It's just another context in politics where the players have to say what they do to play roles instead of reality. If we keep agreeing we'll get into a big fight.

I do disagree with this: “I think all of the delinking- put aside Hezbollah, etc- is considered dangerous by everyone except the far left” considering that's a fundamental characteristic of the Realist school of foreign policy which dominated the Cold War and was seen as conservative.

Although you can argue that our policies then hurt us in the present, but it is kind of ironic that the statement “we should negotiate with Iran about our own interests while setting aside some things that are bad but don't affect us a while lot” could be construed as Left. Liberals are supposed to be the Utopian ones that look for universal solutions! I think a lot of times people get caught up in arguing over strategic intentions by criticizing tactics.

It's just another context in politics where the players have to say what they do to play roles instead of reality. If we keep agreeing we'll get into a big fight.

I do disagree with this: “I think all of the delinking- put aside Hezbollah, etc- is considered dangerous by everyone except the far left” considering that's a fundamental characteristic of the Realist school of foreign policy which dominated the Cold War and was seen as conservative.

Although you can argue that our policies then hurt us in the present, but it is kind of ironic that the statement “we should negotiate with Iran about our own interests while setting aside some things that are bad but don't affect us a while lot” could be construed as Left. Liberals are supposed to be the Utopian ones that look for universal solutions! I think a lot of times people get caught up in arguing over strategic intentions by criticizing tactics.

It's just another context in politics where the players have to say what they do to play roles instead of reality. If we keep agreeing we'll get into a big fight.

I do disagree with this: “I think all of the delinking- put aside Hezbollah, etc- is considered dangerous by everyone except the far left” considering that's a fundamental characteristic of the Realist school of foreign policy which dominated the Cold War and was seen as conservative.

Although you can argue that our policies then hurt us in the present, but it is kind of ironic that the statement “we should negotiate with Iran about our own interests while setting aside some things that are bad but don't affect us a while lot” could be construed as Left. Liberals are supposed to be the Utopian ones that look for universal solutions! I think a lot of times people get caught up in arguing over strategic intentions by criticizing tactics.

The police negotiate with criminals in very intense crisis situations in which there is a high possibility of injury or death on both sides. No one accuses them of “appeasement” or of “legitimizing” the criminals. There are no preconditions, as none are possible. There are no “low level talks” because there isn't time (and besides, what sense does it make to give your second string a shot at it first?)

Negotiation has become a highly evolved strategy with a rich and diverse toolkit. It works an amazing amount of the time. The alternative, from a law enforcement standpoint, is to say “we've got you surrounded, you're outgunned, and we're going to kill you. So do your worst.”

I know I won't convince some commentors here of anything, but it is my hope that readers with more open minds will start thinking about negotiation as a serious tool for resolving conflict, and not some sissy soft liberal “appeasement” strategy. Remember, real world tough guys with guns, actual law enforcement heroes do this every day: they negotiate with the most sociopathic and dangerous people imaginable. And they win. They're not “naive” or stupid or inexperienced or exercising bad judgment. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them standing up for Obama and throwing this misrepresentation of the art of diplomacy right back in the GOP's faces.

The approach of threatening, of not engaging, and of attacking is a much riskier strategy, both in law enforcement and in international relations.

I hope the Obama campaign can get across to voting Americans that negotiation is not a gift to our enemies. Negotiation concedes nothing! Is a perfectly valid, legitimate and proven method of resolving conflict.

Now, as several here have taken a very inflexible position about negotiation, what is your solution? Bomb Iran? Is that really what you're suggesting? Unleashing missiles against a sovereign nation, possibly even nuclear weapons, threatening our own soldiers downwind in Afghanistan with radiation poisoning? Inciting the righteous wrath of the entire Islamic world, of all of our enemies and most of our friends? Or do you have some third option that you haven't stated. Please. Share it with us.

The police negotiate with criminals in very intense crisis situations in which there is a high possibility of injury or death on both sides. No one accuses them of “appeasement” or of “legitimizing” the criminals. There are no preconditions, as none are possible. There are no “low level talks” because there isn't time (and besides, what sense does it make to give your second string a shot at it first?)

Negotiation has become a highly evolved strategy with a rich and diverse toolkit. It works an amazing amount of the time. The alternative, from a law enforcement standpoint, is to say “we've got you surrounded, you're outgunned, and we're going to kill you. So do your worst.”

I know I won't convince some commentors here of anything, but it is my hope that readers with more open minds will start thinking about negotiation as a serious tool for resolving conflict, and not some sissy soft liberal “appeasement” strategy. Remember, real world tough guys with guns, actual law enforcement heroes do this every day: they negotiate with the most sociopathic and dangerous people imaginable. And they win. They're not “naive” or stupid or inexperienced or exercising bad judgment. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them standing up for Obama and throwing this misrepresentation of the art of diplomacy right back in the GOP's faces.

The approach of threatening, of not engaging, and of attacking is a much riskier strategy, both in law enforcement and in international relations.

I hope the Obama campaign can get across to voting Americans that negotiation is not a gift to our enemies. Negotiation concedes nothing! Is a perfectly valid, legitimate and proven method of resolving conflict.

Now, as several here have taken a very inflexible position about negotiation, what is your solution? Bomb Iran? Is that really what you're suggesting? Unleashing missiles against a sovereign nation, possibly even nuclear weapons, threatening our own soldiers downwind in Afghanistan with radiation poisoning? Inciting the righteous wrath of the entire Islamic world, of all of our enemies and most of our friends? Or do you have some third option that you haven't stated. Please. Share it with us.

The police negotiate with criminals in very intense crisis situations in which there is a high possibility of injury or death on both sides. No one accuses them of “appeasement” or of “legitimizing” the criminals. There are no preconditions, as none are possible. There are no “low level talks” because there isn't time (and besides, what sense does it make to give your second string a shot at it first?)

Negotiation has become a highly evolved strategy with a rich and diverse toolkit. It works an amazing amount of the time. The alternative, from a law enforcement standpoint, is to say “we've got you surrounded, you're outgunned, and we're going to kill you. So do your worst.”

I know I won't convince some commentors here of anything, but it is my hope that readers with more open minds will start thinking about negotiation as a serious tool for resolving conflict, and not some sissy soft liberal “appeasement” strategy. Remember, real world tough guys with guns, actual law enforcement heroes do this every day: they negotiate with the most sociopathic and dangerous people imaginable. And they win. They're not “naive” or stupid or inexperienced or exercising bad judgment. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them standing up for Obama and throwing this misrepresentation of the art of diplomacy right back in the GOP's faces.

The approach of threatening, of not engaging, and of attacking is a much riskier strategy, both in law enforcement and in international relations.

I hope the Obama campaign can get across to voting Americans that negotiation is not a gift to our enemies. Negotiation concedes nothing! Is a perfectly valid, legitimate and proven method of resolving conflict.

Now, as several here have taken a very inflexible position about negotiation, what is your solution? Bomb Iran? Is that really what you're suggesting? Unleashing missiles against a sovereign nation, possibly even nuclear weapons, threatening our own soldiers downwind in Afghanistan with radiation poisoning? Inciting the righteous wrath of the entire Islamic world, of all of our enemies and most of our friends? Or do you have some third option that you haven't stated. Please. Share it with us.

Why did anyone even have to create this word? ugh

Why did anyone even have to create this word? ugh

Why did anyone even have to create this word? ugh

That should not be a precondition to say 'hello' on other topics.

Gazing into crystal balls about what Obama would or would not do in situations that haven't happened yet, is just pseudo-analysis, as no one knows anymore what any ot the phrases or words used actually mean.

I'm actually sorry that politics has pushed Obam to make as many specific statemtns as he has already. That just paints him in a corner, whereas an important attribute of a leader is the ability to be flexible when necessary, to adapt to new conditions and to think outside the box.

It's much more important to know HOW he thinks, not what specific steps he would take in the unknown future. If you must have a dead certain step by step blueprint for dealing with future siuations, I don't think politics is the place to look for that.

That should not be a precondition to say 'hello' on other topics.

Gazing into crystal balls about what Obama would or would not do in situations that haven't happened yet, is just pseudo-analysis, as no one knows anymore what any ot the phrases or words used actually mean.

I'm actually sorry that politics has pushed Obam to make as many specific statemtns as he has already. That just paints him in a corner, whereas an important attribute of a leader is the ability to be flexible when necessary, to adapt to new conditions and to think outside the box.

It's much more important to know HOW he thinks, not what specific steps he would take in the unknown future. If you must have a dead certain step by step blueprint for dealing with future siuations, I don't think politics is the place to look for that.

That should not be a precondition to say 'hello' on other topics.

Gazing into crystal balls about what Obama would or would not do in situations that haven't happened yet, is just pseudo-analysis, as no one knows anymore what any ot the phrases or words used actually mean.

I'm actually sorry that politics has pushed Obam to make as many specific statemtns as he has already. That just paints him in a corner, whereas an important attribute of a leader is the ability to be flexible when necessary, to adapt to new conditions and to think outside the box.

It's much more important to know HOW he thinks, not what specific steps he would take in the unknown future. If you must have a dead certain step by step blueprint for dealing with future siuations, I don't think politics is the place to look for that.

The aim of diplomacy in this kind of situation is genuine bargaining aimed at reaching a mutually advantageous agreement. You're trying to cooperate and realize positive-sum gains, and diplomacy is the process by which those opportunities are identified and exploited. Obviously, such efforts sometimes fail and then maybe you look at coercion, but the diplomatic effort is not, as such, an attempt at coercion. If you think of it as one, you'll wind up thinking of it as a really shoddy attempt at coercion, and wind up rejecting it out of hand.

And for kicks… there this:
“The argument that the administration makes is that we can't negotiate with Iran because it will legitimate them. Well, we're legitimating North Korea, so what's the big deal?” – Zbigniew Brzezinsk

The aim of diplomacy in this kind of situation is genuine bargaining aimed at reaching a mutually advantageous agreement. You're trying to cooperate and realize positive-sum gains, and diplomacy is the process by which those opportunities are identified and exploited. Obviously, such efforts sometimes fail and then maybe you look at coercion, but the diplomatic effort is not, as such, an attempt at coercion. If you think of it as one, you'll wind up thinking of it as a really shoddy attempt at coercion, and wind up rejecting it out of hand.

And for kicks… there this:
“The argument that the administration makes is that we can't negotiate with Iran because it will legitimate them. Well, we're legitimating North Korea, so what's the big deal?” – Zbigniew Brzezinsk

The aim of diplomacy in this kind of situation is genuine bargaining aimed at reaching a mutually advantageous agreement. You're trying to cooperate and realize positive-sum gains, and diplomacy is the process by which those opportunities are identified and exploited. Obviously, such efforts sometimes fail and then maybe you look at coercion, but the diplomatic effort is not, as such, an attempt at coercion. If you think of it as one, you'll wind up thinking of it as a really shoddy attempt at coercion, and wind up rejecting it out of hand.

And for kicks… there this:
“The argument that the administration makes is that we can't negotiate with Iran because it will legitimate them. Well, we're legitimating North Korea, so what's the big deal?” – Zbigniew Brzezinsk

It's about appearance vs substance.
Bling ves the single flawless diamond.
Placing the appearance of strength above using actual strength wisely.

The manliest man is seldom the one needing to brag about his manliness.

It's about appearance vs substance.
Bling ves the single flawless diamond.
Placing the appearance of strength above using actual strength wisely.

The manliest man is seldom the one needing to brag about his manliness.

It's about appearance vs substance.
Bling ves the single flawless diamond.
Placing the appearance of strength above using actual strength wisely.

The manliest man is seldom the one needing to brag about his manliness.

Preconditions are really just the honest announcement of intentions. If there was a condition that the other side considered nonnegotiable, we would also want them to admit that upfront rather than wasting our time- and if they came to the table saying that they wanted to negotiate on a particular topic but then showed up at the talks and refused to consider any movement from their current position, we'd rightly walk away with the PR victory there because we'd announce “well, we tried, but they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith.”

Preconditions are really just the honest announcement of intentions. If there was a condition that the other side considered nonnegotiable, we would also want them to admit that upfront rather than wasting our time- and if they came to the table saying that they wanted to negotiate on a particular topic but then showed up at the talks and refused to consider any movement from their current position, we'd rightly walk away with the PR victory there because we'd announce “well, we tried, but they aren't willing to negotiate in good faith.”