Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I didn't hear him say he was optimistic about it. I just heard him say he's willing to try it. If I had heard that he felt talk would fix all the problems, that would concern me. But being totally unwilling to talk at all solves nothing either and even aggravates it. That also concerns me.

Many times talk does go a long way. Take Northern Ireland for example. For so long the flat rule was that nobody would talk with the IRA. Clinton broke with that rule by inviting Gerry Adams. The British and American naysayers said it was a 'surrender to terrorists,' etc. It worked and the Good Friday Agreement has been a wonderful accomplishment. And that is with a group that was called a 'terrorist group,' never mind a nation.

All through the Soviet years, the US had diplomatic relations with the Soviets. 'Cloak and dagger' still abounded. But, talk and keeping diplomatic channels helped avoid a war. The US has repeatedly talked with nations with which it has poor relations and has avoided wars as a result and eventually gotten better end results.

Where the US has been steadfastly unwilling to talk to someone, things have not gotten any better. Talk does not always avoid a conflict, but not talking hasn't helped avoid them either. What it has done is keep a crappy relationship that possibly could have been improved.

And when the US isn't talking, others are. The US keeps getting screwed out of trade with places like Iran, Cuba, etc. Refusing to talk also helps screw chances to get inroads not only with the government but also with the people who may change the government's attitude or even the government itself.