CNN

"Let ye throw the first stone." Who are we that deserve such

honor? What precondition? Meeting with those that we

hate so badly, may set the tone for reconciliation. This is the wisest

move to make in this era of ethnocentrism. Let's set the example for

the world to follow. Differences can be settled from the the top down,

and from the bottom up. Shalom

Yes, I think the President meeting with all foreign leaders is a good idea. Senator Obama's heading down the right path. Preconditions just delay and stall negotiations.

War solves nothing and is so costly in many ways. Neglect of U.S. economy, Loss of lives, Hurts U.S. status in the world community.

The next President (Senator Obama) needs to wipe the slate clean, cut to the chase, and set the tone and pace for others (policy-makers, cabinet level staff) to quickly start a meaningful and serious dialogue for establishing a positive relationship between the U.S. and other foreign governments.

By establishing good communications with all foreign leaders and their government the U.S. can lead by example that diplomacy is the best answer in this dangerous, complex world.

Isolation and disrespect of other governments and cultures is not the answer. If the U.S. and the rest of the world want to live in peace and harmony then all Nations must be included regardless of race, religion, culture, and politics.

Weighing In – One of my favorite line's is: "Stupid is, as Stupid does". Just scanning over some of the latest comment's truly shows just How ignorant, some of civilian's are. There's No critical Thinking ... just emotional 'knee-jerk' reactions about some very important & Critical issues, facing America.
Pointing fingers, posting moronic & meaningless remarks, should be restricted to the bill o'reilly's & louie dobbs baby crib.
Here's some facts to muse over – Reagan,a Republican, who also had No foreign policy experience, did indeed meet with one of our oldest adversarial enemies, the USSR and something significant came about. Reagan, was criticized for lacking any experience, since he was an actor.
Neither Obama nor Hillary nor McCain have any extensive Training/experience in foreign affairs or running the World Bank or have a rock solid Immigration policy blueprint. It's going to come down to Voting for the candidate who is smart enough, is both Committed & motivated, is persistent and his the testes or ovaries to bring about definitive SOLUTIONS to our country's major problems and Trustworthy of your Vote. I previously lived in Little Rock, but I won't share my views about Hillary & Bill (the real vice-president)
To be sure, the incoming president will 'Inherit' someone else Screw-up's, ie, Iraq-Afghanistan, NAFTA, Immigration, Healthcare & Taxes. As a Combat Veteran & with other family members on Iraqi/Afghanistan tours, This Issue is important to me; as I'm not interested in seeing our military there, whether it's 100 more days nor 100 years.
A quick Reality check for me regarding our Economy is that recently while traveling abroad, I Have NEVER seen our US Dollar sink so Low! The rate exchanges used to be so great for us, now it's like we have to pay other countries extra just go there. Whether it's the Canadian dollar or the Euro, it's a good way to keep all of us in a financial rat box.
TBC

the present administration has cost us prestige around the world with his foreign policy. when he labled them (axis of evil) he enraged them, and lost an uportunity fo any kind of diologe. i think sen. obama would be able to reduce tensions with on all sides

I think talking to your enemies opens window of possibility that could have more impact of finding common grounds of bring peace and solutions to centuries old of haters. And to move forward into the 21th century, it's importantly acceptable to face adversaries anywhere in the world.

What Senator Obama fails to realize is that meeting with these leaders gives them legitimacy on the stage of world politics that they will attempt to use futher their own agendas. It screams of his inexperience in international politics and statesmanship. Both his and Senator Clinton's stated policy of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq within the first two months of taking office further demonstrate his and her failure to understand the dangers of the situation. Our immediate abscence would generate a humantarian nightmare that one wishes to see. Senator McCain has my full support!

There are many comments detailing successful negotiations in the past with brutal regimes in the Soviet Union and China. But there have also been disasterous negotiations with tyrants. Remember the nieve and idealist Neville Chamberlains negotiations with Adolph Hitler? He returned from a meeting with Hitler in 1938 regarding the "Czechoslovakian problem" and proclaimed that a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. Well, Chamberlin was wrong and misjudged Hitler and close to 50 million people lost their lives in the resulting second World War. Would negotiating with tyrants be beneficial or more harmful? I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, if you are going to negotiate, go in with both eyes open, do not sacrifice your principles and trust but verify.

There is no subsitute for strong diplomacy. Entering into negotiation with pre condition is based on the notion that US is above other countries. Senator Obama has said that he will meet with adversaries with preparation but not pre condition. That is the right thing to do. Give diplomacy an oppurtunity. Cherry picking among dictators of the world just for the sake of US interest is double standard that has hurt US credibility in the world.

Well Wolf, I seriously think that Barack Obama is taking the right approach. The United States needs to regain its status in world. Too many countries in the world despise us for what we have become. By having talks, the U.S. can lower the tension it has with these countries. I think Obama made a very bold move to present his idea, which shows his movement towards change. Having talks does not neccessarily mean that the U.S. is negotiating with these countries. Why wouldn't a country who desires to spread democracy like the U.S., not spread democracy where it is needed the most.

if anyone has ever had a lawsuit against someone before court time the judge will tell you to set down and try to talk it out, I believe that you can go in as president and have a heart to heart talk first and i know you would have preparations first. All presidents have advisers, it seems as if BUSH is the only one who does not listen to them.

So far our dealings with other countries borders dictatorship. You must agree with us and do as we tell you before we can give you the honor of a meeting with our godly, civilized, moral, and wealthy president.

Let's try diplomacy for a change. Compete in the FREE market place of ideas.

Doesn't it seem hypocritical to denounce Obama for his position
on meeting with adversaries and today Bush talked about
continuing personal relationships with Putin. Putin is turning
democracy into a socialist/communist country once again. There are many violations of human rights. Bush also confirmed he would
go to the Olympics in China. Isn't it ironic that he feels free to meet with the Chinese who have a long history of violating human rights and freedom of religion. I don't see the difference between what is happening in Cuba and what is happening in Russia. Please, think a little bit before condemning Obama. Yes, our country meets with enemy leaders when it benefits us. You don't think ithat is arrogant from a world view?

dont you think its being hypocritical to start peace talks among two nations and you cannot with one of your enemies? i think the usa need to start talking and show they are not hypocrites.

All of these people who think talking with and appeasing our enemies reminds me of Neville Chamberlain the Prime Minister of Great Britain who thought he could deal with Adolf Hitler through diplomacy. It wasn't very effective was it?

I may be naive but I know in the business world..."keep your friends close and your enemies closer"......it may work here as well since the vast majority of the world sees us as arrogant.

Sen. Obama is rightly taking criticism for this......There is a difference though with the current administrations go-it-alone foreign policy and what needs to be done in the next administration to repair relations with other countries by nominating people like John Bolton to the United Nations.

It is to bad Condolesa Rice has basically had her hands tied by an overbearing neo-con agenda.

We need to get off our high horse, honestly. Why hold the ideas of meetings above foreigners heads?

Obama shows how naive and very inexperienced in foreign policy he is, which could prove fatal for the American people today. With the condition of the world today, experience is A MUST to counter all that is going on. Look at Israel and Gaza Strip and Iran today in the news. All American voters, this should be an eye opener. This is reality as it really will be to the next president. It happens at a moments notice and you must know how to respond appropriately to save our country. Look what has happened in seven years with inexperience, two wars going on, terrorists attacks, economy in shambles, no jobs, people unable to afford the medical care they need or at times limited food or no food. Think long and hard if EXPERIENCE is a PRIORITY because a WRONG DECISION could mean the DEMISE of the AMERICA we once had and the one we have today if you don't make the RIGHT CHOICE.

Sadam was once our ally, Cstro has outlasted 9 presidents with this policy, just grow up talk to them, keep your friends close and enemies closer.

Sure,

We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.
Strong leaders tell their adversaries where they stand.

The politics of arroagnce of president Bush has made us very vulnerable in the world. Our military and our economy are very badly impacted.

This needs to change with the next administration.

OBAMA is the right candiate for this crucial job.

Vote for OBAMA!

Obama is right in meeting with both his friends and enemies alike because the policy of isolation has not worked for the US for over half a century. if any candidate is ready to take advice from Bush, then get ready for another four years of bush-style adminstration.

YES we should be talking to adversaries! What possible positive outcomes could be met by issuing blind orders to countries without a face-to-face meeting? This is a very frequently asked question in the business field – should representatives be flying to meet with prospective partners or just call them? Research has conclusively shown the impact of face-to-face meetings on positive outcomes – can't argue with the scientific method.

Wolf, It appears most naysayer think Obama is going to start talking to our enemies the first day he is on the job. I would think he has to get his staff picked and settled in.And by the Obama has run his campaign I think he will pick the best people to advice him on all matters.just like he did for his campaign.
I hardly think he is going to get on the phone on one day and start calling the bad guys.

Jennifer

You write:

'That's how the cuban crisis was avoided in the 60's,how communism died ,and how north korea is gradually disposing off their nuclear arsenal '

You should make some due research. Obviously President Kennedy,
nor anybody high ranked met wit Fidel Castro, and as far as I know,
Neither President Clinton nor Bush, or their Secretary pf State, met
with Kim father or son !!

TOM

Yes we should talk with leaders we don't like. Nixon went to China, Reagan kept a dialog with Gorbachev. It's how diplomacy is done. Keep your friends close... Keep your enemies closer!

Kennedy met with Krushev(sp?)–he was a bitter adversary. Our president should meet with the prickly ones–and show them who's got the big stick in the world. We shouldn't be afraid to meet with a leader we don't like–it's high time we get our international prestige and intimidating moxy back in gear–which we lost under George II. Thankfully Bush won't be on the ballot again–so he can't steal another election!!

Wolf, don't you get it? Mere meeting enemies with "preparation" would not only encourage and show support for the enemies, it can potentially be dangerous for the president.
What I believe Senators Clinton and McCain and President Bush are saying is that in the event these enemies change their ways, they'd be more than willing to meet them.
That's my two cents!

Of course a president of any country should meet and speak with all other world leaders. That is a must. U.S. arrogance is at an all-time high thanks to W. Best of luck, Senator Obama! You – and you alone – can improve our standing in the world. Make us proud once again!

Bush is about the saddest case of masquerading around as a president I've seen in my nearly half century of life. Barack Obama is head and shoulders above the other wannabe's running in this election cycle. New techniques and innovative thinking is what this nation needs right now. Leadership that is not arrogant and divisive will do us all a world of good. I agree that we need to get real. Real about the fact that if we don't change our ways we're doomed to a repeat of everything we hate about government and the results of it. We need to get off of idiot avenue and turn onto smart highway. Obama '08

Maybe those leaders wouldn't want to meet with Bush or the other people who want to enforce our policies on the world by force. Our current president is a tyrant who has also abused, not only his own peopl, but also those of many counties througout the mid east and the world. If eliminating tyrants is a prerequisite to talks, we must eliminate the Saudi's for sure, regulars on the most oppressive regime lists. If any of those old time anachronistic poloticians would care to point out to me the benefits of the current system of diplomacy I would be happy to listen. We need a new vision, and a totally new way of doing thigs and Barak is the one to give us both!

Our enemies would not possibly believe that an American president could be so naive. Obama's overtures would also be interpreted as weakness and could only embolden those who despise our freedom and values. Obama, with all good intentions, simply lacks the experience and judgement to lead our nation in a time of great peril.

I'm certainly glad that the presidents of my youth decided to sit down and talk with our major adversary, the Soviet Union. With thousands of missles pointed each way, I'm glad they were able to communicate with each other.

The policies of the Bush Administration in ignoring the advice of our friends and refusing to meet with or negotiate with our adversaries has been a total disaster. We live in a more dangerous world as a result of this arrogance and incompetence.

I support the efforts of Barack Obama in changing Bush's myopic paradigm and returning to the policies of previous and more thoughtful presidents.

Senator Obama is not suggesting a novel idea, he is just the right man, for the right visit, at the right time. Of course, he’ll make preparations and not go in unprepared.

Wolf, having just returned from visiting China (GuangZhou, ShanTou, ShenZen) the fact that US presidents have met with China in the past and present can be attributed to the positive attitude our entourage experienced and I am certain that many other US Tourists may share the same sentiment.

Ours was not an official visit, nor did we visit places where VIPs or US Diplomats frequent, therefore we got a first hand look at the vibrant day to day life of these cities. Most impressive was that we did not experience any anti-U.S. sentiment, on the contrary intrigue and a desire to visit with US tourists delighted the Chinese folks we met.

Let’s dust off this approach of US Presidents visiting with “adversarial” countries and be proactive, discard the arrogance, discard the practice of demanding “our way or no way”.
Senator Obama has the foresight, the attitude, temperament and the only candidate that can adequately articulate and negotiate results from those we currently consider adversaries.

All Obama is saying is that we cannot accomplish ANY diplomacy without performing diplomacy. He has said that he would set up an agenda for the meetings beforehand. If he's talking to Raoul Castro, then Castro will know ahead of time that getting political prisoners released is on the agenda. The same goes for the serious issues in other countries. Cuba has not changed in fifty years, and by refusing to PERFORM diplomacy, we have insured that their wrong doing goes unchllenged. Of COURSE we have to meet with those we disagree with. Nothing will be accomplished otherwise, as we have proven with prolonged and ineffective emargos against Cuba which hurt not only the Castros but the Cuban people as well.

Its a no brainer. We talk our adversaries. Obama presents a view that is refreshing and absolutely correct. Its like fighting with your wife and then just letting things resolve itself. The most effective way is to sit down and talk it out before you get a divorce.

Obama has at every opportunity shown us why he is a true leader and that why experience does not define a leader, but rather widsom and judgement. He has been able to excite the American people, allow us to look at old problems in new ways, and thats the only way to solve the problems of a country that if it continues to follow its current, will no longer be great. I pray for Obama as President of this country for the sake of my children and yours

Meeting with leaders and giving into them are two separate things. The first does not imply the second. But it does enable both sides to move toward giving a little, which usually alleviates a dangerous situation. Not always, but usually.

I strongly agree with Paul and Patrick: "You cannot just go and hug our enemies, there has to be some type of diplomatic preparation as Senator Clinton said and Obama agreed with her".
Hillary is our gal! She's done no wrong so far, that we know. Who knows the real Obama? He's got plenty of time to prove himself in the coming years. We don't need a big risk and possible flop now! These are really hard times, and although we do need change, it doesn't have to be so radical and risky for our country. We know the Clintons, we had a good economy during their times and the world was not our enemy. Let's have the change with Hillary!

If you are the father, you will get good and bad child. By refusing to speek to the bad one, will make him worst. America, you guide the world : you are the father. Please talk to anyone, you will be able to solve whatever you want. 8 years of Bush without talking has been non-productive. So try the opposite.
I think America need a credible leader capable to transform America and the world. Not another Bush style. Only Obama has catched my eyes and many more around the world.

There is nothing wrong with talking with our adversaries as long as there is a preparedness done before we enter into any talks with them.The reason that we are in the situation with the countries of the world now is because we are looked upon as the bullies.We have this train of thought that we should hit first then we can go in and fix up what our president has messed up.We spend trillions of dollars on a war that Bush ,Clinton and McCain wanted and we have jets that can't be fixed because we don't have the money it is all going towards their war fund.Had they taken to time to listen to the inspectors and to top that we had soldiers coming back to Walter Reed hospital and it was falling apart. It was not only that we troops coming home that are homeless from this war if only some diplomacy had been used maybe things would be different.Yes there should be talks whenever possible.

Bush doesn't talk to Syria, to Iran, to Hamas and the situation there is getting worse and locked. Bush has talked to North Korea and we see a kind of improvement. By saying that he will engage with ennemies, Obama certainly means that he will allow his administration to talk to the ennemies and that at a certain point of these discussions, to boost the dynamism, he will personaly get into the scene. That is good Idea.

Wow Lance...a few lines up...profound saying! Love it

I too would ask anyone who buys into Bush's logic: in the 7 years of his administration, what improvements have there been within Cuba or Iran, or in the relationship between our countries, as a result of his foreign policy philosophy? Absolutely none. So if what he espouses has shown no effectiveness whatsoever, why on earth would anyone accept that it is the best course of action? Isn't trying a different tact the smart thing to do? We can always go back to the current policy if that doesn't work. Remember the definition of insanity: making the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different result.

As for the first post here and the ad-nauseum whining by HRC supporters that she is treated unfairly by the media: have you really forgotten already how this same media had all but designated her the nominee before a single vote was ever cast? How fair was that to the other candidates at the time?

The President is an elected official, not the King or Queen. Why are we acting like it is a privileged position? Don't we – the taxpayers – pay the President's salary?

I think there is nothing wrong with extending an olive branch to another country. Remember the quote from the Godfather – "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

Dont you think Senator Obama is really naive about foreign policy? Today he criticized President Bush (and actually all the past presidents of America) for a Do Nothing Policy in Cuba. Short of invading cuba – we have done everything as permitted by our constitution. His Do Something option would be to meet all the dictators of the world – and lend legitimacy to them – who in his view would be so inspired by his persona that they would willingly give up their tyrannic ways. The heavens will part indeed and light will shine upon the whole world……

Absolutely we should meet with adversaries. I am not saying it is going to work out every time but I have learned through my life that the root of nearly all conflict is lack of communication. Think about this one thing. We have never had more countries, groups, or people hating us than we do now. I would say the attitude of our national leadership the past 8 years has a great deal to do with that. Basically our adversaries are afraid of us, they dont have a clue what we are about, they think we feel superior to them, and that we think we can do whatever we want when we want to do it. I feel a little communication will go a long way in many of the problem countries around the world. In those run by whackos we will probably not be any worse off than we are now. Time for a change OBAMA 08

Kennedy met with Kruschev. Reagan met with Gorbachev. The United States has always engaged friend and foe alike simply because it's the only way to get results. President Bush has been a miserable failure on foreign policy, making us far less safe than we were when he came into office and squandering the good will of the world after 9/11 in part because of a lack of communication with the rest of the world. Senator Obama is right, and apparently the only person running who makes any sense.

I believe our foreign policy is due for some changes and applaude Obama for being willing to meet with foreign leaders that others have chosen not to. Our current policies were fine for the Cold War, but times are different now. The world has changed...and with the internet and constant advances in technology and communication, the world has become a much smaller place.
If we truely want to be a leader in the international community, than we need to start acting like one. And considering our current standing among the international community, it couldn't hurt us to exercise a bit more humilitty, and a little less arrogance.

This is exactly the problem with America ,not enough of you rednecks have lived or even been abroad to understand that the world does not in fact revolve around our cowboys and their cows .What's with that inflated mentality of not talking to our enemies ??If we are confident our point of view is the correct one,what's wrong with trying to let them embrace it around a table instead of calling them names and seeking comfort in our own values .What about the oppressed people of those countries,do you even care about them ?Do you think their situation will get any better without their leaders agreeing to it ?What,you're waiting for a revolution to happen ?well here's the news,they are too hungry and scared to even think about it .Well,they tried once ,in Irak,in 1992,and Bush senior let them die so that some fat saudi so-called king could snore peacefully at night .Do you remember the Oil for food program in Irak ?While US and Europe was refusing to meet with Saddam ,and sticking to their embargo,infants were dying in the hospitals because there was not enough IV tubes or even penicillin to help them .In the meantime ,Saddam's sons were living large on caviar and having fun with their infamous nightly rapes adventures.So now,do you think it help Saddam that we pouted and ignored him ?
A great president is not someone who calls himself "War president" and bullies those who disagree with them ,but someone who can get his butt off his confy oval office chair and be willing to meet with people he despises .That's how the cuban crisis was avoided in the 60's,how communism died ,and how north korea is gradually disposing off their nuclear arsenal .

Hillary can stop him. That's what she is trying to do. The people of Texas, Ohio, and the remaining primary states need to wake up and vote for Hillary. She can deal very effectively with our adveresaries, given the chance. It's just the media and members of her own party that seem to be the problem. She appears to be as baffled by Obama's appeal as I am. The way to keep them from sticking it to our girl is to support her and make sure she is the Democratic nominee. She can beat John McCain. I know he was a POW for 5 years, but Hillary has been tortured by the Republicans a lot longer than that. That's got to make you tough.

There can be a presumption that one would go into a meeting with a foreign leader without any advance preparation. By the very nature of the numerous possibilities of topics both singularly and dually beneficial to the countries at hand, this meeting would have been carefully crafted. Mr Obama seems to indicate a preference for seeking solutions to long held anti-American policies/positions by what......saying 'let us sit and talk'! Is this a novel approach, or have we as a country 'advanced' to the point where we talk with our fists? We can not knock the other country's proverbial 'teeth out' until they submit. Oration requires thought first. T-H-O-U-G-H-T! Both China and Russia was once the spoken of as being the 'axis of evil' Now examine the economies and exports of these former 'enemies'. By the way, who decided it's cool to play in the sandbox with them now? Grow up little spoiled children. It is a new century. You've lost your job, you can't afford heating oil so you're burning newspapers to warm your house ,( which by the way is in foreclosure and being advertised ifor sale in the Beiljing Chronacle!) Talk? Yes, absolutely! Mr Obama, talk well with no fear! Open our collective, united mouth and use it for all it is worth. If you don't, as have been recent policy we'll hold our breath's til we all turn blue . So there! Nah...nah......nah...nah..nah!

Of course we should meet. Bush's "I don't want to hear what you have to say unless you agree with me" policy has only turned back the hands of time. We need to move away from a policy of arrogance toward one of progress, and shutting others out – even our 'enemies' – is not progressive.

We can choose to take part in an open dialogue with the world, or the rest of the world will move on without us?

i strongly believe a middle ground must be reached. It is not appropriate for the President of the United States to engage in direct talks without preconditions but it is also not advantageous for us to ignore foreign leaders when they are less than 100% compliant. That just isn't the way compromise works. I feel that Senator Obama has made that argument clear.

Perhaps we should ask Neville Chamberlain.

Not without preconditions. To meet without preconditions or notice of change, would be foolish. Once again, it emphasizes Obama's inexperience with foreign affairs and overall aloofness.

He needs a few more years with his training wheels on. We don't need him crashing the country because of poor choices because he didn't know any better.

Yes, the President should meet with the likes of Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad. It will prove that the U.S. is not just a bully dispensing diplomacy at the end of a rifle.

Wolf a change of tactic is neccessary. It is only when we started talking to north korea that they started to disarm there nuclear ambitions.

Obama’s position on this issue is precisely what led me to leave the “undecided” category and become a firm supporter of his. His is a refreshing position compared with that of the current administration and is grounded in pure common sense. A world in which major powers with nuclear weapons, or the future potential for nuclear weapons, refuse to speak with each other is dangerous and stagnant. Only through discourse can we hope to induce cooperation from those countries whose policies we oppose and ultimately bring about change in those policies. The foot-down, line-in-the-sand, do-what-we-say-or-else approach has not worked, cannot work and is one of many reasons why Americans are so disliked throughout the world. It is vital to our safety as a participant in the global community that we open the lines of communication and try to bring about change and cooperation by sharing our ideals, our way of thinking and the benefits of our policies with foreign leaders through discourse and true diplomacy.

Duh,

Of course we would be better off talking directly to our "adversaries". Meeting with someone who does not agree with you until they agree is not a sign a weakness, but one core reason we get ourselves into the messes we do.

I would love to see a President meet with the Leader of Iran and tell him both personally and frankly that he needs to tone down his rhetoric and attitude.

The problem comes if Obama meets with the Iranian President, shakes his hand, smiles, kisses him, and talks to the press like there is nothing wrong.

You can meet with other world leaders and respectfully and strongly disagree with them without getting all cute and polite in front of the Camera's.

This is the problem with people like HRC and W. They turn everything into politics.

This is one area in foreign policy where I belive Obama is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Bush refused to meet with leaders of rogue nations unless they changed their ways first. This suggests that communication is some kind of reward. It's not.

Obama's idea works for several reasons: If we talk (mind you, I don't mean "negotiate", just talk), then we know what's on their minds, and they know what's on ours. The one driving force that causes anybody, whether it's a political leader or child, to misbehave, is human nature, usually in the form of greed and selfishness.

If you want your kid to behave, you don't break lines of communications until he changes, you start by talking to him and explaining your reasoning, expectations, etc. You then listen to their concerns. Maybe there was a misunderstanding.

Maybe, if we talked to Saddam Hussein, we could have figured out that he was bluffing about WMD, and we could have saved a trillion dollars. Maybe, if we talked to Kim Jong Mentally-Ill, we could have gotten him to shut down his nukes five years ago.

Bush would always say that the military option is the last resort. If he's not talking, then there is no first resort – just war!

It can't hurt. It never hurts to listen to what your adversary has to say. Even if you reject AND renounce (or denounce, I can't remember which) every word of it, I guarantee you will learn something by listening, and that the adversary will learn something by listening to you. That's the worst case scenario. In the best case scenario, you might find out that there is one point on which you actually agree, and something positive can come out of it.

Of course, the reason Bush, McCain and Co. disagree is because they don't want to learn something. They are not interested in anything that conflicts with their predetermined world views.

Interesting that the leaders of the U.S. have always been willing to sit down with dictators when it is financially beneficial to them. Why is it okay for the Saudis to visit the White House and vise versa? Aren't they considered to be one of the more violent and oppressive regimes in the World? What about the Chinese? Both of these countries are less democratic that either Iran or Cuba according to the Economist Democracy Index. Yet we have formal diplomatic relations with them, and even invite them over for dinner!

Wolf,

I do not think America realise that they cannot continue to treat the rest of the world with contempt. I just believe that for you to come to the table with your adversary to resolve issues asking for conditions that already has handed the issue to you is quite arrogant. In order for America to continue to retain its status in the world as a leader, it must be ready to disscuss issues with nations they do not agree with in order to reach a solution.

Just another major display of Mr. Obama's global inexperience. I am amazed by the voters of America who are so mezmerized by Mr. Obama that they simply cannot see these very blatant and serious concerns.

Talking with our adversaries will only cost us at most the time which is taken to speak with them. Using the silent treatment is the diplomatic equivalent to sticking our fingers in our ears and blowing raspberries. The rest of the world already thinks of the U.S. as a group of pretentious 'our way or the highway' war mongering narcissists, and refusing to meet with leaders we don't like only enforces this image.

There's no way we can possibly make any kind of advance towards improving relations or conditions with other countries if we don't even try to be diplomatic. It's bad enough to have one Cuba, we don't need to create more.

I think it is a good idea to meet with international leaders without preconditions. I see this approach as no different than Teddy Roosevelt's 'speak softly but carry a big stick' philosophy.'

Diplomacy is always a good first move and I think America should be viewed as a nation that is willing to try diplomacy first before using force. If anything, I think such a gesture would encourage leaders to have better relations with the US which would promote peace and prosperity for all.

Of Course meeting with our "adversaries"...code for leaders of countries that don't agree with everything we say...is a better strategy. The way things are done now makes it seem as if we are looking down upon every other nation as if we are superior to everyone. It's not enough to just say that a particular group of people hate us...why not sit down with them and find out why?

well, i think that should be a good idea cos it enhances the fairness. US is not something only for US, for all the world. therefore if that happens i think thats gonna help the world at least to realise whats happening.

by the i am not from US but paris

Lets face it, the world's opinion of us is at a all time low and is a result of our current foreign policy stance which is basically "We're too good to talk to you." Rather than our foreign policy imititating the "cool kids" like in highschool we now have a candidate that is willing to go against the norm and be a true valedictorian of our country. I find it impressing and one of the key reasons why I support Barack. He isn't saying he will get all comfy cozy with Iran, Cuba, or Russia. He is willing to engage discussions to hopefully start negotiations.

Wolff, isn't this why our relationships with even our allies have been lukewarm lately? Many people do not appreciate American unilateralism. We're like the spoiled brat who wants everything our way. Diplomacy is talking to other countries in hopes of coming to a peaceful resolution, not bullying others into positions that are agreeable only to us.

If we continue in the manner President Bush has been leading us, pretty soon we'll have no friends on the international scene. With developing powers like China on the rise, we must be very diplomatic if we want to continue to be a relevant player on the international stage.

This is a response from McCain WORD FROM WORD:

"Yesterday Senator Obama said, 'Well we shouldn't have gone in the first place. If we hadn't gone in the first place we wouldn’t be facing this problem.' " McCain said at a town hall event in Houston, Texas. "Well that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now.

Now see how quick we are ready to cast aside, all the lives that we have lost not just the ones who served our country, but there families, and McCAIN IS SAYING THIS IS THE PAST. Come on here when are we going to wake up, stand up, and put up? Come together as a people and do the right thing. We can not afford to make another mistake like this one. And call it the "Past” Lives have been lost abroad and here at home. Don't let them dupe us again, put the right Man in office, and let's take our place as American people. Correct the wrongs and make the rights.

Everyone is taking Mr. Obama's words out of context. He didn't say he would rush to talking with different world leaders. He said after much preparation he would do so. There's nothing wrong with sitting down and talking and putting your cards on the table. There are a lot of battle that can be won by talking and not rushing to war. He also states that if this doesn't work he will have to use force. Please, report the facts as they are. Also, President Bush never chose to talk to Castro, but simply put, Cuba does not have much to offer him..there's no oil in Cuba. He only goes where there lies some interest and where he can make a statement. Clinton can talk all she wants because if the shoe was on the other foot, she wouldn't talking about Obama by now. He is a very intelligent man and the Bushes and the Clintons know it and aint nothing they can do about it. They have tried everything possible to degrade hi; his wife, his clothing, his church, what's next? will it be his little girls? I wonder. Just when I though we had moved beyond yesteryear........I wake up and find we have not progressed at all. How sad.

I think what Obama is proposing is the right approach. Not talking or putting sanctions or waging war leads to more disharmony and distrust. Throughout the cold war, a US president never said NO to talk to premier of USSR.

The objective is to resolve all the issues in such a manner that at the end of the day everyone comes out as is a winner. If US president takes the initiative to discuss (with out pre-conditions) about issues, he/she'll find more than a willing audience at the other end of the table.

The list of those countries we are not talking to is not getting any smaller, leaves only one possibility, that it will continue to grow. Yes, it's imperative that the president of the United States does meet with our adversaries Our adversaries can only be embolden as the list grows.

This is the main reason my vote goes to Obama.This is just common sense.The reason the rest of the world despises us is because our previous leaders make us look like tyrants.I says it's worth a try, it doesn't look like our previous bully approach has been working with other nations.

First of all, any candidate who refuses to consider talking with our enemies is dangerous. At least consider it.

I would agree with Sen. Obama's position. You should talk to your adversaries.
Let me challenge the other side by raising some question:

First, where does this theory 'if you hold meet with your adversaries, they will be emboldened and they will continue to do what you disagree with' come from? Is there any empirical evidence? I you love to hear from a conflict resolution expert.

Second, are those who say that a US president should not meet with the adversaries because by doing so the president in effect is giving "aid and comfort to a tyrant who is abusing his own people" taking this stance out of principle? If a matter of principle, they should also be against meeting tyrants who may not have been labeled "adversaries" at the moment?

Why not try a new approach. Apparently the apporach of the "establishment" is not and has not worked. Obama is a man of change so allow him to try and change things. Since when was a different approach the worst approach. Allow me to remind you that there was once a time when people thought that the earth was flat. Open your mind and back away from the ignorance. Back away I say. People hate Americans and I am often afraid to even travel internationally because American arrogance has turned so many people to hatred.

wolf,
someone needs to talk to obama.Personally, I think his lack of experience speaks for itself.Why not just invited everyone to tea.
We are already the laughing stock of the world because of George
but at least he would not sit down with our enemies without pretermined conditions.

God help America if we get obama.

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Wolf, On this matter I think Obama has said some pre -work needs to be done. Shunting countires because we think are ideology is so perfect is insane and doomed. We say we respect sovriegn nation rights to live as they choose as long as the human rights policy are like our. Which I agree, but that doesn;t mean if you don't play my way
I'll just take my ball and go home. Its a global economy now . Dialogue is good, look what happen to the berlin wall,and the changes in Russia after the meetings President Reagan and Gorbachev had. On judgement Obama has a gift for how the world is and how they precieve us. Americas image as a war mongering bully needs to stop. President Kennedy said " the world is very different now" and the same thought process applies today!.
Thanks for your time in advance
Robert J .( Danville , VA.)

Barack Obama wanting to sit down and talk to the leaders of countries opposed to the US could be beneficial. Back before the fall of the Soviet Union, US presidents would sit down with them to discuss issues and avoid conflicts. Why do people think talking to other leaders is a bad idea? Is it because we haven't done it in a while? If we keep doing the same thing as we've been doing lately (not talking to them) do you really think they are just going to stop opposing us? Not likely. I say lets try sitting down with them and try to come to some agreement. If it doesn't work we can always go back to ignoring them.

Wolf,
I really don't understand the "make you afraid" technique used by political fortune hunters. The wisdom of Hilary Clinton and John McCain is what should be questioned. You know what I know? Meeting with freinds and foes alike is really quite brilliant. Why would the president of the greatest nation and only superpower in the world ever be afraid to talk to leaders of other nations. It would be like the CEO of Walmart running from the manager of the 7-11. Time for our leadership to develop a better argument, stop making the undecided's nervous. We have a lot more to fear by being distant than being familiar.

We are the United States of America, what are we afraid of? When you shun these leaders you elevate their status. What good has come out of the Cuban embargo or shunning of relations with Cuba? No one likes a bully and that's what George Bush's policies come off as to the rest of the world. It rallies the world against us. Obama has never said he's going to parade around to these world leaders. He's implied that if he has to he will not be afraid to meet these leaders face to face to tell them where America stands.

Obama said it best in a recent debate: the times call for extraordinary measures in the wake of Bush's alienation of world leaders.

No, unless they are willing to make some effort to change. The President should actively meet with organizations in the country that are actively working towards change.

What Obama is obviously saying is he wouldn't rule out meeting with the head of an adversary and would seek to do that as a way of seeking to resolve diferences when that is possible. To say (as Clinton and Bush do) this means he wouldn't give diplomats and others the chance to lay necessary groundwork is untrue and completely misses the point. What Obama is saying is no more or less than what John F. Kennedy said: we should never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate.

Barack Obama would rewrite history by meeting with both our allies and enemies. Our foreign relations will improve on day one!

Imagine our allies are excited about these prospects too.

Wolf,

I see it as two ways. If the president is willing to meet with the leaders of rogue nations it will have an impact. This impact can not be foreseen as good or bad, but itwill be an impact none the less. However, if we continue to operate the same way we have, then the same things will occur, without change and zero impact. Even with the risks, I would rather see a president that is willing to try and change this country and our influence abroud for the better, then the same-o-same-o. It is time for someone to step in and do something, or this country will surely go down the drain.

Not having first hand information can cause misunderstanding and bad judgement. It does allow for scapegoats in case decisions turned sour. It takes courage, Good for Obama.

Hey....It is a new world. We are not in the Cold War Days. We have the best Military in the World. We need to start communicating on the same level with the rest of the World. We got attacked once George Bush took Office pretty much. We need to use new tatics of diplomecy.

We need to change into a country that is about education and better situations for Americans not the country we have been in the past which was support Military Based Businesses and try to be bully to other countries in the world that we do not agree or like their leadership.

We need to change and help change the world....The world is screwed up and has major issues but our solution can not scared tatics or bullying a country to meet our expectations we need to work together and involve neighboring countries to put pressure on countries that need to change

Hopefully Obama will help make this happen......because our same old government will not today or in the future if we do not make a change.....

Safer. And Wolf, I really despise your push poll type commentary. We need to start being the leader of the free world again, instead of alienating it with our arrogant hubris.

Why the heck are you asking us? You should be asking the foreign policy experts. TELL US what they are saying. And this is not about Bush, it is about the strategy of the U.S. over the last 40 years (or longer).

And next time, just say: Who's right...Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama? Because that's what the purpose of this thread is anyway.

When is the media going to report information instead of getting it from us!!!

Please post this -

I am confused as to why CNN did not report the latest tiff the way I remember it happening....

1. I remember that during the debate Senator Obama said that he would leave some troops behind and would go back into Iraq if there was evidence of the insurgency developing a presence there (or something to that effect)

2. Then Senator McCain said that he had news for Senator Obama – they are already there. Which they are.......

3. Then CNN shows Senator Obama talking about how they wouldn't be there but for the Bush Administration bla bla bla but Senator Obama never retracted his statement from the debate.

The story is: That Senator Obama misstepped during the debate and it clearly showed that he does not have a complete handle on the current state of affairs in Iran, Iraq, etc. Senator McCain clearly showed him up and CNN covered Senator Obama by not criticizing his disjointed response.

Is there a way to actually do a segment on this? It is important.....

We should sit down and talk with these people. I wonder when we are going to learn from history and realize that isolating leaders does not solve anything. Direct diplomatic relationships is the only possible way move these nations in a more democratic way.

CLEARLY IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHO IS THE PRESIDENT. OBAMA – YES -MCCAIN – NO

MD,NY

As a canadian, this a fantastic example of american arrogance. The US has to suck up their pride and meet with these individuals. Otherwise, the anti-american sentiment will continue to grow. Haven't people realized, that the growth of terrorism is in part do this american ideology that consideres them morally superior.

I think Obama's willingness to change this paradigm is the oppose if naive. He's the one person that is willing to say we are wrong and need a new direction.

Warren Christopher, as Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, met with Syria twenty-one times during his tenure.

How far with the Syrian government did he get, Wolf? Have they stopped messing in Lebanese affairs? Did they stop being a destabilizing force in the Middle East? Have they stopped impeding the moderate Middle Eastern states in working to establish more peaceful means of securing the area by replacing the kleptocratic regimes currently in charge?

Reagan said it in 1964 with regard to accomodation and those leftists who continue to insist on its merit; Obama, and those who follow him, have proven that they haven't learned anything in the 43 years since regarding accomodation and appeasement.

Failure to meet with foreign leaders and to show respect while being clear about which of their policies are problematic for the U.S. has led to a stalemate in foreign affairs and a dismal view of our government throughout the world. Obama offers us a return to diplomacy, an appreciation of a democratic view of the world.

What propaganda? Obama said there will be preparations but no precondition.
Bush's policy is of a cow boy and not befitting America. BTW he studied International relation at Columbia University and graduated in the top 1% from Harvard.
Please spare us the propaganda; OBAMA's foreign policy will be many times better than that of Bush or McCain.

Really really bad idea. To meet with these heinous dictators and murderers (yes, murderers, I said) would only provide them more propaganda within their foul little fiefdoms. These subhumans–Ahmadinejad, Chavez, et al–aren't worthy to sit at the same table with anyone who values freedom and human life. Incidentally, Mr. Obama has no clue what he's talking about regarding foreign policy, in my humble opinion.

Clinton, McCain and Bush are all saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but obviously advance work hasn't done anything to make the world a better place. How much more emboldened could these tyrants get? They already rule their country with an iron fist and say the most inflamatory statements on the world stage. These bullies will only respond to strength and the best way to show strength is to stand up to them. Refusing to meet face to face is a sign of weakness which is a greater help to any dictator. Obama has it right. The others are cowards.

Well, considering Bush has so openly ridculed the idea, I think there must be some merit to it.

I agree with Obama's statements from the debate in Texas where he pointed out that Bush has backed us so far into a corner in some places that we may need to be a bit more receptive to making the first move toward peace.

Besides, if I were taking on a new job I would want to feel out the competition myself instead of relying on the word of Bush and Cheney as my starting point for Foreign Relations.

It all depends if the other side is also willing to talk about substantive matters. Diplomacy between former enemies is normally (correctly) initiated in secret well before any leaders appear on the scene, or though proxies who act as communicators. To refuse to maintain some sort of contact between warring nations/leaders solves nothing, costs nations lives, destroys their budgets, and only fills the pockets of the war-makers. History shows us the advance discreet or proxy diplomacy has cooled many of the supposedly intractable hotspots in, for example, Eastern Europe, Libya, much of Africa, China, Vietnam, and possibly even North Korea over the next few years

Dear Wolf,

It never hurts to talk. The US president would not legitimize the policies of oppressive regimes by meeting with their leaders, unless of course being our friend was a precondition for having a meeting. Obama has made it clear that he would meet with our enemies, and scheduling a meeting with an enemy does not change their status as an enemy.

So the question is, what are the potential costs and benefits of these meetings? There's not much to lose in having a meeting besides the time it takes to prepare and meet. It's not a great gift to an adversary. As for benefits, there might not be any, as there weren't when Kennedy met Khrushchev for the first time in 1961. But the potential for positive results is there. It could be a way to get adversaries to agree to things that are in the US interest, and diplomacy might be the only way to make that happen in some cases.

I think Obama is right to point out that having a policy of diplomatic engagement could by itself improve the US image around the world. But the most important thing about these meetings will be what goes on in them. Several US presidents, including FDR, JFK, and Reagan, have reaped benefits from engaging adversaries diplomatically. The real question is, does Obama have the intelligence and skill to bring about agreements with other leaders that would benefit the US, or would he botch it up? I think he has thus far shown us that he could do a great job.

Monroe
Irvine, CA

Wolf,

Going against the common 'wisdom'... I feel it could only stand to help this country's position throughout the world if it came down off its high-horse. The perception of America around the world is overwhelmingly one of arrogance, greed and immorality and while something as simple as the President meeting with loathsome dictators isn't going to change all that... it can't hurt.

These leaders have larger egos than they should and as a result they put themselves on a pedestal as well. By meeting with them, you can coerce them to come down off their pedestal and at least make some kind of agreements. You can't talk to these people on the phone and expect to get anything out of them. All that does is embolden them to thumb their noses at us in a battle of the egos and thus, no one gets anywhere.

Both Pres. Bush and former Pres. Bush along with Vice President Cheney don't seem to have a problem being photographed with the Saudi family whose leader is rated as the 4th worst dictator.

Absolutely not. The U.S. needs to work on our relations with other countries. If we needed to go into war with another country at least we could go into the United Nations and say Look we tried talking to them and got nowhere. I think more countries would be willing to form coalition forces with us if we at least made an effort. The best thing that could come out of talking is the othe countries change their minds on the issues, the worst thing is that their ideas remain unchanged, but at least we tried.Our country needs to repair the damage caused by the Bush administration!!!!!

It makes perfect sense to say that you will sit down with our adversaries without preconditions. The Bush policy has been shown to be a failure. What better way to show the world that we are willing to go to great lengths to promote stability, freedom, and democracy. At this point, I'm not sure how much more embolened they could be. The more light we can shine on them the more the world will see how rediculous (i.e. Chavez) these other leaders are. Hey ,here's a new idea...let's smother them with capitalism and democracy!

Communication is the first step in conflict resolution. As long as the discussions are undertaken from a position of strength, then why not? Handled deftly, intransigent leaders could be placed into rather tight positions.

Obama reveals his naivete by making these absurd statements. You have to understand that just because Bush has a failed foreign policy, doesn't mean Obama's strategy is the right approach as well. You don't default to an agreement of one policy by rejecting another. I hate to say this, but Obama will be outgunned by these dictators, who are a lot savvier than he thinks he is.

I don't think Obama suggests going in to these talks unprepared. Nor may these talks be ones of "lets sit down and make a deal" per say; they may be more "you need to sit down and listen to us and do this or that". The point that Obama is making is communicating with our allies and our enemies. Knowing one's enemy is the greatest way of defeating them. Lets face it, with the way American media is open up to the rest of the world with ease, it's an unfair advantage that some of these closed off countries have with us.

It's a shame for the media to inflate Obama and treat him superiorly to other candidates??? instead of clarifying his strong root in Kenia, his name, muslimic origin. What American people would think when your president has the same name with the terrorists or even related? or he'll do favor for other countries (Kenya, muslim, etc.) ... or what else?

simple and concise answer YES the usa would be better off

First of all, let me say that I am a Canadian and am an observer to this process. In my opinion, Mr Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of these states should not be rejected out of hand. Has completely isolating these leaders helped the people of these nations one iota? Is the world any safer? The last time I looked, the common people of Iran were still under the rule of hardline clerics, the people of Cuba are still under the same Communist regime they were under when ties were completely cut, just to name a couple. You have been able to difuse a nuclear stand-off on the Korean peninsula with dialogue and engagement in one hand and the threat of sanctions in the other.
If Richard Nixon could normalize relations with China and Kennedy could meet with Khrushchev at the height of the Cold War I do not see why you cannot do likewise with equally distasteful regines today.

Andrew O'Connor

American foreign policy clearly is not working, and perhaps it's time for the President to involve him or herself in some diplomacy for a change. I commend Barack Obama for his willingness to take an unpopular stand on an important issue and deviate from standard, ineffectual presidential practices.

yes

MY TWO FAVORITE CANDIDATES..... HILLARY , OR WHOEVER IS RUNNING AGAINST ....OBAMA

DEMOCRATS FOR HILLARY OR McCAIN 08

It would make for a more stable and peaceful world. Bush's "stick-only" approach has failed so far. Nixon went to China with few, if any, preconditions and our relationship with China has worked out rather well. Tension between the U..S. and the old Soviet Union was decreased when our leaders started talking. It also helps understanding on all sides for ordinary citizens to meet each other on a regular basis. A Presidential visit can pave the way for that to happen.

There are 2 cases when dealing with these "adversaries":
1. They are willing to change.
2. They are not willing to change.

For case 1:
If you never communicate with your adversaries, they will never be anything but.
For case 2:
As Sun-tzu wrote, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

I believe its time that the President should meet with these leaders to find solutions and peace. It's been too long that the American President has not been able to demonsatrate leadership in foreign affairs. When abroad, Americans or the US is looked as the horrible country that led on this war. The US needs to build new relations and strengthen old ones in foreign affairs.

I don't know how Clinton, McCain and Bush can be so dogmatic in saying that such a policy would not work. It hasn't been tried for them to judge. This is why I support Barack Obama. He thinks outside the box.

In requiring that certain preconditions must be met before a country’s leader is allowed to even talk to the U.S. President we are telling that country that your leader has not earned the privilege of talking to our leader. That our leader is more important than your leader. That is blatantly disrespectful. Part of the reason why so many around the world have such strong hatred against the U.S. is because they think that we don’t respect them or their country. Having the President talk with the leaders of adverse countries goes a long way in changing this anti-American sentiment.

Dear Mr. Blitzer,

It is definitely worth a try. America has followed a policy of not meeting with leaders of countries like Iran for decades. But nothing really changed. Did it? The people of Iran are not really any less oppressed just because America has chosen not to talk to its leaders. And it is not as if America doesn't talk to tyrants. What about the American allies like Saudi Arabia or Musharraf of Pakistan? I think it is high time to try a different strategy with the leaders of countries like Iran because the current policy of "not talking" simply did not work. I therefore support Obama's approach. What do YOU think?

I believe Barack's position is correct. If we intend to help the opressed people of a country, how can we expect to have any impact if we do nothing to build ties. This is a huge reason i'm voting for Obama. I believe McCain, Bush, Clinton, etc are history. I believe we'll look back on this and be so grateful that we had a president that worked to bring us together globally.

CHANGE.

Is the "with us or against us" approach working? We're bogged down in two wars with no end in sight. We're hated throughout the world (I've spoken with Americans who have experienced this first-hand when traveling overseas). We live in constant fear of another attack.

How can conversation and communication be bad? How can that be any worse than what we have now?

When you have a failed strategy, do you not change it?
The question should be, what has come of not meeting with them in the last years? And the answer is NOTHING.
We need to get off our high horse before we become yet another lost empire. We are borrowing from China to pay the Saudis. We had better start improving our image by behaving admirably. It is only then that be can be a great world leader – IN ALL AREAS..

Wolf, you ask for comment but unless it is going to support Obama you talk about it so who are you kidding. But for giggles I'll give it a shot....Obama said he would not have pre-condtions but then in one of the last 2 debates he use the word preparations, hmmm sounds like back tracking and then his preparations are the pre-conditions that Hillary has stated......things that make you go hmmmmmm
But with regards to your question, no it would no be a godd idea without the enemies of this country meet the pre-conditions, becasue they will do eaxclty that and use the visit for propaganda purposes which they are know to do......so no we should not meet with them until they met the conditions for such a meeting !

Yes Wolf, I'm sure if we just sat down with one of these monsters, who find nothing wrong with causing untold adversity for millions of their countrymen, who think nothing of taking the lives of thousands of innocent victims, we could just talk them into repenting of their ways. This fairy tale mentality, along with CNN's and MSNBC's clever little campaign for Obama, is exactly why he is ahead in the race. I'm sure when Obama's in the white house he can just out rhetoric them into complete submission.

why sit down with someone if you don't have an agenda to negotiate?
If both sides are not ready to budge it is a stupid waste of time and has historically been used for propaganda.

Now then, if there is something that both sides want in common...that's when you sit down and work it out.

What were doing right now isn't working so why not meet with them and at least agree on some things is better than nothing. Time for change. World needs to see us as willing to listen and not see us as a cowboy with guns drawn. The world is a different place and our government needs to change to keep up.

I think Obama should be commended for his courageous stance on this topic. If this is his "inexperience" then, please, let's have some of that inexperience!

It is difficult to see the 'downside' of simply meeting with those with whom we disagree. What is the worst case scenario? That nothing is accomplished or agreed upon? Well, that is no worse then our record of abject failure where we refuse to meet with leaders with whom we disagree. What has been accomplished by 8 years of noncommunication with Iran or Venezuela? What has been accomplished by our 50 years of noncommunication with Cuba? Has this policy been effective? And frankly, why would be interested in foreign policy advice from those who have a long track record of failure.

I stand by what Senator Clinton states as the best format. She knows how we should proceed and she will prepare herself and the government before we talk with these presidents.

Senator Obama has shown us his inexperience, by stating we should just go straight into talks.

We need to be prepared in order to speak to these people and Senator Clinton has stated from the very beginning that you need to be prepared before doing so.

The Bush Administration is a failure as well as his ratings. Barak Obama has already stated that it would take a lot of preparation. The only thing President Bush is doing is campaigning for McCain because he wants to build up the Republican party. As far as I can see, President Bush is the last person America will listen to.

I think the human civilization at this point of time is entering a new stage, the stage of humane civilization whic h demands for harmonious world. The gap among race, religion and geography is gradually shrinking. When the world is inter related and inter connected, it is very hard take unilateral initiative for the global leadership.So, there is a possibility that America can be better off without make someone worse off.When we hate others in an interconnected world, it is hard to expect a respect from others. But, I understand the intention why this column appeared at this time here.It is understandable and the impicit meaning here is Obama's foreign policy is not good for America which is not fair. What happened when we invaded Iraq? we made more enemies and it flamed anti American sentiment around the world.So, there is a possibility of a win win situation for everyone in this world, there is no point that we should always hate others.

YES WOLF, BUT WE CAN'T DANCE WITH THE DEVIL EITHER...

WE NEED PRE-CONDITIONS....

Some of these scandalous dictators will try to TAKE ADVANTAGE of a new administration....

WE WILL BE EMBARRASED AND SCAMMED IF WE JUST INVITE EM TO DINNER RIGHT AWAY....

Hillary Rodham Clinton wins this arguement... She's to the skill and judgement to do what's right and meet when it's right with leaders.

That's why I'm voting & caucusing for CLINTON 08 !

Mr Blitzer,
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Why would anyone not advocate opening lines of communication with our adversaries?
Maybe if we had talked a little more with Saddam Hussein we wouldn't be looking at 4000 dead GI's, up to a million dead Iraqi citizens, substantial increases in recruitment of Al Qaeda and an estimated 4 Trillion dollar bill for the whole mess.
Never negotiate out of fear, never fear to negotiate.
Thanks,
Grant

Meet the enemy? Why not? I don't equate meeting hostile leaders as giving them aid and comfort. I doubt further that such a meeting would add or subtract to the level of oppression in a leader's country. Propaganda is cheap and these leaders don't need US presidential visits to justify themselves. US policy may of course play a role in the level of oppression-whether we sell arms or not, trade embargoes, intensity of our isolation efforts, level of aid, and on and on...Also, the idea that getting a US presential visit is some sort of special prize is self-pandering and is in-a-house-of-mirrors ego-driven logic. The US itself isn't perfect, often pursues its interests in unethical ways, and shouldn't be surprised that other people see the world differently. So let's talk to our enemies. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them...doesn't mean we have to capitulate anything...doesn't mean all problems will be solved...but where does not talking at all get us? A much more dangerous world to be sure.

McCain said himself that Abu Ghraib was fueling the insurgency. It sheds light on a larger truth about the war on terror. This administration's disrespectful approach to relations and the war in iraq is fueling everything. We must meet.

Pre Bush and the Iraqi war I would have said NO. However, America is in a much different place than it was then. I think it will go a long way in showing the world that America is still in the diplomacy business not the...go it alone...my way...or no way philosophy of the of the Bush Administration.

I think that meeting with other leaders of foreign countries is a smart process to approach. Since the Bush Administration started, we have become the most hated country around the world.

We cannot go around bombing countries who are our supposed enemies, that is not the way to solve problems. Our currency is at an all time low, other countries refuse to trade with us because of this war and our wrecked foreign policy. I think that the Republicans and the Clinton camp playing the fear card against Obama, which is crazy. I think the American people are smart enough to know that fear tactics and propaganda is not working. We are no safer today, then we were in all of the 8 years of the Bush Administration. We need a president that willing bring our country back on top and liked and admired by the rest of the world.

TOOOOOOOOO Dangerous.
Needs preparation. I disagree with Obama.

You know, I don't know if meeting directly with these leaders will help any, but I do know that to NOT meet with them has been proven, without any doubt, to absolutely NOT work.

I'm young enough, and thus perhaps naive enough, to think that Obama has the right idea and that the rest are just talking tough to pander to those who agree with them. His campaign is, and has been about change. Without it, by definition, things will just stay the same and we've all seen that that just really hasn't or isn't working.

–adam

Wolf, lets be clear.
There is a big difference between Hillary, and Obama and Bush.

Bush's ideas of having no political engagement on any level, is (as shown) flat wrong. But on the other end of the scale, Obama's ideas of being open to all levels including unconditional presidential meets, is extremely misguided and dangerous, and shows how little he understands international diplomatic engagement. Very Naive!

Hillary's ideas seem to take the common sense middle ground, offering some diplomatic interaction to encourage what may later lead to direct presidential involvement.

from above article: "This is a serious area of disagreement. So who is right in this debate? Would the U.S. and the world be better off if an American president were to sit down publicly without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Cuba’s Raul Castro, North Korea’s Kim Jung Il, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez?"

NO. There should be some moderated preconditions, otherwise the talks would be just vast of time and energy.

They will not cooperate with him, and no one else. I lived under communists -and it was pure hell, no freedom, horrible economy, restrictions, persecutions, discriminations, fear everywhere......sad truth. They would persecute anyone who would even mention likeness of West. They did talk to US presidents, but we people suffered. It is not so simple and easy.

The way this looks on the streets of Fall River, MA, is..."Will Obama go visit dictators before he visits my neighborhood?" We don't have many terrorists, but we have a lot of out-of-work people, with no health insurance. Obama seems condescending to us...He makes a joke out Hillary's parsing of his Farrakan denunciation, but then he splits hairs over "preparation." Obama clearly wants it both ways...In Fall River, we call that being hypocritical, not inspirational.

No way. When Chavez called Bush what he did a while back, that doesnt earn him an audience with the POTUS. You cant run around calling world leaders names.

How would it make the POTUS look if he bowed down to these tyrants without preconditions? It would make the US look weak.

Weak is exactly what the US will look like if Obama or Clintion get elected when they turn tail and run from Iraq and Afghanistan thereby handing the country to Al Qaeda.

The US has LONG held the policy that WE DONT DEAL WITH CRAZY PEOPLE! (Well, tyranical maniacs at least)
What would the rest of the world think if we backed down from that LONG standing and HIGHLY effective policy? This is a crazy question.
You don't reward bad behavior, even children learn that early. An it is a PRIVILAGE to have the (positive) attention of the GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!

If we don't communicate with our "enemies" how can we ever expect to become friends? Wars start when the talking stops, and I think it is in our best interest to keep our friends close, and our enemies closer.

Barack Obama should be talking about actions he would take with our friends and allies first and then discuss how to approach adversaries. Barack let's talk about the committee the you are leading and do something there.

Change I can believe in?
Give me a break!
More like change we can talk about but never really do.

Enrique, CA

Wolf, I agree that the sitting president should sit and talk with the leaders of all governments even if we do not agree with them. There would be a strong possibility that inroads could be made if that were to happen. And in the event that there was no agreement reached, it atleast allows room that the attempt was made with out conditions and that there would be the potential for inroads later in time. It is like you giving your spouse or your kids an ultimatum, do this we or....!
Bad move to set pre conditions, talk with an agreed upon adgenda and see what inroads can be accomplished.

I think any rational person need only take a very sober look at the current world situation. The phrase "cowboy diplomacy" has almost become a truism, and it reflects very poorly on the people of the United States. Refusal to engage with those we disagree with often results in terrible outcomes, whether in regards to national politics, or international relations.

I believe this is why Barack Obama is so appealing to voters. He is inclusive in his speech- making sure to build bridges with both domestic parties and countries whose leaders are at odds with some of our principles.

It's ironic: President Bush (and others) talk about how these despots are so at odds with the real will of the people, and yet he cannot even face the music when it comes to American opinion on issues like Iraq, healthcare, and even talks with "rogue" nations. Bush, McCain, and Clinton certainly don't reflect my views when it comes to how a supposedly civilized nation should comport itself on the international stage. Enough war and hate-mongering.

Mr.Obama,
He is correct,with the damage that has been done by George Bush,we need to improve relations across the board,how much can we lose from just talking,it seems like we are saying that what we say goes and that everyone else's concerns ,religions and beliefs are wrong if they are not ours.Lets do the right thing as a country for once.

We should all know enough to say that there is no magic bullet when it comes to foreign diplomacy and world peace. We will always have enemies and someone else will definitely consider that we are their's. However, I am relieved beyond description that a presidential hopeful is taking this stance toward foreign relations. I think it is sad to say that this is forward thinking in comparison to our past reactions to our "enemies." It's sad because in our day to day life, we don't consider it forward. We teach children to cooperate, and then forget everything we taught them when operating as adults. Why teach it to them in the first place. America has done poorly in cosideration to our demonization of enemy leaders. While there certainly are leaders who do us harm- we often forget that they represent an entire people-group who may or may not agree with what that leader thinks or says. Think of the American backlash toward all things French when they didn't support our going to war in Iraq. Rather juvenile in retrospect. (freedom fries? are we completely ridiculous?)
It is quite refreshing that a hopeful doesn't consider our highest office to be so above and out of reach of the rest of the world.

Many countries around the world, friend and foe alike have some major problems with US policies, both on the political and economic fronts. I am not sure that talking with those countries with absolutely no preconditions what-so-ever is necessarily prudent, though. And I don't think that is ultimately going to be Obama's approach. What I do know is the present US policy is not working and hasn't been working for some time. Isolating and sanctioning, shutting people out and closing lines of commumication never works. It only breeds more contempt and hostility. I guess my questions is.......why must we always get everything that we want first anyway? Sometimes you get much more in return when you are the first to give a little something.
We need someone who can think outside the box on these issues. The old mentality certainly isn't working.

obama is right

No it is not good policy for the President to have direct talks publicly without having advanced teams of diplomats. This is very nieve to think the effects of these types of direct talks would not impact the US diplomatic policy in negative ways. there is a reason we have policies such as not to negotiate with terrorists. I think back to a movie or documentary about how tough the decision to recognize Israel as a state. Truman agonized over this meeting with other American experts to decide what to do.

I think a direct talk policy would be very dangerous.

Wolf

Your question is misleading. There is a difference between meeting "without preconditions" (what Obama said he would do) and meeting "without preparation" (which is what Hillary twisted his words to mean).

Preconditions could be endless and may result in never actually meeting (ie- what the Bush administration has done). Preparation means that the US has all of its bargaining chips (carrots and sticks) ready and stands firm on them when they meet.

I DO believe we must talk and meet with our adversaries. JFK brilliantly used the same strategy during the Cuban missile crisis.

President Bushs's policy on not meeting with dictators is very inconsistant. He meets with the Saudis and with the heads of Russia and China. All of these countires have human rights problem and are ruled by force not free elections. Not meeting with Castro did not help make things better so why not try the highest level of diplomacy possible?

Please, lets stick to the facts of what Senator Obama said. He said there would be careful preparation and consultations before he met with these individuals. I agree with him you cannot take the Bush approach when it comes to other nations, what makes an American President so high and mighty that he can not meet with his adversaries. If a Deomocratic Nations trully wants to promote peace both parties have to take the iniaitive.

For many many decades, the US has been the top world power and every country has aspired to want to be like America. I have visited my husbands birth coutry of Pakistan several times and unlike what the media often protrays, EVERY SINGLE adult has only had praises for America and it is every child's dream to one day visit America (of course the praises do not equate to Bush). The bottomline is that, although certain policies and ways of thinking must always adjust to time and circumstance, the US has been a world power for certain fundamental principles and policies that shows why we are a democracy and powerful one at that. Sen. Obama's experience, or lack thereof, only shows why his candidacy has been and will continue to be under scrutiny. His desire to meet with such dictators without preconditions not only undermines the people of those countries, but also stains and weakens what we have been so proud to be a part of...a great democracy.

It's not a good idea to run around the world meeting with despots under any conditions, any terms. Leaders of major countries don't do it. The Secretary General of the United Nations doesn't. There must be preparation: You need to know what they want, what are their intentions, will they call you names (Hugo Chavez), etc., etc. The President of the United States must maintain the respect the office deserves. Yes, it sounds benovelant, humble, etc., but it won't work in our best interests without preparation.. No, we should not be arrogant about meeting but we must be careful to protect our interests.

By meeting with such leaders, unconditionally, places the stature of the U.S. presidency lower than what it should be in the international political arena. Obama needs to rethink this strategy, and own up that he may be misguided on this issue, otherwise he exposes his inexperience.

George Bush must be living in some dark part of the world. Does he realize, though, that the American peoople seem tired of his fearmongering?
Bush seems to be lacking in common sense, which is common to most! For him to somehow suggest that it would send a wrong message or rather confuse America's allies goes to show you unintelligent Bush is.....what is his rationale on how talking to adversaries would confuse US allies......
As some people said that the presidency ages people three times the average person and i think it has dealt a bigger blow to Bush since he was as bright to begin with.....

I've always found that, whenever I have a problem with a neighbor, it's best to talk directly to them, rather than talking publicly about them, or refusing to talk to them at all.

Aren't we supposed to occupy some type of moral high ground in the international community?

Then why tout the supposed benefits of an autistic foreign policy?

Let's look at history and the record on this subject.

The doctrine toward Cuba that has been carried out for over 50 years has been a dismal failure. It has not led to changes in Cuba for the good but only to a deeper suffering for the Cuban people. Every 4 years the GOP trots out the old Cuba argument to shore up support in Florida. Then the issue goes back into the bottle till they need it again.

This policy of ignoring and isolating has not worked with Iraq and it has failed miserably with Iran as well. The Bush admininstration has taken it to new levels of boiling rhetoric about axis of evils and the like. Is the world any better or safer? The answer cannot be yes by looking at current evidence.

History shows that we met with leaders of the Soviet Union during the heydays of the Cold War. Were they less menacing than Iran or Iraq? The Soviets had the nuclear ability to obliterate the world. Iran and Iraq can hande Kuwait if the US does not get invloved.

Diplomacy means talking and negoatiating with people from other countries whether we agree or disagree. It means having a dialogue that hopefully will allow nations to better understand each other and move toward common goals. Remember, we should be the standard bearer, leading the way in all areas of the globe. That means peace maker, diplomatic leader, letting actions speaker louder than words.

We should always be vigilant and ready to stand and defend our country. But we must also take the leading role in diplomacy for the good of the world.

Mike
Alabama

I believe in communication 100%. I think we could have saved ourselves money and lives as well as the Irqui people's lives by understanding exactly what was going on there. No the Bush Amdstr. had a scpecific agenda in mind and no body could get in the way. So 5 years later we are facing a recesion and no end to the war.

For alll of these reasons we have to engage in talks, we can resolve more problems by talking and engaging than by going unilateral.

"I would be interested to know what you think." – Wolf Blitzer (this article)

Really, why then have all of my comments today sat in limbo, and barely any comments are showing up at all.. I can't believe NOBODY is commenting in the blogs today, what is going on today?

While I feel it's a good idea to get discussions moving, I think it would be a SERIOUS ERROR to jump in without advance work first. If Sen. Obama was to win the nomination and do this, it would show his serious lack of experience and do more harm than good.

Obama's stance sounds reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear from public policy experts. Lots of 'em. Clinton and Obama are running for office. Bush is an ideologue. Everybody I've heard from so far has a dog in this fight. How about gathering input from scholars and other authorities from varying perspectives and traditions? Sounds like the job of a big news organization.

Why would it be MORE damaging to meet with a foreign leader of negative leanings, than to support one with billions of dollars? Personally, I think to be seen as respecting the office by meeting with them publically, gives one the opportunity to bring things out in the open that are questionable, leading to greater transparency. Our foreign policy history is loaded with questionable regimes, governments that we have supported without the American people knowing because there were no public face to face meetings. Things were done in secret that if seen in the light of day would shame our country. Even now, we should be shamed by the knowledge that we supported the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, or the Pakistan leader Zia, with weapons and billions while they were oppressing their people in the most undemocratic ways. Zia detained, tortured and jailed any and most all opponents, including the Bhutto family who led the first democratic government in Pakistan, killing the father first and then shutting up the rest of the family to keep the West, specifically America, from objecting so they could continue to gain needed funds. Benazir Bhutto (educated at Harvard) was killed this past December after returning to Pakistan once again to attempt to reclaim the country for democracy

Put it like this. We know that not talking to them has not made things any better. In many cases it has actually made things worst. We didn't talk to Fidel Catro for 50 yrs and what happened? Nothing. He gets to retire, hand power over to his younger brother, and die a peaceful death.

I say we give talking a shot. How does bullying countries around help? We know that even at the most fundamental level that bullying only intensifies defensive behavior. How about we drop the arrogant childish policy and act like resposible adults.

First of all Obama will have adviser and all kinds of intelligence reports to confer to. This man is a very smart and intelligent man. Please stop taking statements and running with them. It shows in his campaign the type of intelligence that he surrounds his self with. We need to start forming some type of line of communication with our enemies and allies. Look at what the Bush Admin. did? Closed the American people off from what was really happening. Started a war with a country based on lies. Hililary, McCain and all of them felled for the okidope. All but Obama, who they are screaming, has so little experience!!!!! What does that say about there experience? I say this Hillary has been wishy washy on everything that she say's, Bush has lied and cost thousand of American lives, based on greed. And now we sit here asking if this man who has prove to do something no one has been able to do, and that is bring the American people a awareness about what's going on and what's at stake. I mean people from all walks of this world, you can't deny the movement, and you ask if he can sit with our enemy's , well first let me remind you that our enemy's are human first, and before they where our enemy's there had to be a misunderstanding. Why can't we get to the bottom of why we are so hated? Fear is what's been holding us back and it fear that we are using now. Stop the madness!!!!!!!!! We are the greatest Country in the World. Act like it.

I'm not an expert on foreign policy so I may be missing something here but on the surface it seems like Obama has a point. Refusing to negotiate with someone until they meet all your demands sounds illogical to me. But then again if Bush, McCain and Clinton all think it's a bad idea then there may be a whole side to this that I don't understand. However, the explanation that the meeting would be used as propaganda doesn't sound convincing enough to avoid attempting to solve a problem.

If Bush can meet with the dignitaries of recalcitrant regimes like Russia and China, why not Iran or any of the other Nation States we want to influence?

A fool is someone who continuously does the same thing but expects a different result next time.

Obama is right. He will not fear to look into eyes of all enemies and tell them that they should expect US to react if they continue to bring misery to the World. There is nothing long with meeting enemies. Unless you are guilty of some bad policies, meeting adversaries is necessary. They need to know who you are and how serious you do international business. It incredible to see how US diplomat fear people from Iran, Cuba or Venezuela while those presidents do not fear to look into the eyes of US president. That is how they feel happy to come to our soil ( in UN) and insult our leaders.
The US mindset of fear must end.

This is nothing but personal E-G-O. To think that talking with someone rewards them is asinine. I mean really, there are only two ways to resolve disagreements ..discussion or violence. What we have here is a person who barely won the election, and thinks the rest of the world has to kiss his a_ _ in order to talk with him. PLEASE give me a break. Without dialog, NOTHING will get better..if you have any doubt tell me one area where Bush's policy has worked??

Yes, It can't be any worse than what Bush has done.

I don't see any real problems with meeting. What are the tangible harms that could come from such an event? If there are no real commitments to negotiations, how can we get resolutions underway for solving our differences. Why should we fear such a country? America sees its self as the end all, and shouldn't.

Obama will meet with any one and not for the benefit of America or the American people. He and Michelle have no REAL affection for America. Michell's words say it as does her Thesis. There is no place for a "rock star" who's mesmerising people to be CIC of this country.

Remember the movie "Roots", well Obama's "roots" are Muslim not African American.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and President Bush have this in common-they have experience, and have seen enough of the world to know that nothing is as "simple" as it seems.

This is what scares me about Barack Obama. He's spent the last two years working on his campaign, not learning about the world, not listening to those experts in foreign policy. Yet with his recent success, he has developed an arrogant, yet naive attitude that he can make changes in Washington just because he wants to.

There's a reason Asian and Hispanic democratic voters like HIllary–their culture respects age and experience, and the wisdom that comes with it. They are not enamored of the "exotic" nature of Obama's style and speech, or his 'faith-based" politics.

Nothing is as simple as it seems, and to believe otherwise, especially with all the violence and terrorism around the world, is not only naive, but dangerous.

Wolf,
It will Show the Iranian Government & Muslim Extremist that Obama is "Weak" It would be a Bad idea to engage in such talks until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "Stopped" his activities in Syria, Lebanon and his Behind the Back of the World attacks on Israel and in Iraq. Obama needs to get serious and Stop thinking he can walk on water! Wrong Policy for the Times we are Facing. But then again, this is were the word "Experience" should be taken a little more seriously!

The US would not be better off when it's president would meet with such leaders unconditionally. Those who think that see international problems as just the result of miscommuniction. Those who want to open up diplomatically but require conditions before meeting see conflict as the result of conflicting interests. Hillary Clinton's position makes a restoration of US moral leadership possible without being naive. Obama will fall into a trap (if he really means what he promises ...)

Mr. Blitzer,

I think it's pretty obvious that refusing to meet with our adversaries has been a less than successful diplomatic strategy. We can't continue to insult everyone in the world who doesn't agree with us – these are real people with real power and egos, and a direct meeting with the president of the Unites States would likely make quite an impression on them. It sends a message that we acknowledge their existence, and even if the talks don't go well, at least we tried.
It's a lot better than our current doctrine of locking ourselves in our room and pouting.

MS

You can't have a dialog if you insist on the other person agreeing with you before you even sit down to talk. Conversely, simply discussing issues, one head-of-state to another, does not commit either party to any course of action or agreement on the issues. Fears of "emboldening" our adversaries are overstated, in my opinion; you have to start somewhere if you intend to take a diplomatic rather than military approach to reaching an agreement!

Bush, Clinton, and McCain are being ridiculous. When has NOT talking to a dictator ever produced good results? When? Give me examples. We should never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate. John F. Kennedy said that. Let us compare two of Kennedy's foreign policy situations: The Bay of Pigs and the Thirteen Days. In one, he didn't talk to Castro, he tried to overthrow him. Bad plan. In the other, he used diplomacy with our worst enemies, the Russians, to avert a nuclear holocaust and also to prevent missles from being placed in cuba.

we don't talk to Cuba because it's communnist, not democratic, bad human rights, no free elections no free press etc.etc etc
how about
Communist China
Communist Viet Nam
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Egypt
Lybia
Pakistan
Would attitude about Cuba change if a huge oil field was discovered in
Gitmo Bay?

Obama said clearly that there would be prep work. Obviously, he isn't simply going to sit down without any conditions... It is so naive of CNN to say this.

Every president has enough advisors and sense to do prep work and have conditions before meeting another president..

This is lame.. Obama is smart.. He knows what to do b4 meeting a president...

Besides, the failed strategies havn't work of Bush! Please Bush giving recommendations – now thats a joke!

We should meet with adversaries and those who don't agree with us. It is like the old adage "ignorance is bliss" if we don't. How can you come to terms when you don't talk and more important don't listen. Imagine the bigger mess in the Middle East if Egypt and Israel had not sat down to talk. We need to approach all other nations with a certain amount of respect and understand that they have need and concerns as well. The only way to know what one thinks and requires is to talk and interact. The way we are acting now is that we know what is right for everybody and they need to follow whatever we say. We are in effect belittling other nations and leaders and show a lack of respect and concern for the citizens of other countries.

Half of those same leaders gain support from their citizens by anti us talk. Bushs isolationaism does harm to our country by further infuriating such leaders, besides those same leaders say the same thing about Bush that he says about them, so wouldnt it be better if we could try to talk through some of these problems? Wouldnt we be better off with more friends than enemies? I surely think so.

If most Americans believe everything Bush has said God help us the Republicans win again on the terror vote.

As long as I can remember, it is only after contact that we have been able to formulate a framework for any mutual agreement. Not speaking to adversories is counter productive on it's face. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid we may say yes, when we should say no?

Regarding "Presidential Diplomacy"

Look at it this way:
If some adversaries are put at ease that the US has no hostile intentions towards them and so become less fearful and antagonistic in return, you will have gained an adde measure of respect and security.

If some, less wise, adversaries seize upon this gesture as a sign that they can take a bolder stance towards the US, it will still just be an increase in antagonistic rhetoric, because let's face it, what can they do that they could not do before such a visit?

If the past several years have taught us nothing else, we should have at least learned that a complete and total lack of effective diplomacy is bad for the nation.

I think it will work... Obama's strategy.

It may not neccessitate cooperation per se. But it gives us the greater position amongst our allies and enemies should we have to send our troops into a situation.

We then have the moral footing to say, we met with this country...extended an olive branch and they didn't accept the gesture.

So when the "bombs fall" we can say, we tried...

Just to point out a "non-story". North Korea was very much in the news last year because of all the sabre rattling. Bush was refusing to meet, Rice was refusing to meet.

HOWEVER, an undersecretary of state quietly went about meeting with the North Koreans. Slowly and deliberately his work and patience paid off with the stopping of nuclear tests and collaboration with neighboring nations, and recently a concert held there.

NONE of this would have been possible if the US had followed his trademark "My Way or the Highway" attitude.

Displomacy works, communication matters, and talking to your enemies rather than about them gets the job done.

Barak Obama has it right when he says that you start with what you and the other person have in common, rather than over what you disagree. This is the sign of a LEADER. This is what the United States has been lacking for the past 7 years.

The world already looks at the United States as a bully. Diplomacy is needed in all aspects of life in order to build a relationship with another individual. How long are we going to fear our enemies? Obama is right to want to meet with these individuals. They will realize two things. The U.S. has taken a different path by electing an African American president and that they are ready to sit down and talk.

It is wise to be in contact with other leaders whether we like them or not. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

It would be good for lower level members of the administration to start quietly meeting with members from the governments of Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. Once some trust has been built up with lower level people, things can be built up to higher levels. Reagan and Kennedy among other presidents were willing to talk to other leaders from countries we didn't like. Why has the current administration not done that? Because it thinks that America can do anything it wants since they seem to believe that we are the sole superpower with no one to say that is bad and act as a counter-balance.

Basically both sides are right about this: it would be a bad idea for a President Hillary Clinton, John McCain or George Bush to meet the Iranian leadership 'without preconditions,' given who these politicians are and how they operate, but a plausibly good idea for a President Obama whose offer to meet Ahmadinejad shortly after taking office would show up as an 'offer Ahmadinejad could only refuse at his peril,' rather than an act of weakness on Obama's part. Obama has 'created space' as it were for some rather dramatic changes in international relationships in face-to-face negotiations. Obama's willingness to talk offers America's adversaries a 'one-time' chance to alter the terms of discourse they would be wise to take advantage of rather than blow off.

of course the world would be a better place if the U.S finally agreed to be diplomatic with it's adversaries instead of just being allies with the usual suspects. the main reason the U.S remains unpopular among the rest of the world is because of the arrogant attitude of the current administration. Obama is absolutely right, his approach would ensure a better country and a better world.

IT COULDN'T HURT! THERE IS AN OLD SAYING ' YOU CAN CATCH MORE FLIES WITH HONEY" SO MAYBE WE CAN GIVE IT A TRY?

We should meet with adversaries and those who don't agree with us. It is like the old adage "ignorance is bliss" if we don't. How can you come to terms when you don't talk and more important don't listen. Imagine the bigger mess in the Middle East if Egypt and Israel had not sat down to talk. We need to approach all other nations with a certain amount of respect and understand that they have need and concerns as well. The only way to know what one thinks and requires is to talk and interact. The way we are acting now is that we know what is right for everybody and they need to follow whatever we say. We are in effect belittling other nations and leaders and show a lack of respect and concern for the citizens of other countries.

I think it would be a good thing for us to meet with are adversaries. I think one reason we are disliked around the globe is because of our blatant arrogance. Why do we think we are simply better than everyone else. No I do understand the opposition stance, however the way we have been operating our foreign policy lately has only fanned the flames of anti american sentiment.

Wolf,

This is a great question. My perspective (albeit as a non-American – I'm a Canadian citizen) is that choosing to ignore those with whom you disagree serves no particular purpose except to encourage your enemies and their people to dislike you even more. The U.S. has had no ties with Cuba for almost 50 years, yet the people of Cuba are not noticeably better off in terms of political and economic freedom than they were when Castro took power in 1959. In the case of Iran, choosing to avoid engaging with Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader gives them no incentive to change the course of their policy; if they see that the United States is not willing to engage with them, what reason do they have to change the way they operate? Many Republicans oppose meeting with these leaders, yet they forget that both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were strong advocates of a carrot and stick approach to the Soviet Union and Communist China. Not surprisingly, the Cold War was won not by ignoring the Soviets but by engaging in a constructive dialogue which solved problems that had seemed intractable. If one can negotiate with the "evil empire", then there is no reason why the United States cannot negotiate with states that pose a far less serious threat than the Soviet Union did. It's time to stop pretending that ignoring states that are hostile will somehow make them change their ways.

I think the notion of meeting with leaders of anti-american companies without prearranged outcomes would be an excercise in bad foreign policy. Why give dictators, and far left wing governments, access to the most powerful man in the world? That would only give the regime credibility that it does not deserve, and has not earned!

I predict that if Obama is elected, he will not meet with these regime leaders with out prearranged outcomes.

Time will tell.

Wolf, last time I checked negotiations were not meant to be between friends but between adversaries. The idea that we have the right to make demands on other leaders in order for them to talk to the US president is ludicrous and old school. We obviously have some differences with the leaders of other nations. The best way to move ahead and see progress is to talk about those differences. What would there be to talk about if they listened to all of our demands up front. This policy is just silly and reminds be of a schoolyard fight.

I tend to agree with Obama, that talking with our adversaries makes sense.....and I don't think it's about "giving aid and comfort." It's about finding a solution to the problem. I believe this would fall under the category of mediation, something the legal community is using more and more to settle conflicts and disputes.

I also understand it is complicated and requires a good deal of preparation, but doesn't it make sense to have a dialog? Mediation and discussion don't mean 'aid, comfort, or approval ' of dictators or facist regimes... they mean conflict resolution. Since our foreign policy and tactics to resolve conflicts abroad seems to be woefully inept, I can't see why people are up in arms about this idea. Sitting down to negotiate deals is what smart people do in business, so why not in government?

If I remember, Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler in 1938 was quite productive.

Apparently, our current policy in foreign affairs does not seem to be working at the moment. What harm can this cause if our president sits and listens to our enemies. Actually, the fact that any country is declaring themselves our enemy should be cause enough to find out why. I am not saying we should be pushovers. But, just as we have pride and loyalty for our country, so do other individuals for their country. I don’t care how big and powerful you are, you should always show respect to everyone, even the little guy. Now, if that respect is not reciprocated, then hard measures should be taken. Yes, maybe some of these foreign leaders have been given chances in the past. However, I think the process has to be revisited by new administrations.

After these last 7 years, we have a lot of mending and leading to do in and outside of our country. Yes, I would be grateful if our next President would be 'changed' enough to sit down with any other world leader in the name of peace. After all – "We've nothing to fear but fear itself".

IT'S " HILLARY " OR NO ONE FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY . THE ONLY OTHER PERSON WORTH VOTING FOR IS SEN. JOHN McCAIN

Isn't their an old adage about keeping friends close but our enemies closer? What's wrong with trying to reduce tension and threats around the world by sitting down and agreeing to disagree? America isn't the world police so let's stop trying to impose our ways on others – we need to learn to live in harmony with the world. I think we need to tidy up our own backyard before we go around the world policing other nations.

In a word NO.

Meetings of heads of state have a very special meaning and bring with them an inherent importance. Obama’s position on this shows that he is not ready to sit in the Oval Office. He sorely lacks the knowledge of diplomacy and the keen behind the scenes workings at lower levels needed to orchestrate such a meeting.

You can not empower your enemy by elevating them in the arena of world opinion, by holding a no pretense meeting.

I also think that Bush goes to far in the other direction demanding 100% of his conditions be met. There is a middle ground and among the potential Democratic candidates Senator Clinton seems to walk the center path.

I believe it would be a bad idea for an American President to meet directly with foreign adversaries. Foreign leaders, such as Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, and the like, who are blatantly open about their disdain for the United States stand to benefit the most from any confrontation. These leaders have nothing to lose in talking to an American President, thus can speak in any fashion they wish, derogatory or otherwise, since they already have a reputation of contempt towards the United States. An American President has everything to lose, credibility on the world stage being the most crucial loss, because as Americans we are expected to be civilized, mild tempered, and well behaved. Any provocation that might occur during these talks could be used as fuel against America, thus reinforcing the dislike of America in the worlds of those leaders whom we consider enemies.

If Mr. Obama has a dream, well then we should let him dream. I wouldn't let a sleeping person lead a country, though.

He is not ready, honestly, if he thinks, that to president means to be nice to everybody. Maybe Ahmadinejad thinks Obama is a good guy, so Mr. Obama can not reject the invitation?

Can't hurt to talk. Won't help to ignore. Doesn't take a genius.......

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Not talking has not worked. What's wrong with trying something different? It's clear that the world hates us – maybe it's because they think we are too arrogant to hold a civil conversation. Dialogue is better than bloodshed any day.

CNN Please Print My Comments and Don't Delete Them!!

I liked Bill Clinton as a president but didn't he try that same approach with Kim Jong II and N. Korea and they just took advantage of him and the U.S. and didn't bother even complying with U.S. regulations. Bill attempting to normalize diplomatic relations with N. Korea and even offered aide to N. Korea. Meanwhile Kim Jong II was producing weapons grade plutonium and secretly tryin gto enrich uranium. I think in foreign policy Obama is extremely naive to the reality of the world and obviously has not learned from Clinton's mistakes. However, I think Bill learned from his mistakes and realized it just doesn't work like that in the real world no matter how much you want to 'change' and negotatiate with adversaries.
I believe Hillary also learned a lot from Bill's mistakes evidenced by her responses in debates that she would only met and negotiate with preconditions and some leaders are not worth meeting with given their history and the history of those particular countries. Obama is just naive about domestic and foreign policy and in particular how to deal with U.S. adversaries. To me that is a clear indication that he is not ready to be president and that Hillary and McCain (seriously) are more prepared to be president. But then you know Americans never seem to learn from their mistakes or past history. For some odd reason people believe Obama can wave a magic wand over the world and everyone will sing Kumbya and be happy. This reality is Obama is not running for president he is running to lead a movement almost like a cult built on this false reality of hope and change. Change only comes over time and only through experience which clearly Obama does not have. The responses that Obama gives at times in regards to his foreign poilcy are downright scary including comments he made in several debates that he has no problem bombing Pakistan without cause. The media really needs to start questioning him hard on comments like this that could possibly lead to world wars and or leave the U.S. utterly defenseless and at the mercy of our adversaries. The media has done a terrible job at this and the democratic primaries continue to be an American Idol contest and not about the serious issues we face in this country.

Everything has a solution when we talk even bible says so.

No doubt we have to do our home work before we initiate the negotiation with the leaders like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The gist of the thing is the leaders like Bush want to take political advantage out of these things by putting pre-conditions so that they need not to meet.

Nobody wants blood. We need a new kind of leadership which will negotiate the differences with other country otherwise the differences will keep increasing and will result in World War III.

Diplomacy is so important to the safety of the world. American Presidents were always willing to talk to their Soviet counterparts during the Cold War and overall it cooled tensions and prevented a lot of very real fighting.

Bush's diplomacy has been a nightmare - even when he wants to "work with Congress" its more like he tells them what to do or he'll veto it. A little less hubris and a lot more listening would do the world a lot of good.

Wolf,
I am Curious why CNN has closed the Comments so quickly for :
Obama still battles Muslim myths and
RNC denounces use of 'Hussein' in Obama's name forums.

Wasn't this the same CNN that enjoyed the Romney/Mormon Comments…

I find this very telling of CNN and it's infatuation with Obama and its reluctance to allow debate or comment on Muslims.

I will be very surprised if CNN Posts this. Rarely will CNN Post if comment calls them out.

Obama is perfectly right. Why do we continue to call them enemies? I do not see any thing wrong that we meet with these people on a diplomatic basis to resolve problems,. Our strategy of avoidance is old politics. Bush keeps saying that meeting them will create the wrong signals, I think he is disillusioned and need to be more open minded than being DUMB as he is, there will never be a solution to this problem. It is time we do something about this situation and make things better for the world, Talking to the enemies will create the RIGHT signals, and make us understand what we are dealing with. If we are able to change the wrong things, then we have start getting angaged. Not in war, but in real DIPLOMACY.....

Where has not talking got us? I hope the "my way" or the "highway ends" with the Bush administration. We could have talked Sadam off the ledge as well............

It would not be wise at all! Obama is living in a dream world if he thinks he can just sit down and chat up the enemies of the US. I think even he is starting to back away from his "no pre-conditions" idea when he talks about now having "preparations" before he meets them. Same thing to me.

Maybe he's learning from his elders finally. Now hopefully he can start on the road to respecting their wisdom.

EVEN THE BIBLE STATES THAT WE AS A WHOLE PEOPLE MUST
LOVE THY EMENIES. WHAT WOULD IT HURT OR HARM TO SIT DOWN AND TALK. THAT WHAT OBAMA MEANS WHEN -- "WORDS
MATTER" !!!!!!!!!!!

Yes. You just have to look at how not meeting with Cuba has worked in the past. I would rather the US be viewed as magnanimous as opposed to arrogant.

I am not in favor of this method of communication. The US has too mush at stake to appear as though we will speak to any potential terrorist/hostile country without preconditions. It seems very nieve to think that problems can be resolved so easily.

How on earth could Obama really believe meeting with these dictators would be good for anything except propoganda and exploitation on their part? This leads people to think he really is as naive as they say, should we all fall over ourselves in praise for this idiocy.. Not me, I'll leave that to the media.

"By their fruits ye shall know them": If we judge the Bush administration's foreign policy a great success in boosting the USA's status and repurtation in the world, then clearly Bush, McCain and Clinton are right on this question. If you think it has been a disastrous failure, as I do, then Obama is obviously right.
What is lost in much of this discussion is not the question of whether a readiness to talk with our adversaries will change THEIR minds, but rather what the effect will be on the people whom they rule over, and on those–many–countries that are neither decided allies of the USA nor decided foes. It seems to me obvious that a clear readiness on America's part to negotiate and listen, instead of simply ordering and bullying, will vastly increase the goodwill among those populations suffering under oppressive rule, and in those other countries between. Obama is clearly onto something big here.

President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Zedong and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972. Soviet Premier Nikolai Khrushchev visited with President Eisenhower (and took a tour of the US) in 1958. At the time, both Mao and Khrushchev were seen as leaders of nations diametrically opposed to America and the values it stood for. But with an ever-present threat of war, those differences were put aside in the interest of diffusing tension between nations. For me, that logic still holds today. It would be much more difficult for the leader of a rogue nation to declare the United States a sworn enemy if our President is prepared to sit down at the table. Would such an act lead to immediate and dramatic reforms on the part of the rogue state? Probably not. But it would likely stall a pending escalation of tension, and that has tremendous value in it's on right. Let's not forget that in despotic regimes, one supreme leader holds ultimate power. If our President can address such a person mano a mano, who knows what detente could be reached. If negotiations are left to subordinates, the chances of a diplomatic breakthrough become much less likely.

I think the fact that the United States is not favorably viewed (I'm being kind) by the International Community is proof that the current philosophy does not work.

I firmly believe that trying to open communications with our "enemies" (in quotes because in the current administration that includes everyone that is not a democracy or does not have oil), that we would be able to identify and move towards some common goals that would be beneficial to both countries.

Pretty SAD when people think it's a bad idea to talk .

In no way should our President ever meet with anyone with just and 'open door' policy.......that is what Senator Obama suggested at previous debates. It shows how inexperienced he is. This is the fella driving the bus without training or even a drivers license. He has no idea what the ramifications are for his well sounding but hollow suggestions!

Although sounding good in theory; meeting with the leaders of rogue nations, without preconditions, is somewhat naive on the part of Obama. The prestige of the presidency and the United States could be dimished along with other consequences. Would Obama also meet with leaders of the Nation of Islam and KKK?

I think the danger that we see in continuing the current policies far outweighs the risks of a President representing not only the will of the American people but also in many cases the will of the oppressed people of those countries. Alienating our allies as well as our enemies only achieves two outcomes. First, our positive relationships fail, and secondly we send the message to the people of oppressed nations that we only care in speeches and writing and not with heart and action. Let’s look at a historical figure, would Pope John Paul II be criticized for meetings with violent leaders and failed governments in an effort to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to the people suffering under such harsh and strangling governments? I think not. In fact is that not one of the major reasons he is admired greatly throughout a large portion of the world. I find it ridiculous to think that by ignoring the world around us and following the same policies that placed us in the world as it is today that we somehow think that continuing down that same path will somehow fix things, that refusing to find common ground and growth will fail where threats of violence to those that do not agree 100% with our ideas is a better option. If holding a gun to a person’s head breeds fear, resentment, and anger, what does the offering of an open hand or help do? Maybe I am just an idealist or maybe I just have the guts to try.

The US needs to stop being the police of the world and learn how to sit down and talks to its friends as well as its enemies
the current status and thinking has led to nothing but war and conflicts and torn down the American image!
One of the smartest secretary of states in the world was Madalein Albright.She had vision and smarts and met with all US enemies
Obama is an intelligent man , I am sure he will have smart decisions
before engaging the enemy
Obama 08 with Bill Richardson as secretary of state!!

Bushs Opinion means nothing...zero ziltch!!!
he has only a record of being a war monger and Americans are fully aware of how he has brought the country down in every way
economy wise and image wise not to mention the honorable noble troops who have lost their lives because of his illegal war!!!
He leaves office with little or NO respect!

A candidate who makes such grand claims like Obama, with little political experience, can be not just a hindrance to progressive foreign policy but also a danger to it.

Senator Obama has spent the past two years working on his campaign. He asks us to trust him, to have blind faith that he will make the right choices, and often disparages Hillary Clinton as too much "Washington".

The "evil of Washington" is made up of many brilliant, experienced, seasoned men and women who know a heck of a lot more about world affairs than Barack Obama, and his lack of respect for these experts, and his brazen statements scare me.

Absolutely. Talking to someone that agrees with you is stupid. We need to work with countries, not try to force our laws down their throats.

Wolf fore one thing it's cheaper than blowing them up. But the larger hypocrisy is look at what we do with China and other countries. Our politicians pick and choose depending on the number of net votes this nonsense gets them. The best way to help any dictatorship is to allow it to remain isolated. That's how they control their people. That is a historical fact. We should talk to all of them. As we learned in kindergarten, that's how we make friends. Talking costs us nothing and can net us a lot. War unfortunately makes some fat cronies even fatter. That is what most wars have been about. The other unfortunate thing is, that, it makes the rest of us poorer. There is no one with any degree of intelligence that thinks war is the answer to achieving a stable and peaceful world.

I think that it is a good idea for the next U.S. president to meet with adversaries. It would help make for a more stable and peaceful world. Meeting with someone does not mean you condone or agree with them. It actually gives you the ability to tell them what needs to be done in their face. The Bush Administration is hypocritical in it's stance because Bush plans to meet with top-level Chinese officials this August. We all know the human rights violations of China ...

Overall, I commend Sen. Obama for his boldness. We should be willign to meet with all parties and talk about issues face-face.

What is the downside? We are not respected in the world, we operate out of fear. We will not fundamentally change these leaders, but we may learn something. And if done correctly, what we learn may help our estranged relationships with our former allies and friends.

The two main arguments against meeting that I have heard is that it somehow diminishes the diplomatic prestige (and therefore, power) of the Presidency, and also that it would be perceived as legitimizing governments which we have strong disagreements with.

I disagree with the first argument, simply because I don't believe that the diplomatic power of the U.S. President is tied merely to the scarcity of his appearances– it is rather the consequence of the enormous power the U.S. wields, economically and militarily. It doesn't make sense to suggest that foreign countries would suddenly pay less attention to the President just because he spends more time in direct diplomatic talks, when all the real sources of diplomatic power remain the same. Beyond that, to the extent that cultivating the good will and respect of the citizens of foreign nations makes diplomacy easier, more Presidential diplomacy could have a positive impact.

The second argument is simply a logical fallacy, in my opinion. If it was true than clearly no one should ever meet to discuss issues with someone they disagree with. Besides that, corrupt leaders can create propaganda from the lack of diplomacy as easily as they can from a Presidential visit, or anything else for that matter. That can't be changed. But the purposes served by Presidential diplomacy extend beyond the limited range of that propaganda, both in the international community and also to the citizens of those leaders' countries, who won't all be fooled.

Beyond these arguments, there is also the concern that increased time spent in international diplomacy would increase the risk of some gaffe or faux pas that would damage the President. This is valid, but to me it reflects more on the lack of confidence Americans have in their leadership than a criticism of the principles behind Presidential diplomacy.

Clinton (in apparent desperation to find a difference between her and Obama) and McCain (in an apparent search for justification to bomb something) make it sound like Obama is seeking to have a cup of turkish coffee with Ahmadinejad and discuss world affairs. He has repeatedly said that although there would be no preconditions, there would be lenghty preparation in formulating an agenda. Talking to people we do not like would actually raise the respect for the US around the world and let leaders know exactly what the U.S. expects and demands when it comes to human rights and political freedoms.

Troy, MI

Wolf,
I do sincerely believe that meeting with United States adversaries presents more good than bad. Think about it when you don't talk to them they exist in their own worlds believing they are untouchables but when you do, you help them to rationalize their thinking with regards to what is acceptable in the society (World).
The earlier we understand that, more love will be generated than hate, the better for America as America will be seen in a different light as partnering with other countries to make peace than arm twisting.

Obalola

Anything opposite of the Bush Administration’s approach would be an improvement.

ithink is good idea to have contact with your anemy look at cuba
how long does us i solate them the policy didn't work there
sometime is good to meet with your anemy you know where they stand rather wait and see

I think it's a great idea!

I guess Christopher Dodd who touted serving on two committees with Barack Obama hasn't missed any meetings lately since there haven't been any with Senator Obama.

Shameful what he is trying to smoke and mirrors the American people into! He knows better than when he represents what Senator Obama said about preparation that Senator Obama was only parroting Senator Clintons answer and as a matter of fact, Senator Obama initially, a couple of debates ago, insisted that preparation was not necessary when in a discussion with Senator Clinton. Again Senator Clinton ended up teaching Senator Obama what to do!

It depends on the leader, of course; there's no way to safely lump Raul Castro, Kim Jung Il, Chavez and Ahmanidejad in the same category. In general, though, it seems like Obama's idea is a good one, and indicative of one of the reasons people want to vote for him. Obama understands that eveyone else in the world understands that America is in a position of power; we don't need a perfect script, or perfect preconditions, to sit down and meet with these leaders, and to insist on them turns the talks into either an opportunity for the US to look like a bully or a prima donna.

Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad both clearly have a desire and a use for talks as propaganda moments; especially Ahmadinejad, who is much more a face than the actual power which writes Iranian policy. Smart of Obama to say 'Iranian leadership,' rather than the president's name.

But it will be both possible and useful to sit down and have real, engaging conversations in which propositions and ideas flow both ways with Castro and Chavez, who are much more 'in our backyard' than the other two leaders mentioned. Any chance at repairing relationships with Venezuala will involve meetings in which Chavez doesn't feel herded, and gets the sense that he isn't meeting with someone following Bush's line - in many ways, Chavez's beef with the US is a personal beef with Bush and the Bush administrations imperialistic tone.

And in Cuba, the next president would be foolish not to recognize that pushing cuba hard, all stick and no carrot, will only push the more reform-minded Raul back into the remnants of the hard-liners.

I find it to be extremely close-minded to not have this as an option available to a President. I fully concede that meeting with our enemies bestows some sense of legitimicay to them. However, this "loss" is greatly exceeded by the gains that could be made by face-to-face diplomacy. We are the United States of America and we should never be afraid or unwilling to exercise our position of power to sit and meet with anyone!

the bush-mccain-clinton theory has never worked in improving relationship with these countries..so obama's theory sounds a better diplomatic approach.that would also ultimately change the i"arrogance " image of the unitedstates.

i think the would need a change ! that a great idee beacuse the world would be a better place to live for the next generation ! thank barak ! world hope !

Obviously war and no talks have not worked. Diplomatic talks rather than telling a leader what to do might help as well. Bully tactics just don't work. Civil conversation just might.

I think that it is the best way to peace, talk to everyone and see if common ground can be determined. We should not try to make the world as we are. Live and let live !

Wolf,
Obviously the Leaders of these other Nations will always hate on the United States of America.
There is nothing that an American President can do for these Hacks.
If we send anyone to talk to these fools, we send the Marines and they do all the talking.

Thanks Wolf, have a nice day.

The fact that the old policy of not directly engaging in talks with leaders of other countries, which for either their perceived or real negative records on human rights; so far has been a failure. The policy if at all has achieved anything, it's emboldened such leaders and thus creating more enemies for the United States. Barack Obama's proposal of meeting without preconditions, should be given a chance. It would give the US more leverage to persuade errant leaders to tow the right path and do what is just.

I am sure Sen. Obama is right on this and should be supported.

The skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. With his forces intact he disputes the mastery of the empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph is complete. - Art Of War

Absolutely....it is always good to meet face to face as it starts bringing down the walls even if the ultimate goal is not acheived. slowly but shurly they will fall and common ground will be acheived. Also Obama said he would ensure that there was advance work done before he meets which you did not state in you atricle. Thanks

Even Ronald Reagan stood infront of the nation and called the Soviet Union an evil empire, and then was willing to sit down at the table with them and ended the cold war. Disagreement isn't necessarily a reason not to negotiate.

Could discussion be used as propoganda against us? Sure. Inaction could be used as well, and it is. It gives Hugo Chavez the chance to stand infront of the UN and comment about the scent of sulfer because he can get away with it without any communication between the nations. Nations we don't, at least try, to communicate with, have nothing to lose by breaking our rules.

It doesn't always work, but is there any time in history where simply talking to other leaders has really hurt us? When was the last time talking weakened our military, economy or relations with other nations?

We are leaders of the free world. We like to say that phrase, but do we ever really give much thought to what it means? We really do set the standard for how all other nations "should" act, and we can't set that standard through just words, we have to lead by example. We can't sit on the sidelines and urge Isreal and Palestine to work together, and then refuse to work out our own differences with a nation 90 miles away from our own border.

To me, that sends the wrong message to other nations more than our current policy. If we're unwilling to work out our own differences with nations, why should other countries resolve their disputes?

Yes, our leader should meet with them!

Obama is absolutely right. This notion that not talking to your enemies as a form of punishment is deeply flawed, and the reason why we are in the position we are currently in internationally.

Of course it would embolden them. Dictators and tyrants like the men you mentioned can only reconcile themselves with America if we take one course of action...appeasement.
When I hear Barack Obama speak about foreign policy, three words come to mind: appeasement, Jimmy and Carter.

Oh God, here we go again. Another article campaigning for Obama. Gag. You are not really interested in what anyone thinks. You just want to give legitimacy to Obama's naive ideas.

Nixon went to China. Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev on numerous occasions. Why be stubborn about meeting with other leaders?

This change in policy is one that is genuinely needed...more so since we have had a tremendous loss of respect in the world community because of George W Buss.

Obama can be the one person that could truly lead a dramatic change in the the dynamics of global relationships.

So far, I trust his judgement more than Clinton, McCain, and certainly Bush. Besides, Obama's approach to this issue is much more nuanced than others are making it out to be.

If they were to sit down with no preconditions, what would be the point? Just to 'talk it out'?? Diplomacy is another word for $$$. If we are not going to give in and make some economic provision to Iran, what is their 'carrot'?

This is more evidence of a candidate with close to zero experience being pumped up in the media to take on a job that holds too many dangers for the American people.

we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists – we should just kill them. Which person running for President will bow down to terrorists, which will stand up to them?

Obama is on the right path.
Dialogue and Diplomacy should be the best way to solve political problems. Not by indirect or direct war.

Did anyone listen to McNamara? His first rule is understand (he used the word "empathize") with the enemy.
How can you understand the enemy, if you don't talk to him???

What about Teddy Roosevelt? "Walk softly, but carry a big stick".

Look to the experience with N. Korea. Talks helped!

I agree with Hillary Clinton, President Bush and McCain that our country should not give aid to any coutry that is abusing their people Obma doesn't know what he's talking about in his speeches. It is scary that so many people are not asking more questions about his goals for our country. It seems that most people are enchanted with his speeches. I watched all the debataes and he seems to agree with Hillary Clinton on almost every point. Wake up people.

Showing our enemies that we are willing to communicate with them and are eager to understand their point of view (even if we strongly disagree) would be the common sense approach. These leader are PEOPLE. The only way we will ever get them to come around is to establish a relationship with them. War, sanctions, and verbal insults via the media have gotten us nowhere. Hopefully we will soon have a common sense government in the form of Barack Obama. Hillary and McCain are too far stuck in the Washington mind set that they've lost their common sense. Just the fact that they're against reaching out to our enemies shows just how out of touch they are.

Why not meet, as you can see we have not made ground on doing the opposite, so HRC, GWB, and JM can be critical all they want, but what they are arguing has not helped us at all. Why not do the opposite I would take that chance rather sit back and act fearful knowing that we are the most powerful country, how about we start acting like that county.

Wolf,
Considering that the Soviet Union leader met with Reagan and we saw some changes in the 90s, I personally do not see Obama's idea as bad at all. He didn't say he will just go unprepared.

I totally agree.

The I.R.A. conflict lasted 50 years ,with untold bloodshed,including one of Britons heroes Lord Mount Batten . Nothing was ever settled with brute force .It was settled with the two parties negotiating face to face . This arrogant attitude of "we are not going to talk to you unless you do what we tell you",is the kind of gunboat diplomacy that has unfortunately and,unfairly earned the American population as the most disliked in the world . It does not reflect the kind of Americans I fought alongside as a Royal Navy seal in w.w.2 , for which I had nothing but the highest admiration .

I think Bush's policy is wrong. Our policy is very adhoc in nature. We treat some tyrants as allies and others as enemies. Some countries do not support US because of our own double standard. I think around the world because of illiteracy and poverty leaders of those countries take their citizens for granted. If we neglect those countries because of their leaders and not engaging them with dialog we are going to lose the support of their people. It is not going to be easy, many Americans won’t like it but in the long run it will be good for America.

Did Richard Nixon put any preconditions on his visit to Red China in 1972? I don't remember him doing that – if memory serves correctly, he just went over and met with Chairman Mao. And the world wound up safer, because a sworn enemy became a trading partner.

Face-to-face diplomacy works far better than Bush's brand of "cowboy diplomacy".

Take Raul for example, 49 years of this policy hasn't changed Cuba and they're a podunk little island that's devastated by our embargo. I like Ike, but not necessarily sure his policies should still be the rule! So time to rethink. I think hiding behind the presidency is another way to ignore what's going on. I also think the concept of using a picture for propaganda is whack. If I wanted to send around a photo of me w/ Bush I could photoshop it and send it to all my peeps that don't know better. If anything it's propaganda for us if we meet with them, its shows their people we want to be friends with them.

Obama is right on this one. We should talk with our adversaries. " We have nothing to fear but fear itself. " Jesse Jackson was able to free political prisoners in Syria, Cuba, Kuwait, and Iraq through friendly talk .
Obama has the personality to effect these types of talk while Clinton and McCain are not peaceful enough to effect this. Our adversaries would be more receptive to Obama than Clinton or McCain.

Not if that President is Obama. Unless, Hillary can answer their questions first. He dosen't know how to negotiate, he might give away the farm.

Well, I'm not involved in foreign policy, so I don't know what would be the best idea, but I think this "won't meet them unless they agree with us completely" idea seems to stem from the "with us or against us" mentality that has been tearing this country apart for the past seven years. I personally think it could be a good idea to extend a sliver of goodwill out to even the most ruthless tyrants...we should in no way condone their actions or behaviors, but show that we still do respect the fact that they are human beings and that maybe, if we just talk things out, some good may come of it. Again, I don't know, but I haven't seen any good argument against it yet.

Of coarse it would create a more stable relationship than we have now. Thats a simple rule. I think Obama is right on this one. You must remember the critisism is coming from a man that has gotten nothing right in Iraq and one man who is in lock step with him. Bush has somehow convinced folkes that you are not supposed to talk to your enemies. It may sound Cliche but I always heard to keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

Definitely, we should meet our adversaries with no preconditions. I was born in a different country and have some morals differences to those of the US. My point is , we should meet and tell them where we stand as Obama stated. We will never get ahead if we sit and act arrogant like we are the Master of the world. We have to lead and tell other countries where we stand not just ignore their cultures and way of life by imposing our beliefs on them. MC CAIN BUSH AND HILLARY ought to be ashamed of themselves for embracing that same innefective mentality.

Look at the recent decades and one could find many examples where direct dialog had produced results otherwise impossible.

Reagan with the Soviets. Nixon with the Chinese. Clinton in Northern Ireland.

People should not mischaracterize "dialog" as mere talking. It is an integral part of a comprehensive diplomatic plan with well defined goals.

Of course we need to have dialogue with other countries, even if they are not completely in agreement with us. Dialogue could have prevented the Iraq war and saved thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Further, the illusion that Obama would go to Tehran with conditions is a ridiculous straw man. Low level meetings would precede any presidential visit, and meetings could take place in neutral countries. This is how the world operated until the "cowboy diplomacy" of the current administration began.

The I.R.A. conflict lasted 50 years ,with untold bloodshed,including one of Britons heroes Lord Mount Batten . Nothing was ever settled with brute force .It was settled with the two parties negotiating face to face . This arrogant attitude of "we are not going to talk to you unless you do what we tell you",is the kind of gunboat deplomacy that has unfortunately and,unfairly earned the American population as the most disliked in the world . It does not reflect the kind of Americans I fought alongside as a Royal Navy seal in w.w.2 , for which I had nothing but the highest admiration .

Successful people and succesful leaders for that matter, are willing to accept and explore alternate possibilities. The "status quo" is obviously not working given all the recent and historical tension with our adversaries. I think that Mr. Obama can be a unifying force and by engaging in direct talks I believe he gives us a better chance at peace than anyone before him, present company included.

Obama's comments demonstrate his naivete in foreign relations. He states that we are not "talking" with these five countries because we feel superior to them. I believe democracy IS superior to dictatorships in which citizens are being tortured and human rights are being continually violated.

Meeting with such leaders sends a message to the rest of the world that we may be okay with their policies. That we may be negotiating trade deals with them. That, even if a country violates its citizenry's human rights, they can still make a buck with America and benefit from America's largesse.

Extremely naive and dangerous on the world stage.

I also believe his comments on his willingness to re-invade Iraq and "strike" Pakistan militarily, made during a presidential primary, have been destabilizing in the Middle East. These comments have huge ramifications in the world. I have HOPE Pakistan won't use a nuclear bomb on us after Obama "strikes" them unilaterally, although that sure would be a CHANGE.

I just don't see how it would embolden adversaries at all. If we don't give them their way, they can't claim that we gave them their way. If they are going to play propaganda games, they will play propaganda games either way. It can't hurt. It can only help. The silent treatment worked great on 5 year olds. Unfortunately, history has proven that it does NOT work on adults.

It is not a novel idea for a US president to speak with the president of an enemy state. Nixon I beleive visited "red" China and Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev during the height of the cold war. Speaking with the leader of an enemy country gives the US president the opportunit to tell them directly what he or she thinks directly so they can be in no doubt.

yes it would. Reagon did it with Soviet Union, JFK said we sholud never be afraid to meet with our enemies, Nixon meet with our enemies.

Look at our relationship with Japan and Vietnam? If we continue to practice outdated foreign policies an avoid diplomacy, then how do we make this world a more peaceful one if we dont't try? Cowboy politics obviously hasn't worked. Each and every day we are becoming a global economy.

TEXAS OF OBAMA!! OBAMA 08

Absolutley!
Please tell me whats worng with talking, discussing, negotiating first?

Man to man or woman to man?

Get the hacks, minions, bloggers, news media and polticos out of the eqaution right away.

If you solve the issues with dialogue, great!
If not there are many avenues to go down after that.

Lets not make the same mistakes of the Bush administration ever again!

The question itself is way too simplistic. There is nothing wrong with a President or Prime Minister or Leader of a Nation to meet with their adversary. The reality of the matter is that adversaries rarely meet face to face until a ton of ground work has been laid in place.

Obama might be better off by qualifying his statement. He could easily say that his meaning is that he would be open to meeting with our adversaries after his Secretary of State and foreign policy advisers have laid the ground work.

I think our position in poilitics sometimes is so ridgid we can see the forrest from the trees. I know people can be influenced, but only if you are having open dialog, not spouting retoric and position.

Bush's approach as accepted by Hillary and McCain has not worked so far and has only atracted more hatred, more enemies for us and hardened their resolve and determination to fight and destroy us. And I do not think nor do I believe that what Mr Obama will do with these leaders in talking with them will be to feed them with milk and honey and an opportunity to used the american leadership as a propaganda stinct. When some one dialogues with and understands you, he or she is sure to understand and accept your chastisement. I guess that is whart Mr Obama will do and which will be good for america.

The idea that we're somehow emboldening our adversaries by talking to them is a concept that could only achieve credence during the administration of a President responsible for one of the worst foreign policy debacles in the history of this country.

Talking is not surrendering and negotiating is not capitulating. To believe otherwise simply demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the art– and purpose– of diplomacy.

Of course meeting with our adversaries is a good idea. How can Hillary and McCain expect others to change and compromises to be met without meeting with the leaders of other nations? It is policies like our current administration's that have crippled the American image around the world.

Didnt Obama flip flop on the issue of meeting with Raul Castro at the Texas debate. He originally said that we does not need preconditions , but then later admitted that he would. At least when John Kerry flip flopped it was not in a matter of 5 minutes.

rem we are the father of democracy so we are a roll model to the world cuz allmostthe whole world is practising democracy so we have to talk to those leaders and make them know what we are today is because we practice democracy. to me i think we meet with leaders like that talk to them instead of just ignoring them.cuz i believe with dat we can do better and the world can be better for all of us not just for americans.

Let's get real, folks.... any agreements that could come from meeting with those dictators would hold no water because we would keep our end of the bargain, but our adversaries would continue their ways in secrecy.

I liked Bill Clinton as a president but didn't he try that same approach with Kim Jong II and N. Korea and they just took advantage of him and the U.S. and didn't bother even complying with U.S. regulations. Bill attempting to normalize diplomatic relations with N. Korea and even offered aide to N. Korea. Meanwhile Kim Jong II was producing weapons grade plutonium and secretly tryin gto enrich uranium. I think in foreign policy Obama is extremely naive to the reality of the world and obviously has not learned from Clinton's mistakes. However, I think Bill learned from his mistakes and realized it just doesn't work like that in the real world no matter how much you want to 'change' and negotatiate with adversaries.
I believe Hillary also learned a lot from Bill's mistakes evidenced by her responses in debates that she would only met and negotiate with preconditions and some leaders are not worth meeting with given their history and the history of those particular countries. Obama is just naive about domestic and foreign policy and in particular how to deal with U.S. adversaries. To me that is a clear indication that he is not ready to be president and that Hillary and McCain (seriously) are more prepared to be president. But then you know Americans never seem to learn from their mistakes or past history. For some odd reason people believe Obama can wave a magic wand over the world and everyone will sing Kumbya and be happy. This reality is Obama is not running for president he is running to lead a movement almost like a cult built on this false reality of hope and change. Change only comes over time and only through experience which clearly Obama does not have. The responses that Obama gives at times in regards to his foreign poilcy are downright scary including comments he made in several debates that he has no problem bombing Pakistan without cause. The media really needs to start questioning him hard on comments like this that could possibly lead to world wars and or leave the U.S. utterly defenseless and at the mercy of our adversaries. The media has done a terrible job at this and the democratic primaries continue to be an American Idol contest and not about the serious issues we face in this country.

YES, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD SIT DOWN WITH ANY POWER OF THREAT TO OUR NATION AND TALK. UNTIL YOU SIT DOWN AND TALK TO SOMEONE, AND THEN FIND A MEDIAN WHERE THE TWO OF YOU CAN RELATE, YOU'RE GOING TO ALWAYS HAVE FEAR OF THAT PERSON. IF WE DON'T TAKE A CHANCE TO TALK AND FIND OUT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, IT WILL ONLY LEAD YOUR MINDS TO TAKE WHATEVER COURSE IT WILL, AND MOST OF THE TIME YOUR MIND PLAYS TRICKS ON YOU. YOU MIGHT START A WAR THAT IS UNCALLED FOR. I AGREE WITH SENATOR OBAMA THAT WE SHOULD TALK WITH ANY HEAD OF A NATION WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS, PUT IT ALL ON THE TABLE. THEREFORE, IT WILL EASE THE TENSION AND WILL RESOLVE THE PROPBLEM OVER TIME.

I don't understand how talking with someone would embolden them. I can only see good things happening when we have a more open, respectful approach to the rest of the world.

I would think it would be a good idea. We know the other way is not working. I think if they meet eye to eye they might listen to someone like Barack. When you talk through other people nothing gets done. When there is no middle man ( or women in some cases ) then things can get done, and more so if done in the public eye for all the world to see.

I think what Obama is basically trying to do is deconstruct the status quo approach to foreign relations. So much emphasis is placed on the superior status the U.S. presidency maintains in diplomatic functions, that by the time all the rhetoric, pomp and circumstance is sifted through, we have a watered-down version of a dialogue with leaders who not only resent the treatment, but are given more and more time to act of their own accord in direct conflict to our agendas.
Moreover, radically oppositional leaders have absolutely no reason to trust us. I don't even trust us at this point. So we're going to have to do SOMETHING different.

This why half of the Democratic voters are cautious about Obama, who runs on charisma and rhetoric without much political experience. Many older voters prefer Hillary or McCain because they trust experience, and the wisdom gained from it.

It is naive to say you will meet with the world leaders without consulting those in government who know more than you do.

Why do you include hugo chavez in your list of advesaries? Besides the fact that we want thier oil, what threat are they to us? And yes I believe the President should speak to all "advesaries" because not speaking to them has not hisotrically made the world a more peaceful place.

I feel that if Senator Obama becomes President yes we should meet with those that are a problem and sit down face to face and try to solve the problems .
In the past solving the problems ment going to war with Iraq etc..

We need a new approach and I truly feel as an American and a Democrat that this would be good International Policy to persue.

Wolf Watching the debates is very interesting and informative. I am certain that the President of US should always be well prepared before meeting the enemies. To this, I must say Hillary is right in saying that she would first consider all the pros and cons and then decide to visit them right away.

The recent debate in Ohio with Ms. Clinton, leads me to believe that to an extent, Mr. Obama's approach to these issues is going to flourish with advice. A commander in chief is only as good as his advisers, listening to those advisers, and then making an informed decision. I like Obama because he seems to do that. Also, Obama states that he feels it is necessary to meet these leaders to show the world that the U.S. is willing to come to the table and talk. I don't know that Obama's position and Ms. Clinton's position are that different under specific circumstances–Obama has said he would come to the table and talk, provided that their was preparation. Ms. Clinton says that she would not, without certain preconditions. In the Texas debate, Obama expounded that this would mean, in the case of Castro, certain Human rights issues being met. Overall, in McCain you have a candidate that seems like he will be dogmatic about certain issues dealing with the war. You have Clinton, who is going to take a certain hard line approach–maybe more similar to Bush, although she disagrees with him on some issues. Obama's approach is one that he feels is necessary given the political climate over the last several years, but in the case of Castro, seemed to have similarities to Clinton's approach, except one believes there need to be "preparations", the other "preconditions".

I think it's a great idea. If you want to change the world you have to engage it. Obviously military force doesn't work. Try a little diplomacy.

Of course it would make us stronger !

Actually our allies see us as too ideologic ("the good and the evil") so they think that our vision of the world is too naïve to be followed

If we accept to discuss with our ennemies, then in the case of a military response or diplomatic pressures, our allies will be 100% with us and not in the corner wandering if they have to

My question to Clinton, McCain, and Bush regarding the current policy would be "is it working?". Obviously the current policy isn't working so something new should be tried!

Wolf,

From an outsider's viewpoint, I can only say this is long overdue. As even George Bush keeps saying the 'world has changed'... except that he uses that phrase to scare up support from the ill-informed in the US.

The outside world is far more well informed than one would ordinarily imagine, thanks to the Internet. Spin and fear-mongering may work domestically, but fail miserably on the global stage.

Personally, the Foreign Policy I would like to see the US embrace is what I would call "walk softly and carry a big stick". So, meet with whomever, make your case known, but you don't have to rattle the sabres unnecessarily.

Everyone knows what the US is capable of. Nobody, however, likes the high-handed approach so apparent in so many cases.

As a footnote, the US can claim the 'moral high ground' – and might even be believed – when the likes of the Chagos Islands affair (Diego Garcia airbase) are but a distant memory, NEVER to be repeated.

Keep up the good work, Wolf. It is much enjoyed and appreciated.

Everyone likes Obama for wanting to bring the country together and for wanting to change politics as usual in Washington.
But I will say that wanting to meet with every bad Tom,Dick or Harry is not necessarily a good idea. I think it does send the wrong message that any dictator can have a meeting with our President regardless of how they treat their own people and the world.
I'm not saying its an 'honor', but it should come with some type of strings...We have always been a leader for good and human rights....to meet for the sake of meeting to make the world look at us differently might come back to bite us.

I understand the concerns of the Clintons/Bushes etc., however, their policy does not seem to be making any headway, and in fact, seems to be making the world a more dangerous place. Perhaps opening up dialogue without preconditions won't work, but perhaps it will, and I see the benefit of such a success far outweighing the potential negatives if it were to fail. The world is in a fragile state right now and perhaps taking a chance on change in the hope that it can begin to mend the relations of all peoples is worth it and should be where we are at now in our foreign relation policy.

I can't believe this is even a question. The field of Psychology has plenty to say about this. Communication is key to resolving conflicts. "My way or the highway" negotiations engender resentment and encourage further conflict.

Obviously, attacking our adversaries, or threatening them, or ignoring them has not worked. It would probably not hurt to change the way we go about negotiating with other countries.

Plus, the best way to defeat an enemy is to make them your friend. If these countries that are doing things that we don't agree with don't like us, then there really isn't much hope in trying to convince them to change their ways.

You do not directly meet with your adversaries until the agenda is worked out and policy is discussed - otherwise, they would use this as propaganda. Even an idiot knows that.

We should never meet with these types of people head of state to head of state until and unless lower level meetings have taken place, that some effort has been made on the issues of human rights, and that we are not leading ourselves into what would be a photo op for these leaders. The problem for Hillary in particular is Obama has been able to spin this as her not being willing to meet with these countries at all (like Bush) and hence he is painting her as the same as the current administration. She needed to be clearer on what she meant.

Heck yeah. Why should meeting with the president of the US be held with onlypeople we like? No wonder the US has such a diminished view with the rest of the world.
One thing is for sure, the other way has not worked.

Since when has not talking to people made the world more stable and peaceful?

If Obama doesn't plan on turning up on Iran or North Korea's doorstep without any kind of agenda (and that's something which i'm entirely certain he doesn't) then surely it helps to talk. Its certainly better than the alternative – turn up to what could be coined a photoshoot because they have to agree with you before you negotiate anything?

That's never going to work.

A tryant oppressing his own people is not a problem to Obama. A full frontal attack on the beaches of America is what it will take to get Obama to care about others freedoms..

According to the following quote extracted from the news story above, here is what Bush, McCain and Clinton say: "Their bottom line is that these kinds of high-level meetings require lots of advance work. "

Well, if those three believe Obama's promised meetings with America's enemeis would require lots of advance work, then why not let's wait and see if this would be Obama's approach and if it will work.

If Obama tries it and it does work, then it will be an international coup that breaks the mould set and maintained by previous US Presidents to engage in rhetoric.

When Obama said he was all about change in Washington, it wasn't just about the way in which Washington handles Americans' business, but also about how Washington handles its business with world leaders – friendly and unfriendly.

Change, the only thing that is constant, is always met with resistance by people who are set in their ways.

NO wolf,

your media darling is wron again and again.

Thats what happens when Obama does not have experience especialy in Foreign policy.

Wolf , vote for Hillary.

We should absolutely be willing to meet with foreign leaders especially when we are in disagreement with them. George Bush's and John McCain's opinion just reminds me of why we are in this impossible situation in Iraq now.

Obviously, it is an understatement to say that US foreign policy has not made remarkable success during the last 7 years under the pre-emptive mentality of Bush. With the right set of conditions planned by the State Department, it wouldn't hurt for the American President to meet with leaders of nations who aren't necessarily our "friends."

Barack Hussein Obama is under the illusion that you can just run over and talk to someone. It's like he doesn't understand the necessary process of negotiations at all. Just scary .

Why are Americans voting so STUPIDILY 3 times in a row? For the life of me I can't understand.

HILLARY IS THE ONE TO FIX STUFF PEOPLE. We don't want 4 more years of "How does this work? Can you explain it to me please?

TEXAS FOR HILLARY

I feel one of the major downfalls of the Bush administration, many to choose from I know, is the reluctance to meet with our advisaries.

Yes, there is prep work that must be done before the president can meet with a foreign leader but at least Obama has made it clear that friend or foe, he'd be willing to meet. "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

A refreshing change!

I believe that by putting diplomatic pressure on corrupt world governments we can effect change. That takes a President who is willing to use the power of the Presidency to do so. Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and George Bush are all living with a Cold War Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil mentality. If we can use the power of the Presidency to diplomatically effect positive change in nations with corrupt governments, why shouldn't we? The idea that we are now on the brink of war with Iran simply because our President is a stubborn fool is ridiculous. We may not like the government of Iran, but we must have open channels of diplomacy with them. And that goes for all nations.

Of course it will make a more stable world. This is part of the job. This is what we call LEADERSHIP.

I strongly agree with Senator Clinton that we cannot just blindly meet with world leaders that are our adversaries. Presidential leadership is so complex and Senator Obama is naive to think this type of diplomacy will work.
The US has to restore our faith in many countries around the world, but it will take lots of work to make that happen...and often times, that isn't calling up Iran and asking if they want to get together for cocktails.

Bush's isolationist, narcissistic, xenophobic policies have hurt us and our future generations....

I respect and applaud Sen. Obama for having a distinct goal and way to achieve change in our global society, which is different from any other candidate that would immediately increase our standing and respect in the modern globalized world.....and he would meet with some preconditions, if you listened to the debates.....Hillary once again just supports Bush faulty logic....."how's that working for us???"

Bush and the neocons operate from a Cold War mentality, since all of Bush appointees to his cabinet were initially appointed from Daddy's time, when USSR still existed....to them, there is no way but US when we were number one, now thanks to their failed policies, we are no longer number one in most areas....and falling further and further behind...to the point we now have to decide to save housing OR infrastructure OR have no state grants to have clean water...

If you look at UN Millennium Goals for Developing Goals, WE FAIL most of these goals now...

Just like Bush create benchmarks, fails them, then changes them.....our standard of living just keeps going down....

Real change requires vision, judgment, long term outside the box thinking.....for ALL Americans.....not just "the chosen few" or "decider" or however the neocons would refer to themselves.....

That is why I support Obama '08

Si, Se Puede!!!!

You meet with them obviously. How else can you expect progress?

By the way...Obama is wrong...Bush is not waiting for most to comply with ALL concessions...just most concessions. Any attempt to try to comply with at least some of the concessiona and create dialogue in a positive way–has been met with a positive response. Usually by the Department of State. The President, however, should not avail himself until ALL requirements as defined by U.S. policy/demand–have been met.

Obama's remarks reflect his naivete when it comes to foreign policy. Foreign leaders are NOT going to embrace him and give him "credibility" just because his grandmother lives in poverty in Kenya, or because he grew up in a Muslim country (as he said to a cleveland dot com reporter just before Super Tuesday). They are watching his words and actions now in order to determine how credible he is.

Obama stated in the TX debate that our attitude has been one of "superiority" to the five countries he wants to "talk with." In my opinion, we SHOULD demonstrate superiority to dictatorships, to countries in which human rights are being violated and citizens are being tortured. I see nothing wrong at all with maintaining a position of superiority in relationships to those countries. Isn't democracy superior to dictatorships?

Presidential conversations should be reserved for countries which are making solid commitments to human rights, and are acting on those commitments.

If I had a friend who was torturing her child, I certainly wouldn't go to her house and try to talk her out of it! I'd act to protect the child.

Wolf,
I see that everyone is wobbling here. Nixon went to China, Reagan to Russia after the ground work for further diplomacy had been agreed upon. So what's wrong with a new bold initiative to change our stance and still carry a big stick?
Blessing Orage
california

I don't see what the big deal is to talk to people we don't like. Aren't we all cilvilize human being? A wise man once said "am I not destroying my enemies by befriend them?"

I think that meeting face to face with our adversaries would be much better than talking through the media to them. I think that we could get better solutions by just sitting down and talking instead of just invading every chance we get.

I think that Barack Obama is absolutely right. As a young American, I do not see the advantage of the current U.S. policies.

What good has refusing to meet with these leaders done for the United States? Are we safer? Are there fewer terrorists? Have we caused these leaders to see the error of their ways? No. Ignoring those who do not agree with you does not help America and does not help the people who suffer under the rule of the supposed 'tyrants'.

Additionally, I think that meeting with Castro and others would show that the United States is not threatened by their policies. It would also show a lot of good faith to the people of those countries who already feel isolated.

I believe if it were me that I would have open discussions with these leaders. The policy has been as you stated to being "conditional" and I don't believe that policy works. Gary – Wisconsin

Wolf,

Your piece makes a clear distinction between "advance work" and "preconditions."

What I understand from what I am hearing on the trail, through both the stump speeches and the debates, is that Senator Obama fully recognizes that no meeting can take place without "preperation." The issue then becomes, not one of preparation but rather one of these unspecified "pre-conditions" we have heard talk about.

On the one hand, meeting with them directly, at the highest level, could prove productive and empowering to the extent that leaders should speak with leaders. Not doing so can give the impression that we don't value the importance of the relationships we are trying to build.

The downside is that doing so could be seen as pandering to these abhorrent leaders, which in turn could give the citizenship of their nations the impression that the United States is hedging on being tough about proposed demands and reforms. Conversely, seeing a U.S. President step up to the table to deliver the iron hand may be precisely what is needed to force substantive action on the part of people like Jung and Raul Castro.

One thing is certain, if we don't try we will never know. I don't think Senator Obama is saying he is going to set "every second Tuesday of the month" meetings with one, and set aside Thursdays for another. But to initially go out into the wild, and put forth the demands and proposals, leader to dictator (I phrase it that way in lieu of saying one leader to another) could prove to be an unconventional move with meaningful outcomes.

Wolf, I certainly don't see what we have to lose. Our credibility abroad has been totally ruined in the last 8 years. Other countries look down on us now. Even our own close allies have problems with our foreign policy. I totally agree with Barack Obama's policy. What can it hurt to try. We can always go back and "BOMB BOMB IRAN" like George Bush has done and John McCain proposes

We have to get our credibility back, the only way I see to do that is to be willing to talk things out.

It is high time for America to stop placing itself above the rest of the world. One of the most effective ways of persuasion is diplomacy. Meeting with world leaders that do not share the same vision as the US can only increase comprimise. Clearly the arrogant approach of the current administration has not helped our world reputation. Unfortunately, Hillary offers more of the same.

Wolf-
I think Barack is on the right track. Ever since the end of WWII, the US has felt the need to stick their noses in the affairs of nations around the world. We did it in Iran in the 1950s, when the CIA helped overthrow Mossadegh, a moderate reformer and instilled a new Shah who oppressed his people so much that they rose up in the 70s, creating the situation we have now. Why shouldn't we talk to our enemies? The President says its because it will only strengthen them, when in reality, men like Hugo Chavez are allowed to criticize Bush without any voice from the US, only entrenching them amongst their people. With Senator Obama as President, perhaps there will be a day when the world doesn't view the US as the world's bully.

The whole idea that the United States can change behavior or change regimes simply by not talking, is a laughable idea. The US did not talk to Castro for decades, did not talk to Iran for decades, and did not talk to North Korea. What was the result?

Well. Nothing.

Nothing changed. In Cuba, Fidel resigned at his convenience, in Iran the Ayatollahs remain in command and defy the US at every step, and in North Korea, nothing changed until – gasp – the US talked to them!

Talk emboldening US adversaries?? That kind of reasoning is caused by a delusion of grandeur that makes American leaders believe that the entire world holds its breath for a word from the President of the United States. That may have been true 30 years ago, but it is not true anymore.

The world is increasingly becoming multi-polar, and the US influence is steadily eroding all across the world – in part because it refuses to talk.

So, let's get rid of this failed policy and outdated thinking, and let's talk. Remember – we can talk and still be firm on our principles. Talking does not indicate weakness – it signifies strength.

Why would we NOT meet with adversaries? No one is suggesting to become buddies with them, but diplomacy wouldn't hurt. Bush has tried the opposite, and look where our international reputation and credibility is today.

In Obama own words "silliness"

Well, President Kennedy met with adversaries without preconditions and America's standing was the best in the world then so..yes. A US president MUST meet adversaries without preconditions.

I have found it totally ridiculous that our government says they will not talk with leaders of countries they deem as our "enemies". How can one find a common ground with an enemy if they do not talk? Americans have no problem going in and bombing a country into oblivion, but they have a problem with talking first? Very Christian like don;t you think? The idea that it emboldens our enemies is also ridiculous. The only reason they do not wish to talk first is that many people would find there are two sides to the story and besides, there is a lot more money in war then in peace.
On a side note. Am I the only one who finds our policy with Cuba ironic? We were told that we trade with China, even tho they are a communist country, because by trading with us we hope it will help ease them into democracy. Same with Vietnam. But for some reason, the same logic does not apply to Cuba. So while we have been busy selling our country to China at wholesale prices to bring them democracy, we are too scared of Cuba to even let them sell a cigar here.

It is so foolish to think that the President of the United States can begin to repair our reputation around the world by keeping the attitude that we are "better" than other people. What Obama is getting at that our reputation is sullied BECAUSE we make "conditions" before we "lower" ourselves by reaching out to other countries leaders. The plan for Cuba is genius! First, loosening up of visits for family members, non-restrictions for those same members sending money to families in Cuba-then, requesting a meeting with an agenda that has items of interest to both countries. Please remember, that when we don't agree to meet with leaders of other countries because they won't do as we demand of them WE LOOK LIKE BULLIES! Clinton's position is no different than that of the last 50 years.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" It is never a wise choice to distance yourself from your enemies. I think it shows strength, confidence, and leadership for Obama to be willing to discuss future relations with our adversaries. If we're going to change for the good we need to be able to re-introduce America to world.

Absolutely. We are all people, and sometimes when you can talk to someone face to face you avoid misunderstandings that are apt to arise from speaking though surrogates. There is a difference between talking, negotiation, and pandering. Let's start working with people instead of against them. Go Obama!

If Bush doesn't like Obama's ideas, I think we've found ourselves a candidate who could actually fix things. Whoever Bush doesn't want in 08!

That aside, American's need to stop playing the over hyped "I'm too important to talk to you" card every time someone steps on our foot. It'll only makes our enemies want to step on our foot that much harder the next time.

I don't know the solution to this problem, but what I do know is that Bush's approach for dealing with the leaders mentioned in your peice is not working. I do think, however, that some steps should probably need to be made before a president meets with roque leaders.

I think that talking with other world leaders, whether we agree with them or not, would be a very positive step forward in our foreign policy. If we set the precedent in the talks, and make the focus of the discussion on human rights, then that can only be a positive thing in the effort to move issues of human rights forward.

Obummer is right about this particualr issue, we should not limit ourselves to only talking to our friends. I'm a Hillary suppoter and feel on many more issues she's got a much better plan but she's wrong to some degree on this. Since not many of my post get posted I won'twaste time to elaborate on this but to say I agree in principle with Obummer on this.

For me Wolf it is better than our current plan. For those who don't know what that is, it is saying "La la la I can't hear you!" while sticking your fingers in your ears.

The world would certainly benefit from all world leaders recognizing their responsibility to the global community to sit together and consult about pressing issues. I cannot think of any way that a discussion would embolden adversaries. In contrast, requiring another nation to satisfy some type of qualification in order to begin a dialog is more likely to fuel resentment, hate, anger, and disunity. This type of behavior only says "we are better than you". It is quite absurd and out dated.

I am surprised that Obama does not cite the recent and unfortunately forgotten Iraq Report. the bipartisan effort to determine how America should proceed in Iraq. One of its key recommendations was to meet with other leaders in the region regardless if the country leaders were considered enemies or not of the US. It is interesting how a failed president has garnered the support of Hillary Clinton and others that one should not meet with "dictators". Historically this has not been the case be it Reagan, Nixon, Carter, and earlier on. In fact, one can point at almost all of our greatest foreign policy moments and they started with enemies without any pre-conditions talking to one another. It is the greatest failure of the nation in the last seven years is our lost diplomacy and standing throughout the world. After 9/11 we had a chance to really remake the world against terrorism and unite people across the globe to this common threat, and we failed miserably.

Why are we afraid to talk to our enemies? Ignoring each other will only make matters worst. We can't just hope that our enemies will one day meet all our demands and will suddenly want to talk to us.

Speak with countries like Iran, after their #2 Leaders comes to the USA, and insults your own , Elected Leader? Maybe I'm only partial right.
Nevertheless, I still think the suitable answer is no, until Russia stops interfering in that Country. Cuba? Maybe, they are really no threat.

You cannot just go and hug our enemies, there has to be some type of diplomatic preparation as Senator Clinton said and Obama agreed with her. Obama changed his original statement in which he would just meet with tyrants around the world without any sort of conditions. That s too risky since it would jeopardize our moral authority or at least the strenght that we wanna show to the rest of the world.

Hillary, you are the best candidate we have, together we will make it happen!

March 4 for Hillary 08 – President of the United States of America
Marzo 4 para Hillary 08 Presidente de los Estados Unidos de America

Estamos contigo!
We are with you !

ABSOLUTELY!!!! As the saying goes:

Keep your friends close, keep your enimies closer!

OBAMA 08!

It's the only way. Obviously, policies of the past have been unsuccessful at creating genuine and peaceful relationships with other countries. Obama's plan could be an innovative way to bring about positive world changes and US relations.

U.S. would be better off if it eliminated their adversaries not meet with them.

No – I agree with Mcain and Clinton.

NOT being willing to talk with our adversaries unless all of OUR demands are met, is old, failed politics. Senator Obama isn't stupid, so why does our President foster that idea? He's the poster child for stupid. America needs to continue to demonstrate that we're world leaders in many areas. The willingness to negotiate with our adversaries is integral to that perception. Maybe it would help us get rid of the bully persona we've taken on with Bush as our leader. I'm all for it. The perception of America throughout the world couldn't possibly be worse. What do we stand to lose?

WELL IF BUSH SAYS THAT ITS A BAD IDEA IT MUST BE A GOOD ONE!!!! WE NEED TO DO THE DIRECT OPPSTE OF WHATEVER BUSH SAYS OR DOES

Ancient wisdom says, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Winston Churchill said, "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

International discussions with both friends and enemies is the best policy.

With this approach, Obama is once again getting past the black-and-white thinking that has done harm to this country. He's not saying he'd make his entire presidency about meeting with tyrants, just that it's senseless to rule out such action upfront given that in the right circumstances, it could be beneficial. Ruling it out for the sake of some superficial clarity is not in America's best interests.

Bush's foreign policy was abysmal, perhaps the worst in US history. I think that any policy that does the exact opposite of what Bush did is certain to lead to improved foreign relations.

Wolf, I'm glad you bringing up this issue. Obama's right in what he says about changing the mentality of America's arrogance towards other nations. That's the kind of stuff that gets us into unnecessary wars costing us not only precious American lives but think about the precious lives of innocent people in other countries, is war fair to them? It doesn't hurt to talk. America needs to quit playing the "bully".

I think Obama is on the right track. I agree with his statement that because worldwide perception of us is so bad, we have to go the extra mile in meeting with world leaders- even the bad ones. What we say at those meetings will convey our expectations to those leaders. Obama has good judgement and he would not put our country in peril.

It is ludicrous to expext to solve problem by ignoring one's adversaries; our current policy has been woefully ineffective with dealing with North Korea, Iran and Veneszuela; We cannot expect the rest of the world to see things as we do; dialogue is the basis of diplomacy. Mr McCain, Mrs Clinton and Mr Bush apply the same failed policy, we know the end result of their approach. Why not try a fresh approach

If we have been doing the same things over and over and getiing same results, I believe its time to try new ways. We've been behaving like mental people here in the US. Year after year we've been treating prez from other countries that are not our friends differently and have obtained same results. Its time for us to take our medication to treat this mental illness, try something different to see what will work. I just need to add about George Bush's comment – look who's talking. Clinton and McCain are agreeing with you on this, just like the issue on Iraq. Go figure!!

Talking to adversaries doesn't embolden them, it reduces the adversity that's there in the first place! Dialogue and trade are always better methods of spreading democracy than illegally undeclared preemptive wars. To put it simply, if you disagree with somebody, do you think they'd be more likely to listen to you if you sat down and discussed it civilly or... if you sucker-punched them in the face?

I can't believe there's even a debate about this. You can't get people to do what you want if you aren't even willing to talk to them. A strong President can lay out where America stands and tell 'em how it's gonna be, right to their faces, and get some cooperation. George W. Bush has inexplicably adopted his diplomatic strategy from the stereotypical teenage girl who's angry at her parents. That needs to end.

It is naive and a bad idea to meet the world presidents who support the terroists without preconditions.

Go Hillary

it will save us a lot of money if we can resolve some differences through diplomacy. If we can solve an issue without using armed forces, and at the same time keep Americans safe, I do not see what the problem is!!!!

stop the hate, obama 08!!!!

Please post this comment CNN, make it at least 1 for 10 today...

Ok, this entire line of argument is flawed. The Bush/McCain/Hillary position is "a president should not give aid and comfort to a tyrant who is abusing his own people." Really? Then explain why every president meets with, hosts, accepts gifts from, and presents gifts to the saudi royal family. Explain why Bush unconditionally supported Mushareff.

The issue isn't giving credence or credibility to those who are oppressive to their own people, its simply a matter of their not lining up with our interests. If the Saudi's didnt have oil, they'd be blasting their human rights record and mocking anyone "naive" as Obama to suggest that we need to engage them in discussions as a way to work towards some situation that is in the best interest of both participants. Stalin was a huge tyrant. we met with him. Communist China has an appalling human rights record but we have more trade with them than almost any other country.

This isn't a "higher moral authority" question, its a question of arrogance and stubbornness and an overall unwillingness to relent from a flawed policy that has historically proven detrimental to our national interests.

I agree with Obama's idea that a US president should meet with heads of other nations without any preconditions. I think that Bush, McCain and Clinton's approach is rather arrogant and that attitude will never contribute to the understanding and peace with other countries around the world.

It is ridiculous to think that what has NOT worked in in creating peace on the international level is better than Senator Obama's plans to meet with these leaders. What the U.S. has done in the past and at the present time, has only created more disdain for America among the international community. As the leader of the free world, it is the president of the United States' duty to meet with leaders that others will not. Senator Obama is a pioneer in U.S. politics and it is because he refuses to give in to the status quo that he is our best prospect for the Presidency.

The United States needs to undo the era of arrogance that George W Bush has created.
Talking has never hurt anyone. Wars on the other hand hurt many.
Seems like such a simple choice. When the price tag for not talking is the possiblity of war it seems to me that we ought to be more than willing to talk.

I don't know about you , but it is pretty clear to me that the Bush policy of not talking to people we have problems ,with has been a total train wreck.

Obama is not only right in wanting to set down with these people , he is the right person to do it.

If we have been doing the same things over and over and getiing same results, I believe its time to try new ways. We have behaving like mad/crazy people here in the US. Year after year we have been treating prez from other countries that are not our friends differently and have been obtaining same result. Its time for us to take our medication, try something different to see what will work. I just need to add about George Bush's comment – look who's talking. Clinton and McCain are agreeing with you on this, just like the issue on Iraq. Go figure!!

How would we be worse off by meeting with them? What's the downside? I say go for it.

The plus side to the Bush doctrine is that there is very little that we can do that will make us look weak after all of our war mongering. With no downside, why not?

When it comes to foreign policy decisions, if Bush thinks it's a bad idea, it's a good thing.

The fact that we don't reward obstinate behavior (Korea, Hamas, Iran) by meeting with them–is not President Bush's policy!!!

This is not new thinking!!!

The policy of insisting on some compliance before political concessions are made–is recommended by numerous foreign policy institutes, universities, think tanks, senior political officials of both parties, and the military services graduate education centers.

What Obama is suggesting is truly totally new. And totally against U.S. foreign policy guidelines that date back to the 1970's. If he bows to dictators and terrorist leaders–he will turn back the hands of time and rapidly destroy our relationships with our NATO and other allies–who've attempted to follow the courses of U.S. Presidents–past and present.

He's a nuncio.

Another good reason to take a closer look at John McCain.

First lesson in government–don't repeat past mistakes. This wet behind the ears wannabe...promises to break them all!!

Once again, it's Obama telling the public what he'd like to do without thinking it through. For once, I can agree with Bush. These things need to be weighed appropriately. You can't just rush into a meeting not understanding what will happen. As a leader of a nation, You must embrace the fact that every single thing you say and do will have consequences. Obama's outlook on this subject shows how little experience he has in foreign policy. There are no do-overs in foreign policy. What you say and do will effect millions of people world-wide. Obama is not ready for that.

What are doing now is obviously not working so I say we should go for it! Of course we should take all pre-cautions, but I believe a face to face meeting is much more likely to resolve issues.

I too will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Writing in Hillary negates the vote and can still give Obama the election so that is not an option. We cannot stand on principle any longer. We Hillary supporters must unite and stop this guy despite how the Democratic party will force Hillary to priase Obama at the convention. This is no longer in Hillary's hands. It is in our hands and we need to vote for McCain. I suspect at least 30% of Hillary supporters will cross party lines Nov 4th and give McCain the election. There is no way in hell Obama can win with that crossover. This will be our way of sticking it to the media the way they stuck it our girl!
This backlash can change the way the media shows bias for one candididate and return the country to objective news reporting