Mike, you can only foster peace when both sides want it. When only one side wants it, it's appeasement or weakness. Jesus Christ, you are an American who I assume wants what is best for your country.

>Talking to troublesome nations is giving up our strength? I disagree.
>
>The benefit of fostering peace instead of hate should be clear.
>
>>Sigh.
>>
>>Conversation is not appeasement. Giving up one's position of stength unilaterally is.
>>
>>Respectable...heh...to whom? And why? For what reason? How does this positively impact the American people? Be precise.
>>
>>>It's quite amazing that you take conversation as appeasement. It's called diplomacy -- something that was sadly missing the past 8 years. The U.S. is becoming a respectable nation again.
>>>
>>>>Yeah, Nic, the fool is in the driver's seat. Taking a page from your history Obama is tilting towards being a Neville Chamberlain in the mid-1930's while angling towards being a Lord Halifax if a crisis should occur. Also, Biden is doing a pretty good Anthony Eden impression sans the drugs.
>>>>
>>>>>>>I have no problem with Obama talking with anyone. Talk != concessions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the eyes of the terrorists, Talk == Weakness
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Hon :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm going to go out on a limb here with this opinion, clearly not politically correct, that I don't give a rats a** what the rest of the world thinks of us. I mean, seriously, we didn't rise to our level of supremacy by worrying about what the has-beens and might-have-beens of the world think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am a firm subscriber to the theory that fear works. Mess with us, hurt our folks, you will die. Not only will you die, your family will suffer andyour country will be blasted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a rough world and the historical long view is that it doesn't suffer fools.
>>>>>
>>>>>That last line is the only accurate bit in your statement and luckily for the next few year "the fools" aren't in the driving seat.