Fred Kaplan of Slate made this case for the United States negotiating with Iran:
“In other words, Bush should commence direct talks with Iran not because they offer a hopeful chance for peace and good will, but because they’re a necessary prelude to an international campaign of economic pressure — and because more drastic military pressure would likely backfire. There are two likely outcomes from serious American efforts to negotiate, both good. First, if Iran cooperates with the talks, then it might suspend its nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits. Second, if Iran doesn’t cooperate, then the Bush administration will have made its case to China, Russia, and Europe that the regime is dangerous and untrustworthy. At that point it will be much easier to impose the economic sanctions that will scare the Iranians into better behavior.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Death penalty review promised
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
30 Comments
Of course the United States should always try to find the common ground for peace. The problem we have is that our Bush doesn’t want anything to do with peace.
He is taking orders from those who are committed to Israeli greed and an insane plan to allow Zionist Israel to rule the world.
Iran cannot give-up its defenses or suffer the same fate which Zionist Israel dished-out to Iraq, using the US military.
The United States, as long as it’s in the pocket of Zionist Israel, is an immediate threat for the total destruction of Iran. And crude oil traders and gold speculators are equally worry about the destruction of the Middle East oil fields and the domino effect that will have on the world’s economy.
Zionist-Jews have demonstrated themselves to be psychopathic killers and place no value on anything except their own greed.
Zionist Israel is little more than total criminal enterprise, stretching from child porn to slave-trading to money laundering, drug trafficking, blood diamonds from Africa, phony diplomas from non-existent colleges { as seen on 60 minutes }.
And Bush is certainly not in his right mind, while showing incredibility bad judgment.
American citizens are perplexed that their President is little more than malleable neurotic halfwit.
Should the United States sit down with Iran? Yes. And explain the Zionist Israel no longer has nuclear weapons, an Independent Palestinian is being formed in Gaza and the entire West Bank and a disarmed Non-Zionist Israel will no longer be making trouble.
Bush labeled Iran as an “axis of evil”. Hardly words to negotiate with.
Economic santions isn’t going to do any good. Didn’t we do that to Iraq?
I’m sorry and I wish things could be different, but I honestly believe we are heading for war with Iran.
Joe, You’re a Zionist sympathizer and you want a war with Iran. So, why not be honest about it?
I support the Palestinians and the working class Jews and have stood alone, without support, many times.
What’s the point of being dishonest?
I respect the Mujahideen as some of the most resourceful and bravest warriors I’ve ever seen. I believe them to be on par with our Army Rangers.
Of course, if you are a Zionist, then perhaps it’s best to keep that a secret.
Zionist? War with Iran? Na! You got me all wrong. It’s hard to read my mind because I wear a tin-foil hat.
In the state of current events, I’m just giving my realitic outlook opinion.
Mujahideen? Since when have you met anybody who claims to be Mujahideen other than what you see on TV? Yeah! Mujahideen are so brave that they actually spend most of their time fighting each other.
Bringing Zionist Israel under control would serve a better plan. The Middle East could breath a sigh of relief and the Middle East oil supply would be protected.
With Zionist Israel under tight supervision a Palestinian State could simply be formed, and many lives could be saved by ending that conflict once and for all.
That done, the United States could set about solving its many problems.
Our current foreign policy is leading us to a monumental disaster and disgrace before the world.
We can’t expect the halfwit to initiate this new policy, but congress should be able to get it done.
Well of course we should be at the barganing table with Iran. But I’ll bet it doesn’t happen. Look for Bush to start a war timed to influence the November elections. If he does that, we need to move beyond impeachment and try him as a war criminal.
Joe makes a good point – Bush seems determined to mire the US in another war. Threatening to nuke Iran after having helped attack Iran in the 80s is hardly the way to make Iran want to be defenseless.
Do you have proof that the economic sanctions against iraq did not work? Like a link or a story?
I think the preznit and his buddies were so juiced for war with iraq that even if the sanctions were working, they would have said they were not and went to war anyway.
Maybe the sanctions did work since we found no WMDs in iraq. I’d say that worked better than what we are doing now.
We are threatening iran after arming them previously? We invaded iraq after arming saddam previously? The economic sanctions were working but we went to war anyway?
We would be there, according to rummy, six days, six weeks, but certainly not six months? And we have been there three years with no end in sight? Is that called “rolling through iraq” and defeating saddam in 21 days?
More bushco lies. Black is white and up is down and by god, if the preznit says it, it must be true.
That thinking is how we got here. Much like the queen said to Alice, to keep bushco in power the american people must believe six impossible things before breakfast. I wonder what is on the menue today…
Freedom fries anyone?
As General Zinni said on “Meet the Press” a few weeks ago (to paraphrase)
Sanctions were indeed working. If you think they weren’t then you either think that the military assigned to the overflights and naval duty, etc. were completely incompetent, or you dishonor them by presenting misinformation about their decade long (and successful) efforts to enforce the embargo and sanctions.
kfg – in the case of Iran we are threatening after helping ATTACK them. No wonedr they want the capability to defend themselves.
Ben, we also armed them at one point just like we did iraq. We have been saying “let’s you and them fight” to both iraq and iran for years.
And then we are surprised when they bristle with weapons, both real (iran) and imagined (iraq)?
I agree, with the war drums pounding in the u.s., no one is the world is feeling very safe right now.
Juiced for war? As usual, the rude pundit has the definitive take on the “war fever swamp”. Scroll to the “mainlining” post.
And also as usual, his take is both profound and profane, so if you cant take rude words, dont click.
But if you can enjoy a little rude humor with the truth…
http://www.rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Did the sanctions against Iraq work perfectly? No.
Was Saddam eating less because of the sanctions? No.
Did the sanctions unfairly punish innocent Iraqis. Yes. (I am betting the average Iraqi would prefer living under sanctions rather than under U.S. occupation and civil war).
Did the sanctions against Iraq prevent them from developing WMD? Something(s) prevented it. I think Sanctions played a big part.
Should the U.S. come to the table?
The better question would be should Iran come to the table.Given the past history of the U.S. in that region and elsewhere, if I were Iran I’d be using the table for a barrricade and arming for self preservation.
Which is pretty much what is happening.
Cover story of the latest Rolling Stone magazine:
“George W. Bush’s presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145468541266&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024
Yup, it’s what I’ve been saying from day one– Worst. President. Ever.
In fact he may be the Worst. President. Possible.
LH,Historians usually consider Franklin Pierce (1853-1859) as the “worst president ever”.
Guess who is a descendent of FP?That’s right, George W. Bush (from his mother’s side).
GW inherited the crappy president gene.
LH,
The RS article is very good.
My favorite paragraph (so far):
“Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties — Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush — have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures — an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.”
I have never seen anyone say it better and more clearly than that.
“a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again”
Dammit y’all, dont give them any ideas…
I hear ossama getting out the video cam even as we speak. Can you say “red” alert right before the elections?
The really scarey thing,during the rest of his term ( or our sentence),is how many times will he step on his poncho. And at what price and consequence?
Even the Jewishnesses are starting to sweat. Bush scares everybody. How about “A war on scarerers and deciders.”
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.12.26/news5.html
My nominee to share “co-worst” with Bush: fellow Texan LBJ!
DD, You win the prize: “crappy president gene”
Coupled with “crappy president environment” – TEXAS
“how many times will he step on his poncho”
“crappy president gene”
“crappy president environment” – TEXAS”
I declare co-winners!!!
If only Ann Richards had REALLY wanted to be gov for a second term…
We could have had President Richards instead of Preznit Shrub.
KFG- I this the correct term is “preznut”, or maybe poncho-boy.
The Worst President in History? — Rolling Stone Magazine
Worth the long read.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145575772312&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.857
(Stupid mouse button…)
Sorry, to repost LeftHook’s link. I scrolled through to see if there was a link before I posted, and I missed it. My apologies to everyone, especially LH.
So nice, we posted it twice.
No harm, no foul.