Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

sturner wrote:

I know. Pathetic, that the administration only now is getting around to the real priority.

Troops will have to be pulled from Iraq to meet Afghan requirements.

Aren't troop levels back to their pre-surge levels?

So it's direct contact, just not direct contact in exactly precisely the way Obama has suggested. Got it.

Anything else?

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

So it's direct contact, just not direct contact in exactly precisely the way Obama has suggested. Got it.

Anything else?

It's not identical. He said direct one on one negotiations, that He would meet with the leaders of Iran without conditions. This is similar, by the way to Obama saying we need to get our troops out even if a genocide were to occur in 16 months, because the war is unwinnable, versus Mccain saying we can start removing troops as we are successful, based on facts on the ground and not based on political timetables. Yes, virtually identical.


However, if you REALLY want to suggest it is identical (this current meeting and Obama's suggestion that he would meet with Iran without preconditions), look at the results.
Was it successful? no. I REPEAT, was it successful?

So you have your answer as to the results that would occur were such direct negotiations to take place (which as you suggest did). Iran did not stop and refused to stop its enrichment of uranium.

This is actually great. We can now pass go, collect our 200 dollars and now resume the harsher sanctions against Iran. This is, after all what Obama said would happen if direct negotiations failed. Since, as you say, they are direct negotiations (they arent, but lets just be the devils advocate) and since they failed, Obama's next action would be to get tougher with Iran.

Great, so now we're back to where we started before the silly notion of trying to engage with direct talks with Iran without preconditions. I trust you and Obama, will now be on board to again engaging in tougher diplomacy (and by that I mean working with our allies to isolate the regime) as opposed to silly suggestions that sound like they were coming from  a high school debating society (and which woluldn't work in high school either).

Um, did you miss the part where I said the policies were NOT identical?

And personally I'm of the opinion that only two things could stop Iran from pursuing uranium enrichment: one,  an apocalyptic war; and two, very wide-ranging and sophisticated diplomacy (and economic planning) to tackle the real problem, which is nuclear proliferation.

Unfortunately neither seems to be in the offing.

Ribtorus wrote:

There's huge divides in the right; the neo-cons and the war hawks and the Republicans and the Likudites and the "liberal" hawks etc etc.

What's a Likudite? I googled this, but to no avail.

ScifiterX wrote:

everlong205 obviously has problems with the concept of equivalency. If any part of a concept even remotely resembles part of another, they are both identical to him.

Isn't that the suggestion of this particular discussion? that in fact we are now following Obama's course of action and dealing directly with Iran (thus Bush is a fool and Obama was right all along). I'm saying that no in fact that the two are not identical (so you apparently are having a reading comprehension problem), but following the logic of the implication, if you want to say that they are identical, then we already have an example of the result of talking directly to Iran. Iran will not suspend enrichment simply because we talk to them.

I could have told you this before the talks commenced (and again, I'm not stating that what occurred is the equivalent of what Obama suggested. Those trying to critisize Bush and laud Obama are). In fact, I think I said it again and again. Having direct talks without preconditions with a regime like Iran is stupid.It will not produce results.
And I could have told you the outcome of this negotiation last week. Im like the amazing kreskin. In my envelope I have the answer for the next direct negotiation with Iran and I'll tell it to you right now, free of charge. Iran will not suspend its enrichment program. Sometimes I amaze myself with my precognitive skills.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-19 1:39 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

You are the one who is saying the non-negotiation (despite what their saying it is a negotiation of one type or another) failed, Obama's negotiation plan is doomed to failure. It may fail, it may succeed, we don't know cause it's not been tried in that manner.

What is obama going to add to the mix? Obama pixie dust? This is exactly what Obama suggested he would do. Meet with them  but lay out the terms of what is expected of them and if they refuse to cooperate impose tougher sanctions. It probably doesn't happen too often where your policy suggestion is carried out in front of your eyes so you can gauge the result.

The result,  expected.

ScifiterX wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

What is obama going to add to the mix?

Try intelligence and a second side to the conversations. Some conversations are more prone to fail than others but most progress much further when one side isn't just simply talking at the other.

Just a stick isn't nearly as effective as a carrot and a stick. The stick is even less effective when you use it even when they start moving in the proper general direction.

They haven't started moving in the proper general direction.
And this isn't simply an american vs. Iran thing. THis is France and London etc. also directly trying to reason with Iran and negotiate with Iran. They've just announced their latest carrots to Iran which iran rejected, yet again.

So, are you suggesting that none of the negotiators currently negotiating this who aren't Bush or the US are so incompetent that they aren't aware of the carrot and stick approach or that they haven't been trying to get Iran to play ball? I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the negotiations at present. They've gone out of their way to dangle carrots in Irans direction and get met with endless refusals to negotiate. The sticking point being Iran will not stop enriching uranium. That's kind of a big sticking point, don't you think? And how big a carrot are you proposing to dangle that would get Iran to change its stance?


But I'm sure Obama can save the day. For he is of a higher intelligence than all previous diplomats.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-19 6:52 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

They have at least expressed a willingness to talk and be inspected if that's not the proper general direction, I don't know what is.

That is exactly what I'm suggesting. Our administration has repeatedly consistently demonstrated they are either unwilling or incapable of act in a logical rational manner in any aspect of government. Why should negotiation be any different especially if they have gone out of the way to avoid it. And frankly even our allies don't want to deal with us any more because of that. Why should those who didn't like us in the first place be any different.

Its not a question of the administration not acting logically. its that Iran wants to enrich uranium and refuses to rerlent and there is nothing we can offer them by way of carrots, certainly nothing were we to approach them without preconditions, that means more to them then getting their nuclear program. Its not that they want to have a dialog, but are miffed that they are getting the cold shoulder. That is ludicrous. I know you are placing all blame at the feet of bush, but our allies are having similar issues with Iraq not complying and the reason for this is that Iran really really really wants its nuclear program. Its a game of chicken plain and simple, and one of the groups in question will have to ultimately blink, or their will be war.

What is the negotiation point that Obama will bring to the Iranians. He's already suggested that essentially he is already in line with Bush's goals. He says he would do it "different" but in essence he is saying the following - he would meetwith Iran's leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

He also says Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for "terrorist activities" were serious concerns and that "we expect them to desist from those actions."

So already he's laying down a marker as to what is expected. namely they desist from engaging in enriching uranium. So he's already essentially ceded the argument for engaging in direct talks. That is the one point of contention on which the Iranians will not budge on. Certainly not for some dialog. What possible carrot is Obama going to offer that is more valuable to the Iranians than their nuclear program? If he's suggesting that we expect Iran to desist in those actions, then how is that different than what we expect now.

Obama is a total fool, who thinks somehow that no negotiations have been carried out up till now, or that no negotiator knows anything, and that all Iran needs to do is hear a fresh voice and will suddenly capitulate. NO. THEY WANT THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM. Obama has no cards he can play that are more valuable to Iran than that.

You're seeing how innefectual diplomacy can be with iran, because that is in fact what we are already engaged in. You say we should have more open talks. Yet the sticking point, the only thing to talk about is already off the table for the Iranians. So what is there to talk about? the weather? How cool Obama is? Its a non starter, and Obama is naive to even suggest it.

our allies, along with our own represntative offered a freeze for freeze just this week, we will not engage in further security council actions and iran refrains from installing new centrifgues. That is a carrot dangling in front of IRan. Iran will not budge on this.

Everwrong's paddling furiously but the fact remains; Iran must be dealt with in a way that doesn't jeopardise the investment in Iraq. That means an accord of some kind.

America under any presidency will find a way because it simply has to. The fact that the Bush presidency, even at this late date, even after all the bellicose rhetoric, and even under a cloud of embarassment, would let solidified relations with Iran be considered tells me how "reality-based" such an accord is.  They can still screw it up or find ways to make sure it's the next administration that has to follow up.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2008-07-20 6:49 am)

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

sturner wrote:

I know. Pathetic, that the administration only now is getting around to the real priority.

Troops will have to be pulled from Iraq to meet Afghan requirements.

Aren't troop levels back to their pre-surge levels?

In Iraq? No. 'Surge' is a political term for an escalation.

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

Troops will have to be pulled from Iraq to meet Afghan requirements.

Aren't troop levels back to their pre-surge levels?

In Iraq? No. 'Surge' is a political term for an escalation.

Hmm ...

The military buildup in Iraq that began more than 18 months ago has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in by President Bush last year, left the country.

Its departure marks the end of what the Pentagon calls the "surge." And it starts the 45-day evaluation period that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress he would need to assess the security situation and determine how many more troops he could send home.

Commanders have talked carefully, but somewhat optimistically, about the prospects for cutting troop levels more later this fall.

bratboy wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

It's not identical.

Just too precious.



You must have been horrified to hear this story.  If I do a search for your past assertions regarding diplomacy for Iran will I find you agreeing with the steps being taken now, or now?  Agreeing with Sec. Rice's view, or not?

No, in fact,this was a dumb way to go. ANd it ultimately proved to be fruitless correct?. The negotiation route will ulitmately prove to be a non starter, even if Obama applies his magic Obama pixie dust.  Because IRan will not budge from its enrichment activites barring either some natural disaster that incapacitates the regime or some heavy stick applied to IRan.
I'm sure you'll say that when sanctions are increased that its all due to Bush's belligerence.(while completely ignoring that waht you and obama have been faulting BUsh for not doing has in fact not done anything but prove me right)

user wrote:

Bush has greatly weakened our ability to act against Iran and they know it.

Act against Iran? What do you mean by "act"?

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-07-22 10:46 am)