Comments on: Iran Talks – A Not So Modest Proposal

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:15:18 +0000

Scott;

I agree- but I have something to add. The US State department has its cultural foundations in the in small New England liberal arts colleges which train our future diplomats. We need diplomats who are trained differently, and know how to negotiate with thugs.

Other thugs are good at this. We need to lay out some offers to crime families: Turn State’s Evidence, and we’ll get you a new job- in the State Department. A thug would know how to put something on the table that Iran would want from us. Like, maybe, their continued survival. And he would know how to do it just vaguely enough so we wouldn’t get called on it.

Ben

By: Terrye

Terrye — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:13:22 +0000

Bush is not talking about direct talks between himself and anyone so far as I know. This is about the US doing something like what the Europeans have been doing, talking with certain government officials from Iran about their nuclear program. I was surprised that the North Koreans actually seem to have lived up to their end of the bargain in their talks, so far. Of course that could change anytime, the NK do not have a good track record. But this sounds like something like that. It is not the same thing Obama was talking about.

I have wondered if the US is doing this to get something we want or need from the Europeans or someone else. I always have the feeling there is more to things than we know.

One big difference between Bush and Obama on this? Bush just might use military force and the mullahs know it.

By: Lem

Lem — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:16:51 +0000

Will the price of success in Iraq be a nuclear Iran?

You would hope we could do better… so far we show little resolve.

By: Kevin Peters

Kevin Peters — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:30:08 +0000

Iran’s “answers” have already been “exposed for world to see” both in deeds and rhetoric. The West just refuses to face the awful truth and Iran is counting on this mass denial from the West to achieve their goal of nuclear weapons. This discussion is very clever and all of the answers above all have merit except for the simple fact that Iran has absolutly no intention of stopping their program and the rest of the World seems to be banking on the absurd notion that if we just continue to tell Iran that we really, really, really think they are unreasonable fellows they will somehow change their minds. Their seems to be three options. Accept the fact that Iran is getting the bomb and hunker down and pray that they will never use it. Number two is a devastating and complete economic boycott that accepts the cold fact that innocent Iranians will suffer and die during this action. Number three is military action. The West doesn’t seem to have the ability or nerve to carry out options two or three and it is trying to carry out the first option without admitting to it. All the rest of this blather is simply hot air. Well written but pointless.

By: Dick Stanley

Dick Stanley — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:04:38 +0000

Makes sense, although it would be a strange conversation, whether closed or open. Secular views and religious ones would flash past each other with probably no meeting ground whatsoever. But it certainly would be more pertinent than a chat with Mahmoud the Mad.

By: Insufficiently Sensitive

Insufficiently Sensitive — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:46:07 +0000

If a “President” Obama faces any Iranian diplomat across a conference table, said Iranian (after their whole delegation picks itself off the floor from guffawing at Obama’s meaningless glitzy doublespeak) will make more a fool of O. than Khruschev did of JFK preceding the Soviet installation of nukes in Cuba.

By: Kevin Peters

Kevin Peters — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:18:53 +0000

Talk, don’t talk. Bi-lateral, multi-lateral. Blah, blah, blah. While the west debates which failed method to use with Iran they continue the slow march to getting their bombs, which they have announced openly and often that they won’t stop and they won’t give up. The fact that they slow the pace now and then is just classic misdirection that does not hide the fact that within 2 to 10 years Iran will be part of the nuclear club. Maybe sooner. The west is being played and the only force that seems to have the will to stop Iran, Israel, knows that she will be hung out to dry by the world community if she acts unilaterally. Let’s face it, Iran is getting the bomb and all this talk about talk is simply an excuse to do nothing.

By: Roy Lofquist

Roy Lofquist — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:32:53 +0000

Two reasons: Yalta and Vienna. Ambiguity and uncertainty are powerful motivations for caution. It matters not that the conclusions reached by the other side are wrong. Conclusions lead to actions. Actions on the world scene are usually quite unpleasant.

By: srlucado

srlucado — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:17:44 +0000

I was taught that the first rule of negotiating is that each side has to have something that the other side wants. I’m not exactly sure what Iran wants from the US, other than our extinction.

Scott

By: Lem

Lem — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:31:07 +0000

I just came back from the best all star game ever. (mind you its hard for a red sox fan to have fun a the stadium)
So, forgiveme if I stay too long, or just keep celebrating.

I just want to type the name J D Drew.

If it ever came to me having to fight Islam hand to hand, I would do it just so we could keep baseball.

Crow broke my hart in tears singing the anthem. Did anybody see a Bomber overhead? it wasant loud at all.

Anyway, I’m lucky to be able to be close to something like that.