It's About Time - US & Iran hold talks

[Magnetic Poles]

For the first time in 27 years, US and Iranian diplomats meet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18899216/page/2/

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

For the first time in 27 years, US and Iranian diplomats meet.

And, the reason this should create hopefulness would be ...?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And, the reason this should create hopefulness would be ...?

Well, for starters, it is always wise to engage a potential adversary with words rather than bombs if possible. As JFK said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Or as SunTsu said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

 

[LadyEagle]

And just what is the point of these "talks" I might ask? An exercise in futility, for sure. Some people just don't have a clue.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And just what is the point of these "talks" I might ask? An exercise in futility, for sure. Some people just don't have a clue.

If you would have read the story in the link, you would know. Of course, your answer is bomb Mecca, so I am not surprised.

 

[hillclimber1]

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the talks could lead to future meetings, but only if Washington admitted that its Middle East policy had failed.

Mottaki's dreaming. An admission of failure would be not only wrong, but a gross blow to Americas fighting forces. Of course the liberals would love it.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Mottaki's dreaming. An admission of failure would be not only wrong, but a gross blow to Americas fighting forces. Of course the liberals would love it.

It is clear that our middle east policy is an abject failure, but I would not expect to see an admission of that fact coming. Diplomatically, that may not be wise. Remember, this is initial posturing by the Iranians. At least we are talking to them now. Either we learn to engage our enemies in dialog or we end up with massive death and destruction on both sides. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. We all have a dog in this fight.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Mottaki's dreaming. An admission of failure would be not only wrong, but a gross blow to Americas fighting forces. Of course the liberals would love it.

If we have learned anything over the years, it's that troops can not win a war that is waged by politicians.

The initial objective Bush set out to do, overthrow Saddam and allow free elections in Iraq, has been accomplished. Why do they feel the need to keep piling more objectives onto our troops in order to win? The politicians are going to make winning impossible because their final objective will never end.

The troops have done everything asked of them so far. The country is in Iraqi hands now, good or bad. We should let them determine their own course from here on out. If they really want to be free, they will stand up and take hold of the opportunity we have given them. If they do not want freedom, they will lay back and let someone come in and take them and their country. Our staying there another 10 months or 10 years will not change what is ultimately an Iraqi decision, for better or worse.

No one can seriously say the foreign policy has been right, else we would have caught bin Laden by now and the whole region would be stabilized. We're only deceiving ourselves about the foreign policy.

I will say this though, the policy was working in Afghanistan until we turned away from them and focused on Iraq. Now, we're about to lose that country to extremists as well. You can not blow one country to heck, promise to rebuild everything you destroyed, and then turn around and focus all your attention someplace else.

Had we stayed in Afghanistan, completely routed the Taliban and al-Qaeda, captured bin Laden, and rebuilt the infrastructure which we destroyed, that country would be firmly fixed in the "win" column and we'd be home from there by now.

Something has got to change.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

James, for once, I cannot find any fault in your comments. Right on!

 

[Bro. James Reed]

James, for once, I cannot find any fault in your comments. Right on!

:laugh: :laugh: Thanks? :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Not_hard_to_find]

Well, for starters, it is always wise to engage a potential adversary with words rather than bombs if possible. As JFK said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Or as SunTsu said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

If you are looking at this from the viewpoint that Iran is a "potential adversary" then you are coming late into the scenario. And, my concern is that we are negotiating out of fear.

 

[Martin]

For the first time in 27 years, US and Iranian diplomats meet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18899216/page/2/

==I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict failure.

 

[pinoybaptist]

==I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict failure.

Ain't a limb. With the big mouths both sides have, you're on the tree trunk.

 

[carpro]

Negotiate away.

But remember the history of the mullahs. There is no agreement we can make with them that we can expect them to keep. Ever.

 

[hillclimber1]

Negotiate away.

But remember the history of the mullahs. There is no agreement we can make with them that we can expect them to keep. Ever.

Amen! Tis folly to negotiate with liars. It is in Irans best interest to undertake "talks" with us knowing we'll do absolutely nothing militarily while discussing stuff.

 

[LadyEagle]

If you would have read the story in the link, you would know. Of course, your answer is bomb Mecca, so I am not surprised.

Okay, fine, then. But answer this question - what leverage does the US have in holding this talk with Iran? What leverage do we have? None. They know we are a toothless tiger and we will do nothing. What does Iran have to gain by these talks? Nothing except PR. Their objective is to destabilize the region (which they are doing, supplying manpower, weapons, and supplies to "insurgents" in Iraq and to Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr - whom we should have taken out when we had the opportunity but whom our clueless CIC decided to pacify and negotiate with so they ordered our troops to stand down and had a cease-fire, remember?) and to eventually envelope and incorporate/absorb the Shiite sections of Iraq into their own country. Perhaps if you studied a little more about their ideology and goals and the history of the region, you wouldn't be so starry eyed over talks with Iran, a bunch of liars and thugs who have oil (a leverage), are developing the nuclear bomb (another iranian leverage), and who have been our "stated" enemy since the Iran hostage crisis. Not to mention funding & supplying Hezbollah, the terrorist group causing a lot of trouble in Lebanon, Africa, and other areas of the Middle East. These so-called talks were just a photo op.

PS: Bombing Mecca would take care a lot of these issues, anyway. I hope that is a back burner option in our war games.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Okay, fine, then. But answer this question - what leverage does the US have in holding this talk with Iran? What leverage do we have? None. They know we are a toothless tiger and we will do nothing. What does Iran have to gain by these talks? Nothing except PR.

Sometimes it is wise to give people a face saving way to re-enter the community of nations. I don't know if they will take it. I suspect not, but still hope so.

Their objective is to destabilize the region (which they are doing, supplying manpower, weapons, and supplies to "insurgents" in Iraq and to Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr - whom we should have taken out when we had the opportunity but whom our clueless CIC decided to pacify and negotiate with so they ordered our troops to stand down and had a cease-fire, remember?) and to eventually envelope and incorporate/absorb the Shiite sections of Iraq into their own country.

Since you are intimately acquainted with the objectives of the Iranian government, I am sure the NSA would be happy to have a long talk with you.

As far as Iran gaining the Shia territory in Iraq, why not? Let the people of the region work it out among themselves. Iraq is an artificial nation to begin with, having borders drawn by the Brits with no care about dividing factions between nations, or lumping enemies into a single nation. Pehaps part of Iraq should be integrated into Iran. Let the people there vote on it.

Perhaps if you studied a little more about their ideology and goals and the history of the region, you wouldn't be so starry eyed over talks with Iran, a bunch of liars and thugs who have oil (a leverage), are developing the nuclear bomb (another iranian leverage), and who have been our "stated" enemy since the Iran hostage crisis. Not to mention funding & supplying Hezbollah, the terrorist group causing a lot of trouble in Lebanon, Africa, and other areas of the Middle East. These so-called talks were just a photo op.

I am very well versed in the region's history. Who said I was "starry eyed"? I am glad to see us engaging them in dialog. Who knows if it will lead to anything productive? Still, I am willing to give it a try. Nothing to lose but a war, and perhaps save millions of innocent American and Iranian lives.

PS: Bombing Mecca would take care a lot of these issues, anyway. I hope that is a back burner option in our war games.

There are many, many other ways to engage an adversary than bombing them into oblivion and the US becoming the pariah of the world. Your extreme views are suicidal, and I am also continually amazed at how casual you are about mass killing.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The only negotiations that Iran would except is that the US abandon Israel. Which is not going to happen. The whole middle east conflict is based on Israel. So we either allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth or we stand toe to toe. There are no other options.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Okay, fine, then. But answer this question - what leverage does the US have in holding this talk with Iran? What leverage do we have? None. They know we are a toothless tiger and we will do nothing. What does Iran have to gain by these talks? Nothing except PR. Their objective is to destabilize the region (which they are doing, supplying manpower, weapons, and supplies to "insurgents" in Iraq and to Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr - whom we should have taken out when we had the opportunity but whom our clueless CIC decided to pacify and negotiate with so they ordered our troops to stand down and had a cease-fire, remember?) and to eventually envelope and incorporate/absorb the Shiite sections of Iraq into their own country. Perhaps if you studied a little more about their ideology and goals and the history of the region, you wouldn't be so starry eyed over talks with Iran, a bunch of liars and thugs who have oil (a leverage), are developing the nuclear bomb (another iranian leverage), and who have been our "stated" enemy since the Iran hostage crisis. Not to mention funding & supplying Hezbollah, the terrorist group causing a lot of trouble in Lebanon, Africa, and other areas of the Middle East. These so-called talks were just a photo op.

PS: Bombing Mecca would take care a lot of these issues, anyway. I hope that is a back burner option in our war games.

Amen, L.E. No troops, this time. Do it right, with extreme prejudice. Ain't enough, enough ?

 

[LadyEagle]

Sometimes it is wise to give people a face saving way to re-enter the community of nations.

Name one good reason why it is important for them to save face. Is that how politically correct you are, that our stated enemies who desire to blow us and Israel off the map need to "save face?" The murderers who financed the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon need to "save face?" The financiers of attacks on American interests need to "save face?" Those who deny the holocaust need to "save face?" The mullahs who spread hatred towards the US and call us the Great Satan and want to blow us off the map, need to "save face?" And as far as them re-entering the community of nations, they seem to be doing just fine engaging in trade with China and Russia, to name two.

Since you are intimately acquainted with the objectives of the Iranian government, I am sure the NSA would be happy to have a long talk with you.

I only wish they would. Someone needs to talk some sense into our leaders. They seem pretty much clueless.

As far as Iran gaining the Shia territory in Iraq, why not? Let the people of the region work it out among themselves. Iraq is an artificial nation to begin with, having borders drawn by the Brits with no care about dividing factions between nations, or lumping enemies into a single nation. Pehaps part of Iraq should be integrated into Iran. Let the people there vote on it.

Hey, I'm all for that. Except they won't vote - they will have a big genocide, Shia giving payback to the Sunni for all those years living under Saddam. But, hey, if you can go over there and talk some sense into the people who bite heads off of living frogs and eat beating hearts out of living bunnies and get them to be civilized, more power to you. The one thing we can agree on is that our troops need to be out of there, even though it isn't about to happen, no matter who is in the office of President in the USA.

There are many, many other ways to engage an adversary than bombing them into oblivion and the US becoming the pariah of the world.

Well, if there are "many, many" as you say, name 3.