Obama Is Making Allies Nervous

[DeadCanDance]

Please, please rightwingers. Stop being such hypocritical, hyper partisan, bush worshippers.

Your president offered charter axis of evil member North Korea oil, security guarantees, and other carrots, in order to try to coerce them from continuing their nuclear activities. North Korea was never required to immediately suspend their nuclear activities before we would sit down and talk to them.

Please stop being such hypcritical tools. You're either lying your asses off and aren't aware you're doing it. Or, you are hypocritical idiots. I don't know which is worse.

 

[Annie]

Please, please rightwingers. Stop being such hypocritical, hyper partisan, bush worshippers.

Your president offered charter axis of evil member North Korea oil, security guarantees, and other carrots, in order to try to coerce them from continuing their nuclear activities. North Korea was never required to immediately suspend their nuclear activities before we would sit down and talk to them.

Please stop being such hypcritical tools. You're either lying your asses off and aren't aware you're doing it. Or, you are hypocritical idiots. I don't know which is worse.

Um, you'll find North Korea and condemnation of Bush's handling by some said 'right wingers.'

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yep, Bush worshippers have been lying their asses off about "no preconditions!!!" bullshit.

U.S. has no preconditions on dialogue with N. Korea: Colin Powell

July 2001

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the United States has no preconditions in holding talks with North Korea and is ready to have a dialogue ''any time, any place.''

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2001_July_30/ai_77291154

 

[DeadCanDance]

Um, you'll find North Korea and condemnation of Bush's handling by some said 'right wingers.'

It's obvious you have no principled stand on this. I've never seen you put up threads denouncing the bush admin, for seven years, negotiating with north korea without preconditions.

Your views on foreign policy depend on whether the dude as a D or an R next to his name.

As for me? I'm consistent. I have at least a vestige of principles. I'm not a hyper partisan like you. I think Bush was right for negotiating with north korea without defined preconditions, and I don't think its the end of the world for Obama to suggest the same with respect to Iran.

Nor do I think Israel is appeasing Syria for negotiating with them without preconditions.

 

[Annie]

It's obvious you have no principled stand on this. I've never seen you put up threads denouncing the bush admin, for seven years, negotiating with north korea without preconditions.

Your views on foreign policy depend on whether the dude as a D or an R next to his name.

As for me? I'm consistent. I have at least a vestige of principles. I'm not a hyper partisan like you. I think Bush was right for negotiating with north korea without defined preconditions, and I don't think its the end of the world for Obama to suggest the same with respect to Iran.

Nor do I think Israel is appeasing Syria for negotiating with them without preconditions.

Right. http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=494781&highlight=north+korea+negotiations#post494781

Actually I just searched for mine, you'd fine more by others. As for Powell, he was part of what we were criticizing, the administration's handling of North Korea and yes indeedy, Saudi Arabia.

 

[Annie]

The idea that we haven't been 'talking' to Iran is ridiculous on it's face:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/w...an+europe+talks&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=login

December 1, 2007
As Talks With Europe End, Iran Gives No Sign of Concession on Nuclear Program
By JOHN F. BURNS

LONDON, Nov. 30 — Negotiators for Iran and the European Union held a new round of talks on Iran’s uranium-enrichment program on Friday, but the meeting ended with indications that the Iranians had offered no new concessions to ease Western concerns that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons.

After 18 months of largely unproductive talks between the Europeans and the Iranians, the London meeting was billed as a last-ditch attempt to persuade Iran to compromise before a meeting of a six-nation group, including the United States. The group, which will assemble on Saturday in Paris, has threatened to toughen United Nations sanctions against the Iranian government over the nuclear issue.

“I have to admit that after five hours of meetings, I expected more, and therefore I am disappointed,” said Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, as the talks broke up. He said that the two sides would remain “in telephone contact” and that “only if circumstances permit” would there be any more talks between the Europeans and the Iranians before the end of the year.

The Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, struck a more upbeat note, however, when he spoke separately to reporters. Mr. Jalili said the talks had been “good,” adding, “We agreed to continue our negotiations, and we agreed to a meeting next month.”

The seeming failure in London shifts the focus to the six nations who will meet Saturday in Paris, the five United Nations Security Council members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and Germany. The group met in London in September and agreed to consider new sanctions if there was no progress in halting Iran’s enrichment program by December. The Security Council has passed two sanctions resolutions against Iran.

A Western diplomat in London who has been monitoring Iran’s talks with the Europeans said after Friday’s meeting that Mr. Solana’s statement suggested that the European negotiator had concluded that Iran had decided to stall in the talks and to rely on China and Russia, each with close ties to its government, to protect it against new sanctions.

...

 

[Dogger]

Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

I guess when answered that he would meet without preconditions he was taken out of context, once again?

Although "precondition" was in the question, it wasn't addressed in the answer. You don't have time in debate to address every nuance of a question, and it appears that Obama focused on the broader policy disagreement rather than the specifics regarding which types of preconditions are reasonable.

Here's his whole answer (in context):

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
Transcript
​

 

[JimH52]

You think they are more nervous than when "kill them!" bush begins speaking his tiny mind?

 

[Annie]

Although "precondition" was in the question, it wasn't addressed in the answer. You don't have time in debate to address every nuance of a question, and it appears that Obama focused on the broader policy disagreement rather than the specifics regarding which types of preconditions are reasonable.

Here's his whole answer (in context):

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
Transcript
​

No misquote or misspeak, still up on his site. If anything it's been underspun:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

 

[Dogger]

No misquote or misspeak, still up on his site. If anything it's been underspun:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

That does seem difficult to reconcile with other policy statements by Obama, unless he is using the term “preconditions” the way Bush has defined it, meaning a concession in advance on the primary object of the negotiation. Operating on a Bush definition, "No" is the intelligent answer. I’ve been using the term with its traditional meaning, so that it refers to setting the agenda and topics for discussion, but it seems that Obama refers to that as preparations. The critical point is not the quibble over semantics, but rather the important policy shift. Obama has made it clear he was rejecting Administration policy, and post-debate discussion has clarified the he is fine with reasonable, normal preconditions or preparations. Let’s hope the elimination of Bush League intransigence prompts Iran to stop obstructing negotiations as well.

 

[Yurt]

=

Dogger;692985]This passage clearly differentiates Bush’s intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.

what exactly are 'normal times'? 1979? 1989? 21009? 156 BC?

The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up.

you think our lives are chips on a poker table? bad analogy.

That is more than a precondition – that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.

have you ever been inolved in negotiations at the same level? my guess is no. neither have I, so i am not better than you, however, i knew someone with the UN in the early 90's and remember him telling me that international negotiations are not like you and i bargaining.

Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price as a condition to negotiate?

you obviously do not live in southern california, including the central coast, or any other desirable area that people buy real estate in.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Allies???? isn't there a enormous contradiction here? Since when did we care about allies, especially on the right?

We care about them, when they act like allies. When they stab us in the back for their own selfish ends (France, Germany, Russia) then they can go fuck themselves.

 

[jreeves]

That does seem difficult to reconcile with other policy statements by Obama, unless he is using the term “preconditions” the way Bush has defined it, meaning a concession in advance on the primary object of the negotiation. Operating on a Bush definition, "No" is the intelligent answer. I’ve been using the term with its traditional meaning, so that it refers to setting the agenda and topics for discussion, but it seems that Obama refers to that as preparations. The critical point is not the quibble over semantics, but rather the important policy shift. Obama has made it clear he was rejecting Administration policy, and post-debate discussion has clarified the he is fine with reasonable, normal preconditions or preparations. Let’s hope the elimination of Bush League intransigence prompts Iran to stop obstructing negotiations as well.

Sure he backtracked and included preparations after members from his own party questioned him. But this whole reversal shows his complete lack of experience and what a blunder it would to elect him President.

But watch his own statements.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlhTVyZfYY[/ame]

 

[Ninja]

I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president

Love ya girl!

 

[Annie]

Sure he backtracked and included preparations after members from his own party questioned him. But this whole reversal shows his complete lack of experience and what a blunder it would to elect him President.

But watch his own statements.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlhTVyZfYY

Very true or read his own website position on Iran under 'Issues'.

Perhaps that is what baffles me more than anything, how so many can just project what they want Obama to 'be like', ignoring the evidence of what his beliefs are. Doesn't matter if speaking of country, church, etc., the evidence is there, they just don't believe it.

With McCain, if I vote for him, I know where his stands differ for me. I happen to agree with his foreign policy philosophy and that will probably be enough for me to vote for him. I agree with him that Washington should be more civil, at least 'after hours' and that the politicians should have a modicum of decency. I agree with him on pork in legislation and his past votes on taxes.

I disagree on some of his proposals that would result in tax hikes in the future. I disagree with his latest change in global warming. I most strongly disagree with him on illegal immigration.

 

[Nate Peele]

This is good news. I was not aware that we had allies left.

 

[jillian]

Love ya girl!

yeah, yeaha, yeah, i like the pic. was being sarcastic, though. I think this whole issue is silly given it sounds like the same garbage that was spewed during the run up to the Iraq invasion. And, besides, it's not like we've cared about what our allies were concerned about for the last 7 1/2 years.

good to see ya!

 

[jreeves]

yeah, yeaha, yeah, i like the pic. was being sarcastic, though. I think this whole issue is silly given it sounds like the same garbage that was spewed during the run up to the Iraq invasion. And, besides, it's not like we've cared about what our allies were concerned about for the last 7 1/2 years.

good to see ya!

So our allies mean nothing now, can the left please makeup their mind? When we have Republican President, our allies should be held in high regard. When a Democrat candidate's policies would alienate our allies, then it's, well we weren't concerned for our allies in the past 7 1/2 years. Don't you see the hypocrisy?

 

[Jeepers]

Yep, Bush worshippers have been lying their asses off about "no preconditions!!!" bullshit.

LOL.. rumour has it that bush has a delegation heading to Sudan to talk to terrorists with no preconditions...

btw... isnt the timesonline a ruppert murdoch news organization... this whole thread is started with a quote from the likes of fox news..

 

[Working Man]

And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?

Could they be, the very same who live in the shadows of illegal settlements, who could care less as to what is happening to the US for its blind support???

Could those who REALLY want to blow up Iran be the same who support Hillary, and are fighting to have Florida and Michigan democrat votes counted???

I think the real supporter of a war/first strike on Iran is from the people who don't like Obama, because he isn't beholden to those schmucks, yet..

We are in two wars already.. I don't think a third one is needed. If Iran is so bad, then let Europe take care of them. India and China are big boys, let them send in the troops.. Or, are they the ones who are feeding the material to Iran in the first place??

Instead of bombs over Iran, how about solar panels over my roof, with a Prius in my driveway???