Late Senator figures in 2008 presidential furor

Yeah I think talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great idea, bravo Obama. I mean was it not even a year ago he was saying the jewish holocaust never even happened. Once Obama sits down with him and sets that clear we will be right on course of brokering several deals with him. We just need to sit down and explain how he is out of his mind and doesn't know it. AHAHAHA You Obomanites really crack me up. Then again if I hung out with lewis farrakhan and Reverand Wright then I would already hate jews so I would have something in common with Ahmadinejad, so maybe Obama should talk with them.

Jason,

I despise obama, I will be voting for him because the other choice is even more unpalatable. Talking is not appeasement. Your Bozo the clown sense of humor not withstanding, you really have nothing to say do you?

Bush is an idiot, talking is not appeasement. The man doesn't know the meaning of the word appeasement, one of many words he doesn't know the meaning of.

Yeah you said a lot didn't you? I guess myself and Bush should be offended by your fourth grade level insults? I guess you are still watching Bozo the clown since he was the first thing you thought of to come up with another fourth grade level verbal assault eh. You are going to vote for him even though you despise him? You are so smart wheel, if only we could all be so naive, ignorance must truly be bliss, tell me about it please.

Jason,

Once again you attempt humor, miserably, but make no valid point. Do you have a real point to make?

Is this some kind of joke? What valid point did you make? You just copy and pasted part of the article and then made a childish attempt of an insult. Then you attack me for not making a point? Right.... thats clever.

These facts remain

- No one is more responsible for American deaths in the Middle East than George W Bush
- No one is more responsible for global political tension than George W Bush
- The worst terrorist strike against America was during the watch of George W Bush

neelsn, you were 1 for 3 with your "facts". 33% isn't very good.

-Fact is, the terrorists in Afghanistan, and the insurgents in Iraq are far more responsible than any other party. Your second statement of "fact" is hardly fact, and simply shows your bias against Bush, for whatever reason.

Obama, like other moderate world leaders, knows that you'll never find peace if you are always fighting. Bush likes to fight because it's good for his friends' businesses. That's a sad fact too.

Yet, we don't see Vladimir Putin or the "moderate" leaders of any European nation having too many unconditional 'face to face's with the President of Iran...

That's really interesting, isn't it? It's not actually Bush v. Obama and the rest of the world leaders. It's Bush and the rest of the world leaders v. Obama. (Oh wait, Obama has Venezuela, Syria, and North Korea to use as examples of whose top leader have met with the leader of Iran, unconditionally. I guess he takes that expression to heart, he seems to want to keep his enemies real close)

Yet, we don't see Vladimir Putin or the "moderate" leaders of any European nation having too many unconditional 'face to face's with the President of Iran...

No, we see Nouri al-Maliki, the PM of Iraq, having those talks with Achmedi-nejad, the President of Iran. They are close allies. In short, the puppet regime the US has created and propped up with the lives of over 4000 US troops and many hundreds of billions of US tax dollars, is having exactly those unconditional talks with "terrorists" that you are moaning about. When Achmedi-nejad visited Iraq recently he was given a genuinely enthusiastic red-carpet reception.

Just curious: How does that go over amongst the "Mission Accomplished" crowd, Nathan?

When G.W. Bush visited in the same time frame he didn't put his little toe outside of 100% fortified, military security zones - because he can't. Bush may as well have had smallpox for all the political benefit the US got from that visit. Actually, we should not be too surprised. Given President Bush's domestic popularity he has about the same status in the US that he has in Iraq: a joke.

I remember seeing some video of Ahmahdinjad's (sp) visit. He walked around freely in public, without fear.

Yeah, he was right at home, it seemed. The people in Basra were cheering their lungs out.

As to spelling his name: It's really spelled

محمود احمدی‌نژاد

but that's a bit tough on Westerners. I notice that Wikipedia goes with "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad", which is fine by me.

His name is very interesting in itself. Ahmadinejad is an assumed name, taken by his family when he was a boy. It means "helper of the Mahdi". This tells us a lot about his world view. In case anyone here is confused about this, I'll just mention that I completely reject Ahmadinejad's world view.

So, which president, was it again that invaded North Korea instead of talking to them because they h ad nuclear weapons?

Oh wait, that's right, Bush used his "talking club" with North Korea... I wonder if it had anything to do with its lack of belief in extreme ideology that preaches the destruction of America... probably not.

Even Bush/Cheney were not collectively crazy enough to invade North Korea. Do you have any idea what a powder keg that situation is? Other than China, North Korea has the largest standing army in East Asia. Iraq would have been kid's play compared to the mess we would have created (involving South Korea, China and potentially Japan).

Bush "talked" to North Korea because military action just wasn't going to happen. We really had no stick to threaten with there.

Oh wait, that's right, Bush used his "talking club" with North Korea... I wonder if it had anything to do with its lack of belief in extreme ideology that preaches the destruction of America... probably not.

Actually this is not correct. North Korea demanded one on one talks that we never gave them. All talks were with the participation of China, south Korea, and Japan.

Regional issues with regional powers.

By the way it was Clinton's one on one talks that gave them their nuclear weapons so the dem track record is not one to rely on here.

How could you possible get ethnocentrism from not wanting to sit down and have tea with an absolute mad man? Have you not read any of the stuff the guy has said in the past? How do you start the conversation? "So about that whole annihilating the Jews thing, could you possibly think of an alternative perhaps?"

How do you start the conversation? "So about that whole annihilating the Jews thing, could you possibly think of an alternative perhaps?"

That could certainly be a talking point. Perhaps worded a bit more diplomatically, but I would think there are more fruitful avenues to explore. Talking costs nothing and accomplishes more than fighting. Egypt and Israel made peace by talking, not by making war.

McCain said he has no problem talking to Iran or Hamas. He just wants them to agree to one small little precondition, "Say like not want to commit genocide on the Jews." They refuse because they want to kill Jews. No matter what you tell them, they want them dead. You can't just go, "I know in the past I wanted you to not want to kill Jews before we talked, but I guess in order to explore more fruitful avenues you can still want to kill them, now about your economy...." I am not Jewish nor do I live in Israel, but I can imagine how it would make me feel to see my strongest, perhaps only true ally sit down and try to negotiate with the terrorist, yes they are terrorist, Hamas and Iran. I bet you wish you would have been on one of the planes on 9/11 Wheel so you could have talked them down safely. If you start negotiating with terrorist then you give their terror validity, the next step behind that is you start changing things to appease their terror and then it snowballs from there.

Jason here is a simple question for you:

Would you rather fight the Iranians than talk to them?

Jason,

as usual you retreat to ad hom attacks because you have nothing fruitful to add to this discussion. Instead of speculating, (wrongly) on what I think or believe why don't you make a case for your point of view?

There can be no harm in talks, none.

There can be no harm in talks, none.

I thought I did may a case for my point of view. Talking to terrorist gives validity to their terror. The whole reason they turn to terror to begin with is they are not interested in talking. If they were they would send negotiators and not suicide bombers. There can be no harm in talks, that notion is ridicules. Stalin had talks with Hitler for years, all the way up to the point in which Germany attacked them. If he had not talked to Hitler and been swept in by him, maybe he would have seen it coming sooner. If I wanted to destroy you and you wanted to talk to me, I would tell you everything you wanted to hear and more. I would fill you with as much bs as you wanted to hear, but in the end I would only use it to better my position in destroying you. Would that be harmless talk? It would have to be, because as you stated, there can be no harm in talks, none.

Would you rather fight the Iranians than talk to them? Jason you still have not responded to this question?

Talking to terrorist gives validity to their terror
And my question is what do you mean by "validity", and what does that matter in the end? If Iran is out to destroy us and Isreal, who cares about validity if we are in a war?

As I recall it, Dubya referred to himself as the War President. An American President fighting a war! What Bill would have given for that. Having defined himself, what sovereign head of state with interests contrary to Dubya would bother to negotiate with him in good faith?

On the contrary, it is the rest of the world trying to appease the sitting American President.
Does "You're either with us or against us..." ring a bell?

He refused to stop at Afghanistan and turned retribution into a neocon crusade. Our currency as a moral force in the world is lost as a result of the reckless adventure of the Second Gulf War.

Not talking to them does NO GOOD AT ALL! They aren't going to stop, what we are doing now is actually recruiting more people to their ranks. Talks don't give validity, they give options.

Iran held U.S. hostages for 444 days. The only reason they let them go is because Reagan was about to enter the white house and they knew that he was not going to negotiate with them. Historically the Persians are a people who do not respect the grace of your tongue, but the back of your hand, when you do not show it to them, they will show you theirs. The young arrogant Obama will find that out, just like the white Obama,"Carter," did.

The initial takeover plan was to hold the embassy for only a few hours, but it soon changed. Khomeini made no comment on the occupation for several days, waiting first to gauge American reaction to the hostage taking, which he feared might be violent.[23] It was not. Some attribute the Iranian decision not to release the hostages quickly to the soft line of U.S. President Jimmy Carter; his immediate response was to appeal for the release of the hostages on humanitarian grounds and to share his hopes of a strategic anti-communist alliance with the Islamic Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

Still ducking my question, aren't you, Jason?

I'll ask you again:

Would you rather talk to the Iranians or fight them?

Historically the Persians are a people

I'm getting the feeling here that you would know a "Persian" from a petunia.

Would you rather talk to the Iranians or fight them?

Jason,

as usual you retreat to ad hom attacks because you have nothing fruitful to add to this discussion. Instead of speculating, (wrongly) on what I think or believe why don't you make a case for your point of view?

There can be no harm in talks, none.

Wheel, Not 6 months ago Bush visited Saudi Arabia and many mocked him and said he went over there to kiss ass for oil. Talking at the wrong time and to the wrong people "looks" bad and can be spun. Politics is very centered on image. A damaged image is the same regardless of how it happens. Invading Iraq resulted in Americas damaged image, terrorist recruiting increased, and very little was accomplished. Obama visits Tehran, and Iran spins it in some negative way, image gets damaged, terrorist recruiting increases (People love to be on the winning side nearly as much as they hate having their country invaded by another.), and very little gets accomplished. Maybe not as harmful as war, but it talking isn't harmless, either.

Absolutely right, war is a lot more harmful than talking.

It is possible to talk to someone without being manipulated by them.

True. Assuming you have the slightest idea what is going on. Unfortunately we can't make that assumption when dealing with the Bush administration.

I will tell you why, If you would rather fight, then it makes perfect sense in what you are saying.

It would make more sense, but still not a lot of sense.

Well, Jason has been asked my question about five times on this thread and has chosen not to answer it. I'll just repeat the question one last time:

Would you rather fight the Iranians than talk to them?

and, given Jason's complete silence, I give my own interpretation.

It's easy to be a belligerent loud-mouth when you are risking nothing. When there is no sacrifice involved for the guy with the mouth, rattling those sabers and yelling a bunch of dumb threats is as easy as pie. You are, after all, an anonymous tough-guy and don't talk to "terrorists". Of course, you won't fight them yourself, your kids sure as hell won't fight them, and you won't pay a nickel more in taxes to fund the carnage. You are going to the mall with the missus, thank you very much.

Under those circumstances hanging tough - G.W. Bush tough - is simple and painless. Definitely the way to go for the mall shoppers. Let somebody else do the fighting - you'll support the troops to the last drop of their blood.