Obama would engage Iran if elected, he says

[headhuntersix]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/obama.php?page=1

If elected president, Senator Barack Obama would meet with Iran's leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues....


I don't know where to begin. This guy is an idiot and dangerous. Talking to these people, on paper, sounds great, it doesn't work. Clinton tried this in the late 90's and we're still dealing with that mess. Diplomacy without multiple threats of various action won't work. He wants to pull out troops but hunt down war criminals, from where? He wants to train Iraqi's but without embedded trainers? I think he says crap just to seem different and leaves his aids to explain his policies.

[Mad Nickels]

He is appealing to the doves of the Dem party.  Hilary is a hawk on the war, and since 70+% of the country wants the war to end, he sees that as his last chance to make a mark in Iowa.

We saw Rudy do the same thing last week when he started blaming the "liberal media" for things.  He actually used thosse words.  You know he was appealing to that small quarter of the population who still buys that divisive rhetoric.  But that 25% is about 75% of the primary voting block.  So it makes sense - NOW. 

Both candidates know their chances in Iowa aren't looking so good, and they want to do anything possible to convince their far-left or far-right base to choose them.

They're trading popular votes for primary votes. 

[Decker]

What mess are we dealing with?  Is it the one the US is trying to create:

Vice President Dick Cheney had at one point considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site to provoke a retaliation,… http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2323126720070923

 I think Obama is right on the money with negotiations with Iran.

Even if all goes according to the Bush adm.'s portrayal of Iran as actively seeking the development of nuclear bombs, Iran is still 5 to 10 years away from developing such a bomb. 

As for evidence of Iran even undertaking the creation of a nuclear bomb: No evidence Iran is making nukes: ElBaradeihttp://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22664498-5005961,00.html 

Even if Iran did magically get the bomb over night, I agree with retired Gen. Abizaid:  The world could abide a nuclear Iran.  We’ve lived with a nuclear China, Soviet Union, Pakistan, and India.

I think negotiations are still the best bet. 

[headhuntersix]

Yeah...lets kick the can down the road for some other admin  to deal with ...fuck that. it didn't work for Clinton. We deal with it now, diplomatically or otherwise. For every site u quote that they don't have/want nukes..I can find 10 that say they do. Either way not worth the chance. Anyway Obama is dangerous.

[Dos Equis]

I agree headhunter.  Keep this guy out of the White House. 

[Mr. Cortisol]

Obama is very dangerous.  He's pandering to the primary voters, not dealing in the reality of the world.  His only statement should be along the lines of "As with all nations, the US reserves the right to use diplomacy, sanctions, and force if needed, on Iran".

Instead, he has to act like a fool and try to explain his position, to differentiate himself from Hilary.  Poor move.  If I was going to vote for him (I wasn't, but if I was) he would have just lost my vote.

[headhuntersix]

I find nothing wrong with agreeing with Hil on this, why does every point have to be countered. There are plenty of points they disagree on. Obama is going to get cooked on this.

[Decker]

Yeah...lets kick the can down the road for some other admin  to deal with ...fuck that. it didn't work for Clinton. We deal with it now, diplomatically or otherwise. For every site u quote that they don't have/want nukes..I can find 10 that say they do. Either way not worth the chance. Anyway Obama is dangerous.

I'm certain Iran wants nukes.  Are they acting on that intent.  No.  The inspections are proceeding and nothing's turning up.

It would be insane to conclude that it does not want nukes though.  After all, look at it this way, if you were Iran and this happened, how would you react?:

The US overthrows Iran's government and installs a brutal dictator w/ deathsquads that rules for decades making Iranian life terrible

Israel is a defacto 51st US state that uses military force any damn time it pleases while ignoring any UN sanctions.

The US overthrows neighboring Iraq and installs a government irrespective of Iraq's compliance with US demands for disarmament and now the US makes similar demands and threats to Iran.

Considering the middle east, logic and sanity argue for US diplomacy.  Too bad that's a huge weakness of this administration

As for kicking the can down the road for another administration, why not?  Bush is already handing off the Iraq mess to the next administration.  And frankly, it would be a nice change of pace to have even a marginally competent adminstration handle the complex Iranian situation.

[youandme]

Anyway Obama is dangerous.

I agree, if he were to meet with Iran within a year or even two years of his becoming elected (hypothetical) do you know how much that would demoralize and dis-role the value of the American presidency, the guy is STUPID and more important dangerous to America's best interest of obtaining it's power and imperialism status.