• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it appeasement to talk to unsavory regimes?

Should we talk to regimes we don't like?

  • Yes. Talking to other countries isn't appeasement, it's necessary for cooperation.

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • No. Gracing countries with our presence is a reward itself.

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Total voters
    20

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,321
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Is it appeasement to talk to unsavory regimes? By the same token, is it appeasement for the FBI and SWAT teams to employ negotiators for hostage situations?
 
Of course you should talk to them. It's just talking, if they tell you to go and **** yourself then you can bomb or invade later. On the other hand if you actually make some progress what have you lost?

The idea that someone should make concessions before you even start talking is ludicrous. That's what the talking is going to be about!

The whole "we don't talk to evil" stance propogated by the Bush adminstration hasn't acheived one real foreign policy success and by most accounts is making success in Iraq impossible.

I thought with the appointement of Gates America's stance might become more sensible, but change has been slow so far.
 
Kandahar said:
Is it appeasement to talk to unsavory regimes? By the same token, is it appeasement for the FBI and SWAT teams to employ negotiators for hostage situations?
Click to expand...

No, it's not appeasement to say "put down your weapons and come out with your hands up" or "if you start developing nuclear weapons we are going to send you an air package and take your centrifuges out".
 
Jerry said:
No, it's not appeasement to say "put down your weapons and come out with your hands up" or "if you start developing nuclear weapons we are going to send you an air package and take your centrifuges out".
Click to expand...

That's generally not what diplomats or negotiators do. Ultimatums have very little success, especially when the threat behind them isn't credible.
 
Nice post Kandahar, I must say I would have to agree that negotiating with an unsavory regime is not appeasement, but it can be depending on the situation. Appeasement in a negociation would be where the unsavory regime would get something out of the deal to calm them down. It was done during WWII, where several concessions in territories were given to the Third Reich to possibly slow down the eventual invasion of the rest of Europe. It has been done in North Korea and several other areas of the world. It all depends on who comes out on top at the end of the negotiation.
 
Kandahar said:
That's generally not what diplomats or negotiators do. Ultimatums have very little success, especially when the threat behind them isn't credible.
Click to expand...

And US threats generally aren't credible. Oh sure, once in a while we'll stomp on someone if we outgun them 10-1 but in general, we're a paper tiger, all talk and no substance.
 
Talking is cheap, and it sometimes works. There is no reason to refuse to talk to another government. Even if you plan on blowing the crap out of them, it still doesn't hurt.
 
Take a look at history. Nixon went to Red China and improved relations dramatically. The Gipper sucked it up and went to the "evil empire" and established a good working relation that lead to major nuke reductions.

It is ridiculous not to communicate.
 
I think this poll question is slanted and meant to produce an obvious answer. On the topic of negotiations with certain regimes, here's a different sort of question (and a more valid one IMO):

How long should we continue to play games and go around in circles (talk) with regimes (Iran) that frequently spit on international law?
 
jkille said:
How long should we continue to play games and go around in circles (talk) with regimes (Iran) that frequently spit on international law?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry when did America start talking to Iran?

It's not that you're going round in circles in negotiations it's that they don't exist. Not on any official level anyways.
 
Slainte said:
I'm sorry when did America start talking to Iran?

It's not that you're going round in circles in negotiations it's that they don't exist. Not on any official level anyways.
Click to expand...

When I say "we" I mean the international community. In the poll question, no specific country/regime was specified, although I also took it to in relation to the U.S. and Iran.

Iran is a global problem almost as much as a U.S. problem at this point. So far negotiations, in my eyes, have went like this: the U.N. says "don't do this, or we'll punish you," and Iran says "you can't tell us what to do, and your punishments are laughable." Just like Iraq.

Keep in my mind, I'm not saying anyone should invade, I'm just saying we're being played, as of right now.
 
jkille said:
How long should we continue to play games and go around in circles (talk) with regimes (Iran) that frequently spit on international law?
Click to expand...

We haven't even started talking to Iran yet. Our government has said that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment for the negotiations on them suspending uranium enrichment to begin. If the goal of the talks is also the precondition for the talks, it makes diplomacy rather difficult. It would be like an FBI agent telling a kidnapper that they'll be happy to negotiate...but not until the kidnapper releases all the hostages. Well OF COURSE they aren't going to give up their one bargaining chip before negotiations even begin!

Talking to another country is not a reward to be given to America's friends, and to be denied to America's enemies. It takes quite a deal of arrogance to believe that. We should just do it, with EVERY country in the world.

Besides, even if we HAD been talking to Iran and it had gotten nowhere...what exactly is the alternative you propose? Just giving up and deciding that talking will never solve anything, and instead deciding to pretend that they don't exist?
 

How would the international community benefit if it ceased negotiations with Iran?
 


But your missing the point, since 1979 the United States has had no diplomatic relations with Iran whatsoever. It obviously was Irans fault those relations were severed. However Iran is willing to engage in new diplomatic relations provided they have no preconditions to them. To my mind accepting them is a no brainer. In the three problem areas of the ME; Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Iran has immense influence, how on earth are those areas going to be stabilised if America; the other outside country with immense influence on the region won't even sit down and talk with the Iranians?

After 9/11 the Iranians were very helpful in disposing of the Taliban, America should have tried to talk with them then, instead in the 2002 SOTU address Bush named them in the axis of evil. That spurned a lot of good will that had been built through the removal of the Taliban and the tentative Clinton/Khatami years.

Then he invaded Iraq, with an obvious intention of the invasion being to put a pro-american Iraq right next to Iran. Now everyone's shocked they're doing all they can to **** that up for us?

The whole Bush admin policy towards Iran(and Syria) has been retarded since day one. How can you hope to go into a region has hostile as the ME, invade and occupy a country as messed up as Iraq and not even contemplate talking to their two biggest neighbors about rebuilding the place?
 

While you were obviously talking about the U.S. and Iran, even though you didn't actually specify in the poll, I was referring to the whole world. The United Nations has been "talking" to Iran in their own uneffective way already, at least about the nukes.

But I certainly see what you mean. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with talking to the enemy; however, there's nothing wrong with NOT talking to them either. Who cares what is or isn't arrogant. I'm for whatever puts us in the best position for the most positive solution.

But what is the U.S. supposed to be talking to Iran about? Are they wanting to talk to us? I mean, they obviously have beef with the U.S., and they're obviously acting like rebellious children, but what would sitting down and talking with them achieve? I don't see a problem with the U.S. refusing to talk to a country until that country is obeying the law. If they're not threatening us specifically, why should we fraternize with criminals? Or do you believe as the world's super power, we have a responsibility to deal with these people right away?
 
Kandahar said:
How would the international community benefit if it ceased negotiations with Iran?
Click to expand...

I never said it would. I just said the international community is being played like they were a bunch of chumps - right now at least - including the U.S.
 
Of course we should talk with unsavory regimes. We have made out pretty good by doing that.
Nicaragua under Samoza
Chile under Pinochet
Argentina under Peron
China under Chang Kai Shek
The UK any number of times
And oh yes Iran

.
.
.
.
.
im 1952.

The list is long and we have made out like bandits talking to unsavory people.
 

Em, excuse me?
 

Ok, I can see how picking up diplomacy would have its benefits, but what exactly are they in this situation? To determine if it's better to talk to them, we need to know just what we have to gain, just as they do. And if they're so eager to talk with us, why is it so big of a deal for them to suspend uranium enrichment? It's not like their country depends on it. In fact, it's been delayed and suspended on and off for the past 10 - 15 years anyway.

As far as its importance to the Iraqi war... well, that whole situation was ****ed from the beginning. Things are different now than in 2003. And now it's looking like we'll be leaving Iraq in the next 1 - 2 years.
 
jkille said:
Ok, I can see how picking up diplomacy would have its benefits, but what exactly are they in this situation?
Click to expand...

Bringing about an agreement in which Iran will stop arming and supplying "terrorists" from Basra to Beirut, most likely through a deal which will guarantee Shia protection in those countries, as well as promising that "regime change" in Tehran is not a priority.

The Nuclear issue will be more complicated, contrary to common belief Iran's own natural resources may soon be insufficient for its energy demands such is the speed of Iran's growth. Iran today consumes more Gas than Germany! A civilian nuclear project in some form will have to be tolerated, however I think it should be possible to pressure the Iranians into being much more transparent about the whole thing.

According to the BBC America was offered such a deal just after the initial invasion of Iraq (back when things actually looked positive!) except the Neocons rejected it. Gates would probably bite Iran's hand off for the same deal today, although it's doubtful we'll get one that doesn't address other problems in the Middle East.

One thing that is obvious to me, the Middle East can't be stabilised without America coming to some kind of understanding with Iran.
 
Inuyasha said:
I'm sorry...I meant to say the English. Hope that makes you feel a bit better.:lol:
Click to expand...

Em, not really. Scotland (unfortunately) is very much a part of the Union. I'd like to know why we get compared to Pinochet and Peron?
 
Its appeasement to talk to terrorist countries that are killing Americans...Syria and Iran come to mind......Pelosi should be charged for doing it.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Its appeasement to talk to terrorist countries that are killing Americans...Syria and Iran come to mind......Pelosi should be charged for doing it.....
Click to expand...

But it was OK when demi-god Reagan talked to the terrorist evil empire.
 
I answered "no" to this question: "Is it appeasement to talk to unsavory regimes?" The poll question seems to be different. oops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…