The entire course of human history has been helped and driven by negotiation and war. I prefer the former.

Hmmm. How much would a World War effect me compared to a series of negotiations?

I prefer negotiation as well. However negotiations require one of two things to have a chance of working:

1. Two honorable parties who intend to honor whatever agreement is reached.
2. One party with sufficient leverage over the other to compel it to honor whatever agreement is reached.

Whenever we have an agreement that does not have one of these two things, it is violated and the loser is the honorable party that trusted the other one.

In this case the only possible way to negotiate an agreement with an evil untrustworthy regime such as the Mullahs is to

1. Make it clear that we are willing to walk away and destroy their nukes if we don't reach an acceptable agreement.
2. Ensure the Mullahs get that we will enforce the agreement by deadly force if they violate it.

One of the reasons the armistice line in North Korea has held since 1953 despite an insane regime is that the insane regime and its patron China understand that an invasion will lead to a full war with the United States with all that entails. Not a paper agreement but the credible threat of force.

That is entirely missing here just as it was when Chamberlain sought "Peace for our time." Anyone that believes that Obama will use force to enforce an Iranian violation which is definitely going to happen is either lying or fooling themselves in a serious way.

In the end as the American public recognizes by a huge bipartisan majority, An agreement will do nothing to halt Iran's advancement towards nuclear weapons.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

_________________________________-__________________________________

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

_________________________________-__________________________________

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

So what is your solution?

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

_________________________________-__________________________________

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

So what is your solution?

MM1994, this is one of those times when you failed to address a direct question.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons.

I'd lay down solid money that a large majority of "the country" doesn't know or care about the negotiations, doesn't know that Iran doesn't even have one nuclear weapon yet and couldn't find Iran on a map if you spotted them the continent of Asia and the Persian Gulf.

The only thing you are right about in my opinion is finding Iran on the map. The country is not as stupid and apathetic as a lot of you like to assume. But heck even the NY Times couldn't find Iran on the map.

I didn't call anyone stupid, but millions of people don't care past an online rant or two.

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

Reagan should have negotiated a deal that got our people back, which he did. I think Reagan would keep putting the pressure on Iran through tighter and tighter sanctions until they agreed to a deal that favored our position and allowed for full inspections, with provisions for the immediate return of sanctions if the Iranians violated any part of the agreement. If they didn't come around to making a deal, the sanctions would remain on going.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

There is no solution except to ultimately undermine the regime as much as possible through isolation and sanctions such that the people ultimately seek the removal of said government or the government genuinely changes. That had been the policy of the United States for 30 years until now.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

No what Reagan did was wrong and he himself later acknowledged it. What Reagan has to do witht he current situation is beyond me.

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

Reagan should have negotiated a deal that got our people back, which he did. I think Reagan would keep putting the pressure on Iran through tighter and tighter sanctions until they agreed to a deal that favored our position and allowed for full inspections, with provisions for the immediate return of sanctions if the Iranians violated any part of the agreement. If they didn't come around to making a deal, the sanctions would remain on going.

One thing Reagan would understand is that if you are going to negotiate you negotiate from strength and not from weakness. This is ultimately how he came to negotiate arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. Obama has made it clear to the Mullahs that he is pretty much open to anything they feel they want or need in order to get a deal. The deal itself is more important than what its effect will be. That's why it's so wrong what hes doing and why so many, not just Republicans, think its crazy.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

There is no solution except to ultimately undermine the regime as much as possible through isolation and sanctions such that the people ultimately seek the removal of said government or the government genuinely changes. That had been the policy of the United States for 30 years until now.

Until now? This ranting is beneath you. You aren't even keeping up with the details that you normally do.

YESTERDAY, Obama extended the sanctions for another year...

US extends Iran sanctions while noting improved behavior
Tehran’s actions pose ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to American security, says Obama

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama noted improved Iranian behavior while nuclear talks are underway, but said a yearlong extension of sanctions is still merited.

On Wednesday, Obama extended the status of national emergency for Iran, which perpetuates existing sanctions on the regime for a year.

Such extensions have been routine since 1995, when President Bill Clinton first imposed nuclear-related sanctions. But Obama spoke of progress made in the talks between Iran and the major powers.

“This marks the first time in a decade that Iran has agreed to take, and has taken, specific actions that stop the advance and roll back key elements of its nuclear program,” he said, adding that the United States was participating in the temporary relief of some sanctions as part of the agreement governing the talks.

“Nevertheless, certain actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions.”

The deadline for an outline of an agreement is March 24 and for a final agreement July 1. Obama could suspend some sanctions with an agreement in place, but would need congressional approval to permanently repeal sanctions.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-extends-iran-sanctions-while-noting-improved-behavior/

"Until now." Stop making things up. You're better than that.

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

Reagan should have negotiated a deal that got our people back, which he did. I think Reagan would keep putting the pressure on Iran through tighter and tighter sanctions until they agreed to a deal that favored our position and allowed for full inspections, with provisions for the immediate return of sanNctions if the Iranians violated any part of the agreement. If they didn't come around to making a deal, the sanctions would remain on going.

One thing Reagan would understand is that if you are going to negotiate you negotiate from strength and not from weakness. This is ultimately how he came to negotiate arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. Obama has made it clear to the Mullahs that he is pretty much open to anything they feel they want or need in order to get a deal. The deal itself is more important than what its effect will be. That's why it's so wrong what hes doing and why so many, not just Republicans, think its crazy.

Have you been sitting in on the talks? No? How do you know what is going on?

There is no reason for anyone to believe an obama/kerry negotiation will have any good result.

The history is there:

1.) obama/hillary produced no foreign agreements or success and had many failures.
2.) obama.kerry have had no foreign agreements or success and had many failures.

obama is well known in the U.S. and around the world as weak.

President Reagan was considered a powerful leader and negotiated from a position of strength which produced many negotiations and agreements with positive results for The United States.

Obama has made it clear to the Mullahs that he is pretty much open to anything they feel they want or need in order to get a deal.

Aren't negotiations ongoing??? Do you have inside info on what the deal is and what is being offered and whether it is acceptable to both them and us??? Finally, what is your alternative if no deal is made, sanctions are reinstated and increased, and Iran says screw you and decides if we are gonna increase sanctions they are not only going to continue their nuclear program but speed it up because that is what is going to happen. Mark my words. Harder sanctions might even do the opposite and galvanize the Iranian people against us. They certainly aren't going to stop them from their nuclear ambitions.

I just saw some high ranking US military official say that if we were to hit them as hard as we could militarily that it would set their nuclear program back by a whooping 4 years. What then after another 4 years when they build it back up??? And don't think for a minute that this won't come down to military action if negotiations fail and they probably will now after these last two debacles first by Boehner and Netanyahu and then by those incompetent US Senators. Both Netanyahu and those Senators know damned well that sanctions won't work and there is NO deal that Netanyahu would ever accept because as with Doug he doesn't think they can be trusted no matter what. Might as well just not negotiate at all and just start bombing right???

That is basically what the hawks want. And when we do attack them or assist in attacking them they will cause a shi_ storm of havoc in Iraq where they are controlling southern and western Iraq running the Shiite Iraqi army against ISIS. Once they crush ISIS which American military officials say they can easily do Iran will basically control what happens in Iraq and they could ruin any kind of unification of the country and end up splitting the region into a north Sunni middle east vs a south Shiite middle east.

I know my rant is complicated but the whole situation over there is complicated and if negotiations don't work and no deal is made and we end up attacking or assisting in attacking Iran then the complicated mess over there becomes even ten times more complicated.

 

I know my rant is complicated but the whole situation over there is complicated and if negotiations don't work and no deal is made and we end up attacking or assisting in attacking Iran then the complicated mess over there becomes even ten times more complicated.

Actually, Pete, I think this one is pretty simple:

There are people that don't want to get involved with military operations in Iran (or anywhere else, for that matter) unless there is a direct threat to the United States.

There are people that don't want to get involved with military operations in Iran unless there is a direct threat to the United States and/or its allies.

There are people that wish to begin military operations in Iran immediately.

Then there are people that also want to begin military operations in Iran but won't come out and say it.

quote:
When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

No what Reagan did was wrong and he himself later acknowledged it. What Reagan has to do witht he current situation is beyond me.

I was responding to this question "When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?"

The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation. I don't see why that is beyond you. Simple question and answer.

I've seen folks mention "Mullahs" several times. Has anyone here ever read any Mullah stories? They are little parables of wisdom. They are timeless and ancient and clearly show that the Persian people are masters of nuance and negotiation.

quote:
When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

No what Reagan did was wrong and he himself later acknowledged it. What Reagan has to do witht he current situation is beyond me.

I was responding to this question "When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?"

The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation. I don't see why that is beyond you. Simple question and answer.

_____________________________________________________________

"The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation"

And President Reagan successfully got our hostages released. A positive result.
Obama has never had a negotiation with a successful result.

So maybe Obama should give arms to Iran? Is that what you are saying?

So maybe Obama should give arms to Iran? Is that what you are saying?

__________________________________________________________________________

How do you come to that conclusion?

Of course at the same time, how would you prevent Iran from getting the bomb?

quote:
When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

No what Reagan did was wrong and he himself later acknowledged it. What Reagan has to do witht he current situation is beyond me.

I was responding to this question "When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?"

The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation. I don't see why that is beyond you. Simple question and answer.

_____________________________________________________________

"The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation"

And President Reagan successfully got our hostages released. A positive result.
Obama has never had a negotiation with a successful result.

Wait. He traded five terrorists for a deserter. That one count?

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

_________________________________-__________________________________

When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

Good point.

Israel can't be trusted.

Ask the Palestinians.

Not an American.....not a U.S. Soldier......he's just a "deserter", even though there are conflicting accounts from fellow soldiers, and even though none of us were there to know what caused him to disappear. Do you really want to label him that without knowing what happened? No reason to criticize the soldier just to make Obama look bad.

quote:
When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?

It worked when Reagan traded Arms to Iran to get the hostages. Maybe Obama should just give Iran nuclear weapons and cut out the middle man. What would Reagan do?

_________________________________________________________________________

What should Pres. Reagan done, leave the hostages there?
Cater didn't have a clue and got played by the Iranians.

No what Reagan did was wrong and he himself later acknowledged it. What Reagan has to do witht he current situation is beyond me.

I was responding to this question "When has a negotiation with a terrorist nation ever produced results?"

The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation. I don't see why that is beyond you. Simple question and answer.

_____________________________________________________________

"The question is in the thread. Reagan negotiated with a terrorist nation"

And President Reagan successfully got our hostages released. A positive result.
Obama has never had a negotiation with a successful result.

Wait. He traded five terrorists for a deserter. That one count?

_____________________________________________________________

That just shows obama's poor judgement.