Who does it then?

Nobody.

How do you work on things diplomatically if you don't have conversations?

You don't. You force terrorists to make concessions before you treat them as civilized human beings. The most important concession is that they begin behaving as human beings who respect other human beings' inherent right to exist.

And I don't think the point you send the someone like Rice holds water as she speaks for the President.

No representative of the US government should be meeting with Iranian government officials. Messages can be sent containing our preconditions for negotiations through third-parties, but those preconditions should be non-negotiable and involve verifiable changes in behavior, as I outlined above. Vague promises are not enough to give a terrorist a seat at the table.

Very predictable....instead of addressing the article, you do just what Obama does- criticize the current administration and use good words to support your guy.

 

I hope your comeback doesn't say something to the effect of "that's what McCain and the other candidates do as well."

 

Obama was a civil rights attorney, knows the Constitution better than most, was the first President of the Harvard Law Review & could have had any gotten a job at any law firm but decided to be a civil rights attorney.

 

I don't think he will step on the Constitution since his life has revolved around it. What do you think?

Neville Chamberlain thought that he could reason with Hitler. However, once the Nazis tanks began to roll and the blood of thousands of Europeans began flowing, Chamberlain had the sense to realize that his approach had failed. American blood has been shed and the time to negotiate with terrorists has long since passed.

 

Until Iran's behavior changes and as long as its president is calling publicly for the elimination of Israel, no American president should even consider sitting down and talking to the Iranian goverment officials.

 

I would not consider Cuba, Iraq or Iran to be anything remotely similar to Hitler. I do agree that this gives for good "propaganda" though.

 

So you would rather attack Iran than talk to them about the situation? You would rather send troops to fight them that will get killed than sit down for 1 discussion? While many of you say your pro-life, you portray yourselves more as "war hawks". Wars are a necessary evil!! NOT the #1 solution!

I would not consider Cuba, Iraq or Iran to be anything remotely similar to Hitler. I do agree that this gives for good "propaganda" though.

 

So you would rather attack Iran than talk to them about the situation? You would rather send troops to fight them that will get killed than sit down for 1 discussion? While many of you say your pro-life, you portray yourselves more as "war hawks". Wars are a necessary evil!! NOT the #1 solution!

 

I don't see him saying war is the #1 solution.

 

He indicated that you communicate through 3rd parties clear things that Iran must do. So, you have tried to do some things before war. A

 

nd war would be an option to them not meeting the criteria that Ace has laid out. It would be a response for them thumbing their noses at the conditions that the US had communicated to them.

 

The US has responded rather clearly that we are unhappy with their plans. That was the first option.

 

Isn't their some ecomonic penalties on trade with them going on? That would be a 2nd option that has already been put on them.

 

Iraq is not near Hitler because of the actions of GW. Saddam could have going down that path.

 

Cuba, I agree with you.

 

Iran, it depends on what path they choose.

Question, why is this issue so very high on the agenda?

 

While Israel is a strong ally, why is what Iran says to Israel a criteria for dialogue or no dialogue?

 

Personally I wonder what can Iran do to the state of Israel? Can they march through existing countries a military force and invade? I doubt that happening.

 

Can they develop nuclear weapons and launch them vs. Israel? Most definitely possible.

 

Will Israel likely retaliate or do something preemptively in that scenario? You can count on it. While not having admitted to developing nukes, many believe that Israel has nuke capability and/or weapons at the ready. Why would Iran's threat be anymore than just words?

 

If we speculate that the Arab states might form a coalition with Iran to attack, how did that work out in the past? Many of them aren't looking to do that again.

So, should we have negotiated with Hitler as he was in the process of conquering Europe? How did signing an non-agression pact with Hitler work out for Stalin's Russia?

 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has stated that the elimination of Israel is inevitable. The Iranians have also steadfastly claimed that their interest in developing nuclear technology is strictly for power generation.

 

Israel is a US ally and Iran is actively funding terrorist acts against that country, as well as against US troops in Iraq.

 

The Iranian threat to US national security is on par with the threat Hitler posed. All out war between Israel and Iran would send oil prices soaring around the world and would probably trigger other wars as well. The effect on the cost of transporting food to market in this country, and in other developed countries, would skyrocket and create shortages, high prices, and possible starvation within a matter of weeks.

 

It would be foolish to treat Iran as anything other than a terrorist state as long as it poses a direct threat to Israel and a not so indirect threat to our own national security. Agreeing to sit down and chat with the Iranian president would be just plain stupid at best.

So, should we have negotiated with Hitler as he was in the process of conquering Europe? How did signing an non-agression pact with Hitler work out for Stalin's Russia?

 

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and has stated that the elimination of Israel is inevitable. The Iranians have also steadfastly claimed that their interest in developing nuclear technology is strictly for power generation.

 

Israel is a US ally and Iran is actively funding terrorist acts against that country, as well as against US troops in Iraq.

 

The Iranian threat to US national security is on par with the threat Hitler posed. All out war between Israel and Iran would send oil prices soaring around the world and would probably trigger other wars as well. The effect on the cost of transporting food to market in this country, and in other developed countries, would skyrocket and create shortages, high prices, and possible starvation within a matter of weeks.

 

It would be foolish to treat Iran as anything other than a terrorist state as long as it poses a direct threat to Israel and a not so indirect threat to our own national security. Agreeing to sit down and chat with the Iranian president would be just plain stupid at best.

 

The bolded is not what your comment implied. Your comment implied that even before Hitler started invading, we should never have negotiated or had diplomatic talks with them.

I would not consider Cuba, Iraq or Iran to be anything remotely similar to Hitler. I do agree that this gives for good "propaganda" though.

Why not? Have you ever taken time to contemplate the effects of $10, $20, or $30/gallon gasoline would have on this country or any other country that depends on trains and trucks to deliver food to their citizens? How would such a spike in gasoline prices impact our economy and our ability to import and export products?

 

So you would rather attack Iran than talk to them about the situation?

I said no such thing. Sanctions, if properly enforced may be effective in changing Iranian behavior.

You would rather send troops to fight them that will get killed than sit down for 1 discussion? While many of you say your pro-life, you portray yourselves more as "war hawks". Wars are a necessary evil!! NOT the #1 solution!

Still more responses to positions that I did not take. However, I do agree that war is often a necessary evil when a country is forced to confront the kind of evil that the Islamic terrorists represent.

The bolded is not what your comment implied. Your comment implied that even before Hitler started invading, we should never have negotiated or had diplomatic talks with them.

The Russians negotiated a non-agression pact with Hitler in advance so that Hitler would not have to deal with an eastern front immediately. The agreement delayed the loss of Russian lives, but in the end the loss of life was probably far greater than if Russia had refused to negotiate with Hitler. So, yes, I believe that it would have been a mistake for us to have negotiated with Hitler once it became clear that he was ignoring existing agreements, including the rearming of Germany.

The Russians negotiated a non-agression pact with Hitler in advance so that Hitler would not have to deal with an eastern front immediately. The agreement delayed the loss of Russian lives, but in the end the loss of life was probably far greater than if Russia had refused to negotiate with Hitler. So, yes, I believe that it would have been a mistake for us to have negotiated with Hitler once it became clear that he was ignoring existing agreements, including the rearming of Germany.

 

That is fair. To now put that in today's terms and I think I know the answers but want to give you a chance to answer and for me to not assume, cause we all know what assuming can do.:sssh::lol:

 

What has Iran done to reach that point?

What would they have to do for you to have some sort of diplomatic relations with them?

I just do not see a 5 year war that has caused the life of thousands of U.S. & Iraqi citizens plus the billions of dollars as positive. Wars are bloody & sometimes necessary but I feel that it is a last ditch effort. If its was a last ditch effort, we would have had more support from other countries & the U.N. We went in solely, so every soldier will be U.S. & all funds will be paid by us.

The UN taking actions is much different than the U.S. acting alone.

 

I understand and agree with your thinking. As a vet, I want military action to be the last resort. And I can accept your and other's viewpoint that we should have done more diplomatically before we played the military card; I just don't agree with it. I do think that at some point if you believe that diplomatic efforts are not going to be successfu, you have to act. Further delay only allows your adversary more time to prepare its defenses. I'll admit that its a very, very tough call to make; one that I'm glad that I personally did not have to make. I do not think that Bush or his advisors made the decision lightly.

 

As to the fact that the UN did not support the invasion, I'm not a big believer in the UN. I think it is a very corrupt organization filled with people with their own agendas. And I think we all need to be fair: a lot of the countries that failed to support us in the invasion were making bundles of dollars dealing with Hussein under the totally corrupt Oil for Food Programme, had other economic reasons to keep Hussein propped up and/or did not want to see the U.S. increase its sphere of influence in the middle East.

 

It was a tough call. I cannot be sure that we did not act too quickly and of course the detractors cannot be sure that more diplomatic efforts would have paid off and if not, what the cost in military lives the additional delay would have brought with it. It is not the black and white issue that some people on both sides want to make it out to be.

Superfan, I love your avatar. He was my favorite. But like Obama, he'd have made a poor president. Muslim, who had similar views on war as you share. I agree with Aces and Leatherneck to a tee. Well stated gentlemen.

This thread has gotten so far off topic that it's close to being closed. Please refer to the 1st post if you're unsure as to what the topic is.

Obama was a civil rights attorney, knows the Constitution better than most, was the first President of the Harvard Law Review & could have had any gotten a job at any law firm but decided to be a civil rights attorney.

 

I don't think he will step on the Constitution since his life has revolved around it. What do you think?

 

Much better answer. I wasn't arguing his Constitutional knowledge, just commenting on the direction of your answer.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure how much he will step on the Constitution. I disagree with a lot of the policies that he would promote and has voted for as Senator, but this area certainly isn't my specialty. I also agree with the article when it says that no one knows whether he will find common ground between Dems and Repubs (alienating the left-wingers whom he has been voting in communion with for a few years) or if he will satisfy Kennedy and abandon the moderates and independents that he has attracted.

Could we get an Obama supporter(s) to please tell us what he has done that is good?

I have yet to hear this for myself. Even Hillary Clinton called him out on avoiding tough voting on important issues. Someone do share, do share.

How do you know where they would take us?? More republican propaganda & scare tactics. Democrats can't defend our nation. How was our security during Bill Clinton??

 

I just don't think the "bully technique" is the only strategy to have in foreign relations. It is a necessary evil sometimes but I would try other means to bring peace instead of going directly to war.

 

You REALLY don't want an answer to this question.