Barack-o is a shallow superficial person when it comes to foreign policy. He shoots from the hip/lip when asked questions about “unconditional negotiations” You don't talk to a rogue “republic” like Iran without an elaborate set of preconditions, that's rule #1 in serious int'l politics.

You mean we can't have negotiations with Iran unless they are setup to fail from the beginning. War should be the only viable option. And can you let me borrow that rule book? I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea

And we're on Canada's torture watchlist. It's amazing anyone has diplomatic ties to us. Those types of lists mean nothing in terms of official contact between governments. That's rule #2 in seriously international politics

Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.

Just reread that a few times and see if your head explodes.

The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured “Peace in our time”

Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway…

I made this argument the other day. Nice to see I'm not alone.

From the practical angle, what Redfish said. Also from the practical angle, Bush set a trap with non-specificity, and Obama leapt into the jaws of it by claiming it was aimed at him. Rookie error.

It's not only the reality of current events that gets stifled by partisan tweaking and twisting.
To regain a more reasonable perspectiveof history takes a long time, much longer than what has elapsed since the wars of the 20th century,much less the 21st.

One thing is for certain. It is useless to talk in generalities. What works in one set of circumstnaces can fail miserably in another..For me, it's important that a leader be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstnces, to keep all options open, to bob and weave. To be inflexible is to tip your hand to the opponent, giving him a fixed target to plot against. Perhaps professsional boxers and other athletees should be among those advising presidents, because they understand the importance of psydhological warfare. That requires understanding the opponent's mentality, as well.
That's what was missing in the current administration for too long. When they finally realized they needed to adapt, however little, re Iran, too much of the damage had already been done. GWB succedded in tieing the hands and limiting the oportunities for the next president , no matter who that may turn out ot be.

Which Austria doesn't partake in.

Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea [which still hasn't done its end of the bargain in talks started by Waddlin' Maddy Al-dull.] Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.

Bush was obviously being dense when he made the analogy between talking and appeasement; but the policy that talks should be at a different level is justifiable.

Iranians currently dislike Ahmedinejad , and many US officials don't want to reverse that by Presidential talks. It may be smart policy to wait until the next President of Iran is elected, as to embarass Ahmedinejad like Iran embarassed Jimmy Carter.

The former president, Mohammad Khatami has sharply criticized Ahmedinejad over his comments on Israel. If Ahmedinejad is embarassed, Iran might return to a rule by moderates like Khatami who tried to reform Iranian laws and bring closer ties to the West.

The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured “Peace in our time”

Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway, and many historians believe that, because the English military was less prepared, the delay in the start of the war allowed the English to build up.

Some people thought the policy appeasement would work, because it had in the past. They naively figured Hitler to be an extension of German nationalist movements in the 19th century who just wanted to have German-speaking territory in their nation that had been carved up in a different way after WWI. They recognized that Europe had wronged Germany with the WWI reparations.

Others, like Churchill knew Hitlers ambitions, and it made Chamberlain look like a fool when Churchill was right.

But did Chamberlain's diplomatic policy actually strengthen Germany? I doubt it.