Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Well, Kissinger's "out of the box" quote is pretty clear. And I should have caught myself there, but I didn't. This, to me, asks the question of why McCain thinks Secretary of State talks are so much more dangerous than presidential talks.
But that would be me shifting the debate. Looks like I don't have a leg to stand on as far as the definition of preconditions, even if I still think it's a reasonable interpretation.
Which means I proved you wrong after all! "Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P"
I WIN!  |
You mean why he thinks presidential talks are more dangerous then secretary of state talks? Something to do with the head of the country legitamizing it or something...
I don't know... I don't agree but a lot of people do on both sides of the Isle.
Hilary Clinton made a big deal about it in the primaries saying that Obama's foreign policy plan would legitmize the worst enemies the US has.
Also apparently talking without preconditions with Iran would be breaching UN resolutions.
""Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions.
...
They [resolutions] were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council.
...
Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions..."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/152710/075
|
First off, she said nothing of the sort in that video unless I am truly made stupid by how tired I am right now. She said that it was a mistake to PROMISE those talks ("blanket commitment") without knowing whether they would be worthwhile for the US. And it's pretty debatable IMO that saying in that debate that he would be willing to talk equates to a promise to talk.
As for the second part, the UN Security Council resolutions in question demand that Iran suspend and/or explain those parts of its nuclear program which seem strongly suggestive of nuclear weapons development, and let in the inspectors required by the NPT. I'm not sure how snubbed all those parties would really be about talking with Iran on those subjects before it actually stops/starts doing those things, but I'm far, far from an expert in these things so please explain to me why we would offend them with (not necessarily unilateral) talks. I'd be surprised if there weren't UN resolutions regarding North Korea that weren't met when talks were being conducted with that country.
(BTW, it was your source's source that actually had info on what the resolutions were.)
|
Don't you think that knowing for a fact such meetings were going to be beneficial to the US would be a precursor to some kind of condition or deal already hammered out before meeting?
She says herself that she doesn't want to be used for Propaganda. She says similar things in later quotes, but it's the earliest one i found.
As for the second part, we didn't have unilateral talks with North Korea to my knowledge. Korea kept asking for them and Bush said no.
