Should we be talking to Iran and Syria?

sun tzu

Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
20
Location
undisclosed
personally, I don't see what we have to lose from talking. Our ultimate goal is to make America more safe, and if we can do that by talking to these people, why not?

I don't think we need to just do whatever they say, but if we can come to some sort of agreement to make both countries better, why not. Of course, we won't stop funding Israel for anything, but there is always the chance that in return for a more open American market or some such thing, they will cease to hunt after nukes and stop their terrorist funding.

For all we know, the very fact that Iran will be seen talking to the "Greater Satan" could keep Al Qaeda from accepting Iranian aid.
 
Werbung:

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,641
Location
The Golden State
Of course we should be talking to Iran and Syria. The "appeasement" rhetoric is simply a political talking point that has no meaning in the real world.

What would have happened had we never had a dialogue with the Soviet Union? Kennedy wouldn't have been able to give them an ultimatum about Soviet missiles in Cuba, nor would Reagan have been able to make his famous "tear down this wall" comment. The MAD policy would have been even more dangerous than it was.

Talking to your enemies is not tantamount to caving in to them. We need to do what Roosevelt said: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Right now, we have a big enough stick to be unafraid of speaking to our enemies.
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
I think we should ignore them and hope they just go away. That or wait until the end of the war when we go to to the table to sign surrender papers or a truce. Why talk before then? all it can do it prevent bloodshed, and find common ground, or at least give us a idea what they want and or are thinking.

silly talking with people you don't like...I only talk about problems with those who agree with me, it makes things go better.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
personally, I don't see what we have to lose from talking. Our ultimate goal is to make America more safe, and if we can do that by talking to these people, why not?

You pretty much don't get it. If there IS anything to talk about, both states would talk. And there actually probably is infrequent back channel communication between the two countries. When a democratic government talks to a dictatorship, and there is no possibility that the dictatorship will yield in the slightest on important issues, the"talks" serve only as a propaganda opportunity for the dictatorship - in their PR they can use it to make themselves appear to be reasonable, when they haven't the slighest intention of yielding anything to the other side. That is the current situation with Iran.
 

SW85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
528
Location
Maryland
As I understand it, we are already are talking to them and have been doing so for quite some time.
 

bododie

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
1,639
But then again Iran knows that we have better toys, and billions in seized Iranian assets, and that it would be in the best interests of the people, who are not all as nutty as Mahmoud the Mad Muslim, to establish dialogue. The people of Iran do not hate Americans. I do not hate Iranians.
However, the rest of the Middle East, which is predominantly Sunni, do NOT have any love for predominantly Shia Iran. Iran is not sitting so pretty over there as you might think. There should definitely be dialogue between us. It could help. If it comes to war with Iran, for which there is no reason, as they have not directly presented a threat to America, we will also be up against Russia and China who I'm betting will support them and not us. Bad situation.
 

Dr.Who

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
6,776
Location
Horse Country
personally, I don't see what we have to lose from talking. Our ultimate goal is to make America more safe, and if we can do that by talking to these people, why not?

I don't think we need to just do whatever they say, but if we can come to some sort of agreement to make both countries better, why not. Of course, we won't stop funding Israel for anything, but there is always the chance that in return for a more open American market or some such thing, they will cease to hunt after nukes and stop their terrorist funding.

For all we know, the very fact that Iran will be seen talking to the "Greater Satan" could keep Al Qaeda from accepting Iranian aid.

The job of the state department and the president and the vp and a few others is specifically to talk to foreign governments. They are supposed to have a cohesive plan that is consistent with our overall goals and policies. By coordinating their efforts these people can develop a strategy that will hopefully resolve conflicts before they become violent.

Now if someone outside of the loop were to go over there and start negotiations and undermine the efforts of the whole strategic plan that could be catastrophic. Of course no one would be so ignorant of foreign policy as to sidestep the legitimate avenues for discussion, or to place his own agenda ahead of the agenda of the legitimate agents of the US. Would they?
 
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
13
We must look at a bigger picture, will the pocket books of government officials be filled if they talk to Iran? The answer is sadly no. There is no reason to stop the production of our weapons if we are about to use them. the production of weapons employs nearly 20,000 americans, and is an almost 30 Billion Dollar indestry in America alone.

If we actually aplyed our skills at foriegn relations, then we would most curtainly not have that indestry as nearly as strong, in this time of "slump"
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,641
Location
The Golden State
Now if someone outside of the loop were to go over there and start negotiations and undermine the efforts of the whole strategic plan that could be catastrophic. Of course no one would be so ignorant of foreign policy as to sidestep the legitimate avenues for discussion, or to place his own agenda ahead of the agenda of the legitimate agents of the US. Would they?

Why, no, of course not, especially not someone who once held a cabinet position or who is a former commander in chief. They would know better, wouldn't they?
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
You pretty much don't get it. If there IS anything to talk about, both states would talk. And there actually probably is infrequent back channel communication between the two countries. When a democratic government talks to a dictatorship, and there is no possibility that the dictatorship will yield in the slightest on important issues, the"talks" serve only as a propaganda opportunity for the dictatorship - in their PR they can use it to make themselves appear to be reasonable, when they haven't the slighest intention of yielding anything to the other side. That is the current situation with Iran.

I see so before Democracy, there was never any talks or anything...and The USSR we never talked to , and we never came to any agreements on issues to prevent wars. And guess what , the leadership of Iran does have to listen to its people one way or the other, even with a rigged system, they have been pissed off enough to get reformers in before. And No System of government wants to lose power, be it by the hand of its own people...or US Bombs and sanctions.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
But then again Iran knows that we have better toys, and billions in seized Iranian assets, and that it would be in the best interests of the people, who are not all as nutty as Mahmoud the Mad Muslim, to establish dialogue. The people of Iran do not hate Americans. I do not hate Iranians.

Seized assets are chump change compared to their real goal - control of iraq and its oil. And who said anyone hated iranians?? It's the regime.

However, the rest of the Middle East, which is predominantly Sunni, do NOT have any love for predominantly Shia Iran. Iran is not sitting so pretty over there as you might think. There should definitely be dialogue between us. It could help. If it comes to war with Iran, for which there is no reason, as they have not directly presented a threat to America, we will also be up against Russia and China who I'm betting will support them and not us. Bad situation.

Iran is in a GREAT position. The parochial iraqi sunnis have a hard time seeing beyond their tribe, but the rest of the mostly sunni middle east is probably shaking in their boots about Iran. Here is a soon-to-be nuclear armed country which will spend maybe a week sucking up Iraq after the expected cut-and-run of a democrat US president, and then places like saudi arabia can expect to be next on the menu.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
I see so before Democracy, there was never any talks or anything...and The USSR we never talked to , and we never came to any agreements on issues to prevent wars. And guess what , the leadership of Iran does have to listen to its people one way or the other, even with a rigged system, they have been pissed off enough to get reformers in before. And No System of government wants to lose power, be it by the hand of its own people...or US Bombs and sanctions.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Uh, yes - dicatorships talk all the time >>WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO GAIN FOR BOTH OF THEM<<. The thrust of my comment wasn't dictatorships versus democracies. The iranians have nothing to lose if they wait to see if a democrat president is elected, in which case they know they are home free, and dinner is served (on the menu: Iraq). In that case, they don't need us for anything: they know the US will recede into a Jimmy Carter-like era of appeasement, it's power diminshed by ecofascism and illegal aliens and socialized medicine and ever-growing energy debt, they have IRBMs and not too far in the future probably ICBMs, and nukes, and huge oil wealth. What do they NEED us for?? Absolutely nothing.
 

sun tzu

Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
20
Location
undisclosed
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Uh, yes - dicatorships talk all the time >>WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO GAIN FOR BOTH OF THEM<<. The thrust of my comment wasn't dictatorships versus democracies. The iranians have nothing to lose if they wait to see if a democrat president is elected, in which case they know they are home free, and dinner is served (on the menu: Iraq). In that case, they don't need us for anything: they know the US will recede into a Jimmy Carter-like era of appeasement, it's power diminshed by ecofascism and illegal aliens and socialized medicine and ever-growing energy debt, they have IRBMs and not too far in the future probably ICBMs, and nukes, and huge oil wealth. What do they NEED us for?? Absolutely nothing.

I think it will be a lot harder for Iran to "suck up" Iraq then you seem to think. The sunnis hate the shiites almost as much as they hate us, and thanks to our wonderful president's policies, Al Qaeda (which is a sunni group) is now firmly positioned in Iraq, and Iran will be facing the same problems we faced with a fraction of the resources. In fact, I almost hope Iran will try something after we leave; it might be a humbling lesson, and take Al Qaeda's collective mind off of us.

And by the way, we are not talking to Iran in the political backroads. This president has stated his opinion on that subject clearly. Despite what you seem to think, Iran is not a self-sustaining country. They wouldn't be able to make enough food for their population without other nations, and if push comes to shove, I think Russia and China would cooperate in an trade embargo against Iran. So, if we are willing to come to the table, Iran will come to, because they know of their dependence on international trade. I'm not saying we'll come to an agreement, but the American people will be able to get behind a war (if that's what it comes to) better if they know we at least tried to solve it in other ways.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
I think it will be a lot harder for Iran to "suck up" Iraq then you seem to think. The sunnis hate the shiites almost as much as they hate us, and thanks to our wonderful president's policies, Al Qaeda (which is a sunni group) is now firmly positioned in Iraq, and Iran will be facing the same problems we faced with a fraction of the resources. In fact, I almost hope Iran will try something after we leave; it might be a humbling lesson, and take Al Qaeda's collective mind off of us.

The biggest bag of crap I've seen in one pragraph, and HERE, that's really saying something. The shiites are a majority in iraq, they are the major component of the current iraq government - the sunnis couldn't do squat to prevent an iran take over. Again, the repetion of this al qaeda in iraq crap - ONCE again, al qaeda in iraq was crushed, by the decmation of their leadership, and the destruction of their strong points in anbar province by the coalition forces working with the sheiks who were tired of them - y'all need to go back and read some 2007 newspapers.

And by the way, we are not talking to Iran in the political backroads. This president has stated his opinion on that subject clearly. Despite what you seem to think, Iran is not a self-sustaining country. They wouldn't be able to make enough food for their population without other nations, and if push comes to shove, I think Russia and China would cooperate in an trade embargo against Iran.

More hogwash - we saw how the embargo against iraq worked (didn't), Russia and China aren't going to join any embargo against Iran - russia wants to sell iran stuff, and China needs their oil.
 
Werbung:

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Uh, yes - dicatorships talk all the time >>WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO GAIN FOR BOTH OF THEM<<. The thrust of my comment wasn't dictatorships versus democracies. The iranians have nothing to lose if they wait to see if a democrat president is elected, in which case they know they are home free, and dinner is served (on the menu: Iraq). In that case, they don't need us for anything: they know the US will recede into a Jimmy Carter-like era of appeasement, it's power diminshed by ecofascism and illegal aliens and socialized medicine and ever-growing energy debt, they have IRBMs and not too far in the future probably ICBMs, and nukes, and huge oil wealth. What do they NEED us for?? Absolutely nothing.

Jimmy Carter appeasement? Realy what did Carter give them? I mean besides the whole money and arms thing.....wait that Was Reagon, the Republican God. no Carter sent in the Delta Force...and somehow gets the blame becuse it failed due to Sandstorms that arise in the the area in the the air that knocked out the choppers ....Because we all know that the President should be knowing all those kinda details, selecting the guns used, and micro manage the military operations.

And yes , its a great win for Iran if the Dems win....even though Republican Bush took out 2 of Iran's enemies, stretched out forces so we cant threaten Iran, butchered the peace process and left Hezboallah and Hamas with more Power then when he took office....I am sure if Iran could do it, they would form a coup and Put Bush in charge for a third term.

Bush has failed us 100% on Iran
Obama I don't know if he has the balls to do what may be needed, but he has the brains at least to get us closer.
McCain knows enough not to get to "bring um on" when playing with American Troops lives.But he Also needs to know , if you dont talk, you only leave one other Option.
And Clinton talks like Ahmadinejad, with her , Whip them of the face of the earth rhetoric.
 
Top