Reply With Quote
But declaring war on their country does not legitimize them?
And you are always the total idiot.
But declaring war on their country does not legitimize 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.
the ol' "hey, it wasn't me" defense.
Conservatives are infallible. Like the Pope, but more so.
Did we declare war on Iran?
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..
The Euros have been talking, the US has not been talking, only dictating conditions.
The US still is talking, just "listening"
BEST ing 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 ing time. Better late than never.
So what happens when negotiations dont work with Iran, and they probably wont.
More negotiations about the failed negotiations before new negotiations are considered?
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.
You tell me.
What all neocons want. WAR!!
What happens? Probably nothing. Iran gets nuclear weapons and we won't go to war with them.
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?
Pavlov
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?
We'll change it to 4) Butthurt grudge post.
[Smiley][Derision]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?
We'll change it to 4) Butthurt grudge post.
Get it right RandomGuy 2.0.
4) Butthurt grudge post.[Smiley][Derision]
Get it right RandomGuy 2.0.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
