Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate


This is why we fail to be a civilized race.

Could not possibly be more of a douche

Okay..it's Friday night. Can we just point and laugh?

Obama's position not radical or even noteworthy when compared to any period in american history except the last 8 years.

Did anyone even read the article? It makes many good points.

KaponoFor3: Did anyone even read the article? It makes many good points.

You're joking right? The article is typical wingnut dishonest misrepresentation and convenient cherry picking.

Nixon and Secretary of State William Rogers toasting Marshal Tito, 1970.



Nixon with Soviet Party Chairman Leonid Brehznev, 1973.



Henry Kissinger, Premier Chou En-lai, and Chairman Mao, 1972.

Krauthammer is too stupid to breathe.

Dinki: KaponoFor3: Did anyone even read the article? It makes many good points.

You're joking right? The article is typical wingnut dishonest misrepresentation and convenient cherry picking.

Show me an example of a President who met with another world leader, without precondition/low level diplomatic contacts that laid out the agenda in advance, that was successful?

Cause the whole meeting with the head of state without precondition is essentially what Obama said he would do with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.

Everyone is missing the point -- diplomacy isn't bad. Diplomacy at the highest executive level, without precondition, has the potential for devastating consequences (as seen with Kennedy/Khruschev).

KaponoFor3: has the potential for devastating consequences (as seen with Kennedy/Khruschev).

Iran, North Korea, and Cuba do not have the capability to sterilize North America 100 times over, so it's a little different in that sense. When Obama made the comments in the first place, I never thought he actually meant he'd hop on air force 1 without any diplomatic ground work done to see if there is a reason to go, but in either case he made a remark that he will have to account for backpedal on should he win.

I give it a 3 on the gaffe-O-meter, but nothing more.

KaponoFor3: Show me an example of a President who met with another world leader, without precondition/low level diplomatic contacts that laid out the agenda in advance, that was successful?

Really? What was the 'precondition' when Nixon went to China? What was the 'precondition' when Reagan met with Gorbachev? And where did Obama say that there would be no agenda or low level diplomatic contacts beforehand?

KaponoFor3: has the potential for devastating consequences (as seen with Kennedy/Khruschev).

considering we avoided nuclear war, I'd say devastating consequences were avoided.

Outtaphase: Iran, North Korea, and Cuba do not have the capability to sterilize North America 100 times over, so it's a little different in that sense.

Agreed, none of those countries have the same military power of the USSR. It is a little different in that sense, but the point remains the same: high level executive diplomatic contacts, without precondition and without the necessary lower level legwork, can lead to disasterous unintended consequences.

Outtaphase: When Obama made the comments in the first place, I never thought he actually meant he'd hop on air force 1 without any diplomatic ground work done to see if there is a reason to go, but in either case he made a remark that he will have to account for backpedal on should he win.

Unfortunately, that's the point of the article -- Obama (or, more accurately, his supporters on Fark) refuses to backpedal on the statement it appears. Stubborness? Perhaps. Belief that it is the best course and would actually be good foreign policy? Maybe. Who knows.

Dinki: Really? What was the 'precondition' when Nixon went to China? What was the 'precondition' when Reagan met with Gorbachev?

You are ignoring the "without low level diplomatic contacts that laid out the agenda in advance". That's the whole point that the article is trying to make -- embarking on diplomatic missions "without precondition" can have unintended consequences.

And where did Obama say that there would be no agenda or low level diplomatic contacts beforehand?

That's what "without precondition" means

SilentStrider: considering we avoided nuclear war, I'd say devastating consequences were avoided.

I would argue that it actually brought us much closer to the brink of a nuclear war given Khruschev's thinking that Kennedy was weak.

Given Krauthammer's track record of backing the Administration's various shiat-for-brains ideas, I think it's kind of cute in a way that he thinks he still thinks his opinion means more than dick-cheese.

Also, we're only up to #36?

KaponoFor3: SilentStrider: considering we avoided nuclear war, I'd say devastating consequences were avoided.

I would argue that it actually brought us much closer to the brink of a nuclear war given Khruschev's thinking that Kennedy was weak.

Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something? The adults are trying to talk here.

Tor_Eckman: Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something? The adults are trying to talk here

Oh wow, man, that was just so funny.

You haven't even added anything to this conversation. Do you disagree that Khruschev didn't perceive Kennedy as weak? Do you think that perception didn't play a role in the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Tor_Eckman: Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something?

Don't you have go find your candidate Obama to worship at his altar or something?

Any criticism of Obama or his policy provisions is just met with fierce resistance on Fark, I find it amusing. He could come out tomorrow and say "I want to stick babies on spikes. Here's a rack of babies" and people who be defending it. It's like the reverse Bushb0t behavior.

KaponoFor3: Unfortunately, that's the point of the article

I think what the article is trying to say is that Obama actually will just hop on a plane rather than find a way to admit that he overstated his position. I don't think that makes sense.

We he made the comments, I thought his real message was to counter the "axis of evil" diplomacy we've had recently. What gives more legitimacy to a problem regime - talking to them, and coming home saying "we didn't get very far with them this time", or "OMGWTFBBQ THEY WILL DESTROY THE WORLD YOU ALL MUST LIVE IN FEAR OF THEM!"? These countries have a history of eating up the later, because it makes them appear more powerful than they are.

After Saddam was arrested, he admitted that he had no WMD's, but he wanted the US to at least strongly and publicly suspect he did to make him more powerful in Iran's eyes. He didn't think we'd go as far as we did.

As a political candidate, Obama must make these messages in very distinctive and noticeable terms. He went a little far, because it is a difficult concept to get across to your average voter. It will hurt him a little when he has to back off that, but I don't think he's going to actually engage in instant jet diplomacy to save face over it.

Outtaphase: It will hurt him a little when he has to back off that, but I don't think he's going to actually engage in instant jet diplomacy to save face over it.

Reasonableness and intelligence: Something lacking on the Political threads. Excellent post, will farky you with something positive.

KaponoFor3: He could come out tomorrow and say "I want to stick babies on spikes. Here's a rack of babies"

Oh hell yes! Now we're talking about the kind of statement that could make me get behind a candidate in a radical and irrational way.

KaponoFor3: Tor_Eckman: Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something?

Don't you have go find your candidate Obama to worship at his altar or something?

Any criticism of Obama or his policy provisions is just met with fierce resistance on Fark, I find it amusing. He could come out tomorrow and say "I want to stick babies on spikes. Here's a rack of babies" and people who be defending it. It's like the reverse Bushb0t behavior.

Which candidate do you support? Do you just like making fun of Obama supporters, or do you actually have support for someone? The Obama supporters here can be annoying (I am one of them), but at least we support a candidate. So, are you GaryPDX who is an actual independent and likes to play devil's advocate? Or do you actually support another candidate? I've seen enough threads to know that you're not an idiot. I genuinely would like to know your actual position here.

ElQue: Which candidate do you support? Do you just like making fun of Obama supporters, or do you actually have support for someone?

I don't particularly like either one of them, but I will likely end up supporting McCain in the general election. I have far too many policy disagreements with Obama, and while I definitely have some issues with McCain, he's closer to my political beliefs on the whole than Obama.

What scares me is the rabidness of the Obama supporters -- they are like the Bush supporters before all the Iraq drama. It seems like they have blinders on and are unwilling to admit that their candidate may be wrong about something/have made a mistake.

ElQue: So, are you GaryPDX who is an actual independent and likes to play devil's advocate? Or do you actually support another candidate? I've seen enough threads to know that you're not an idiot. I genuinely would like to know your actual position here.

I think that the "you're not an idiot" is a compliment, so thank you. I used to self-identify as a Republican when they were fiscally conservative, but to quote Reagan, "I didn't leave the [Republican] party, the [Republican] party left me."

I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I tend to be pretty right-wing on foreign policy issues. I don't really feel like either of the parties accurately represent my ideology.

flavor of the month: Obama's position not radical or even noteworthy when compared to any period in american history except the last 8 years.

OMG GAFFE!

/they're really trying hard to make him look bad for saying the right thing

SilentStrider: KaponoFor3: has the potential for devastating consequences (as seen with Kennedy/Khruschev).

considering we avoided nuclear war, I'd say devastating consequences were avoided.

like i said in the other thread, what happened with kennedy/khrushchev?

nothing happened. the failure was simply that kennedy came home and we were in the same situation; no agreement had been reached and khrushchev didn't like america. but that's exactly where we were before kennedy went.

i read people say he emboldened khrushchev... which is funny. i'd think that the first chairman of the communist party of the USSR didn't really need our help being bold. generally, you don't come to rule half of asia without being bold in the first place.

it's a sad state when people are choosing party politics over what is the most simple concept in foreign relations. really, really sad.

Without clicking at the article, I thought the headline was talking about McCain.

burndtdan: like i said in the other thread, what happened with kennedy/khrushchev?

nothing happened. the failure was simply that kennedy came home and we were in the same situation; no agreement had been reached and khrushchev didn't like america. but that's exactly where we were before kennedy went.

You are wrong -- it's not just that Kennedy came home and we were in the same situation. Rather, Kennedy came home and Khruschev left with a different impression of Kennedy then he had prior to their meeting. Now he believed that Kennedy was weak and inexperienced and wouldn't be able to handle a crisis or would back down in the face of a serious threat. Was he wrong ultimately? Yes, he was, as Kennedy proved during the Missile Crisis. But we never should have got there, and the chances are much, much lower that we ever would have got there had Khruschev not believed Kennedy was weak and incompetent.

burndtdan: it's a sad state when people are choosing party politics over what is the most simple concept in foreign relations. really, really sad.

It really is. It seems like you are choosing party politics, or more accurately, a single candidate's politics over the most simple concept in foreign relations -- do not initiate high level executive diplomatic contacts without lower level groundwork occuring first. Meeting without preconditions would be doing exactly just that.

KaponoFor3:
What scares me is the rabidness of the Obama supporters -- they are like the Bush supporters before all the Iraq drama. It seems like they have blinders on and are unwilling to admit that their candidate may be wrong about something/have made a mistake.

I can't disagree with this. I'm ashamed at a lot of my fellow Obama supporters for their unquestioning support. I support him because his views are largely the same as mine. However, I would posit that "most" of Obama's supporters are not the "cult" crowd that has become a point of contention. It's a lot like the "True Believer" Hillary crowd. A small minority of the actual people, but a disproportionately loud voice.

I think that the "you're not an idiot" is a compliment,
It was a compliment. I don't feel that you're an idiot troll, and you actually think for yourself. If you want to vote for McCain based on issues, I'll not call you an idiot. That's your view. I'm not going to convince anyone to agree with my views, (unless they are easily swayed by internet strangers) and I won't try to. If you've done your research, and still support McCain, good for you. I will not give you grief for that.

KaponoFor3: ...was he wrong ultimately? Yes, he was, as _____ proved during the ______. But we never should have got there, and the chances are much, much lower that we ever would have got there had ________ not believed _________ ...

Alright.... now fill in the blanks, people.

KaponoFor3: Tor_Eckman: Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something? The adults are trying to talk here

Oh wow, man, that was just so funny.

You haven't even added anything to this conversation. Do you disagree that Khruschev didn't perceive Kennedy as weak? Do you think that perception didn't play a role in the Cuban Missile Crisis?

So, no one asked you to the prom then?

ElQue: It's a lot like the "True Believer" Hillary crowd. A small minority of the actual people, but a disproportionately loud voice.

A disproportionately loud voice on Fark, that's for sure. I would almost go as far to say as, at the extreme (which is seen here frequently, unfortunately), the Obama supporters are as rabid as the Paulisitians.

ElQue: If you've done your research, and still support McCain, good for you. I will not give you grief for that.

Respect for differing viewpoints on a fark thread? UNPOSSIBLE.

Thank you, I wouldn't begrudge anyone for voting for Obama either so long as he is closer to their policy positions. The main reasons I can't vote for Obama?

1) I totally disagree with his view of the Supreme Court and the role of justices
2) I disagree with his desire for universal health care
3) I don't like his class warfare rhetoric or desire to redistribute wealth through increased taxation on the upper class
4) I disagree with his desire to expand hate crimes legislation
5) I disagree with his belief that crack and powder cocaine should be punished equally
6) Obama wants to ban the "permanent replacement of striking workers". I feel this is an unnecessary intrusion of government into the operations of private businesses. Workers should be able to strike, but if they are going to strike they need to know the possibility exists that they may be fired.

Those are just some reasons off the top of my head. My refusal to support an Obama candidacy isn't based on sound bites or anything like that -- I've done the research.

Does the man give great speeches? Absolutely. As someone who has a public speaking background, he is very, very impressive in that area. Do I like his rhetoric about working with all Americans regardless of political affiliation? For sure. But flowery speeches do not change his policy positions, and on that I cannot agree with him.

Tor_Eckman: So, no one asked you to the prom then

No, your mom did. *Rolls eyes*

KaponoFor3: ...blah blah blah...

I've heard enough.

1) Please don't tell us any more about how you think Khruschev perceived Kennedy. We get what you are trying to say, but not all of us think that is relevant to anything having to do with Obama.

2) I'd pick the rabidness of the Obama supporters over the obtusely brain deadness of Bush supporters any day. And further, I'm not too impressed with how the "Straight talking express" is aligning itself these days.

3) Don't you have a frat party or a prom to go to or something? The adults are trying to talk here. This joke was kind of mean, but funny.

In summary, I'm all for holding Obama up the standards of being a good leader for our country. And yes, some of his policies need a bit of work, especially considering his lack of experience in foreign affairs. However, it will be nice to have someone in office who would be willing to adapt and change strategy when needed. We all know full well where sticking your head in the sand gets you.

KaponoFor3:

I am truly sorry for injecting rationality into a politics thread, and you should be as well. Can I still hate you for supporting Kapono?

/U of Oregon fan, Kapono was not a well-liked person 'round these parts.

Has "precondition" become the latest buzzword that conveys why the Negro shouldn't be president?

KaponoFor3:

OK sport, lets take a stab at this:


1) I totally disagree with his view of the Supreme Court and the role of justices What view?
2) I disagree with his desire for universal health care How is universal health care a bad thing? McCain's plan would remove the incentive for companies to offer group plans for their employees and put the burden on each individual. Which do you think would cost more?
3) I don't like his class warfare rhetoric or desire to redistribute wealth through increased taxation on the upper class Taxing people in a fair manner does not equate to redistribution of wealth
4) I disagree with his desire to expand hate crimes legislation So you hate teh gheys then? Because all he wants to do is add sexual orientation to the already established definitions of hate crime.
5) I disagree with his belief that crack and powder cocaine should be punished equally Seems like a silly issue to pull out, but w/e. Lets keep putting more non-violent people in jail.
6) Obama wants to ban the "permanent replacement of striking workers". I feel this is an unnecessary intrusion of government into the operations of private businesses. Workers should be able to strike, but if they are going to strike they need to know the possibility exists that they may be fired. In other words, you would like to see unions abolished. Because without the leverage the threat of strikes bring there is very little a union can do.

And stop equating JFK-Khruschev with Obama-whoever. I know you read on a linked story that their initial meeting went badly. Saying over and over again that this will happen to Obama does not make it so. And stop trying to say that "without pre-conditions" means without prior lower level diplomacy. They are not the same thing.

KaponoFor3: He could come out tomorrow and say "I want to stick babies on spikes. Here's a rack of babies"

Those babies were a mortal threat to American values and ideals. They were plotting against the government, staging a coup that would leave the country at the mercy of the Hegemony of the Wiggles.

DON'T TALK! JUST SHOOT YOU PUSSIES!!!!

ElQue: Can I still hate you for supporting Kapono?

Absolutely, so long as I can make fun of you guys for not being able to keep Kevin Love and Kyle Singler in Oregon.

My parents are actually friends with Belotti, so as far as Oregon goes they are probably my second favorite team in the Pac-10. I visited their campus a few years ago and had a scholarship to go to their law school but ultimately chose to go somewhere else. Nice campus though, couldn't handle the rain.

Tor_Eckman: What view?

That he wants justices who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

I'd prefer he select his judges not based on their empathy or ability to understand, but rather on their legal knowledge and ability. Hence my fundamental disagreement with what he perceives the role of judges on the court.

Tor_Eckman: How is universal health care a bad thing? McCain's plan would remove the incentive for companies to offer group plans for their employees and put the burden on each individual. Which do you think would cost more?

It's a bad thing because it's just another area ripe for government intervention and inefficiency.

Tor_Eckman: Taxing people in a fair manner does not equate to redistribution of wealth

I'm not going to get into whether or not its fair to increase taxes on the upper class cause clearly we disagree, but I wouldn't characterize it as taxing people "in a fair manner".

Tor_Eckman: So you hate teh gheys then? Because all he wants to do is add sexual orientation to the already established definitions of hate crime.

Not at all -- I agree with the California Supreme Court's recent decision on gay marriage but think the legal reasoning they used to get there was bogus. I don't like hate crimes legislation or laws because they punish thoughts and motivations, and those are very, very difficult to prove.

Tor_Eckman: Seems like a silly issue to pull out, but w/e. Lets keep putting more non-violent people in jail.

Non-violent people? Coke and crack are two drugs that actually cause people to be extremely violent when they are high or to get another fix. Marijuana? All for that legalization.

Tor_Eckman: In other words, you would like to see unions abolished.

With all due respect, let me say what it is I believe. I don't want to see unions abolished. They just need to know that just like they have the right to strike, the employers have the right to hire replacement workers, permanently if need be. If Obama's plan is enacted, then the workers can effectively paralyze a business and demand their terms without the desire for compromise because the employer would be banned, by the government under Obama's plan, from hiring permanent replacement workers. Bad idea IMO

Tor_Eckman: Saying over and over again that this will happen to Obama does not make it so

And saying it won't happen in a similar matter doesn't make it so either. The point is to learn from history, and given Obama's comments and his supporters defense of them, I'm not so sure he has/they have.

Oh, great. This POS went green.

Time for bed.

I've said it before...and I'll say it again... If this is all you have on the guy, you're screwed in November. This issue isn't even worth debating -- it is that irrelevant.

Memo to the right: The more you manufacture controversy, the less potent your arguments become.

Yes, Charles Cockhammer, because what we need now is to keep doing things the way we have always done them because "that's the way it's always been done."

KaponoFor3: Did anyone even read the article? It makes many good points.

FAIL. It made ZERO farking 'good points'.

Neurochemist: I've said it before...and I'll say it again... If this is all you have on the guy, you're screwed in November. This issue isn't even worth debating -- it is that irrelevant.

Memo to the right: The more you manufacture controversy, the less potent your arguments become.

Do you really think that this is all the GOP has on him? Remember, you're dealing here with the party that has made the "politics of personal destruction" their calling card for the last 8-12 years.

It's not even mid-summer. Wait till we get past the conventions, and then we will likely see the gloves come off on both sides.

sonnyboy11: FAIL. It made ZERO farking 'good points'.

Well thank you for your constructive input. Perhaps you have a FAIL pic you'd like to post as well??

Slate already discussed this. not a gaffe.

KaponoFor3: 4) I disagree with his desire to expand hate crimes legislation

Tor_Eckman: So you hate teh gheys then? Because all he wants to do is add sexual orientation to the already established definitions of hate crime.

Hate crime legislation borders on punishing people for their thoughts. The acts themselves - the murder, rape, harassment, etc. - are bad enough already. We have a system in place to deal with those crimes. Why add a harsher punishment because of motive? Also, application of hate crime legislation is not treated uniformly. The "black rage" defense comes to mind.

KaponoFor3: 6) Obama wants to ban the "permanent replacement of striking workers". I feel this is an unnecessary intrusion of government into the operations of private businesses. Workers should be able to strike, but if they are going to strike they need to know the possibility exists that they may be fired.

Tor_Eckman: In other words, you would like to see unions abolished. Because without the leverage the threat of strikes bring there is very little a union can do.

Unions can be and often are a good thing, and I support their existence. However, actions have consequences. In determining whether or not you think this principle or cause is worth striking over, it should be kept in mind that one consequence of doing so is being replaced. Take that consequence away, and unions WILL become less beneficial in the big picture. Keep that in place, and it is a subtle ever-present check on unions becoming out of control.

Wow. That was a horribly stupid article trying to pander to the most simplistic and misinformed people, making them feel artificially superior. I feel for people who need that type of reinforcement.

KaponoFor3: You are wrong -- it's not just that Kennedy came home and we were in the same situation. Rather, Kennedy came home and Khruschev left with a different impression of Kennedy then he had prior to their meeting.

his impression of kennedy wasn't at issue. his impression of america wasn't at issue. threat of war was at issue.

khrushchev already disrespected america enough to be presenting a threat of war, and apparently enough to take kennedy to the mat verbally about the issue. he had no reason to respect kennedy before the meeting, as he viewed kennedy as the leader of a society he had no respect for.

KaponoFor3: Now he believed that Kennedy was weak and inexperienced and wouldn't be able to handle a crisis or would back down in the face of a serious threat. Was he wrong ultimately? Yes, he was, as Kennedy proved during the Missile Crisis.

then it appears that with war at issue, kennedy had what it took to deal with the situation, so ultimately the example falls flat because he was successful in avoiding war, which was the goal of the meeting. the meeting was not successful, but only in that it did not accomplish anything. but to not try would have been remiss of him.

KaponoFor3: It really is. It seems like you are choosing party politics, or more accurately, a single candidate's politics over the most simple concept in foreign relations -- do not initiate high level executive diplomatic contacts without lower level groundwork occuring first. Meeting without preconditions would be doing exactly just that.

i am choosing the history of our nation. i am choosing the successful tactics that eventually ended almost every similar international tension. i am choosing what is undeniably the responsibility of the president as the leader, and thus steward, of the american people.

a president who is unwilling to take what should always be the first step in the process, as evidenced by too much history (in our nation and throughout history) to even be cited without ending up beating you over the head with a history book; that president is a failure. and the president that has just these past 8 years taken such a stance is currently and undeniably failing because of it.

i'm sorry, but your example is disingenuous because to consider it a real failure is to ignore the nearly complete lack of forfeited opportunity cost, and your position is so fundamentally discredited by history, from the diplomatic formalities that have been considered requirements of civilized and honorable societies, all the way up to current events, that you have no valid argument.