Stating The Obvious
In commenting on the OBAMA vs. CLINTON spat, Kevin Drum asks the obvious question:
…Basically, do you think the United States should, as a routine part of its foreign policy, say that it’s willing to talk to any country that’s willing to talk to us? That the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands?
I sure think so, and not just for the obvious reason that talking can sometimes lead to actual results. The bigger reason is that if you talk routinely, then the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands and can’t possibly be spun that way. It’s just something we do.
He’s right, this isn’t high school or a monarchy where deigning to notice someone’s existence is a boon. Nations should be talking to each other. That was the big lesson from the Cuban missile crisis and the reason the hot line was installed. Not talking is a good deal more dangerous than talking.
The Shrubbery is the one who seems to think that talking is a special grant of privilege and the pundits have jumped on board because in their world access is everything. They willingly spread the agitprop from the Hedgemony to prove that they have access, that “important people” talk to them, even if it is only to lie.
The people who advocate not talking need to come up with a verified example of this policy working. Not talking isn’t being tough, it’s being stupid.
12 comments
Well.. they planned to make their own reality, so if they ignored liberals and protesters and angry voters, they would just fade away. Living in a bubble is fun!
They still are drifting free from reality.
Yeah, so dictators can use the fact we talk to them for propaganda purposes. They already use the fact we don’t talk to them for propaganda purposes. Big freakin’ deal. We should talk to them (or not talk to them) based on whether it’s good for America or Americans, not based on how it fits into the propaganda they’ll spout whatever we do. Since when did we let tin-pot dictators tell us what to do anyhow?!
– Badtux the Practical Penguin
Since we started letting them sleaze their way into office.
But if we met with Hugo Chavez we might have to listen to him.
Since Huge supplies the gas for my car and generator and Mexico is running out of oil, I listen to Hugo quite closely. If his enemies want him out of office they could winning an election.
You mean they could try fixing an election? I understand he’s quite popular.
I think the more likely approach is to try to convince the US to invade.
But fortunately for Hugo Chavez, George Bush has just about broken our army.
Hugo is not a nice guy and he is wasting money on a lot of things his country doesn’t need, like SU-30s and submarines, but he is also the first leader in a very long time who has spread some of the money beyond a small circle of the elite, and that makes him exceedingly popular among the poor.
Being threatened by the US is a feature, not a bug, for a Latin American politician. As long as his friends don’t steal too much and the poor get something, he’ll get elected.
The opposition got greedy and are paying the price.
What current national leader do you think is a nice person?
The president of Ireland, but then, there’s no power, it’s a ceremonial job.
Hugo cuts deals with his buddies, but, for Latin America, he’s running a fairly clean operation, cleaner than the US government which hasn’t been hard in the last 6 years.