Pre-Conditions?

[Marc Syrah]

Pre-Conditions? :confused:
I keep hearing the McSame / Phalin party talking about Obama meeting with World Leaders without PRE-CONDITIONS...

So I figured I would ask all you intelligent, well informed posters on this Forum this question...

What the heck are these PRE-CONDITIONS these two morons are on about???
:confused: :confused: :confused:

I think that two people can sit down and TALK to each other without one of them having to...
Wear a silly hat. :)
Or hand over their first born son. :eek:
Or give up their Nuclear Power Plants... :rolleyes:
Are McSame / Phalin so stuffed up anally that they would not talk to another World Leader without some sort of PRE-CONDITIONS???
WOW!
That is so messed up!

FWIW...
I know this post will get buried by the well informed, intelligent people who post on these Forums...
They really like to hear themselves speak... Evident by the number of Posts they have! :rolleyes:
But if anyone on this Forum can explain these PRE-CONDITIONS I would really appreciate it!
Going back to... A place where LIFE... is STILL FUN!!!
LOL! Night! :)

[S_Meriden60]

I am assuming (dangerous) it means we won't negotiate if you're already violating United Nations rules or won't let UN inspectors in to check on things like nuclear development.
I would also think that one would first speak with our allies before directly holding negotiations with a country such as Iran.
That might prevent an embarrassing situation or save us from finding out the hard way our allies don't share our views or policies on the matter at hand.

[flatrat]

We keep hearing the McCain-Palin trainwreck trashing Obama for his willingness to engage in dialogue with our "enemies, " like this is a bad thing.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Five former secretaries of state, gathering to give their best advice to the next president, agreed Monday that the United States should talk to Iran.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by an intensifying insurgency.

"If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward," said Petraeus, who will soon take up responsibility for U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdc_1223596365


Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.
http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus

McCain's outrageous statement that we should refuse dialogue opportunities with our enemies, demonstrates his stubbornness and narrowmindedness and his lack of sophistication when it comes to diplomacy. He is willing to "stay the course" in Iraq until we achieve "victory," whatever that is, at the expense of how many more American lives?

Remember McCain's outrageous photo op in the Iraqi market, wearing body armor and a helmet, with a division of armed soldiers accompanying him, and Apache attack helicopters hovering overhead, all to demonstrate that Iraq was now safe? Truly the theater of the absurd.

Why wouldnt you open dialogue with anyone, if it had a possibility of a favorable outcome? The Bush regime has been engaged in dialogue with North Korea, and has achieved some positive results.

Why would you bash a leader willing to use diplomacy before bombs?