7/13/2008 1:12:20 AM
^
7/13/2008 3:47:09 AM
7/13/2008 3:56:22 AM
7/13/2008 4:29:05 AM
7/13/2008 5:10:07 AM
7/13/2008 7:46:35 AM
7/13/2008 12:37:21 PM
^Well, to be clear I don't really think we're going to get anywhere negotiating with them. For two reasons -- the first, as I've stated, is that I think the regime is basically a glorified junta that doesn't act purely on self-interest. But let's move on from that for a second and assume that they are reasonable negotiation partners.The second problem I have is that when we negotiate with Iran, we are negotiating fundamentally from a position of weakness.Iran doesn't have to do much to "win" in the game here except wait us out until they finish building nukes. If we're not willing to use force, then ultimately they can just accept increased sanctions, etc. for the few remaining years until the nukes are completed. Then they can go back to the table and re-negotiate past the sanctions because they'll have way more leverage.Time is always a factor in a negotiation. If you're negotiating and you have a strict time limit, you're at an inherent disadvantage. A severe one. In our case our "time limit" is the time it takes Iran to complete their technology.So I don't agree with the approach of continued sanctions because it fundamentally ignores the realities of the situation. Our goal is to prevent an arms race, not bleed them until we get into one.And finally, I don't really think we should care what their particular intentions are vis a vis enrichment. The point in your quote above about how the IAEA "was unable to make progress in determining whether Iran was engaged in undeclared nuclear activities" is key. Personally I think a strong sense of "trust but verify" -- with an emphasis on the "verify" -- is a pre-requisite to any reasonable negotiation process. You can say many things about Iran; but one thing they are not, is transparent -- even though some here seem to argue their cases from the perspective that they are.
7/13/2008 1:54:49 PM
7/13/2008 2:50:42 PM
7/14/2008 2:01:25 PM
7/14/2008 2:01:56 PM
7/14/2008 4:23:10 PM
GrumpyGOP:Well, I am certainly not trying to argue that the Iranian constitution illuminates properly the inner goings-on of their government. I'm just giving some paper-trail evidence in addition to current events and what I consistently read from experts on Iran in various sources. Honestly no one really knows what goes on in their government, internally, but we do know that the Leader has vast Constitutional powers, he appoints practically every high-level official either directly or indirectly, and he was one of the key figures of the original revolution -- Khomeini practically rewrote the Constitution so he could be the next Leader. As to the Guardian Council, they are known to act as his proxy and it directly vetoed a lot of Khatami's Reform agenda before finally cutting the party off the ballot.I simply don't agree that their President should meet with ours; on some level, I'd say so purely because our Presidency is the highest office in our land, and their Leader is in theirs (in their own Constitution, article 113). I don't see the parity between our man who controls the military, and their President who is emphatically not their ultimate authority on military matters (the Leader is their commander-in-chief per above). And perhaps that's key here -- what are the grounds of the negotiations? I'd think if force is off the table then maybe you're right. What need does a President Barack Obama have to discuss military matters with Iran? Presumably none if we know in advance that the outcome of negotiations will be either a treaty or sanctions. Let's hope that our options are not so limited, for everyone's sake.
7/15/2008 1:13:18 AM
^^Stop trolling. You took that out of context and you know it.
7/15/2008 1:15:20 AM
7/15/2008 5:15:55 AM
Smoker4:I won't quibble about anything in your first paragraph because most of it seems valid and the rest isn't far enough from it to be worth quibbling about, since the real crux of the matter comes later.
7/15/2008 5:29:56 AM
7/15/2008 4:03:23 PM
^You're so far removed from the discussion and the points I've been making that you aren't worth talking to at this point.
7/15/2008 9:07:05 PM
Silent No More
7/15/2008 9:11:51 PM