Obama says US must try talking to Iran

[TheMercenary]

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran, offering economic incentives and a chance for peaceful relations if Iranian leaders would forgo pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorists.

And they would stall, go on talking, and continue to build.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And they would stall, go on talking, and continue to build.

Not according to El Baradei on Charlie Rose (and from other sources). But, there is also a consensus that Iran will not longer talk to George Jr. Appreciate why. This is the same mental midget who destroyed slowly warming relations by lying. The Axis of Evil speech that is regarded by many as the list of countries that the US intended to attack unilaterally - without reason. As we now well know - that axis of evil list was based only on lies created by an extremist poltical agenda.

Only a fool thinks Iran will change actions whether we start talking or not. After all, American threatened Iran with war for no reason. The only way to create a change is to first start talking - as China finally forced the US to do in N Korea. Only wacko extremists would impose conditions before talks begin.

El Baradei also notes a long list of things Iran wants to discuss - far beyond nuclear issues - if only Iran could find someone in America who could talk and be honest. Honesty is not George Jr.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

As we now well know - that axis of evil list was based only on lies created by an extremist poltical agenda.

So you don't believe that Iran supports terrorism through both monetary and material support?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you don't believe that Iran supports terrorism through both monetary and material support?

I don't believe anything from this administration. Yes, Iran supports terrorism just as the US supported IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. Who was the largest supplier to IRA terrorism? United States.

To prove any worldwide conspiracy by Iran to destroy the US, first, one needs sources that don't routinely and intentionally lie to promote a political agenda.

Given statements from George Jr and from El Baradei, El Baradei wins every time. Wacko extremsits with a poltical agenda can never be trusted.

Very good reason why El Baradei got the Nobel peace prize. He was honest. It is rather surprising how many conflicts Iran wants to start discussing well beyond uranium enrichment. But honest discussions cannot happen when the American leader is a pertinacious liar. Honest talking cannot happen when the American leader violates even the most basic rules of diplomacy. Which president would not talk to his adversaries? Not on that list are every great American president including Eisenhower, Kennedy, both Roosevelts, Truman, Reagan, ...

Reagan said only a fool does not talk to his enemies. So again George Jr meets the defintion of a fool - as defined by Reagan.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't believe anything from this administration. Yes, Iran supports terrorism just as the US supported IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland. Who was the largest supplier to IRA terrorism? United States.

That would be BS. Some Americans may have sent them money or helped them buy guns on the world market. The US government never helped the IRA do anything. In fact we had the Brits help train some of our people in their techniques of tracking the terrs in Ireland.

To prove any worldwide conspiracy by Iran to destroy the US, first, one needs sources that don't routinely and intentionally lie to promote a political agenda.

Great, show me any administration or government that does not do it.

Wacko extremsits with a poltical agenda can never be trusted.

Which is exactly why most of what you say should be doubted.

Which president would not talk to his adversaries?

Most of them.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So you don't believe that Iran supports terrorism through both monetary and material support?

Not to repeat after tw (which I seem to be doing more and more often), but that makes them different from whom, exactly? We're giving money and weapons as we speak to non-government militias in Iraq. Throughout the history of modern war, the US, it's allies, and it's enemies ALL seemed to have thought that paying some extremists who hate you a little less than the other guy is a viable option for war. We can't possibly condemn someone for following in our footsteps.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Not to repeat after tw (which I seem to be doing more and more often), but that makes them different from whom, exactly? We're giving money and weapons as we speak to non-government militias in Iraq. Throughout the history of modern war, the US, it's allies, and it's enemies ALL seemed to have thought that paying some extremists who hate you a little less than the other guy is a viable option for war. We can't possibly condemn someone for following in our footsteps.

Well I guess it depends on whose side you want to be on. Thiers or ours?

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I guess it depends on whose side you want to be on. Thiers or ours?

'Theirs or ours' is the problem with all this bullshit. Honestly I'd rather not be on either side. In fact, as soon as I can, I'm growing a beard and moving somewhere with a nice beach.

The fact is, we latch on to crap like 'funding terrorism' as something that makes a state 'bad.' We take the following things in and of themselves to mean a state is 'bad:'
Supporting terrorist organizations
Working toward nuclear weapons
Suppression of human rights

We have done or are currently doing all of these things. I will not say we are the same as, let's say, Iran. But we take these actions as proof that a nation is somehow evil. It's the same bullshit as anti-gay republicans who are gay. It might not make them bad people, but they're certainly talking out of their asses.

Think of all the things that separate us from the enemy, and 95% of it can be attributed to where you're standing. VBIEDs = terrorism. Why? Welll, it's hidden so our forces can't see it coming. Claymore mines=...terrorism? If it were a buzz word back in the late 1700s, revolutionary fighters would have been labeled terrorist by the king of england. Are we an occupier or liberator?

Frankly, I'm so sick of everyone being so convinced of their righteousness that I won't be taking any part of it after May ever again.

[wolfd]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And they would stall, go on talking, and continue to build.

... and that's exactly what's happening now.