Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions
From Debatepedia
(List of links)
< Debate: Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditionsThe following pages link to Debate: Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions:
View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).- Featured Debate Digest articles
- Argument: Obama's conditionless meetings would involve diplomatic preparations
- Argument: US has a history of meeting rogue leaders without preconditions
- Argument: Obama would meet Amadinejad, but he may fall out of power
- Argument: Not meeting hostile leaders is a failed Bush policy
- Argument: Obama has not changed positions on meeting hostile leaders
- Argument: Talking with all Muslim leaders shows Muslims US is listening
- Argument: Obama has flip-flopped on meeting with hostile foreign leaders
- Argument: US should never negotiate out of fear but never fear to negotiate
- Argument: Majority of Americans support talking to hostile leaders unconditionally
- SEO
- Debate: Barack Obama awarded Nobel Peace Prize
- Argument: Iran sponsors terrorists; wrong to talk with them
- Argument: Ideologically stubborn to meet only after preconditions met
- Argument: Talking to your enemies is not a concession
- Argument: Iranian leaders are evil; wrong to meet with them
- Argument: Iraq Study Group says meet Iran/Syria w/o conditions
- Argument: Not talking to enemies fails to change their behavior
- Argument: "Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about
- Argument: Majority of scholars support unconditionally meeting hostile leaders
- Argument: Speaking with rogue leaders shows US is not impeding progress
- Argument: Speaking with rogue leaders builds alliances for action
- Argument: Obama open talks offer rogue leaders propaganda opportunities
- Argument: Meeting hostile leaders is means to aggressive diplomacy
- Argument: Meeting rogue leaders reveals their true intentions
- Argument: Talking to regimes does not legitimize them
- Argument: Unconditional meetings wrongly legitimize hostile leaders
