Bush appeasment in sudan

[streicher187]

So it's ok for him to actually appease but it's not ok for Obama to want to talk to a dictator?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601965_pf.html

[haybierman]

I think the big beef most people had with Obama is that he said he would speak to anyone unconditionally.

[streicher187]

Talking does note equal Appeasment..

Maybe if we talked then North korea wouldn't have built a Nuke and Iran wouldn't be building one(if they are). Bush is talking with Muqtada al-Sadr and even giving militia money not to fight us in Iraq (last report I read it was 10.00 a day)..

If it's a choice between war with Iran and Talking I think after Iraq most Americans will take talking anyday.. I would say Dudan is far worse then Iran they are killing hundreds of thousands of their own people and they gave safe harbor to Bin Laden.

[haybierman]

Maybe I should bolded the word "unconditionally". No talking certainly does not necessarily denote appeasement, but talking to enemies unconditionally sets a premise that works against having a worthwhile convo because you are basically telling the other guy they have carte blanche.

Also, we DID talk to N. Korea about a dozen times and it got us nowhere. Google "Six-Party talks".

One could also reference how the Clinton administration fostered all these peace talks with Yasser Arafat and Yizhtak Rabin, and signed the big whoop-de-doo Oslo accords to end violence between Palestine and Israel. Yeah, that really held up.

So given the track record of enemies that we have "talked to", what do we stand to gain by continuing this form of naive diplomacy?