TGHusker Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Interesting article by Pat Buchanan Pat says Obama should hold talks wt Iran. In light of the Syrian mess, I would agree. I think if we can diffuse the Iran nuke issue, we should take steps to do so. We don't need any more war drums beating. If we were to hold talks wt Iran, how should the talks be held: 1. President to President? 2. Sec of State to Sec of State? 3. Via other diplomatic channels with other nations, - Russia, other NATO members, Etc? Should the talks cover: 1. Just the Nuke program issue 2. Or all of these issues: Nuke, civil rights abuses within the country and supporting terrorism outside the country Final question: with the poor way the Syrian issue was handled (Putin bailed out Obama), does this administration have the the credibility to lead the talks and does it have the confidence of the American people (and our friends in the region) that the truth will be told and our interests protected? http://www.wnd.com/2...e-fourth-reich/ Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 I think there should always be talks as long as both sides are open to it. With the way Putin jumped in with Syria, if I were Obama, I would hold the discussion myself. Let's start with nukes and see how productive that goes. Then tackle the other issues down the line. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Why shouldn't the White House/State Department talk to Iran about their nuclear program? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted September 24, 2013 Author Share Posted September 24, 2013 Why shouldn't the White House/State Department talk to Iran about their nuclear program? No reason the WH/SD shouldn't talk to Iran, unless you want war based on misinformation. The topic idea comes from the fact that many neocons (while I'm a conservative, I don't claim to be a neocon) think we need to go into Iran wt guns blazing. Link to comment
walksalone Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 They should, whether or not anything actually comes out of it, is a whole 'nother story... Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Yes, the US should talk to Iran. I'd go President to President with these talks, but I'm sure it'll be our Sec to whatever. The talks should only cover nukes right now. Small steps are warranted and we have to walk before we can run. As for credibility, yes, we still have it. In all honesty, who the f#*k cares whose idea the Syria compromise was? What matters is that we have a chance to get the job gets done in a (hopefully) competent fashion without us sending explosives their way. If it works out, it's a victory for everyone involved, regardless of how many people want to measure political dicks. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 #thanksPutin Just not one on one with the 2 presidents..... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/iranians-nix-possibility-informal-meeting-between-obama-rowhani/ Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Just not one on one with the 2 presidents..... http://www.foxnews.c...-obama-rowhani/ The results are what matters. I don't care if it's all done by telegraph . . . Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Just not one on one with the 2 presidents..... http://www.foxnews.c...-obama-rowhani/ The results are what matters. I don't care if it's all done by telegraph . . . Agreed. I just hate when politics get in the way of productivity. These 2 should be men about it and meet face to face. I could never run my business by having other people doing what I should be doing. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. They need to talk. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think it's interesting how Israel continues to beat the war drum on this issue by claiming Iran is on a 'charm offensive'. http://www.cbsnews.c...harm-offensive/ Israel's prime minister declared Tuesday that his country will never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, even if it has to act alone, and dismissed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's "charm offensive" as a ruse to get relief from sanctions. Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel's future is threatened by a "nuclear-armed" Iran seeking its destruction and urged the international community to keep up pressure on Tehran through sanctions. He said the greater the pressure, the greater the chance for diplomacy to succeed. I would be interested to see how many of the War Hawks in Congress received campaign donations via Israeli sources. Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think it's interesting how Israel continues to beat the war drum on this issue by claiming Iran is on a 'charm offensive'. http://www.cbsnews.c...harm-offensive/ Israel's prime minister declared Tuesday that his country will never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, even if it has to act alone, and dismissed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's "charm offensive" as a ruse to get relief from sanctions. Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel's future is threatened by a "nuclear-armed" Iran seeking its destruction and urged the international community to keep up pressure on Tehran through sanctions. He said the greater the pressure, the greater the chance for diplomacy to succeed. I would be interested to see how many of the War Hawks in Congress received campaign donations via Israeli sources. Well until Iran does something substantial in their efforts to terminate their nuclear program, Israel has every reason to believe that it is a charm offensive. Link to comment
Recommended Posts