Which approach honestly makes more sense?

Question

So, you are all wondering... approach to what? That is to make sure you read the whole question, not just the title.

Honestly, what would be your approach to meeting with "enemies of the United States"? I am wondering, because it seems like the smart thing to do would be to meet with them and talk it out, if possible. What harm will be done? You can talk to Iran or North Korea (look what that did for us) and it may work out. All I know is it is a heck of a lot better then flying in there and bombing them "into the stone age" just raising anti-american spirits therefore strengthening Al Queda and other terrorist groups.

So, what would be your approach? Answer with detail. I will allow you to vote for the best answer.

Answer 1

i personally would find the in between, talking didnt work for north korea, an embargo did, no one will act tough when their people are starving

Answer 2

Of course we talk to beligerant and enemy states. This is done at various levels of government. What isn't done is have the POTUS meet directly with the peon leaders of such states. It gives them prestige and legitimacy they don't deserve.

Answer 3

saying "don't talk" is just pure propaganda...

Bush has clearly talked to Iran and N. Korea... and so will McCain...

it's just party posturing to appeal to people who have no clue what is going on..

Obama will, McCain will, Bush did, Clinton did, Reagan did...

every Republican in the foreign relations field laughed to themselves when the whole idea was first brought up... they wondered it the public was gullible enough to buy it... it didn't seem to have much traction in the end...