Cutting Diplomatic Ties Resolves Nothing: Unconditional diplomacy is best.

Thanks for the challenge Ahking. I would like to begin by saying that I have little regard for diplomatic talks of any kind, whether they are conditional or unconditional. This is not to say that I don't believe in diplomacy. However, no international problem was ever solved merely by talking about it. The example you cited, the Cuban Missile Crisis, is a case in point. Were it not the case that the United States had nuclear assets in Turkey, no amount of talking would ever have brought the situation to a peaceful conclusion. Diplomacy is a complete waste of time without something to bargain with, such as a trade resource, or finances. Even those two things have no real bargaining power without a military to ensure that our enemies don't simply take what they want and give nothing in return. All effective diplomacy is contingent upon a strong military. This is not meant as a counter-argument, only as a brief explanation of where I'm coming from. If it's all the same to you, I will refer to Iran specifically, rather than "our enemies" in general, because it is both less vague and more convenient. Since you have essentially done the same thing, I doubt you will find this unacceptable. I begin my arguments by way of a question. Since you support talking to our enemies, what do you propose we say to them? Imagine, for example, you are face to face with Mahmoud Ahmadenijad right now. What, exactly, would you say to him that hasn't already been said by President Bush in his various speeches? Agreeing to speak to our enemies without preconditions is foolishness. Any diplomatic talks that would result from eliminating preconditions would INEVITABLY end in discussions of Iran's nuclear program. If Iran is unwilling to end its refining activities for the purpose of nuclear weapons, then there is simply nothing to talk about. If they are also unwilling to discontinue their threats and posturing with relation to Israel, then there is likewise nothing to talk about. Establishing preconditions simply ensures that any talks that do take place will not end in a stalemate, and waste our time. Accepting our preconditions shows a willingness to cooperate, not just with us, but with the world community. Remember, too, that when we talk about "diplomacy" with another country, we are really talking about discussions with the government of that country, which is often an illegitimate regime which seized power through force. Thus, by talking to these "leaders," we are only reinforcing their legitimacy, and are failing to talk with those who's interests are truly worthy of consideration. What Ahmedenijad says and wants is completely different from what the people of Iran want for their country. Iran is its people, not its government. Why, then, would we even bother conducting talks with little Mahmoud? Establishing preconditions may provide motivation for the people of a country to replace their leadership, and truly seize their own destiny, where possible. The idea that unconditional diplomatic discussions are somehow virtuous is based on the false proposition that talking in itself, is virtuous. If, simply by talking, two nations formed a spiritual connection which brought them closer to each other and put them in harmony with earth, then I would agree that we should resume normalized relations with our enemies. Unfortunately, the virtue of talking for the sake of talking has never been demonstrated. Instead, talking to our enemies inadvertently legitimizes them and increases their political clout. Thus, preconditions have a very important function, not only in ensuring that any talks which do take place promise success, but that we don't legitimize leaders who have no real desire to cooperate or compromise in the first place. Preconditions are simply those points which, were discussions to eventually take place, that are non-negotiable. We use preconditions all of the time in daily life and negotiations. A precondition, before negotiating the price on a piece of merchandise, for example, is that you actually have money. If you have no money, then there is no point in continuing negotiations. You musn't believe that simply because we don't have normalized relations with a country or countries, that we are not on some level "talking to them." Bush frequently talks about Iran in public speeches, and obviously Ahmadenijad can hear him just as well as you or I can. Furthermore, by establishing preconditions, we are essentially conducting diplomacy. For example, I took a trip to Israel in 2006. While there, we visited old city Jerusalem, where there are numerous shops and bazaars. The posted price on every item was FAR above and beyond their true worth. I'm a very poor negotiator, so most of the time I ended up paying at or slightly below what they were asking. However, a friend of mine who had experience with this kind of bargaining managed to get things ridiculously discounted. He did this by naming a price far below theirs, and when they did not accept, he simply walked away. Each and every time, the shopkeeper would call him back and give him the price he asked. By not walking away, I showed the vendor that I wanted a particular item too badly to walk away, but when my friend did exactly that, it showed that he didn't want it badly enough to let them rob him of his money. Preconditions are analogous to "walking away." By talking to our enemies without preconditions, it tells them that we want something bad enough from them that we're willing to make concessions. It's a small step from there to actually making the concessions. Preconditions are the very vestiges of the "tough diplomacy" that you've said you support.