Agreed that we should look at all options, but there is a potential cost to direct negotiations. Iran, much like North Korea, could very well use direct two party talks to simply press for a couple of demands, never interested in any concessions. One demand would likely be outrageous, the other no so much, but still not desirable or advantageous from an US perspective. When the US refuses both, who then is seen as the bad guy?
Agreed that we should look at all options, but there is a potential cost to direct negotiations. Iran, much like North Korea, could very well use direct two party talks to simply press for a couple of demands, never interested in any concessions. One demand would likely be outrageous, the other no so much, but still not desirable or advantageous from an US perspective. When the US refuses both, who then is seen as the bad guy?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You missed an option. Not talking forced other countries into trying the diplomatic route with Iran and thereby learning the frustrations of dealing with Iran along the way. The EU thought diplomacy was the answer and their attempt flopped horribly.
Additonally, it's kind of strange that many of the same people who decry the US's role as the World's Policeman demand that we take a dominant role concerning Iranian diplomacy. What's wrong with taking a back seat, recognizing that Iran is unwilling (after all, it's not as if we haven't tried previously) to deal in good faith, and telling the other world powers to handle it?
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
After reading the "The recession has not hit Obama" thread bashing Obama because he signed a book deal, is talking to US citizens about the economy, etc I pretty much have come to the conclusion that certain forum members are trolls and or political hacks.
your in elite company there lad. When you agree with moonbeam.
Its not Iran that most people with a brain worry about, its Iran 's potental to allow the technology to be used by Terrorists (in proxy). Thus allowing for no national Iranian fingerprint to retaliate against (and avoiding culpability in the event of a nuclear event).
The reason MAD worked with Russia is retaliation was a sure thing. How do you retaliate when the attacker is not a nation?
You have to kill everybody who is crazy enough to harm innocent people because they are hateful and afraid and the first one on my list is YOU.
I don't think you understand how nuclear weapons work, or how the world works. When you detonate a nuclear weapon it is possible to figure out where that weapon came from, and we would most certainly do that with any bomb detonated in our country. So no, Iran would in no way be able to avoid responsibility for an Iranian nuclear weapon being detonated in the US (or anywhere else really) and so they would most certainly be retaliated against.
So no, most people with a brain do not worry about the Iranians developing and deploying a mystical and nonexistent nuclear device that is somehow untraceable. Care to revise your assessment?
That is not comforting when Tel Aviv and Palestine are leveled/poisoned. The Palestinians are the dogs of the Arab world in other Arab's eyes. Dont think for a minute that some jihadis wouldnt sacrafice them for Allah-snackbar.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Benefit of doubt or not... How can you talk Iran out of a nuclear weapons program if you dont talk to Iran? Even if they dont want to talk, thats fine - we are in a better position if we are offering, vs. if we are standing back and saying "we wont talk to you" . ITs really that simple.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Direct threat to kill?
------------------------------------
No
The trimmed quote is now taking things out of context.
Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
europe Has talked directly for years . US through the UN sanctions and resolutions and low level diplomats. Has Irans demeanor changed in any way?
Its not talking that is needed its talking to a rational Iranian govt that is needed.
T
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Direct threat to kill?
Is that grounds for banning?
-----------------------------------
Again,the quote is being taken out of context with respect to the rest of his posts and previous posts.
Also, one must understand (if that is possible) Moonbeam's style of posting and infamous logic within his verbiage.
Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
You stated you didn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons because they could use them without consequences through a terrorist proxy. I am telling you that you were simply factually incorrect. If you think that we would not retaliate against Iran when a nuclear weapon traced back to Iran was detonated in our country, you are delusional.
As for Ocguy, I don't see how your comment relates to what I wrote. The weapon would still be traced back to Iran, and Iran would still pay the price.
Well my point is to not let them get the nuke in the first place, so it never gets to that point.
You are saying that they would never do it because it could be traced. Religion tends to cloud common sense, however. (See: Suicide bombers, or fundies of any religion for that matter).
One radical islamic nation with nukes is enough.
Then your in complete denial with the daily rhetoric of Admanawackjob. They thought Hitler was just pandering to the crowds also.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter