Rumors of Diplomacy: US Envoy to meet with Iranians

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    link

    Gee, I hope this works out. ;)
     
  2. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    More...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/16/usa.iran
     
  3. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    "How will they remember me?", pondered the President. "As Bush the Criminal Warmonger or Bush the Statesman?"...
     
  4. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #4
    In 50 words or less, is this:

    A) Flip-flopping
    B) Staying the course
    C) Appeasement
    D) Being inexperienced and naive

    Answers on a postcard please, addressed to:
    Republican National Committee
    310 First Street
    Washington
    D. C. 20003
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    All it really shows is what an incredibly counterproductive waste of time the last seven years of fruitless penis-waving have been. As if it wasn't obvious anyway.
     
  6. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #6
    Finally someone made a smart decision? I don't see that as option E.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    I think it also reflects that economic realities that would result if Iran were attacked. Oil would skyrocket and the world economy would be destroyed.
     
  8. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    All the cynic inside me hears is "well, we did try deplomatic negotaition"
     
  9. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #9
    You mean this is the classic game to "cover the bases" before declaring it a failure? hmmm, I hadn't thought of that, I'm getting slow and rusty in recognizing the patterns. :eek:
     
  10. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #10

    Yeah, a to do [before declaring war] list. I think that's a feature in the new mail.app ;)


    1. Convince people XXXX is dangerous.
    2. Pretend to work it out via negotiation and sanctions.
    3. Declare that negotiations have broken down.
    4. Falsify evidence of an imminent threat to your nation.
    5. Blow the country and it's people to **** in the name of 'security'.
    6. Declare the world a safer place and that you've won the war.
    7. Drag war out long enough to steal wealth.
    8. Say 'OK, we made mistakes'
    9. Repeat with a new country
     
  11. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #11
    Remember when President Bush told the UN that the U.S. military was going to bomb Iraq unless the UN started inspecting for WMDs? Then when the inspectors were in Iraq and getting their job done, Mr. Bush told them to get out because the U.S. military was about to bomb Iraq.

    Caveat: those are the events immediately before the 2003 Iraq war as I remember them.
     
  12. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    I think you missed my point.

    Obama has been criticised, and quite vociferously at times by various factions within the Republican Party, for suggesting that diplomacy may have some merit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    Yeah, I'm confused. :confused: I thought diplomacy was bad. That we should just blow people up, call it freedom, and they'll greet us with flowers. I guess IOIYAR. :rolleyes:

    I wonder if it's because we kinda can't attack them right now, and am wondering if the downside will be this actually will make us appear weak, as the NK thing kinda did, especially since it took so long.
     
  14. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #14
    How did the "thing with NK" make the US look bad? Seems to be going pretty well.
     
  15. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #15
    We looked bad by strutting around like peacocks saying NK had to follow our directions or else, and then when that totally backfired (in the form of a nuclear test by the North Koreans) we meekly decided that maybe negotiating with them and involving all parties and being up front was a good idea.

    On a OP note, just saw an opinion piece on NYT saying that an Israeli convetional or nuclear attack is not only a given in the next 5-7 months, but also the best possible solution to the Iranian problem.

     
  16. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #16
    Just found this on Yahoo's front page:
    So let me get this straight. Before this, we said we won't negotiate with Iran to end their uranium enrichment unless they ended their uranium enrichment first. Now, we said we *will* negotiate with Iran to end their uranium enrichment but only if they end their uranium enrichment first.

    In the first case we were setting as a precondition to negotiations the thing we were negotiating for. That didn't work, though, so *now* we're willing to negotiate for our goal, but only if the goal is met before negotiations begin.

    The way this article makes it sound is that something has changed even though the exact same words are being used in both cases.
     
  17. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    What did these journalists expect? They'd all sit down, put the kettle on and negotiate a settlement before all the Rich Teas were eaten?

    Iran knows that the US is not yet in a position - politically and militarily - to attack, so why not play for time and more western aggression?

    I would argue that it is in the US, EU and Israeli interest to drag these peaceful talks out for as long as possible. The less 'willy-waving' they do, the less opportunities there are for President Ahmadinejad - whose populist agenda has failed - to wrap himself in the Iranian flag.
     

Share This Page