HeloDude, on 21 October 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:
The downside is that we appear weak to our enemy(s), and that gives them strength. The only way Iran will discontinue their nuclear weopans effort is if somebody destroys those capabilities or if they have a regime change...negotiating won't do anything to a country whose rulers rule by fear, intimidation, and who quite frankly, could care less about their people.
So is it ever appropriate to negotiate with governments we oppose? Is there a better way forward WRT Iran? I'm just curious if you're interested in the status quo of letting the sanctions do their thing (although their thing is to bring them to the table and/or destabilize the government there...) or just go ahead with a strike.
Groundbounder, on 21 October 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:
I didn't say it was the administration. I said And they never lie....... With what I was quoting out of you post, I believe it is pretty clear they = Iran.
They definitely could be lying...hell, the admin now says there's no deal so who knows what's actually going on. But if there is
a deal an opportunity to negotiate, I don't see why we would not want to take it; we have basically nothing to lose and a negotiated settlement is easily the best end-game for the whole situation other than a spontaneous, relatively bloodless overthrow of the mullahs by the people, but then again it's hard to say what you get after that happens (see Libya, Egypt, etc.).
"However, in the grand scheme of things the mass punishment is extremely mild and in my mind excusable." - albertschu
"Mark the day, I agree with you 100%." - ClearedHot, 11 July 2011, 9:15 AM