Obama: Negotiate with this man

WRL

WRL

Well...the right is right
ap_logo_106.png


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cast doubt Wednesday over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11 attacks, calling it a pretext used to invade Afghanistan and Iraq... This was the third time in a week that Ahmadinejad questioned the death toll, who was behind the attacks and how it happened.

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in the holy city of Qom.

Under this pretext, the U.S. "attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and since then a million people have been killed only in Iraq," Ahmadinejad said in the speech broadcast live on state-run television.

wchirac19.jpg
Venezuelan_President_Hugo_Chavez_greets__Iranian_President_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_sept11
 
Last edited:
My question to Obama supporters, do you really think this man has honest enough intentions to negotiate with. With his snubs to the UN, his pursuit of Nuclear Weaponry, his funding of terrorists like Hamas, his anti American alliance, his weapons and training, and quite possibly his agents killing Americans, a man who denies 9/11, the Holocaust, and quote wants to 'wipe Israel of the face of the map' Do Democrats really want to change US policy to negotiate with terrorists?
 
Iran is the most influential broker in the mess you got us into in Iraq considering they're supplying arms and training to militias that are responsible for killing our troops, and you're not even willing to pursue diplomatic means to END it. Stupid motherfucker.
 
Bush's actions have given this ass so much power and put him in a position of such power that dealing with him has become a requirement.

A weak Iraq creates a much more powerfull Iran.

That was clearly something our nations leaders should have considered before attacking Iraq.... Bush, Sr. clearly understood that!
 
WRL said:
My question to Obama supporters, do you really think this man has honest enough intentions to negotiate with. With his snubs to the UN, his pursuit of Nuclear Weaponry, his funding of terrorists like Hamas, his anti American alliance, his weapons and training, and quite possibly his agents killing Americans, a man who denies 9/11, the Holocaust, and quote wants to 'wipe Israel of the face of the map' Do Democrats really want to change US policy to negotiate with terrorists?
Click to expand...


What, no mention of Iran being the primary ally of the government we're spilling blood and treasure to prop up?

I wonder why.
 
When you engage in diplomacy (and it's been so long that I don't blame you for not remembering), you don't cede anything or capitulate. You don't agree to anything that you're not comfortable with. Obviously, if you meet with this guy, you understand what he's bringing to the table & you understand how much you can and can't trust him.

It isn't weakness to engage in diplomacy; it is weakness not to. What is Bush afraid of?
 
Bush is afraid of the American people realizing how strong we made this mad-man.
 
WRL were you this livid when the US negotiated with the Soviet Union whose position was the elimination of the United States and our form of government? YOu negotiate with your enemies and those that wish you ill. That is how you, at least at first, avoid going to war with them. Too many on the right have selective memories and ONLY think of Hitler and Chamberlain when they hear negotiations mentioned. They forget, and I don't know how, that the Reagan administration negotiated regularly with people who would bury us.
 
We've never negotiated with terrorists, this would be a 100% reversal of US policy for quite some time, it's not just Bush's position, all the points made here are exactly why we should continue down the path of isolating Iran, least they join the mainstream world community. Know their intentions, you never will. Keep your enemies close, we had Saddam pretty close, that worked great. Hope in his honesty, laughable.
 
Onceler said:
When you engage in diplomacy (and it's been so long that I don't blame you for not remembering), you don't cede anything or capitulate. You don't agree to anything that you're not comfortable with. Obviously, if you meet with this guy, you understand what he's bringing to the table & you understand how much you can and can't trust him.

It isn't weakness to engage in diplomacy; it is weakness not to. What is Bush afraid of?
Click to expand...

What about the Clinton N Korea deal, the Munich agreement? I can bring up many examples throughout history where this was clearly the worst possible avenue, and we took the warm hearted approach anyway. These thugs don't negotiate in good faith, you have to put their backs against the wall and show they the reality that these actions will lead to their downfall.
 
WRL said:
We've never negotiated with terrorists, this would be a 100% reversal of US policy for quite some time, it's not just Bush's position, all the points made here are exactly why we should continue down the path of isolating Iran, least they join the mainstream world community. Know their intentions, you never will. Keep your enemies close, we had Saddam pretty close, that worked great. Hope in his honesty, laughable.
Click to expand...


First of all, Iran is a major player in the Middle East and the closest regional ally of the government we are propping up in Iraq. That alone is enough reason to engage with Iran diplomatically.

Second, you demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of both how diplomacy works and the structure of the Iranian government. Diplomacy doesn't require direct talks between the President of the United States and the Supreme Leader.

Third, we negotiate with our enemies all the time, including state-sponsors of terrorism where it is in our interest to do so. Libya ring a bell? North Korea?

Fourth, we didn't have Saddam close at all. We had no diplomatic relations with Iraq.

Five, you don't have to hope in anyone's honesty. Diplomacy between countries with divergent interests works not on the honor system but on the recognition that each country is looking to pursue it's best interests.
 
Last edited:
WRL said:
What about the Clinton N Korea deal, the Munich agreement? I can bring up many examples throughout history where this was clearly the worst possible avenue, and we took the warm hearted approach anyway. These thugs don't negotiate in good faith, you have to put their backs against the wall and show they the reality that these actions will lead to their downfall.
Click to expand...


The world doesn't work like a elementary school playground. Shocking, I know.
 
Dungheap said:
First of all, Iran is a major player in the Middle East and the closest regional ally of the government we are propping up in Iraq. That alone is enough reason to engage with Iran diplomatically.

Second, you demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of both how diplomacy works and the structure of the Iranian government. Diplomacy doesn't require direct talks between the President of the United States and the Supreme Leader.

Third, we negotiate with our enemies all the time, including state-sponsors of terrorism where it is in our interest to do so. Sudan ring a bell? North Korea?

Fourth, we didn't have Saddam close at all. We had no diplomatic relations with Iraq.

Five, you don't have to hope in anyone's honesty. Diplomacy between countries with divergent interests works not on the honor system but on the recognition that each country is looking to pursue it's best interests.
Click to expand...


closest ally huh, fundamental lack of understanding of the situation over their, right now because the Sunni's boycotted the last election, the government is overly representative of the Shite community, only a small % which would ally with a nation they recently fought a bitter ten year, million dead war with, and now we have looming elections the Sunni's are not going to boycott, and thus that minority will grow even smaller.

You call me out for a lack of understanding, and then you call Ahmadenejad the Supreme leader of Iran, lol.

All I can say to the rest of that is Iran has made it's intentions clear, and their against US interests, like Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry, or the promotion of terrorist groups like Hamas, the destruction of Israel.
 
WRL said:
closest ally huh, fundamental lack of understanding of the situation over their, right now because the Sunni's boycotted the last election, the government is overly representative of the Shite community, only a small % which would ally with a nation they recently fought a bitter ten year, million dead war with, and now we have looming elections the Sunni's are not going to boycott, and thus that minority will grow even smaller.

You call me out for a lack of understanding, and then you call Ahmadenejad the Supreme leader of Iran, lol.

All I can say to the rest of that is Iran has made it's intentions clear, and their against US interests, like Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry, or the promotion of terrorist groups like Hamas, the destruction of Israel.
Click to expand...


1) So your position is that the Sunni minority is somehow going to displace the Shiite majority that current runs the Iraqi government? Not gonna happen. The Shiites will run the show, and the Shiites and Iran and very close friends and allies.

2) I didn't call Ahmadinejad the Supreme Leader. I was merely pointing out that 1) diplomacy doesn't have to occur at the highest levels of government, i.e. between the President and the Supreme Leader, and 2) that the Supreme Leader, not the figure-head president who has no power at all to do anything he claims to want to do, calls the shots in Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top