"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 thi