Obama's idea of "unconditional dealing" with Iran set back

[IAMX 3,055]

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

You shouldn't be Pro-War or Anti-War... it is a necessary evil but should always be a last resort.

Anti-war. Indeed, because there hasn't been a necessary "last resort" in over half a century. I don't bother with the political correctness of suggesting it for a last resort because we don't use war as that anymore.

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

how generous of you.

Always looking out for everyone.

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

Some of the pro-war supporters are already fighting Iran in Iraq so we pretty much got that one covered unless you are suggesting an invasion of Iran?

The point is, evidently it isn't cool to actually sit down and talk with Iran like normal people (they probably aren't human anyways), so may as well do the tough guy American thing and just bomb a few places -- but rather than waste money on funding troops, just send a bunch of pro-war people there. They likely have guns anyways so no need to supply them with anything. Git 'r dun.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

Well its not like the Iranians have any reason to trust the "goodwill" of the US, given that we are essentially responsible for the way that country turned out.

Of course as far as Iraq goes - it illustrates the bone-headedness of the politicians who supported the war. When you recognise that Saddam's regime, distasteful as it was, was ideologically opposed to that of neighbouring Iran - it becomes clear how delicate this situation was and how running around like a bull in a china shop has done more harm than good.

It amazes me to be honest - that we've basically put Iran in a position where they have been able to do much damage to our interests. The insurgency is the reason this thing has dragged on so long, along with the political disagreements between the different factions in the coalition government. Iran has been behind a good portion of the non-AQ insurgency - bogging us down in Iraq at huge expense of manpower and money, while the US' fiercest competitors (Russia and China - both of whom have investment in Iran) watch and laugh.

I rather suspect that when the US does eventually withdraw - the new Iraq will become an ideological partner of Iran and bolster, rather than discourage the anti-american sentiment in that region.

One thing that actually kept the Iran-Iraq war going was the hatred of Iraqi Arabs (even Shi'as) for Iranians.

I think a lot of it had to do with Saddam's irreligious, Quasi-communist regime. With him out of the picture it changes things considerably.

[S and S 12]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

Well its not like the Iranians have any reason to trust the "goodwill" of the US, given that we are essentially responsible for the way that country turned out.

Of course as far as Iraq goes - it illustrates the bone-headedness of the politicians who supported the war. When you recognise that Saddam's regime, distasteful as it was, was ideologically opposed to that of neighbouring Iran - it becomes clear how delicate this situation was and how running around like a bull in a china shop has done more harm than good.

It amazes me to be honest - that we've basically put Iran in a position where they have been able to do much damage to our interests. The insurgency is the reason this thing has dragged on so long, along with the political disagreements between the different factions in the coalition government. Iran has been behind a good portion of the non-AQ insurgency - bogging us down in Iraq at huge expense of manpower and money, while the US' fiercest competitors (Russia and China - both of whom have investment in Iran) watch and laugh.

I rather suspect that when the US does eventually withdraw - the new Iraq will become an ideological partner of Iran and bolster, rather than discourage the anti-american sentiment in that region.

I agree that when the withdraw does happen it will basically be like handing Iraq over to Iran. Its really depressing because in all of this my husband can never go home as it will never be safe for him again.

It was useful to have a leader in Iraq who opposed the leader in Iran. Never have fully understood the thinking behind breaking that balance of power. Perhaps there was something I have missed in all my studies of the middle east and travels over there

[S and S 12]

The point is, evidently it isn't cool to actually sit down and talk with Iran like normal people (they probably aren't human anyways), so may as well do the tough guy American thing and just bomb a few places -- but rather than waste money on funding troops, just send a bunch of pro-war people there. They likely have guns anyways so no need to supply them with anything. Git 'r dun.

I may not necessarily agree with all your points, but thanks for the laugh!

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

[IAMX 3,055]

The point is, evidently it isn't cool to actually sit down and talk with Iran like normal people (they probably aren't human anyways), so may as well do the tough guy American thing and just bomb a few places -- but rather than waste money on funding troops, just send a bunch of pro-war people there. They likely have guns anyways so no need to supply them with anything. Git 'r dun.

I may not necessarily agree with all your points, but thanks for the laugh!

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

Heh, I find few will get the tongue in cheek. Indeed, we should work on talking first, but that is working under the assumption that the administration cares to do it. Bush's administration largely hasn't given a ####.

[alienlovechild 75]

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

We haven't been "silent" with Iran but there haven't been direct ties. There are intermediaries so the idea there's no talk between enemies is wrong. The key is who needs who more and whether significant concessions can be extracted in return for higher level contacts. That's why Obama looked like a ####### at the DNC debates on this issue. He had no clue on diplomacy and had to retract his unconditional meetings with anyone gaffe.

[S and S 12]

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

We haven't been "silent" with Iran but there haven't been direct ties. There are intermediaries so the idea there's no talk between enemies is wrong. The key is who needs who more and whether significant concessions can be extracted in return for higher level contacts. That's why Obama looked like a ####### at the DNC debates on this issue. He had no clue on diplomacy and had to retract his unconditional meetings with anyone gaffe.

Oh I agree Obama has a lot to learn about foreign politics. He made many mistakes during his campaign for that area (like threatening Pakistan). I only hope he gets himself good advisors so he can avoid those mistakes in the future.

[IAMX 3,055]

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

We haven't been "silent" with Iran but there haven't been direct ties. There are intermediaries so the idea there's no talk between enemies is wrong. The key is who needs who more and whether significant concessions can be extracted in return for higher level contacts. That's why Obama looked like a ####### at the DNC debates on this issue. He had no clue on diplomacy and had to retract his unconditional meetings with anyone gaffe.

Oh I agree Obama has a lot to learn about foreign politics. He made many mistakes during his campaign for that area (like threatening Pakistan). I only hope he gets himself good advisors so he can avoid those mistakes in the future.

Yeah as I started reading I was already started thinking about typing about advisers. Unlike Bush, I hope Obama listens sometimes to them. Except in the case of Alberto Gonzales -- I think that's the only time Bush ever did listen. And likely because he heard something about his Executive powers expanding to something ridiculous.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SRVT

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

Well its not like the Iranians have any reason to trust the "goodwill" of the US, given that we are essentially responsible for the way that country turned out.

Of course as far as Iraq goes - it illustrates the bone-headedness of the politicians who supported the war. When you recognise that Saddam's regime, distasteful as it was, was ideologically opposed to that of neighbouring Iran - it becomes clear how delicate this situation was and how running around like a bull in a china shop has done more harm than good.

It amazes me to be honest - that we've basically put Iran in a position where they have been able to do much damage to our interests. The insurgency is the reason this thing has dragged on so long, along with the political disagreements between the different factions in the coalition government. Iran has been behind a good portion of the non-AQ insurgency - bogging us down in Iraq at huge expense of manpower and money, while the US' fiercest competitors (Russia and China - both of whom have investment in Iran) watch and laugh.

I rather suspect that when the US does eventually withdraw - the new Iraq will become an ideological partner of Iran and bolster, rather than discourage the anti-american sentiment in that region.

One thing that actually kept the Iran-Iraq war going was the hatred of Iraqi Arabs (even Shi'as) for Iranians.

I think a lot of it had to do with Saddam's irreligious, Quasi-communist regime. With him out of the picture it changes things considerably.

The intrinsic Arab-Persian animosity has never dissipated.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you want to go to Timbuktu - it's a bad idea to start from Kilarny.

[frali 2]

One thing I will agree with is staying silent for decades doesn't fix anything. Nothing will get fixed by doing nothing.

We haven't been "silent" with Iran but there haven't been direct ties. There are intermediaries so the idea there's no talk between enemies is wrong. The key is who needs who more and whether significant concessions can be extracted in return for higher level contacts. That's why Obama looked like a ####### at the DNC debates on this issue. He had no clue on diplomacy and had to retract his unconditional meetings with anyone gaffe.

Oh I agree Obama has a lot to learn about foreign politics. He made many mistakes during his campaign for that area (like threatening Pakistan). I only hope he gets himself good advisors so he can avoid those mistakes in the future.

I don't think he threatned to bomb the whole of Pakistan. But I agree Obama should be careful the way he words his sentences.