Well, Red, since you say you are not an "Obamapologist" I'll simply call you a "Defender of all things Barack".
Those if's aren't conditions necessary to talk. They are rewards for changing behavior. Where does it say those conditions must be met before Obama will talk to them? He clearly says in the first sentence there are no preconditions.
Yet, he also said that he was willing to "reach out our hand" if they were willing to "unclinch their fists". Precondition. Read between the lines, DRC. Clearly there are preconditions that are non-starters, like us making them stop production before talking or them making us apologize for world domination before talking to them. But there are also preconditions that are reasonable and doable. "Unclinch your fist" can be interpreted in many ways. But it does require them to concede something.
Which means what he said and whats published on the White House web page are contradictory. Got it, typical politician. I agree, they are pre-conditions which boils down to what he said and whats published on the White House web page are contradictory. Got it, typical politician. I agree, he is demanding an action from Iran before he will talk to them. Which means what he said and whats published on the White House web page are contradictory. Got it, typical politician. The bottom line is our position on Iran has not changed despite the rhetoric from Obama. He says, unless Iran abandons its nuclear program and support of terrorism we will continue to isolate them and step up economic pressure. Essentially asking them to give up before we start. Sounds mighty familiar to me.
Honestly, this is one reason why we shouldn't have taken Saddam out of power. The world, politics is an awful complicated issue but I think we would've been better off with Saddam to keep his neighbors in check. I hope democracy sticks in Iraq but my biggest fear is that it could fail and they could have an election similar to the one in Palestine. That would mean that the Iraq war amounted to nothing! I realize we had to go into Iraq, we would have sooner or later honestly but we shouldn't have removed the government. IMHO
Typical diplomacy. Diplomacy is like that, my friend. You have to push your interests while allowing the rival to retain some dignity in his mind. It requires a policy for public consumption and a policy for private consumption; A domestic rhetoric and an overseas rhetoric; Wiggle room. It's the art of letting someone else have your way. Sure, he says that on one hand, but on the other he say's, "better to deal with me or another crazy guy could be back here soon". Bush bad-copped them, now Obama is good-copping them. It plays well to Iran's internal dissent. Iran's former, moderate president is probably running again this year, as are some other prominent Iranian opponents of Ahmadinejad's radical islamism. A big voter turnout and the nut job could be out of office. They will hear the best parts of Obama's rhetoric, while Ahmadinejad will hear the worst. Divide and conquer. "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." -- Will Rogers
Well, now that recruiting is over...back to our regularly scheduled programming. :hihi: There is no good cop, bad cop to Iranians. Obama is simply bad cop B with the same policy as bad cop A, Bush. Of course Obama will try and play nice but Iran will continue to spit in his face and ultimately prove the pundits correct when they claimed he was foolish to say he would talk to Iran with no preconditions. Which he still says, sorta..kinda...I guess. :huh:
