U.S., Iran end 27-year diplomatic freeze

[YMIHERE]

The United States and Iran broke a 27-year diplomatic freeze Monday with a four-hour meeting about Iraqi security. Has Bush finally realized that the problems in Iraq require a political rather then a military solution? This is a major change in Bushs policy of not talking to evil.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528..._iran_talks;_ylt=ApvnucjAubyMLjPhlB2OzfADW7oF

 

[AFA]

This is good news. Let's hope it continues.

 

[KungFuDude]

Asking Iran for help ....(sigh) ...it's a sad day for America.

Thanks again dubya!

 

[hedonis]

Asking Iran for help ....(sigh) ...it's a sad day for America.

Thanks again dubya!

Jesus! Can the guy do anything right? People beg him to be more diplomatic, not to go to war. He talks to Iran (which, after 27 years seems like something many other presidents have failed to do), and now, it's a SAD DAY because we go diplomatic to try to figure something out to make Iraq more safe?

:wtf:

I'd think if we can open a dialog with Iran, and something positive can come out of it, it's a GREAT day for America.

H

 

[KungFuDude]

Jesus! Can the guy do anything right? People beg him to be more diplomatic, not to go to war. He talks to Iran (which, after 27 years seems like something many other presidents have failed to do), and now, it's a SAD DAY because we go diplomatic to try to figure something out to make Iraq more safe?

:wtf:

I'd think if we can open a dialog with Iran, and something positive can come out of it, it's a GREAT day for America.

H

Iran is our political, religious, and polar opposite. As well as our sworn enemy. Take it all into perspective first..

About 90% of the world's muslims are Sunni. The other 10% are Shia and they live in Iran and Iraq...that's it. The stupidity and blame of leading a war against the only other majority Shia muslim country in the entire world, other than Iran, is on the Bush administration. Apparently they didn't take this into account when they were so gung ho to throw out Iraq's Sunni leader. Of course the majority of Iraqis were going to side with Iran. They are Shia!

This is the whole point over there: SHIA vs SUNNI. Neither side wants democracy. They want Islam. They don't want freedom of speech. They want Islam. They don't want religious freedom. They want Islam. And they won't stop until one side wins. We are powerless to stop it AND we picked the wrong side.

No, it's a sad day when we have screwed up so much, we have to turn to Iran, our enemy, for help. We've been talking about this in this country ever since the war went sour. If we pull out, Iran wins. If we have to give into Iran and ask for help, Iran wins. Yeah, it's necessary at this point for peace. But we are slowly handing the keys of Iraq to Iran.

It truly is a very sad day for America. We lost.

 

[simpletool]

Religious opposite huh?

I am glad they've started talks.

 

[ckjedi66]

I'm sure it wasn't his idea, he probably wanted to bomb Iran too, but someone on his staff probably told him what a monumental mistake that would be. He isn't smart enough to make a good judgement call anymore. Regardless, it's nice to see some talking first and no aggression. We will see how long it lasts.

 

[KungFuDude]

Religious opposite huh?

I am glad they've started talks.

I like you. You remind me of my phillips screwdriver.

 

[Member2019]

It means they can affect the results ...

Jesus! Can the guy do anything right? People beg him to be more diplomatic, not to go to war. He talks to Iran (which, after 27 years seems like something many other presidents have failed to do), and now, it's a SAD DAY because we go diplomatic to try to figure something out to make Iraq more safe?

It's why non-popularist leaders don't listen to their constituents.
They change overnight, especially as popular viewpoints sway for reasons that have little to do with the choice, but have more to do with the outcome (positive/negative).

It's a great part of the reason why our founding fathers choose the Democratic-Republic form of government, giving a loud voice to the people, but putting the most powerful in the land well away from them.
And the only time the people get the loudest voice is when it is a "super-majority" and goes through a long, drawn-out process to ensure it's not a "of the moment" viewpoint.

The reality in all this is that Iran can significantly either improve or harm our efforts in the region, and we have to involve them.
The question is will they reduce the rhetoric as a result, or will they continue like even some of our allies (e.g., French)?
But then again, the US is used to rhetoric, even the most left-leaning who are often finding that some attitudes towards the US are not always justified.

Especially when those attitudes are hypocritical from the standpoint of those having them.

 

[Member2019]

Bomb Iran ...

I'm sure it wasn't his idea, he probably wanted to bomb Iran too, but someone on his staff probably told him what a monumental mistake that would be. He isn't smart enough to make a good judgement call anymore. Regardless, it's nice to see some talking first and no aggression. We will see how long it lasts.

Sounds like someone doesn't remember "bomb" when applied to other, American administrations.
Sigh, I wish people actually knew their history and not just the "here'n now"!
Especially not with the attitude, "this has never happened before!"

Hell, I'm not even talking decades, but within the last decade!
Sad, very sad.

 

[hedonis]

Well, I'll admit that I think that world is just trapped in theology- there is just doesn't seem to be any desire for change. I think they're scared of it. Not like the Muslims are the only ones that have ever been afraid of change.

Still, why I was so irate is that people want us to negotiate, and we don't, so everyone blasts Bush. Then, he negotiates, and still he gets blasted. No matter whether it's futile or not, I think at least talking with them was a good thing.

:dunno:

:glugglug:

H

 

[D-rock]

Re: Bomb Iran ...

Sounds like someone doesn't remember "bomb" when applied to other, American administrations.
Sigh, I wish people actually knew their history and not just the "here'n now"!
Especially not with the attitude, "this has never happened before!"

Hell, I'm not even talking decades, but within the last decade!
Sad, very sad.

I noticed something you do a lot Prof Voluptuary. Why when someone voices something they don't like in a politician do you find the need to go back and find some other politician in the other political party that has done a similar thing (and I say similar because that doesn't necessarily mean there weren't fundamental differences in the two) in the past even when they are not the ones being talked about? You do this even when the person you’re arguing against either doesn't side with the opposite party or there would be no way for you to know their political affiliation other than educated guessing. The other political figure isn't on trial right now sort of speak. It would be like me going out and ******* somebody and then instead of defending myself or having people talk about what I did they could just say, "Well, O.J. Simpson did it to".

 

[meesterperfect]

I thought O.J. was framed by the L.A, police department, the CSI team, the independant DNA labs, the L.A. D.A.'s office and all those witnesses, Oh and the 2 people he ******?
Anyhoo, perhaps this is good news, perhaps not. Personally I trust the Iranian leaders about as much as Patton trusted " those Russian *** of a bitches"
hope for the best.

 

[ckjedi66]

Re: Bomb Iran ...

Sounds like someone doesn't remember "bomb" when applied to other, American administrations.
Sigh, I wish people actually knew their history and not just the "here'n now"!
Especially not with the attitude, "this has never happened before!"

Hell, I'm not even talking decades, but within the last decade!
Sad, very sad.

Excuse me that i am not a freaking encyclopedia, and right now I could care less about other administrations, which i know some history about, just because i don't mention it, doesn't mean i don't know about it. I am talking about the topic being discussed in this thread, i am not like you and am not going to post a yawn inducing overly long response. So excuse the **** out of me if i don't lump in the last decade of mistakes made by presidential administrations. Keep your arrogant assumptions to yourself, just because a post doesn't contain what you consider to be pertinent information that meets your standards doesn't mean were all stupid, and it doesn't mean we don't know history. Take your "sad, very sad" comments where they belong, *EDIT*

 

[Member2019]

When people think this has never happened before ...

I noticed something you do a lot Prof Voluptuary. Why when someone voices something they don't like in a politician do you find the need to go back and find some other politician in the other political party that has done a similar thing (and I say similar because that doesn't necessarily mean there weren't fundamental differences in the two) in the past even when they are not the ones being talked about? You do this even when the person you’re arguing against either doesn't side with the opposite party or there would be no way for you to know their political affiliation other than educated guessing. The other political figure isn't on trial right now sort of speak. It would be like me going out and ******* somebody and then instead of defending myself or having people talk about what I did they could just say, "Well, O.J. Simpson did it to".

That would be a valid response if someone else stated, "no one has ever ****** before!"
Now you might notice why I do it.

I point out things when people state it's the first time anything has happened.
Or when people think there has been any fundamental change in policy.

Policies typically don't change, only how Congresses or Executives present them.

 

[Roughneck]

I'd think if we can open a dialog with Iran, and something positive can come out of it, it's a GREAT day for America.

H

I agree.

Only if this move towards a "dialog" is a meaningful one....not mere confetti.

I always prefer dialog and discussion over coercion.



cheers,

 

[ckjedi66]

Re: When people think this has never happened before ...

I point out things when people state it's the first time anything has happened.
Or when people think there has been any fundamental change in policy.

Well then re read my post genius, i did not state it was the first time it has ever happened, in fact nothing in my post indicates that i even thought it was the first time. Next time read before you criticize and don't assume anything, which is what you did.

 

[calpoon]

crazy people are never satisfied. and crazy doesn't neccesarily mean stupid. that's all I have to say on this subject. take that however you want it.

 

[Member2019]

I re-read your post ...

Well then re read my post genius, i did not state it was the first time it has ever happened, in fact nothing in my post indicates that i even thought it was the first time. Next time read before you criticize and don't assume anything, which is what you did.

I re-read your post ...

I'm sure it wasn't his idea, he probably wanted to bomb Iran too, but someone on his staff probably told him what a monumental mistake that would be.
He isn't smart enough to make a good judgement call anymore.

It's funny, but that's exactly what people used to say about Reagan!

As I stated, you think W. only wants to bomb and he has made some sort of major shift in policy on Iran from Clinton, his ****** or Reagan before him. W. has not bombed Iran, and his predecessors did not either. They have only used sanctions.

People also forget how much Clinton and Reagan used to bomb -- especially Clinton without any UN approval, or even NATO many times.

W., like Clinton, his ****** and Reagan are limited by the fact that Iran has never invaded another country. That fact makes them the "least evil" of the "Axis of Evil" and W.'s hands are very, very tied on that point. North Korea has but never agreed to terms of surrender, unlike which Iraq did (and then did not follow).

So, again, re-read my post ...

I point out things when people state it's the first time anything has happened.
Or when people think there has been any fundamental change in policy.
Policies typically don't change, only how Congresses or Executives present them.

The policy on Iran has not changed, and W.'s hands are tied on many things. He doesn't have terms of surrender to use as any justification in attacking Iran, or even a cease-fire for that matter. And most of all, it was other Presidents who cut off diplomatic ties with Iran!

It's funny how most everyone is ignoring that last fact.
But for some reason, 'Iran is all W.'s fault.'

 

[dick van cock]

These talks are merely about Iraq. Iran is already the winning party in the Iraqi Civil War with the Shiites gaining influence over large swaths of the country and the traditional ruling class of the Sunnis shattered.

It is easy for them to hand out favors when they've got nothing to lose.

Whilst Iran may try to deceive us by offering "assistance" in Iraq, they are clandestinely opening a second front:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/******/main2698784.shtml

... not to speak of Iran's staunch support of Hamas and Hezbollah...
These talks will prove to be nothing but yakke-ti-yakk.