And a good answer. Note Hillary's smart answer, as well. She's going to be the spear point of any diplomatic effort and she's apparently getting her way on some things. The main point agreed on here is debunking this Bushian notion that refusing to talk with our enemies is somehow "punishment" for them.
And Obama's preconditions for talks are the same as Bush's. Bush's policy expected Iran to offer concessions before talks and that's considered punishment? What is Obama doing? Demanding the same action Bush was. Calling their policies different would be disingenuous.
They are nothing of the kind. You are starting to just repeat yourself. You've got to be kidding! Bush demanded that Iran stop all production of enriched uranium and nuclear weapons before he would discuss anything. Obama demands only that Iran "unclinch their fist" before he would be willing to "extend a hand". Obama is willing to talk to the Iranians in order to personally deliver his terms, which he's already published.
Kind of hard not to when you fail to recognize obvious similarities in both Bush's and Obama's strategy. At best, Obama's policy is barely a tweak of Bush's. Bush demanded they cease production to initiate talks, Obama demands the same thing as an end result. Iran rejects both policies and both Bush and Obama say thats unacceptable. Obama got spit on by Iran not once, but twice. First the scathing demand for an apology then they turn the heat up and launch a ballistic missile giving us the proverbial UP YOURS in doing so. So much for extending a hand. :lol: Obama was a fool to think Iran would be sucked in by false promises. Isolation is the only way to deal with radical rags. Let them rot from within. Rookie mistake gets you shiit on by Iranians. Live and learn Barrack.
You are not paying attention at all. Obama is working to divide the disunited Iranians instead of driving them together against us. Wrong. Bush demanded Iran acquiesce before talking. Obama is willing to talk but expects Iran to acquiesce before receiving any consideration on sanction reductions. They launch missiles all the time, this was nothing new. In fact it upsets the Russians more than us because Iran can hit Russian, but they can't hit us. Iran is in a neighborhood where the other regional powers (Israel, Pakistan, and India) all have nukes and missiles. They are trying to stay relevant in the region. They can't hit us with a missile, even if they had a warhead to put on it. And I repeat, for the last time--Amadinejad's typical third-world Iranian rhetoric is designed for internal consumption. We've already gone over all of this, you got anything new? They've been isolated by us since 1979! What good did it do? Answer that one! Taking our dollies and going home is a childish notion of diplomacy. Refusing to acknowledge them is not punishing them at all. Look, Bush has done all that you ask and he failed miserably. You're advocating more of the same. No wonder the republicans are losing so badly. They simply cannot recognize failure and seem to think that resolve alone is "victory".
Ahh, Mr. hit-and run insult man makes his appearance. If you ever have an original thought that might add to the discussion, I'll drop dead of shock.
You're not paying close enough attention my friend. Bush only asked Iran to "suspend" production and if they did so he would meet with Iran anytime. He might have agreed to send Rice or Powell but regardless, he did not demand they concede or give in, just suspend. Further, how many UN resolutions have been made that demand the exact same thing? This isn't some policy that was unilaterally pressed by Bush. Of course, it was just a coincidence this missile launch occurred on the heals of that scathing rebuke. :lol: I dont think the Russians are near as concerned about missiles as Israel is and in turn that concerns us greatly. If Iran launches a nuke and hits Israel, they might as well be firing at us because the response will be the same. One good thing, Israel will never let Iran have a nuke. They can do our dirty work and while we publicly decry their actions Obama will be thanking his lucky stars the problem is eliminated. Im not asking that Obama do anything regarding Iran except call a damn spade a spade and don't stupidly offer up chances for Iran to throw shiit at him. Its obvious his underlying policy is strikingly similar to what he claimed has failed us miserably which is why he cant fess up to it. He is carrying on the majority of Bush's policies towards Iran and of course that is unacceptable for standard public consumption. The bright side is we have a definite measuring stick in which to judge his policy. So far his overtures have been met with overwhelming rejection. I guess he keeps coming back with his tail tucked asking the biatch out and hoping she may say yes at some point. Good luck with that tact.
But to the Iranians, this was seen as demanding that they cave in. They made that very clear. Most folks don't think so and neither does Israel. They developed nukes specifically because they don't think we will retaliate for an attack on Israel. We have no military alliance with Israel and they are not a member of any of our treaty organizations. They have not fought alongside us in any of our wars. Israel is a valuable political ally, but they are not the 51st state. We allowed Israel to develop the bomb and the missile that carries it so that they would be responsible for their own deterrence . . . and they always have been. Iran is not going to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, even if they manage to develop a bomb. Israel itself would retaliate with over 250 warheads. What Iran wants is its own deterrence from Israeli, Iraqi, or Pakistani attack. Iran is not going to attack the US or Russia for the same reason. They would just like to have the ability to do so. It's been less than a month and Obama has offered up nothing to the Iranians. He hasn't even addressed them. You take a speech he made for our internal consumption where he mentioned our "enemies" of which we have many. He never even mentioned Iran. He's doing the economy right now, as he should. It will be Hillary's job to tackle foreign policy and she hasn't made her first move yet. Wait and watch. You can't possibly be this naive. There is an underlying American policy that has been around since 1979 concerning relations with Iran, it's far older than Bush. What we are arguing here is Obama taking a better approach to dealing with the Iranian politicians than Bush did. The Iranians have weaknesses that can be exploited by a clever president, especially by using Hillary who has bigger, brassier balls than Obama. He hasn't made a single diplomatic overture to Iraq yet, only an inaugural address to the American People. You know, I actually waited until Bush starting fouling up before I started criticizing him. It was 2003 before I'd had enough. Obama hasn't finished a single month in office and you've already pronounced him a failure. :lol:
