Obama's negotiating partner

[jreeves]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."
AFP: Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

Great foreign policy....lets sit down and talk.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Makes more sense than let's not sit down and talk.

Oh, that's right. Let's invade them and then talk.

 

[Jon]

Yeah, it really sounds like the man is ready to talk.

People are fucking crazy if they think Ahmadinejad will talk with anyone. What next? "Let's see if bin Laden will come for afternoon tea!"

The delusions the Obama camp has put in the minds of Americans will haunt them forever. I've never seen a candidate make more promises that they can't make good on in my entire life, and I've seen a lot of candidates make a lot of promises.

 

[ReillyT]

Yeah, it really sounds like the man is ready to talk.

People are fucking crazy if they think Ahmadinejad will talk with anyone. What next? "Let's see if bin Laden will come for afternoon tea!"

The delusions the Obama camp has put in the minds of Americans will haunt them forever. I've never seen a candidate make more promises that they can't make good on in my entire life, and I've seen a lot of candidates make a lot of promises.

The man is a populist. It would be a mistake to take everything he says at face value. He isn't a madman, he is a gifted politician (even if he is a jerk).

 

[Jon]

The man is a populist. It would be a mistake to take everything he says at face value.

Yet, it's the mistake millions of Americans have made.

 

[ReillyT]

Yet, it's the mistake millions of Americans have made.

You are probably right. A good approach (from a governing point of view, if not politically) would be to point this out.

 

[Jon]

And exactly what do you think the Hillary camp has been trying to do for the past year?

But anytime we question Obama we're either: a) racists; b) racists trying to divide the party; c) racists using dirty politics; d) bitter racists; or e) Republican racists in disguise.

We can't win for losing.

 

[ReillyT]

And exactly what do you think the Hillary camp has been trying to do for the past year?

I don't follow. Has Clinton been trying to point out to the American people that Iran is a rationale actor that can be reasoned with (although carefully)? If she has, I say good show.

 

[jreeves]

Makes more sense than let's not sit down and talk.

Oh, that's right. Let's invade them and then talk.

Ummm....do you understand? Let me break this down slowly for you.....

We would give Ahmadinejad legitamcy and make him a hero among Islamic Extremist.......just ask leaders from the Democratic party....Biden??


Are you really that clueless or such a partisan hack that you can't see when something is detrimental to our country?

This isn't about what Bush has done, this issue is to do how we will handle radical threats. Can you set aside your irrational hate? Focus on how dangerous and unprecedented this change in foriegn policy would be to your country?

 

[Nate Peele]

Wait, didn't somebody just post that Ahmadinejad wasn't the leader of Iraq? I'm so confused.

 

[commonsense]

Wait, didn't somebody just post that Ahmadinejad wasn't the leader of Iraq? I'm so confused.

What difference would it make, if he was the true leader or not? If he calls for the destruction of the US and refers to our position as that of the infidel. Why should our President meet the government head that spews this type of radical anti-American hate? Wouldn't we in fact be acknowledging that government leader's legitimacy?

 

[Jon]

What difference would it make, if he was the true leader or not? If he calls for the destruction of the US and refers to our position as that of the infidel. Why should our President meet the government head that spews this type of radical anti-American hate? Wouldn't we in fact be acknowledging that government leader's legitimacy?

The difference it makes is...

Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, not Iraq.

 

[commonsense]

The difference it makes is...

Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, not Iraq.

Good catch, I thought he was referring to Iran not Iraq.


Thanks

 

[ReillyT]

Ummm....do you understand? Let me break this down slowly for you.....

We would give Ahmadinejad legitamcy and make him a hero among Islamic Extremist.......just ask leaders from the Democratic party....Biden??


Are you really that clueless or such a partisan hack that you can't see when something is detrimental to our country?

This isn't about what Bush has done, this issue is to do how we will handle radical threats. Can you set aside your irrational hate? Focus on how dangerous and unprecedented this change in foriegn policy would be to your country?

Ahmadinejad isn't going to be a rallying point for Islamic extremists, except to perhaps the extent that Iran continues to fund Islamic extremists. Perhaps if we could cajole them to do less of this, we would be better served. Our current tactics haven't been terribly successful. If anything, Islamic extremists have used Bush as a rallying tool far more than they have Ahmadinejad.

I still don't see how having formal diplomatic talks with Iran would be so dangerous. It need not necessarily be head of state to head of state.

 

[Nate Peele]

What difference would it make, if he was the true leader or not? If he calls for the destruction of the US and refers to our position as that of the infidel. Why should our President meet the government head that spews this type of radical anti-American hate? Wouldn't we in fact be acknowledging that government leader's legitimacy?

I get your point, but if we don't know who the leader is how do we know who not to talk to? We could accidentally negotiate with them like we did with Gaddafi and then where would we be.


The difference it makes is...

Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, not Iraq.

Wait a second. I thought Iran was Shi'ite and Iraq was Sunni. If he's the leader of Iran why was he training al-Qaida (A Sunni organization) in his country like McCain said. This middle east thing is confusing.

 

[jillian]

Yep...

Interestingly, I just found this opinion piece on negotiations with Iran. If I am correct, then the author, Daniel Levy was a negotiator at Oslo and is the Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at the Century Foundation.

About The Century Foundation

Anyway, I thought he raised some interesting issues on the subject of negotiations. And what he says makes sense to me on first blush.

HAARETZ The best option By Daniel Levy

It may sound counterintuitive, even heretical, but it could just be that Israel is overlooking - or worse, helping to block - what is possibly the best option available for avoiding a nuclear Iran.

Direct American-led negotiat ions are not in play, and Israel is complicit in this omission. The United States looms largest in Iranian threat perceptions and only the U.S. - not the EU, UN, or the International Atomic Energy Agency - can deliver a deal for verifiable re-suspension of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In Jerusalem there is a perhaps understandable tendency to imagine that Tehran has an Israel obsession. Indeed, the Iranian president does have a particularly vile reverse infatuation with the Jewish state. But this should not be confused with the map of real threats and interests occupying Iran, in which Iraq, the Gulf, even Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Caspian Sea region all normally feature more prominently than Zion. Above all, there is America, with its talk of and support for regime change and an annual military budget 90 times that of Iran.

Over-simplifying Iran tends to lead to bad policy-making. President Ahmadinejad may be all of the things that the president of Columbia University accused him of being, and more, but he does not solely define Iran's national interest - far from it. Tehran hosts a complex web of competing power centers, and Ahmadinejad's brand of messianism does not necessarily translate into a suicidal or even nonrational state policy. There is widespread dissatisfaction with his domestic and especially economic policies, and his reele ction in 18 months is far from assured. American and Israeli bellicosity only serve to boost his popular appeal.

*MORE*

HAARETZ The best option By Danie

 

[rayboyusmc]

The Bush administration will not offer any specific economic or diplomatic rewards to North Korea to abandon its nuclear arms program but will not stop other countries from making such offers, administration officials said today as they prepared for a new round of talks with North Korea.

They also said the principal State Department negotiator in the talks, Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly, would probably have informal one-on-one conversations with his North Korean counterpart during a six-nation meeting next week in Beijing.

The American officials acknowledged that the face-to-face talks might be considered a small concession to the North Koreans, who had long demanded dealing directly -- and exclusively -- with the United States in resolving the nuclear crisis.

If we can go this far for the crazy man with the weird pompador, we can do the same for Iran.

What an assinine policy. We don't like you so we won't talk to you, but you have to change to what we want even if we won't talk to you.

No wonder this administration has screwed things up so bad.

 

[jillian]

If we can go this far for the crazy man with the weird pompador, we can do the same for Iran.

What an assinine policy. We don't like you so we won't talk to you, but you have to change to what we want even if we won't talk to you.

No wonder this administration has screwed things up so bad.

To paraphrase Golda Meir, "who should we talk with, our friends?"

 

[jreeves]

Ahmadinejad isn't going to be a rallying point for Islamic extremists, except to perhaps the extent that Iran continues to fund Islamic extremists. Perhaps if we could cajole them to do less of this, we would be better served. Our current tactics haven't been terribly successful. If anything, Islamic extremists have used Bush as a rallying tool far more than they have Ahmadinejad.

I still don't see how having formal diplomatic talks with Iran would be so dangerous. It need not necessarily be head of state to head of state.

I would agree with low level diplomatic relations, there is some of that going on already. What is dangerous is having our President meeting face to face with Ahmadinejad.

 

[rayboyusmc]

What is dangerous is having our President meeting face to face with Ahmadinejad.

I coubt if that would happen for quite a while. Saying, I will meet with them can be seen as saying "The US will meet with them." The imperial we thing.