I voted no, but not for the reason given. Chavez is a thug, and will do whatever it takes to stay in power. Given the drop in oil prices, I wouldn't be surprised if this is his first step in securing some sort of aid for his mountingly disatisfied countrymen. If the horrid economy forces Cahvez to give into international pressure on the human rights front, great. It has nothing to do with a kinder, gentler Obama versus the horrid, evil Bush. It would be a grave mistake to assume otherwise and go forward accordingly. Ditto for IRan (also getting economically slammed due to dropping oil prices.)

As for Cuba - didn't anyone else read tha Fidel is calling out his brother as being totally offbase? I don't think the Cuba example fits in this scenario of thawing relations at all.

Assuming that Sugar cares about its responders, I have to say that I find the new format pretty lame. The posts don't seem to have much connection with each other. That's why I haven't commented much of late - it's hard to take a political discussion seriously when it's presented along with relationship advice. I've noticed a drop off of my fellow Citizen commenters, so possibly they feel the same way.

nothing bad can come from starting a dialogue.... if we turn to appeasement, that's when things can get tricky (anyone remember WWI Allied "winners" taking it easy on poor Germany?)

I agree w/ Kranky! No offense tres. I understand people wanting to try something new. Ok, you did. Now, can we please just have news when we click on news?

I'd like to know what that book is that he's giving him.

I agree with mamasitamali. It is always good to revisit some situations with a new outlook but as long as he has no problem enforcing sanctions when necessary

I said no...but I don't think the reason listed is a good one!

First of all I feel that the pundits who have/are criticized the President for opening dialogue with Venezuela, Iran and Cuba are being intellectually disingenuous by using words such as buddy, pal, friend. President Obama is no friend of Hugo Chavez. However he aware enough to know that an open dialogue with an associate leader in the world is more beneficial than festering silence that has nothing to draw upon for information other than pure presumption.

Our position is not weakened nor are we surrendering principles. As for the hand shake well what can I tell you that's what people do when they're introduced. If he had refused to shake his hand to make a statement that certainly would not have been good for better relations now would it. To toss around these terms like pal and friend is just so disingenuous to the whole process and fails to interpret the very complicated delicate intense diplomacy that is actually going on.

If you look at history, stonewalling other nations has never done much good. I agree that no matter how much talking you do with some leaders (Iran, North Korea, possibly Cuba) they will probably never come around and honestly work with you but at least it fosters some sort of relationship with the country's people and maybe in the administrations so when there is a change of leadership then we can deal with them. If the entire country is thinking "America hates us and won't even do us the dignity of speaking to us" then they are just going to hate us back.

Did the silent treatment ever work when you were little? It drove my brother nuts and then he would do something worse like give me a charlie horse instead of when we would just be mad but speaking. I see it as that on a much bigger scale...why do we want to drive these leaders nuts and give them fuel to their anger and craziness?

I agree with hypnoticmix and telewyo. Part of being a professional (or a politician, especially), of any kind, is meeting and shaking hands with people -- it does not make everyone your "buddy."

Those are good points tele!

I have to say I agree w/ an open mind to communicate. I don't like the buddy buddy look of it all though.

Thank God Spencer W. Pratt is out of the White House.

Does this right-wing idea of screaming, demanding and pouting with our enemies get us anywhere? No. Obama is going to open a dialogue, and try to find some middle ground. If push comes to shove, I have no doubt he will stand up and kick some bootie. It's an adult approach to being leader.

Bri

If I was about to run out of gas, and the only gas station near me was a Citgo or 7-11 Citgo, I would run out of gas and call roadside before I EVER gave a dime of my hard earned money to Chavez. READ about him, people. LEARN what he thinks of this country and what he wants to accomplish.

Absolutely Red!

I respectfully disagree with you hartsfull, I don't care where my news comes from, I just care that I get it.

I'm w/ that lucky!

Wah Wah wah, the tone of this article sounds ignorant and it bothers me.

Why call diplomacy and the attempt to TALK to other world leaders good or bad a mistake? Just because it has a history of being a violent, malicious, controlling, human rights violating government?

Welcome to America. A lot of people don't realize that in it's own way the US **is** the most violent, malicious, controlling and human rights violating country in the world. But it's ok, cause we're in power and no one can critisize.

So, for once a leader of our country rather TALK to the big bad guys instead of continuing to act like one?

I don't think it's a matter of keeping yor friends close and your enemies closer, that's a simplication or a very complicated problem.

I'm a bit confused as to what is the difference between Hugo Chavez and the other "thugs" (i.e. Agusto Pinochet) that U.S. foreign policy has been friendly towards. I think this is an important and positive move away from the "with us or against us" (and by us, capitalist/pro-US values) that has been characteristic of US foreign policy in the 20th century. Chavez doesn't begin to enter the realm of human rights abuses committed by other regimes which the U.S. has supported, so why is it negative that dialogue is being opened?

SydneyT22: I couldn't agree with you more! In such an individualistic and power hungry society it seems that people are more concerned with who has the upper hand. As long as it's the U.S people are OK with the whatever policies have been implemented and whatever actions have been taken, regardless of what rights are violated and who is invaded.
I also want to say that I am disappointed with TresSugar for even presenting the idea in such a manner. So, while I voted yes on this question, it was definitely NOT for the reason given.

I'm disturbed by the term "sketchy leaders" - do any leaders of predominately white countries fall into that category? Leaders who were illegitimately elected? Or just countries that the media decides not to like on a certain day?

The US needs to have a dialogue with ALL countries. It's not a pick and choose kind of thing

i think its ridiculous

I agree with Fushaa, EmmaDilemm, and SidneyT.

"Welcome to America. A lot of people don't realize that in it's own way the US **is** the most violent, malicious, controlling and human rights violating country in the world."

Wow, that is an extraordinarily ignorant statement. Seriously, do you know anything about any other countries in the world?

You question whether we know anything about other countries in the world, I question how much you really know about the U.S?

this is one of the reasons that i LIKE obama...he is our NEW president and he's trying to act like a professional in a professional setting. its not like he's shooting hoops w/ chavez! being new, he has a different and fresh perspective on things and there is nothing wrong with him meeting with/talking to our so-called enemies. i think thats the whole reason he was elected--he has DIFFERENT ideas.

"keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Personally, I like that he's not just ignoring them and pretending that they don't exist - maybe having a positive relationship will turn around some of the negativity.

Fushaa, I guarantee you cannot come up with any accusation that I haven't heard before. But seriously, you really think the US can go head to head with Iran, or North Korea, or China on human rights abuses? With Saudi Arabia? With the many failed states in Africa, such as the Sudan or Somalia? Hell, reporters critical of the Russian government keep mysteriously disappearing. The best part of the United States is that there are numerous critics who do not fear for their lives who will hold the nation accountable for its transgressions. Personally, I'm very glad of that. But even as an imperialist power with a recent record of torture, no, the US is absolutely not by any standard the most "violent, malicious, controlling and human rights violating country in the world." I cannot believe that an intelligent person needs to be reminded of that.

Mermei,
I do seriously believe that the U.S is no better than Iran, North Korea or China when it comes to issues such as human rights and other abuses. And, there are in fact, people who fear for their lives due to the actions of the United States. It doesn't make it any less of an issue just because those people may not be Americans. What is presented on the news, in papers and other media is not the full story.
No reminders necessary

The U.S. is certainly not the most violent or malicious or close to it. However the U.S. is certainly one of the most controlling and in more recent History one of the most manipulative. IMO our protection of our so called interests abroad have led us down a slippery slope of contradiction when it comes to our principles leading us in many cases now to speak out of both sides of our mouth. So I'll agree that the U.S. is guilty of unsavory practices but to suggest that we are no better than N. Korea or Iran is very short sighted.

The US has violent societies, neighborhoods, schools, movies, books and things that are not of the govt. Yes we might have crooked cops and politicians. But our govt doesn't condone (yet) denying education to people based on gender social status or race. Our gov't doesn't deny liberties (yet).

It isn't acceptable for a woman to be raped on the street for punishment here. It isn't acceptable for a young couple to be killed because they went against their parents choices. People of all ages and genders are not stopped by law or govt to not cover their heads, or flirt, or court.

A construction worker wont be killed for being annoying to us for cat calling and we have the right ourselves to be annoyed or yell back etc. Just a very small example of the govt doesn't make our choices for us.

As always hypnotic, very well put!

oops missed a comma between gender and social.

Hartsful, although the American government doesn't govern in this way, it has supported and continues to support governments which do do such things. I would say that the position taken against Hugo Chavez and other such leaders by W is a hypocritical one, in the tacit support that the U.S. has provided for WORSE regimes, in my opinion. The problem with Chavez, for example, is not human rights abuses, but his witholding oil from the Americans. Were he not "guitly" of witholding oil from the US gov't, I don't really think that anyone would care.

* by this way, I mean in the way of N. Korea et al

I agree with hypnotic. We, as Americans are able to live or our lives in a freer society than that of even China, where they still control the media completely and even the amount of children people have.

We are by no means perfect but the fact that I work outside of my home, wear pants, and had children out of wedlock without being hauled in by the police or killed without at least the appearance of looking for my killer, is what keeps America off of that same level.

I don't think it's making pals it's more about being respectful and trying to see the other person's point of view. Obama is just trying to resolve some of the tension that the US has caused in the world. I think it's great and makes these politicians less likely to lash out against the US in the future.