as well as Nicholas Burns on Libya in his article.

ps Presidential meetings DO raise the stature of the other party.
Duh

There is a popular saying, which says “keep your friends close and your enemies, closer.
How do you pre-empt the actions of your enemies if you give them a wide berth?
Ignoring your enemies only strengthens their resolves to hurt you. And you may not see the attack coming. You only realize it when it hits you.
Enough with the “the most powerful nation’s” grandstanding.
What is power without control? What is power without respect?
America needs to earn the respects of nations. The respect for America is at it lowest ebb to-day. It is only with the election to Office, of the right Leaders, that America can heave a sigh of relief.
And the thought that every other nation is planning to attack America is delusional and Politicians have found such propagation of tissues of lies, as a potent tool to getting elected.

When the President of the United States says he will meet the so-called Enemies without pre-condition, it doesn’t mean that he is going to meet them personally.
What it means, is that he would be willing to send a high official of the Government to meet with the supposed Enemy.
President Bush did it with North Korea. He did it with Iran. High Government Officials met with clan Leaders in Iraq, which contributed to the success of the surge and the Bush’s Government is planning to have a jaw-jaw with the Talibans.
No war is won on the battle field. After the madness, the parties to the feud will always sit at the round-table to iron out their differences.
If peace can be kept without going to War, by talking, then what is the need sending fellow human beings to war to die in a war that will evetually be settled on the round-table?
Iran talking about the annihilation of Israel is empty rhetorics. It is just a way of ensuring that they remain the topic of discussion because not making such inflammatory and empty statements will consign them to “one of the other Countries” and hence, wont be relevant.
Iran doesn’t want to be ignored.
If the American Government wants to make Ahmedinajad irrelevant in Iran, it should stop issuing statements when he decides to engage in his ususal tantrums.
The United Nations wouldn’t have been formed in 1948 if there are no dissenting views among Nations.
Nations will continue to disagree. It is however, in playing the big brother role, by bringing all the rogue nations under your umbrella by talking, that there will be peace in the World.
For the the sole Super Power in the World, America owns the world such responsiblity. With immense power comes immense responsibilities.