Originally Posted by justabubba

you are absolutely right zilea
there is no harm in communicating with those who disagree with you
while there is no guarantee that any progress will be made, there is a possibility
that possibility of progress does not exist where the parties refuse to communicate

notice the absolute statements some forumites have offered, such that talks without threat of force are pointless or this gem, "Iran is the same. They are unwilling to make concessions or to negotiate. Obama's comment that he would negotiate without any previous agreements or concessions simply proves his inexperience in foreign affairs." that fellow's misguided notion of bargaining is absurd. it is obvious he has no real understanding of negotiations. i bet he pays sticker price for everything and does not realize what he has left on the table

he imagines preconditions should be realistically imposed. if i concede to your preconditions then you don't need to negotiate as i have already caved. the world negotiates. Americans (maybe Canadians, too) are the only society i am aware of where we don't haggle when we shop. certainly the inhabitants of the middle east haggle as a way of doing business. those (usually American tourists) who pay the asking price because they failed to bargain are considered rubes. and that is how our state department is seen internationally, as a bunch of rubes who have no idea how to negotiate

do not confuse preconditions with ground rules. negotiating ground rules is a preliminary stage of negotiations where each party positions itself and attempts to gain an edge. negotiating these ground rules is often as important in achieving the final result as the actual full negotiations

no surprise, dubya's incompetent staff have no clue about this. fortunately, Obama and his team do

so, thanks for allowing me to laugh at the naiveté of those right wing naifs who mistake Obama's willingness to negotiate as a weakness

Originally Posted by Zilea

Isn't that known as "terrorism"? http://www.dictionary.com

Originally Posted by Yeshua_Lives

Eventually Joe Frazer knew Muhammed Ali's name.

Time Humas recognizes Israel.

Originally Posted by Zilea

Recently, Carter was blasted for talking to Hamas and Obama for wanting to talk to Iran and other "terrorists".

It is a fair argument to say that we shouldn't talk to anyone, but wouldn't it be a better diplomatic tool to talk to our enemies?

Hamas' manifesto talks about wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Yes, it's terrible, but in my opinion, if we went after all of these terrorists and world leaders that have committed atrocities, wouldn't we seriously invade the entire planet?

What's wrong with talking to our enemies, exactly?

Anyone recall the Iran-Contra scandal? We sold arms to Iran to free American hostages from, you guessed it, Hezbollah

Moreover, even though Hamas has engaged in suicide attacks, didn't they achieve a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament?

No one is defending Hamas or Iran for being kooks, but that doesn't mean we can't engage in diplomacy, especially when our country has been having a bit of trouble over the last few years with our image around the world.

I simply don't see any reason in ostracizing our enemies and I think Mccain is wrong on this issue.

Opinions?