Iran Wants Direct Talks....Don't They?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.

Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.

Well the great thing about Obama becoming president is that those constantly trying to absolve Iran and pretend it's the big, bad US to blame will get a shock to their system. Either that or they'll eventually lay blame on Obama. Because we all know it couldn't possibly be Iran at fault.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.

Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.

Well the great thing about Obama becoming president is that those constantly trying to absolve Iran and pretend it's the big, bad US to blame will get a shock to their system. Either that or they'll eventually lay blame on Obama. Because we all know it couldn't possibly be Iran at fault.

Iran at fault for what, exactly?

For wanting and having a government not our puppet?

For helping us during the invasion of Afghanistan?

For showing remarkable restraint wrt support for Iraqi insurgents?

For supporting the Pals and the Lebanese against the Israelis, the local bullies?

For having a nuclear program?

Or is it just for having oil, and wanting to reap the benefits of their own natural resources?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.

Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.

Well, no.

You pretty much have us pegged down, but you are woefully ignorant regarding Iran. For some time before Bush came along, Iran had been leaning moderate. There was a great deal of good will towards America by the general public, and over time the religious leaders let the moderates have control in Iran. Ahmadinejad represented a vocal minority who's time had passed, until Bush decided to call Iran evil. He screwed up in Iraq assuming, among other things, a homogeneous population. He was wrong. Likewise with Iran, he assumed a cohesive and uniform government, and it was evil. What really was happening is that there were trouble makers whom the moderates could not completely control, and those elements were trouble both internal and external to Iran. This isn't an uncommon scenario, and it's very similar to what's happened in Pakistan.

So the moderates continued to make progress, however not everyone was under their control. The hard liners said crazy things like "America thinks you are evil!" Well that was nonsense. After all backdoor relations had been improving, and there hadn't been a serious squabble with the US in some time. Well, until Bush came along and changed all that with his foolish "axis" nonsense.

Immediately, Iranians saw the US as hostile, and those on the fringe now were able to point out that what they said was correct. Virtually overnight the moderates were out, and the real head cases were in. At least as bad is the fact that people who are running for office are vetted first. They have to support those we want in least.

Indeed, we haven't had formal relations with Iran for a long time, and Bush did everything in his power to make this situation come to pass and assure that it will be another couple of generations to get back to were we were before Lord Dimwit Flathead ruined it all.

BTW, it wasn't the religious powers who wanted nukes, it was the moderates. Why? To bomb Israel? No, to avoid a repeat of the Iran/Iraq conflict which almost destroyed both sides. It was a variant of MAD. The clerics saw nukes as immoral, go figure. Nevertheless, they reluctantly agreed to a nuclear program.

Now the same philosophy towards nukes has returned, but not to attack Israel. The US declared itself the enemy of Iran, and it wants to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to us attacking them. It's a purely defensive measure, but they do want nukes, and badly. The US has a long history of aggression in the region, and Iran has often been the victim of our actions. They have no reason to trust us because we turn on whomever a President doesn't like.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I believe 100% that Obama is going to come to a peace agreement with the middle east.

Fact is I am betting on it.

Kill the jews, arabs take Israel out, peace in the middle east?

bingo or just relocated Israel to a nice beach front location, far far away from the Arabs.

We could definitely give them 8,522 sq.mi. worth of land in the southwest (desert). I mean, they live in the desert now, right? What's the difference?

Umm, much of Israel is not desert... Forests, mountains, palm-tree covered beaches with clean clear seas, farmland, desert, lakes, etc... all in an area the size of New Jersey.

Israel is a really beautiful country. But you knew that, right?

Inquiring minds want to know: Is ignorance truly bliss?

Originally posted by: conehead433
Every problem we have in the Middle East is of our own doing.

You must be related to ebaycj...? :roll:

Maybe you could answer the question I posed to him...

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.

Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.

Well, no.

You pretty much have us pegged down, but you are woefully ignorant regarding Iran. For some time before Bush came along, Iran had been leaning moderate. There was a great deal of good will towards America by the general public, and over time the religious leaders let the moderates have control in Iran. Ahmadinejad represented a vocal minority who's time had passed, until Bush decided to call Iran evil. He screwed up in Iraq assuming, among other things, a homogeneous population. He was wrong. Likewise with Iran, he assumed a cohesive and uniform government, and it was evil. What really was happening is that there were trouble makers whom the moderates could not completely control, and those elements were trouble both internal and external to Iran. This isn't an uncommon scenario, and it's very similar to what's happened in Pakistan.

So the moderates continued to make progress, however not everyone was under their control. The hard liners said crazy things like "America thinks you are evil!" Well that was nonsense. After all backdoor relations had been improving, and there hadn't been a serious squabble with the US in some time. Well, until Bush came along and changed all that with his foolish "axis" nonsense.

Immediately, Iranians saw the US as hostile, and those on the fringe now were able to point out that what they said was correct. Virtually overnight the moderates were out, and the real head cases were in. At least as bad is the fact that people who are running for office are vetted first. They have to support those we want in least.

Indeed, we haven't had formal relations with Iran for a long time, and Bush did everything in his power to make this situation come to pass and assure that it will be another couple of generations to get back to were we were before Lord Dimwit Flathead ruined it all.

BTW, it wasn't the religious powers who wanted nukes, it was the moderates. Why? To bomb Israel? No, to avoid a repeat of the Iran/Iraq conflict which almost destroyed both sides. It was a variant of MAD. The clerics saw nukes as immoral, go figure. Nevertheless, they reluctantly agreed to a nuclear program.

Now the same philosophy towards nukes has returned, but not to attack Israel. The US declared itself the enemy of Iran, and it wants to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to us attacking them. It's a purely defensive measure, but they do want nukes, and badly. The US has a long history of aggression in the region, and Iran has often been the victim of our actions. They have no reason to trust us because we turn on whomever a President doesn't like.

When were these so-called good relations building between us? Was it 1997 when Khatami said he changed his mind on talks with us because we are an "oppressive nation"? Maybe it was following Iran's 2000 elections? You know, when the conservitives got smoked in parliament and the reformists got control. The reformists claimed to want to work for better US relations, but Clinton's answer to that was banning all US oil contracts with Iran because they support terrorism. If I remember correctly, we have only had one meeting with them since 1979. That was around the same time Clinton banned oil contracts. What came out of that meeting? Nothing, because we linked them to the bombing of Khobar Towers right afterwards. Then Bush took over and we found the nuclear program. Then Bush started calling them an axis of evil in 2002. I don't know about you, but I dont see this window of opportunity in there.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What diplomatic leverage? Are we going to force Iran to talk against their will?

Iran has now demonstrated that they were full of shit about talks taking place. They had no intent to do so then and now make it clear they have no such intent in the future. So apparently Bush was a hell of a lot smarter than all his detractors who claimed he was the big stumbling block to diplomacy. Everyone claiming that should now know they got played...hard. Bush ends up looking a hella lot smarter than any of you, in retrospect.

I'm not sure what to tell you other than you don't know what you're talking about, or you are being willfully ignorant.

No, not forcing Iran to talk. Talking to Iran is not the point of this, and I can't believe how you can't see that. I'm talking about diplomatic leverage over Iran with France, with Germany, with Russia, with the rest of the Middle East. For 7 years we've looked like morons refusing to talk to Iran, and they got to look like the poor picked on country that the US was trying to destroy. When we extend the hand of friendship to them and they slap it away, we score a HUGE victory. Now they can no longer hide behind the veil of persecution, and we can bring diplomatic pressure on them in the form of more sanctions, closer inspections, and god forbid if we need to use force on them we can show how we tried diplomacy first and they refused.

Bush's diplomacy towards Iran was catastrophically stupid. It is almost criminal how incompetent it was when someone who hasn't even been sworn in yet is able to score a diplomatic coup for our country that eluded Bush for the better part of a decade. We've had no luck getting other countries to follow suit with Iran for many reasons, but a big one was that they have always come back to us and said "have you tried talking to them about it?" To which we've always shamefully had to say no. The only person who has been played this whole time is Bush. If Iran was as bad as he says they are, then he should have known all he needed to do was call their bluff as Obama has. He was too pigheaded, too stupid, or too ignorant to do it.

So how exactly was Bush right again? Even if Iran never says a word to us, we are in a better position internationally today than we were with the onus of the diplomatic freeze being on the US. This cannot reasonably be taken in any way to be anything but a diplomatic victory for the US. That you're trying to argue otherwise is simply baffling.

Yeah, we're all going to be one big happy family with Russia, France, Germany, et al now.

:roll:

Are you really that politically naive or just a sad case of political idealism run amuck, as is the case with so many in here? I'm sure there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I will simply tell you this - Watch and learn over Obama's admin. You'll see how this plays out. Iran will be just as instrasigent with Obama in power as with Bush. Placing more diplomatic pressure on them, even assuming Russia and others are more on our side, won't change a damn thing where Iran is concerned.

No, it's just that you don't understand how international diplomacy works. I don't blame you, you're just not smart enough to understand the matter or you haven't learned enough.

Iran will very well be just as intransigent on matters as they always well have been, but the US will no longer be in the same position it was, because our leadership is smart enough to not paint us into the corner of illogical hostility. When dealing with a hostile foreign power, you don't cede them the moral high ground by refusing to speak with them, because in that case you give them the luxury of evading real consequences for their actions through blaming you for their position.

People who understand how to deal with hostile powers know this, and even if it doesn't alter Iran's position one iota, it has still helped the United States on the world stage. If Iran goes ahead with all of the worst things you think it will, the US can no longer be blamed for some sort of childish approach, but when we have to confront that reality we can do so having exhausted all other opportunities. This is what a smart country does when dealing with its adversaries, not a country that is as singularly incapable of seeing beyond the first set of circumstances as you appear to be.

Again, I don't blame you for your ignorance, you just don't know enough to know any better, or to see any further then what is in front of your own face. This is the same blindness you have consistently shown with most matters in the middle east, but it seems to come out of ideological blindness instead of some sort of logical intransigence. If you want to get into another one of these flailing, pathetic arguments with me you are more than welcome, but I will do the same thing to you that I've always done. So please, think about it before you do it once again.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No, it's just that you don't understand how international diplomacy works. I don't blame you, you're just not smart enough to understand the matter or you haven't learned enough.

Iran will very well be just as intransigent on matters as they always well have been, but the US will no longer be in the same position it was, because our leadership is smart enough to not paint us into the corner of illogical hostility. When dealing with a hostile foreign power, you don't cede them the moral high ground by refusing to speak with them, because in that case you give them the luxury of evading real consequences for their actions through blaming you for their position.

People who understand how to deal with hostile powers know this, and even if it doesn't alter Iran's position one iota, it has still helped the United States on the world stage. If Iran goes ahead with all of the worst things you think it will, the US can no longer be blamed for some sort of childish approach, but when we have to confront that reality we can do so having exhausted all other opportunities. This is what a smart country does when dealing with its adversaries, not a country that is as singularly incapable of seeing beyond the first set of circumstances as you appear to be.

Again, I don't blame you for your ignorance, you just don't know enough to know any better, or to see any further then what is in front of your own face. This is the same blindness you have consistently shown with most matters in the middle east, but it seems to come out of ideological blindness instead of some sort of logical intransigence. If you want to get into another one of these flailing, pathetic arguments with me you are more than welcome, but I will do the same thing to you that I've always done. So please, think about it before you do it once again.

Uhhuh. Your prognostications and declarations in here concerning Iraq have been so spot on.

:roll:

Just watch and learn. Don't end up looking ignorant twice.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Uhhuh. Your prognostications and declarations in here concerning Iraq have been so spot on.

:roll:

Just watch and learn. Don't end up looking ignorant twice.

Yeah, they've been pretty close. The war was a mistake, and the surge has failed to aid in the political construction of a unified Iraqi state. The Kurds have effectively created Kurdistan in the north, there are three separate Iraqi armies operating within the country, etc.. etc.

This isn't about Iraq though, this is about Iran and I see that you have no actual rebuttal to what I wrote. There's nothing to watch and learn... everyone agrees that Iran doesn't intend to actually talk, you just inexplicably think that America being viewed as the party at fault is somehow better for our foreign policy interests than Iran being viewed as at fault.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Uhhuh. Your prognostications and declarations in here concerning Iraq have been so spot on.

:roll:

Just watch and learn. Don't end up looking ignorant twice.

Yeah, they've been pretty close. The war was a mistake, and the surge has failed to aid in the political construction of a unified Iraqi state. The Kurds have effectively created Kurdistan in the north, there are three separate Iraqi armies operating within the country, etc.. etc.

This isn't about Iraq though, this is about Iran and I see that you have no actual rebuttal to what I wrote. There's nothing to watch and learn... everyone agrees that Iran doesn't intend to actually talk, you just inexplicably think that America being viewed as the party at fault is somehow better for our foreign policy interests than Iran being viewed as at fault.

I understand and agree with what you're saying. I think the problem is that not many people admitted -- or understood -- that, until now.

Many of us, perhaps yourself included, have known it to be the case for years. Iran never intended to talk, and they never do intend to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

I understand and agree with what you're saying. I think the problem is that not many people admitted -- or understood -- that, until now.

Many of us, perhaps yourself included, have known it to be the case for years. Iran never intended to talk, and they never do intend to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

I think that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is highly probable. What I think is fueling the skepticism of the administration's claims is the falsehoods about Iraq that they pimped, and the disturbing similarity in the quality of information that has been put forth about Iran. I mean after all the lies about Iraq can you blame people?

Iran's pursuit of nukes makes sense though, if I were them, I would be developing nukes too as it makes sense considering their strategic and political situation. If we truly want to prevent them from developing nukes we have two options, attack them or change the political situation. Considering the horrible consequences likely with an attack on Iran, I'm happy we appear to be trying the other option first.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: AFMatt
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.

Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.

Well, no.

You pretty much have us pegged down, but you are woefully ignorant regarding Iran. For some time before Bush came along, Iran had been leaning moderate. There was a great deal of good will towards America by the general public, and over time the religious leaders let the moderates have control in Iran. Ahmadinejad represented a vocal minority who's time had passed, until Bush decided to call Iran evil. He screwed up in Iraq assuming, among other things, a homogeneous population. He was wrong. Likewise with Iran, he assumed a cohesive and uniform government, and it was evil. What really was happening is that there were trouble makers whom the moderates could not completely control, and those elements were trouble both internal and external to Iran. This isn't an uncommon scenario, and it's very similar to what's happened in Pakistan.

So the moderates continued to make progress, however not everyone was under their control. The hard liners said crazy things like "America thinks you are evil!" Well that was nonsense. After all backdoor relations had been improving, and there hadn't been a serious squabble with the US in some time. Well, until Bush came along and changed all that with his foolish "axis" nonsense.

Immediately, Iranians saw the US as hostile, and those on the fringe now were able to point out that what they said was correct. Virtually overnight the moderates were out, and the real head cases were in. At least as bad is the fact that people who are running for office are vetted first. They have to support those we want in least.

Indeed, we haven't had formal relations with Iran for a long time, and Bush did everything in his power to make this situation come to pass and assure that it will be another couple of generations to get back to were we were before Lord Dimwit Flathead ruined it all.

BTW, it wasn't the religious powers who wanted nukes, it was the moderates. Why? To bomb Israel? No, to avoid a repeat of the Iran/Iraq conflict which almost destroyed both sides. It was a variant of MAD. The clerics saw nukes as immoral, go figure. Nevertheless, they reluctantly agreed to a nuclear program.

Now the same philosophy towards nukes has returned, but not to attack Israel. The US declared itself the enemy of Iran, and it wants to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to us attacking them. It's a purely defensive measure, but they do want nukes, and badly. The US has a long history of aggression in the region, and Iran has often been the victim of our actions. They have no reason to trust us because we turn on whomever a President doesn't like.

When were these so-called good relations building between us? Was it 1997 when Khatami said he changed his mind on talks with us because we are an "oppressive nation"? Maybe it was following Iran's 2000 elections? You know, when the conservitives got smoked in parliament and the reformists got control. The reformists claimed to want to work for better US relations, but Clinton's answer to that was banning all US oil contracts with Iran because they support terrorism. If I remember correctly, we have only had one meeting with them since 1979. That was around the same time Clinton banned oil contracts. What came out of that meeting? Nothing, because we linked them to the bombing of Khobar Towers right afterwards. Then Bush took over and we found the nuclear program. Then Bush started calling them an axis of evil in 2002. I don't know about you, but I dont see this window of opportunity in there.

If you note, I was referring to back door politics. The problem with our country is that we are just like most others. We overlook our actions and hold grudges a very long time. I'm not sure what you missed. Yes there were factions which were causing problems, however that doesn't mean that relationships overall weren't improving. It would be as justifiable to label the Iraqi government we installed to be listed among the "Axis" simply because there are anti-US forces, some of which have been fighting against us participating. It's rather complicated, but not overly so, and it escaped Bush's attention that after 9/11 the only middle east Islamic country to show support for us was Iran. Curiously, that seemed to have escaped notice.

Now regarding Khatami, he's proven a moderate despite some less than flattering words meant for domestic consumption. Khatami was far preferable to Ahmadinejad who replaced him because Khatami wasn't a die hard hater of the US. Note those elections occured after the "Axis" speech.

All you need do is go over and see how that afterwards, the election system was completely revamped, again after "Axis".

Regarding Clinton, he didn't help much, but as with Iraq he didn't screw things up beyond all recognition.

9/11 was an opportunity to take something bad and turn it to our advantage. We could have backed Iran moderates. No, any good will was immediately quashed with "If you aren't for us you are against us". In other words, do what we say or we consider you unfriendly at best, and someone we need to attack at worst. What a foolish mistake.

 

[piasabird]

After the Iranians kidnapped the British sailors in International Waters, and had their big fiasco, and lied out of both sides of their mouths, how can you believe anything they say. How can anyone think they can believe anything the Iranians have to say?

The Iranians are trying to plant IED's in both Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our people. They support the Hezbolah Terrorists to attack and destory the country of Lebanon, and to attack Isreal with rockets. After all of this we have not even attacked Iran in retaliation. Why are our troops the punching bag for Iran?

Our own president convinced Isreal not to conduct a retalitory air strike on Iran.

The Blood of our soldiers lie on the ground and we do nothing against the people that murdered them!

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: piasabird
After the Iranians kidnapped the British sailors in International Waters, and had their big fiasco, and lied out of both sides of their mouths, how can you believe anything they say. How can anyone think they can believe anything the Iranians have to say?

The Iranians are trying to plant IED's in both Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our people. They support the Hezbolah Terrorists to attack and destory the country of Lebanon, and to attack Isreal with rockets. After all of this we have not even attacked Iran in retaliation. Why are our troops the punching bag for Iran?

Our own president convinced Isreal not to conduct a retalitory air strike on Iran.

The Blood of our soldiers lie on the ground and we do nothing against the people that murdered them!

I think you are the first person I have seen mention the IED issue. Yes, it is true. Iran supplies EFPs to shi'a extremists. We havent retaliated because it's all back door, underground, border crossing transactions that don't directly link the Iranian government.

 

[Ozoned]

Sometimes good ideas are quite simple

How Obama should reach out to Ayatollah Khamenei

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter to Barack Obama has increased the likelihood that the two sides will approach each other and start negotiations sometime in the future.



However, one must not overlook the fact that Ahmadinejad isn't the most powerful man in Iran - Ayatollah Ali Khameini is, and Obama should approach him, instead of Ahmadinejad or whoever Iran's next president happens to be, because Iran's foreign and nuclear policy are determined by the Supreme Leader.

But what is the best way to ensure that Khameini takes him up on the offer?

Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute For Near East Policy (WINEP), focusing on the role of politics in contemporary Shi'ite clericalism in Iran and Iraq has made the following sound recommendation:

"A bold and direct US offer to Ayatollah Khameini, such as proposing that a top US official meet with him in his Teheran office, would put Khameini in a difficult position. It is possible - although not likely - that he would accept, especially if he believes that Iran faces a direct threat from economic failure or Israeli attack, or if he thought that American officials would treat him respectfully and end US pressures on his regime.

"But even if he refused to meet, the United States, having tried to solve the problem through diplomacy at the highest level, would most likely find it easier to reach consensus with its strategic allies to increase sanctions on Iran."

Some in the past have accused WINEP of being a right-wing conservative think-tank, but even if that were true, this article would still show that dialogue with Iran is now becoming a bipartisan decision. This is a welcome change in US foreign policy, the fruits of which can be enjoyed by both the people of the US and the Middle East.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Uhhuh. Your prognostications and declarations in here concerning Iraq have been so spot on.

:roll:

Just watch and learn. Don't end up looking ignorant twice.

Yeah, they've been pretty close. The war was a mistake, and the surge has failed to aid in the political construction of a unified Iraqi state. The Kurds have effectively created Kurdistan in the north, there are three separate Iraqi armies operating within the country, etc.. etc.

This isn't about Iraq though, this is about Iran and I see that you have no actual rebuttal to what I wrote. There's nothing to watch and learn... everyone agrees that Iran doesn't intend to actually talk, you just inexplicably think that America being viewed as the party at fault is somehow better for our foreign policy interests than Iran being viewed as at fault.

You didn't say anything worth rebutting. Your position is always filtered through your single-minded hatred of Bush, so it's impossible for you make any logical ascertations of the situation that don't involve all your emotional baggage.

What I'm telling you is that how we deal with Iran doesn't matter one whit. Diplomacy, no diplomacy; it doesn't matter, other than some warm-fuzzy you may personally get believing that the Russia, France, Germany, and others might give us butt-pats for giving it the old college try. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what they think because they surely don't give a rat's ass what we think about them. For some reason though there's a one-sidedness about what the RoTW thinks in P&N. The US is supposed to tremble in fear when the RoTW looks down their nose. But let the US look down its nose at a country like Iran and we're the bad guy. You demonstrated that yourself by previously exclaiming that this will be "A significant victory for the US."

There's no victory here. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change where Iran is concerned and ultimately that's the only thing that counts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You didn't say anything worth rebutting. Your position is always filtered through your single-minded hatred of Bush, so it's impossible for you make any logical ascertations of the situation that don't involve all your emotional baggage.

What I'm telling you is that how we deal with Iran doesn't matter one whit. Diplomacy, no diplomacy; it doesn't matter, other than some warm-fuzzy you may personally get believing that the Russia, France, Germany, and others might give us butt-pats for giving it the old college try. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what they think because they surely don't give a rat's ass what we think about them. For some reason though there's a one-sidedness about what the RoTW thinks in P&N. The US is supposed to tremble in fear when the RoTW looks down their nose. But let the US look down its nose at a country like Iran and we're the bad guy. You demonstrated that yourself by previously exclaiming that this will be "A significant victory for the US."

There's no victory here. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change where Iran is concerned and ultimately that's the only thing that counts.

If you honestly think that diplomatic maneuvering doesn't alter the risks and returns around any future action we take with Iran, I can't really say anything other than the fact that you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You just don't know enough to engage in this conversation, but you are trying to stick your head in anyway.

Even if you foolishly think that nothing will change with Iran, you have two options in the court of world opinion. We can either be the one blamed for the lack of progress, or the one not blamed for the lack of progress. You seem to think that Bush was 'smarter than all of us' for choosing to have us be blamed, adding yet another black mark on the US position without any commensurate gain for it. You can't explain why this is preferable, you just... as usual... refuse to admit when you've said something dumb, and refuse to ever back down until the thread degenerates into pedantic stupidity.

I can already see you gearing up for it again by hauling out the straw men. I won't participate.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: piasabird
After the Iranians kidnapped the British sailors in International Waters, and had their big fiasco, and lied out of both sides of their mouths, how can you believe anything they say. How can anyone think they can believe anything the Iranians have to say?

The Iranians are trying to plant IED's in both Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our people. They support the Hezbolah Terrorists to attack and destory the country of Lebanon, and to attack Isreal with rockets. After all of this we have not even attacked Iran in retaliation. Why are our troops the punching bag for Iran?

Our own president convinced Isreal not to conduct a retalitory air strike on Iran.

The Blood of our soldiers lie on the ground and we do nothing against the people that murdered them!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, the piasabird logic is flawed, flawed conclusions flowing from false premises. Where to start the debunking. Maybe the beginning is best. While both sides claim the right, those British sailor may have been in Iranian water, and a deeper analysis reveals their purpose were purely for espionage. And oh the humanity of it all, the poor sailors were forced to play ping pong and given silk suits, and the one hapless female sailor was forced to wear a scarf. To have that much outrage piasabird would have think rape at a minimum, and even then piasabird simply ignores the exactly equivalent EVENTS that partly inspired this Iranian action in the first place. Because the Iraqi authorities had invited in a number of Iranian civilians into Iraq, issued them passports, and the US arrested and held the lot, accusing them if espionage without offering an iota of proof, then released only those who held high diplomatic status while holding the rest for what amounted to arrest without any trial. WHAT IRAN DID IN THIS WAS TO SHOW HOW A CIVILIZED NATION HANDLES MATTERS OF THIS NATURE. And them sneaky, vicious, underhanded Iranians treated their captives so damn well, that TONY BLAIR MADE HIMSELF INTO AN INTERNATIONAL IDIOT when Blair accused Iran of mistreating the hostages, and even the hostages themselves would not even back Blair. One of the reasons Blair is no longer British PM.

As for the rest of the piasabird rant, more dubious premises, but worse yet, minor annoyances compared to what the USA has done to Iran for 30 years now. Arming and aiding Saddam Hussien in an actual war to destroy Iran largely trumps minor annoyances, but undermining Iran has been the one constant in US foreign policy since 1953. Freely admitted, some of the faults may be Iranians, but what FAIR minded person CAN DENY, the overwhelming vast bulk of fault belongs to the USA, and by an incredibly wide margin.

And if we are to believe in love at first sight, we must admit the possibility of hate on first sight. Or at least on the US side.

On the individual level, I may or may not hate my next door neighbor, but even if I
hated my next door neighbor, it would be a matter of no consequence if I just hated irrationally. but when I go half a world away to turn my hate into concrete and life threatening actions, yes its a matter of consequence. And after our past actions and quite a number of Obama statements supporting our past Iranian policies, if Obama expects an apology from Iran without offering an apology for our actions, its hard to see US Iranian talks starting or even going anywhere. And Iran, has every right to view Obama with extreme skepticism.

But if Obama is willing to talk about US Iranian mutual future goals, we may be talking about something with a bright and limitless future.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You didn't say anything worth rebutting. Your position is always filtered through your single-minded hatred of Bush, so it's impossible for you make any logical ascertations of the situation that don't involve all your emotional baggage.

What I'm telling you is that how we deal with Iran doesn't matter one whit. Diplomacy, no diplomacy; it doesn't matter, other than some warm-fuzzy you may personally get believing that the Russia, France, Germany, and others might give us butt-pats for giving it the old college try. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what they think because they surely don't give a rat's ass what we think about them. For some reason though there's a one-sidedness about what the RoTW thinks in P&N. The US is supposed to tremble in fear when the RoTW looks down their nose. But let the US look down its nose at a country like Iran and we're the bad guy. You demonstrated that yourself by previously exclaiming that this will be "A significant victory for the US."

There's no victory here. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change where Iran is concerned and ultimately that's the only thing that counts.

If you honestly think that diplomatic maneuvering doesn't alter the risks and returns around any future action we take with Iran, I can't really say anything other than the fact that you simply have no clue what you're talking about. You just don't know enough to engage in this conversation, but you are trying to stick your head in anyway.

Even if you foolishly think that nothing will change with Iran, you have two options in the court of world opinion. We can either be the one blamed for the lack of progress, or the one not blamed for the lack of progress. You seem to think that Bush was 'smarter than all of us' for choosing to have us be blamed, adding yet another black mark on the US position without any commensurate gain for it. You can't explain why this is preferable, you just... as usual... refuse to admit when you've said something dumb, and refuse to ever back down until the thread degenerates into pedantic stupidity.

I can already see you gearing up for it again by hauling out the straw men. I won't participate.

You're so stuck playing the blame game I doubt you'll ever figure it out. But time will tell who is right about this. Like I told you before - Watch, and learn. If you pay close attention you may even discover that you don't know nearly as much about the dynamics and nuances of international relations as you seem to think you do.