Should the US Presidency Meet with Enemy States?

In a recent debate that included the two front runners for the Democratic nomination, New York senator Hillary Clinton and the Illinois senator Barack Obam, the candidates were asked if they would meet in the first year of their presidency with the leaders of such enemy nations as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

Hillary Clinton said that she would not promise to meet with the leaders of enemy nations stating that a new president had to be careful not to be exploited by hostile leaders for propaganda purposes and not to do anything "that would make the situation worse." Before any meeting, she'd have to know "what the way forward would be."

Barack Obam on the other hand said that he thought it a disgrace that "we haven't talked to leaders of the five anti-American countries" and pointed out that despite President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" he still talked to Soviet leaders. "

Do you think that dialogue between hostile nations is the way forward and is an opportunity that is too easily overlooked?

In politics, is last years enemy, this years friend as in the case of Libya's Colonel Gadafy; or last years friend this years pariah as in the case of Saddam Hussein?

Can an end to conflicts like Northern Ireland only be achieved once the politicians have opened up a discussion?

Is the willingness to meet face to face with your enemy a sign of weakness?

Participate in this weeks open survey Should the US Presidency Meet with Enemy States?