tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post2497241772806096631..comments2024-01-01T15:35:12.954-07:00Comments on Simple Utah Mormon Politics: Is Obama Crazy? Or Should We Talk with Iran?Frank Stahelihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-84676717016071521932008-06-07T12:38:00.000-06:002008-06-07T12:38:00.000-06:00UK,That's what I like best about discussions with ...UK,<BR/><BR/>That's what I like best about discussions with Iran--the options that it gives us. Ahmadinejad won't be there forever, and the people will appreciate that we have no intention of frying them with nukes. Of course, the <A HREF="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/06/daniel-pipes-if-obama-wins-bush-will-attack-iran-in-november/" REL="nofollow">drums of war are getting louder</A>, and we should be getting more and more nervous.Frank Stahelihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01822334061980912687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-23647408200188137182008-06-03T13:57:00.000-06:002008-06-03T13:57:00.000-06:00I may have mentioned this before, but I think it a...I may have mentioned this before, but I think it all comes down to what outcome we are seeking...<BR/><BR/>By refusing to speak to Iran, and continually threatening them, we're continually feeding a conflict, the only way out of which is for one side to annihilate the other, unless one side gives in. I can't see the US giving in, and I can't see Iran doing it either.<BR/><BR/>If we begin talking to them, it gives us significantly more options down the line, including but not limited to, fostering an open relationship that might help alleviate some of the tension in the middle east. It may take a while for that open relationship to develop, but it's more likely if we don't keep threatening them with annihilation.<BR/><BR/>There is a very marked difference between talking with someone and tactics such as appeasement.<BR/><BR/>Personally I would like to think the US is above using fear and manipulation to control other countries, isn't that why the US broke off from England?Urban Kodahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01327437055164051853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-18169052961979608562008-05-27T17:04:00.000-06:002008-05-27T17:04:00.000-06:00Iran has never attacked another country?! What pl...Iran has never attacked another country?! What planet do you live on? Iran has a steady stream of attacks on other nations, mostly through surrogates, beginning in 1978. If you're going to defend Iran, go ahead. But don't say they haven't attacked other countries simply because they have never slapped down a formal U.N.-recognized declaration of war.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-34849973275308782132008-05-27T12:18:00.000-06:002008-05-27T12:18:00.000-06:00Despite the indisputable fact that Iran has never ...Despite the indisputable fact that Iran has never attacked another country, and has no nuclear weapons, I still find Hillary's position disturbing. <BR/><BR/>More than 71 million people live in Iran, most in densely populated urban areas. How can anyone speak casually of "obliterating" 71 million people?rmwarnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10948594032787232166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-77397832101073222312008-05-27T10:37:00.000-06:002008-05-27T10:37:00.000-06:00Well said, Anonymous. I was thinking along those ...Well said, Anonymous. I was thinking along those same lines as I read Frank's post.<BR/><BR/>Though Frank would likely count me among the evil "neocons," I'm not entirely opposed to talks with Iran. Frank makes a good point- wait until Ahmadinejad is out. There's been some friction between him and the ayatollah these last few years, and it wouldn't surprise me if he lost his next "election."<BR/><BR/>That said, I don't think we should dismiss Iran as a threat. Not the Iranian people, who are quite culturally Westernized, but the country's rulers who've stated over and over that Israel will be wiped off the map and who have backed the insurgency in Iraq.<BR/><BR/>In fact, Saddam Hussein was more afraid of Iran than he was of the U.S. In a 60 Minutes interview that ran on Jan 27th, Saddam's interrogator said that Saddam confessed that while he really had now WMD's, he acted like he did because he was bluffing Iran:<BR/><BR/><I>"Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.<BR/><BR/>'He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?' Pelley asks.<BR/><BR/>'Absolutely,' Piro says."</I><BR/><BR/>Saddam told his interrogator that he expected some kind of short air campaign from the U.S.- but that he thought it would be worth it to keep Iran afraid of him.<BR/><BR/>Granted, Saddam did greatly miscalculate Bush, so I take his read on Iran with a grain of salt.<BR/><BR/>But I agree with Anon that we should force Iran to the table when we've actually got sticks and carrots, and right now we don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25646979.post-36603802242767842522008-05-26T20:53:00.000-06:002008-05-26T20:53:00.000-06:00Everyone is missing two major points here. First, ...Everyone is missing two major points here. <BR/><BR/>First, talking to Iran et al is not the same as talking to Canada, Sweden or anyone else that is willing upfront to negotiate in good faith.<BR/><BR/>Second, when we talked to the Soviets, we achieved our biggest successes when our actions brought them to the table. These regimes negotiate in good faith only when they absolutely have to.<BR/><BR/>Reagan mentioned this point in his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech in 1987 in Berlin. <BR/><BR/>When the U.S. and NATO decided to deploy Pershing II missiles in western Europe in the mid-1980s in response to the USSR's deployment of SS-20s in eastern Europe, and when the U.S. decided to stand up the Soviets in Afghanistan, Africa, and Latin America, and when the U.S. embarked on its huge defense buildup, the Soviets had no choice but to negotiate in good faith.<BR/><BR/>The same applies to peace talks in Korea in 1953. The Communists agreed to negotiate in good faith only after so much bloodshed convinced them that carrying on the fight made no sense.<BR/><BR/>Talking to Iran will only be productive if we have sticks and carrots. Right now, due to our dependence on imported oil -- even if none of it comes from Iran directly, it's still a major factor -- we don't have a lot of sticks other than total nuclear annihilation.<BR/><BR/>Until we are in a situation where we can drive down the price of oil and hit Iran where it hurts most, in their bank accounts, talking won't accomplish much. It will be like negotiating with the North Vietnamese in the early 1970s. Within a short time after the peace treaty, the North tore up the treaty and conquered the South.<BR/><BR/>We can expect similar actions from Iran.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com