Preconditions? Where?

[DamnYankee]

Well, for those of you who insisted that Obama did NOT say "without preconditions", a condition appears to be off the table....

U.S. may drop key condition for Iran talks
NYT: In shift from Bush's approach, the Obama administration aims to "build a little trust" with proposals that drop an insistence that Tehran shut down nuclear facilities. Full story

NYT: U.S. may drop condition for Iran talks - The New York Times- msnbc.com

[excerpt]
The proposals under consideration would go somewhat beyond President Obama’s promise, during the presidential campaign, to open negotiations with Iran “without preconditions.” Officials involved in the discussion said they were being fashioned to draw Iran into nuclear talks that it had so far shunned.

 

[editec]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

 

[DamnYankee]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Hmmm.... Did I say "Talking to them will hurt us"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Well since talking to them will NOT stop them or slow them down, what EXACTLY is the point? Either we have the National Fortitude to stop them or we do NOT. Talk has meant absolutely NOTHING to Iran and her leaders and making concessions is not going to change that one bit since they will just see that as weakness.

Remind me how all the "talk" in the mid and late 30's HELPED stop WW2. Remind me how all the "talk" at the peace tables STOPPED North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam.

When we paint ourselves into a corner then the other side has no reason to live up to anything they might agree to in any talks they allow to happen. Since they know we have no intention of actually doing anything if they break the agreement.

Take North Korea, how did all the "talks" there help? All we did is GIVE them the means to make a Nuclear weapon via talks with Carter and Clinton.

 

[editec]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Hmmm.... Did I say "Talking to them will hurt us"?

double post edit

 

[editec]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Hmmm.... Did I say "Talking to them will hurt us"?

Excuse me for misreading your point, then.

What exactly is you point?

 

[JimCo]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Well since talking to them will NOT stop them or slow them down, what EXACTLY is the point? Either we have the National Fortitude to stop them or we do NOT. Talk has meant absolutely NOTHING to Iran and her leaders and making concessions is not going to change that one bit since they will just see that as weakness.

Remind me how all the "talk" in the mid and late 30's HELPED stop WW2. Remind me how all the "talk" at the peace tables STOPPED North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam.

When we paint ourselves into a corner then the other side has no reason to live up to anything they might agree to in any talks they allow to happen. Since they know we have no intention of actually doing anything if they break the agreement.

Take North Korea, how did all the "talks" there help? All we did is GIVE them the means to make a Nuclear weapon via talks with Carter and Clinton.

The North Koreans didn't make a weapon until Bush stopped talking to them. So while he was gearing up for war against Saddam's WMD ... Kim noncholantly walked up and cut the locks off the Yongbyon plant and carted away enough plutonium to make 10 bombs ... and Bush did what about this?

You flip/flop Repubs sure like to talk tough ... but your actions really speak the loudest?

July 8, 2006

Bush's U-Turn on North Korean Talks

Just one day after President Bush forcefully defended his insistence on multilateral negotiations with North Korea, the White House has apparently okayed direct talks with envoys from Pyongyang.

Speaking in Seoul on Saturday, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Bush's point man on discussions with the North Koreans, signaled his willingness to meet directly with Kim Jong Il's emissaries once the stalled six-party talks resume:

"As many of you know, the Chinese have talked about putting together a six-party informal, and we both support that and we think that all countries are prepared to come to that informal meeting. Within the informal six-party talks, yes, I can [have direct discussions with North Korean envoys]. I just can't do it when they are boycotting the six-party talks."

That flexibility is a far cry from President Bush's stubborn statements Friday steadfastly affirming his commitment to his failing approach:

"What matters most of all is for Kim Jong-il to see the world speak with one voice...One thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of sitting at the table alone with the North Korean, for example. In my judgment, if you want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need partners to do so."

The seeming flip-flip on talks with North Korea, which Perrspectives first reported was imminent in May, reflects the failure of the Bush approach in the wake of Pyongyang's missile launches this week. In March 2001, President Bush undermined the budding "Sunshine Policy" of South Korea by adamantly refusing to engage with the North. The new President stated "We look forward to at some point in the future having a dialogue with the North Koreans but ... any negotiation would require complete verification." But by June 2004, with reports of North Korean nuclear weapons surfacing, press secretary Scott McClellan signaled the Bush administration's willingness to deal with the North, "We will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation...what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs."

During the Friday press conference, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malvaux pressed Bush on the growing threat from North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile tests. "Why shouldn't Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a failed one?" Malvaux asked. Bush, angrily, refusing to acknowledge Malvaux's assertion, simply replied, "Because it takes time to get things done."

After five years of Bush's ineptitude towards the Korean peninsula, he doesn't have much time left.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

There is no harm in talking to global leadership, if, one focuses only on talking per se - dialoguing, searching for common ground, giving the benefit of doubt.

When considering strategic and foreign-policy positioning, whose goal, as should be that of the POTUS, is to advance US interests (defence or offense), just talking and demanding nothing or showing lack of strength is an applied form of acquiesence; a proven formula for advancing the other side's position. No different than any other negotiation or strategic positioning situation.

The Prophet's intentions, I believe, are good. And perhaps he is generally thinking in terms of let's see what they have to say. And I can understand how he would not show his hand here at home. We shall see.

The problem for people old enough to have observed people like Carter at work, who The Prophet resembles in many ways, and the repeated State department failures over the decades, is an uneasiness with The Prophet's obvious lack of experience and idealistic approach to some of our knottiest problems.

 

[Iriemon]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Well since talking to them will NOT stop them or slow them down, what EXACTLY is the point? Either we have the National Fortitude to stop them or we do NOT. Talk has meant absolutely NOTHING to Iran and her leaders and making concessions is not going to change that one bit since they will just see that as weakness.

Remind me how all the "talk" in the mid and late 30's HELPED stop WW2. Remind me how all the "talk" at the peace tables STOPPED North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam.

When we paint ourselves into a corner then the other side has no reason to live up to anything they might agree to in any talks they allow to happen. Since they know we have no intention of actually doing anything if they break the agreement.

Take North Korea, how did all the "talks" there help? All we did is GIVE them the means to make a Nuclear weapon via talks with Carter and Clinton.

Talk helped avoid WWIII with the Soviets. That counted for a lot in my book.

 

[WillowTree]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Hmmm.... Did I say "Talking to them will hurt us"?

Edict hears voices!

 

[Xenophon]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

What will you gain from it?

 

[Chris]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

What will you gain from it?

You can gain a lot from talking.

When people talk to each other, it makes it harder to demonize your "enemy."

 

[DamnYankee]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

Hmmm.... Did I say "Talking to them will hurt us"?

Excuse me for misreading your point, then.

What exactly is you point?

Perhaps you missed the "preconditions"? You know.... The part where HE says, you take nukes off the table, and THEN we talk.... One would think that would be a jump-starter for his nuclear-free world, wouldn't one? Then, there was the point that SOME told me that he did NOT SAY "without preconditions"....

 

[Xenophon]

Talking to them will hurt us how, exactly?

What will you gain from it?

You can gain a lot from talking.

When people talk to each other, it makes it harder to demonize your "enemy."

Really?

We talked to the Soviets for years, yet I never noticed any trouble with either side demonizing the other.

 

[Chris]

Nixon was smart.

He gave Brezhnev a car, so he would be more open to negotiation.

And then he unleashed the power of Jill St. John....

 

[Iriemon]

What will you gain from it?

You can gain a lot from talking.

When people talk to each other, it makes it harder to demonize your "enemy."

Really?

We talked to the Soviets for years, yet I never noticed any trouble with either side demonizing the other.

Lookit Reagan. Elected to office, the Ruskies are the "evil empire". After he chats with Gorby a couple times, and he's talking about total elimination of nukes!

 

[Chris]

You can gain a lot from talking.

When people talk to each other, it makes it harder to demonize your "enemy."

Really?

We talked to the Soviets for years, yet I never noticed any trouble with either side demonizing the other.

Lookit Reagan. Elected to office, the Ruskies are the "evil empire". After he chats with Gorby a couple times, and he's talking about total elimination of nukes!

Great example.....