If words are important then we must apply that same standard equally, right?

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

Our country should NEVER negotiate with terrorists. we might talk with established states that are opposed to us in a structured forum, ala what we did with the USSR during the cold war, but open ended, unilateral talks are the path to defeat for our nation and culture.

Stateless organizations and non-governmental groups that perpetuate terror against the US and it's allies have no right to any sort of talk. We should hunt them down and eradicate them, no negotiation, no mercy.

What the dissenters here fail to realize (I hope) is that the US stands for something: it is the greatest experiment in history regarding the freedom of man based upon irrevocable rights. It has not been perfect and without pain, but it is the shining light in the muck of mahem, genocide and radical theocracies. We are engaged in a struggle to insure that this concept of freedom continues to exist. The people and countries that we call terrorists are dedicated to expanding and perpetuating a way of governance that is, at best, medival in its structure and concept. All free thinking people, liberal or conservative should naturally be against this poison. We are in a battle that has been going on a long time and some of us are tired of the killing and the cost. Heed my words, however, there is no co-existing with the juggernaut that is building up in the muslim theocracies, and given the large amount of capital they have accumulated it is only a matter of time before the war is taken to our shores. It will not be conventional in nature, but the threat of nuclear and chemical strikes increase daily. Our only hope for survival is to decapitate the beast.

Senator Obama is an appeaser, at least from his concilitory tones during the campaign. That is a naive and dangerous approach to the struggle we are in. We cannot just go home anymore, we must stand and fight or our children will live in a world much, much different and worse than what we live in now.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?If anyone fails to realize those things it's W, not those who dissent from W's policies.Can you cite a single example of Obama suggesting that we make concessions to anybody?

Who out there really thinks that the US is not now having "talks", "discussions" or "negotiations" (call it what you will).with the Iranians?

Show of hands, please.

For heaven sake, they had public meetings back in February in Iraq. Also, do you think for a minute there was no give and take between the US and Iranians prior to Ahmenijad's (sp) recent visit to Bagdad.

We're talking right now and I'm sure Obama and McCain know it.

Face it. Stability in Iraq means Iranian accomodation or cooperation or standoff.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/geopolitical_weekly_april_22

I endorse talking with Iran. Unfortunately, it's probably a waste of time and will amount to nothing more than deceit and stalling tactics. They have an agenda that is non negotiable. So do we. End result will eventually be an armed conflict. Of that I have little doubt, and the sooner the better for us before they get their nukes.

With that in mind, being in Iraq makes some sense. But we need to make a move soon before it's to late. I believe Iran is much further along in their Nuke ambitions than we suspect. Don't underestimate their nuke weapons program, they want it real bad and have the money and means to do it.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

As I said in my earlier post, a lot of the chest-beating coming from McCain and Bush is just pandering to the neocons and warhawks.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Even if the Iranians get their nukes I don't see it as the end of the world. The world has been through this before: China, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Having nukes can actually help enforce peace and probably helped prevent another war between Pakistan and India a few years ago and it most likely kept the Cold War from becoming a hot one. From what I've heard there was a lot of panic and talk of war when China was about to become a nuclear power, but actually the Chinese leadership has since toned down its rhetoric and become more responsible.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

And no, being in Iraq makes no sense. All it did was to strengthen Iran by removing one of its principal enemies (Saddam) and make our military weaker by getting bogged down and stretched thin.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Of course nukifying Iran is not the end of the world, in and of itself.

During the Cold War we faced a rational enemy that acted in it's best interest, given it's precepts. As bad as the USSR was (and it set a new watermark for rationalizing institutional evil, uncontested until Pol Pot's regime), it didn't justify it's murderous behavior as divinely mandated.

Having God Almighty as the rationale for violence is something we haven't had experience dealing with since the West's Middle Ages. A brief review of the carnage wrought upon itself and it's neighborhood and later in the New World should serve as ample warning of the deeds that can be perpetrated by people guided by their God-mandate.

Now imagine an old-timey Spanish or Portuguese conquistador with a nuke. That's Iran, now.

B

I can't really tell if you're talking about our W or Ahmadinejad. Either way, both will be out of office soon.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

I'm not so sure that this would be a winning strategy. Right now Iran has a tremendous amount of credibility in the Middle East and other parts of the world as a nation that wont back down in the face of US military force. Forcing a negotiation under the implicit threat of an invasion would weaken them in the eyes of their allies. I really believe that the ultimate leadership of Iran, which is a mullah-ocracy (for lack of a better word), would see more value in being invaded than in a capitulation to the infidel. I think they also realize that at present the US is stretched pretty thin from both a military and treasury perspective, and probably isn't up to the challenge of taking on Iran while also heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is a whole different ball of twine from either Iraq or Afghanistan and will provide much more organized and effective combat resistance. They wont win, of course. But its gonna hurt a whole lot more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

North Korea has already proven it can't be trusted. Didn't the Clinton White House have a deal with them to cease all Nuclear activity in return for fuel oil and food shippments? China isn't interested in being the guarantor for a deal like that, because it means they're on the hook if NK defaults again. And China isn't any more interested in engaging NK militarily than the US is. I think they'd rather just take Taiwain directly. It would be a whole lot easier and they've got a claim to the territory, specious as it is.

I think the days of gunboat diplomacy are long gone because most countries are simply not prepared to pay the price if their bluff is called, and even the weakest opponents have the ability to inflict damage one way or another. In the specific case of the ME, we're at war with an ideology, not a specific nation, and that ideology isn't compatible with compromise. There are cases where diplomacy will work, of course. But not every case. And you have to always consider the optics of the agreement -even the country that "loses" has to come out of it looking like they've won something in order to save face.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

To equate those two either reveals incredible ignorance or staggeringly benighted partisanship.

Bush is a standard, run-of-the-mill Methodist. Ahmanutjob and his mullah backers make a rabidly insane Christian fundamentalist look like a model of tolerance.

B

I am confused. You're not saying Israel is a terrorist state, are you?

Whether Obama-rama can handle the job or not, we will see ... or not.

At the moment we're stuck, something has to happen and preferably not the military option.

As your reference to Begin/Sadat. It takes the right chemistry to make communication happen, maybe the current players don't qualify for this task.

__________________

I didn't equate them in all aspects but both are driven by the God-mandate. It's hard to deny. Your last statement clearly reveals your bias. As radical as the ayatollahs may seem, I can't really blame them after what our puppet Shah did to them.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Well said! ( I did say it also! )