Okay, I'm a bit confused on why a lot of people (namely the Right and the Media, I guess) are making a huge deal about Obama saying he would speak to guys like Ahmadinejad without conditions. We've seen people get all riled up over this, especially concerning the appeasement issue.
I'm confused. Why is the statement of meeting with them with no conditions or meeting with them at all a bad thing? And by "bad thing," mean from the point of view of those out there calling Obama naive for wanting to meet with these leaders. The only thing I could think of is that since we're Israel's allies, we can't talk to anyone that is Israel's enemies. Futhermore, if Obama does this, then he must be some kind of terrorist sympathizer and secret Muslim. Those are really the only explanations I can think of, but I really would like to be sent in the right direction on this because there's a current debate about it on a forum I attend... (More under the fold.)
Basically, this guy on my forum brought up Obama's speech at AIPAC and linked to this article with the comment, "This is just because he was in front of the AIPAC? I remember few time ago that Hezbollah and Hamas declared Obama their favorite candidate (he ofcourse didn't like the support)."
So I asked what Hezbollah and Hamas have to do with the issue and his reply was, "About the position I thought it was funny that 2 organizations with the declared aim to destroy the state of Israel support him. But ofcourse this was before the AIPAC speech."
Then I say I don't understand why this is funny, to which he replied:
"Ah, don't tell me... Most of the time I don't have much fun. The rest of the time I don't have any fun at all...
However what I find strange is that Obama suddenly becomes the defender of Israel when he talks in front of the AIPAC while few days before he declares he wants to meet Ahmadinejad without conditions. Now, I'm absolutely sure of the good intentionts of Mr. Obama, but is just an impression of mine or the content of his speeches changes a little too much with the auditorium?"
I really didn't know what to say to that in a serious manner, so I went the humor route, mostly because I think this guy is trying to insinuate that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer, yada yada, "Because I'm so sure he's going to meet with him to discuss how he's going to help Ahmadinejad bomb Israel being that he's a secret Muslim and a terrorist sympathizer and all. Maybe he'll bring Rachel Ray along with complimentary Dunkin Donut iced coffees. Mmmm!"
The guy and like minded people didn't appreciate the joke. It got ignored. Heh. Instead, it gets picked up by another, quoting the same guy, with the comment that Obama has "no clear/honest platform." By this time in the thread, my head is exploding. More of Pro-McCain people chime in with comments like:
"Exactly. When he is talking to group A, he tells them whatever he thinks they want to hear to get their votes. When talking to group B, he says the exact opposite of what he said to group A because he wants the votes of group B. Voters have until November to pay attention to his "platform." It's really too bad that we can't split the US down the middle and have Obamaland and McCainland."
Which irritates me in the sense that this one is accusing Obama of pandering to the audience which, at least in my opinion, doesn't strike me as something uncommon to politicians in general. I'm no saying Obama does this, I was just trying to follow the logic (if there is any).
And back to the original guy, "I, more brutally, call it a way to earn electoral support using the well known short memory of today's society (i.e. people forget easily yesterday's speeches). We all appreciate communication, but he has to decide: he can't be the defender of Israel and accept to meet without conditions Ahmadinejad that every day preaches the destruction of Israel. Like the old aristotelics used to say tertium non datur."
Very frustrated at this point, I want to understand why this "no conditions" statement is such a big deal. I'm not very savvy when it comes to foreign policy and I don't want to further chime in on the conversation without understanding the other side. I don't expect to get very in depth answers from these people that I've quoted, so I'm hoping some of you lovely folk will have some insight.
I know it may be pointless debating with some of these guys on the forum, but I think understanding the issue is at least to my benefit.