Bush administration official to attend negotiations with *gasp* Iran!

[ChumpDumper]

US envoy to attend Iran-EU nuclear talks

By Roula Khalaf in Abu Dhabi and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran

Published: July 16 2008 04:08 | Last updated: July 16 2008 20:07

The Bush administration confirmed on Wednesday that it would send a top diplomat to a meeting with a senior Iranian negotiator this weekend – a US policy shift that European diplomats hope will encourage more flexibility from Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme.

William Burns, a US under-secretary of state, will join European, Russian and Chinese envoys and Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, in a meeting in Geneva on Saturday with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran’s supreme national security council.

The move represents a break with Washington’s long-stated policy that it would not sit down with Tehran before it suspends its uranium enrichment activities....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0dae2cd4-52e4-11dd-9ba7-000077b07658.html

I have three words for all the neocon internets tough guys who said the US should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to Iran:


L

O

L

[PixelPusher]

Oh Noes! Teh appeasers will hand over Czechoslovakia!

[MannyIsGod]

Bush is an appeaser

[Wild Cobra]

The Bush administration confirmed on Wednesday that it would send a top diplomat to a meeting with a senior Iranian negotiator this weekend – a US policy shift that European diplomats hope will encourage more flexibility from Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme.

Am I wrong?

I thought that it was president Bush that would not meet with anyone in Iran until the nuclear thing was settled. I don't recall any news about nobody meeting with them.

Maybe I missed the memo?



I have three words for all the neocon internets tough guys who said the US should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to Iran:


L

O

L
Who are neocons here? Surely you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.

[ChumpDumper]

Am I wrong?

I thought that it was president Bush that would not meet with anyone in Iran until the nuclear thing was settled. I don't recall any news about nobody meeting with them.Nice double negative to make your statement completely nonsensical. Regardless, you just got the news:

Nuclear thing not settled.

Meeting with them.



Who are neocons here? Surely you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative.You have yet to disagree with any neocon policy, so the show fits.

[clambake]

U.S. diplomat to Iranian diplomat:

"So, how many missiles do you need?"

[DarrinS]

I have three words for all the neocon internets tough guys who said the US should never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever talk to Iran:




There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.

[Anti.Hero]

a "diplomat"

[Oh, Gee!!]

There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.

how about giving them incentives to stop enriching uranium? cuz that's what the under-secretary of state (an executive branch official in case you're wondering WC) is there to talk about.

[PixelPusher]

There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.

Uh, yeah, we already had that one figured out. Perhaps you could explain this point to hysterical conservatives.

[Wild Cobra]

Nobody answeed my question:


I thought that it was president Bush that would not meet with anyone in Iran until the nuclear thing was settled. I don't recall any news about nobody meeting with them.

The article said a cabinet member was meeting with them. Not the president.

Again, am I wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you are wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.Since when?

[FromWayDowntown]

Since when?

Since it's a Republican who's actually going to meet with the Iranians instead of a Democratic presidential candidate talking about possibly meeting with the Iranians concerning the same matters.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The article said a cabinet member was meeting with them. Not the president.

Again, am I wrong?

If he sent Dick Cheney, you'd say the same thing: the president himself didn't go. You're a child.

[xrayzebra]

Holy crap. If God Almighty himself had sent Bush himself to talk to the little dictator in Iran you all would be saying the same old crap. Bush Administration is not in negotiation with Iran. State sent someone over there to listen to his rantings and see what he had to say. No more, no less. So quit you talking like the Jackasses you are and see what happens. Or would you rather have a war.

[boutons_]

dubya is doing nothing except trying to soften his failed policies in order to help Old Sick Senile 95% McFlopPanderKeating with cheap talk, empty gestures, smokescreen, window dressing. Totally deceitful and unserious. aka, dubya/Repug/neo-c*nt business as usual.

Iran isn't going to stop their nuclear program because some low-level diplomatic functionary shows up "to listen", a couple months before the end of dubya's 8 fucked up years.

[FromWayDowntown]

Holy crap. If God Almighty himself had sent Bush himself to talk to the little dictator in Iran you all would be saying the same old crap. Bush Administration is not in negotiation with Iran. State sent someone over there to listen to his rantings and see what he had to say. No more, no less. So quit you talking like the Jackasses you are and see what happens. Or would you rather have a war.

Actually, I'd be wondering why the Right was making such a big stink when Obama raised the possibility of talking with Iran. I don't care how or why the talks with Iran began and I don't really care who goes -- what's puzzling to me is how one side can be lambasted for raising that possibility while the other side is to be applauded for actually doing it.

Why won't anyone explain that disconnect to me?

[clambake]

Actually, I'd be wondering why the Right was making such a big stink when Obama raised the possibility of talking with Iran. I don't care how or why the talks with Iran began and I don't really care who goes -- what's puzzling to me is how one side can be lambasted for raising that possibility while the other side is to be applauded for actually doing it.

Why won't anyone explain that disconnect to me?

because a valid explaination doesn't exist.

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh, come now -- let's not be cynical. Surely there has to be a principled reason that talking to the Iranians as Obama's notion was appeasement while talking to the Iranians as Bush's policy is something more like brinksmanship.

[George Gervin's Afro]

An episode such as this is why I laugh at most conservatives. For the longest time they have gotten bywith using soundbites.Of course their minions repeat what they hear (see xray). For example, this case. When Obama brought this up the talk radio crowd ,and the like, (without thinking it through) lambasted Obama's statements. No thinking necessary just pile on.... Well now they have a problem because their hero is doing exactly what Obama suggested and they have painted themselves into yet another corner... When are you ladies ever going to learn?

[clambake]

Oh, come now -- let's not be cynical. Surely there has to be a principled reason that talking to the Iranians as Obama's notion was appeasement while talking to the Iranians as Bush's policy is something more like brinksmanship.

you lost me at "principled".

[xrayzebra]

Idiots! Obama said HE would meet with the little dictator. A whole lot of difference.

Of course I shouldn't say anything. The Messiah is going to Iraq and all the court jesters are going to be there to show the second coming. All the major networks are sending their anchors. But no bias in the media. None, zip, zilch, nope, none.

They sure would make a good target. But no sweat, the military they love to hate, will protect their sorry butts.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I'd be wondering why the Right was making such a big stink when Obama raised the possibility of talking with Iran. I don't care how or why the talks with Iran began and I don't really care who goes -- what's puzzling to me is how one side can be lambasted for raising that possibility while the other side is to be applauded for actually doing it.

Why won't anyone explain that disconnect to me?

because a valid explaination doesn't exist.
Actually there are valid reasons. One that I remember it that it legitimizes the leader in the world's eye for the sitting president to meet face to face. That is why there is a big difference if the president meets with someone, or if someone lesser meets with them.

[Oh, Gee!!]

4evah the apologist

[Wild Cobra]

4evah the apologist

And you are always the total idiot.

[Spurminator]

Actually there are valid reasons. One that I remember it that it legitimizes the leader in the world's eye for the sitting president to meet face to face. That is why there is a big difference if the president meets with someone, or if someone lesser meets with them.

But declaring war on their country does not legitimize them?

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually there are valid reasons. One that I remember it that it legitimizes the leader in the world's eye for the sitting president to meet face to face. That is why there is a big difference if the president meets with someone, or if someone lesser meets with them.

Ultimately, the issue with Obama's notion was the belief that talking to the Iranians, in any way, would amount to appeasement of terrorists -- there was never any effort to suggest that Obama's statement would have been okay if he said "I intend to send representatives of my administration to talk with the Iranians." When Obama broached the subject, the criticism levied against him was extraordinarily general -- the mere thought of an American President expressing a willingness to talk with Ahmadinejad in any manner was somehow repugnant and evidence of appeasement. This is precisely the sort of criticism that Columbia University heard for giving Ahmadinejad an opportunity to speak -- the claim was that it was repugnant to a war on terror to even listen to what a man like him might have to say.

As such, I don't see how this isn't a nearly-complete reversal from the criticism that has previously been levied against those who even considered the idea of talking with (or hearing from) the Iranians.

[Oh, Gee!!]

the ol' "hey, it wasn't me" defense.

[ggoose25]

Conservatives are infallible. Like the Pope, but more so.

[Wild Cobra]

But declaring war on their country does not legitimize them?

Did we declare war on Iran?

[Ya Vez]

Hasn't the US and the Europeans already been talking to the iranians?

could have swore we have been for a while.. no news here..

except maybe the left acting like there has been no diplomatic talks with iran..

[boutons_]

The Euros have been talking, the US has not been talking, only dictating conditions.

The US still is talking, just "listening"

[MannyIsGod]

There's certainly a difference between talking to Iran and appeasing Iran.

:lmao

BEST fucking quote of the thread. Man, this is a given. Its too bad that when Obama (or anyone else for that matter) mentioned talking to Iran they got the appeaser lable in no time.

I don't know who woke up in the White House at this late hour and decided that they needed to have a policy shift this big, but its about fucking time. Better late than never.

[PEP]

So what happens when negotiations dont work with Iran, and they probably wont.

More negotiations about the failed negotiations before new negotiations are considered?

[PEP]

The presence of [Undersecretary of State William] Burns had led to hopes of compromise on a formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities…
But doubt was cast over the value of talks less then an hour after they started, when Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment.

“Suspension — there is no chance for that,” he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva’s ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.

There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks.

[ChumpDumper]

So what happens when negotiations dont work with Iran, and they probably wont.

More negotiations about the failed negotiations before new negotiations are considered?You tell me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So what happens when negotiations dont work with Iran, and they probably wont.

More negotiations about the failed negotiations before new negotiations are considered?

What all neocons want. WAR!!

[PEP]

What all neocons want. WAR!!

:toast

[MannyIsGod]

What happens? Probably nothing. Iran gets nuclear weapons and we won't go to war with them.

[Spurminator]

Did we declare war on Iran?

Not yet. But if your two options were the "appeasement" of sending the President to meet with Ahmadinejad or sending in the troops, which would you choose?

When you say we shouldn't legitimize a hostile world leader, what course(s) of action do you propose?

[Spurtacular]

Since when?

:lmao

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343)

So, I guess your position is that Obama appeased Iran. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pavlov]

:lmao

Pavlov (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7343)

So, I guess your position is that Obama appeased Iran. Thanks for clarifying.4) Bumping old threads to post an emoji and insult.

Wait a second.

You searched for and bumped an eight year old thread to prove to everyone you don't understand sarcasm?

:lol

We'll change it to 4) Butthurt grudge post.

[Spurtacular]

4) Bumping old threads to post an emoji and insult.

Wait a second.

You searched for and bumped an eight year old thread to prove to everyone you don't understand sarcasm?

:lol

We'll change it to 4) Butthurt grudge post.

[Smiley][Derision]

Get it right RandomGuy 2.0. :lmao

[Pavlov]

[Smiley][Derision]

Get it right RandomGuy 2.0. :lmao4) Butthurt grudge post.