Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bush to Iran: Incentives possible to stop enrichment program
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, May 25, 2006

Yesterday I said we should consider having unilateral talks with Iran since they've seemingly "blinked" and ask for them. Most thought a) it wouldn't be a good idea and b) it wouldn't happen anyway.

Well it appears c) it may:
President George W. Bush said on Thursday he would consider providing incentives to Iran if it agreed to resume a suspension on nuclear enrichment activities that the United States believes is aimed at producing a nuclear bomb.
OK, Terry, my dogged contrarian commenter, your turn.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
We should enter negotiations with Iran. Our demands should be that they eliminate the permanent part of their government (The Ayatollah, the Guardian Council, and perhaps the Assembly of Experts), cede their power to their elected legislature, and then hold unfettered national elections. It should be explained to the Iranians that if they will do this— convert from a theocracy to a normal democracy— then the US will defend Iran’s right to refine as much nuclear material as they want. Hell, if they demonstrate stability for a while, we wouldn’t even mind that much if they had the Bomb.

The US generally has no business making military deals with juntas unaccountable to their own people; Iran’s current "government" has no credibility and has already demonstrated their bad faith. Bush risks walking into the same blunder Clinton did with the Agreed Framework if he goes into negotiations pretending that the "government" of Iran has any compunction whatsoever about the welfare of our people OR their own.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Lol!

Sure, no problem, let’s make that our minimum offer! How-about a deadline of noon, saturday! Or else we’re sending in the Marines!


Does the phrase "bluffing with no cards in your hand" mean anything to you?




 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I think any offer of incentives is simply a back-stop to the EU-3’s incentives. Our diplomats worked with the EU-3 in creating the current offer that got "passed" by Russia and China, so its not too suprising.



 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I would suggest the bilateral talks issue could be used the US side as follows:

1. Make an explicit statement that any success with the EU-3 agreement would automatically lead to bilateral talks with the USA - this puts it back in Iran’s court, i.e. eat your vegetables, then you can have desert.

2. Alternatively, engage in side negotiations over one topic: say diplomatic recognition, and use these to pressure the Iranians to agree to EU-3 demands.

I prefer option 1 for many reasons.

For the people claiming, "what have we got to lose" you must be joking, right? By the same token, why aren’t the Iranians saying the same thing to each other and agreeing with us? Why not drop the nukes? maybe America is serious...

Not to mention, Iran could have taken immediate steps to unilaterally improve relations at any time they want, such as removing the US flags on their marching grounds or stop referring to us the Great Satan - those are FREE for them but would signal to us that they want a thaw in relations.

It’s not always about the USA making concessions.

The number 1 reason for not engaging in bilateral talks is because the entire onus of the crisis then falls on the USA - if the talks succeed, we have to monitor compliance. If they fail, we have to do something about it - unilaterally. Didn’t we just learn something in Iraq? That a united international community works much better?

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
#1. Doesn’t look like an agreement for unilateral talks to me:
Bush, at a White House news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said the two leaders spent a lot of time discussing strategy on how to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis.
#2. This is nothing new. The EU3’s strategy has been to offer incentives all along. The US has agreed to participate and back the effort if Iran truly renounced nukes. This is just some reporter rehashing history as current news.

#3. Krauthammer makes a very persuasive case for not going unilateral with Iran.

 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
It would probably be more accurate to say "presenting known facts as news" rather than "rehashing history" since the statement was recent. Rehashing makes it sound like he went back and dug up some old quote to present. My apologies.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
ol!

Sure, no problem, let’s make that our minimum offer! How-about a deadline of noon, saturday! Or else we’re sending in the Marines!


Does the phrase "bluffing with no cards in your hand" mean anything to you?
Who needs a handful of cards when you have an ass-load of cruise missiles?

As long as we continue to pretend that juntas are sovereign, we’re going to have to deal with thugs pursuing nuclear armaments under cloak of international law. You can’t play chess with someone only interested in playing ball-peen hammer. That’s a fact.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Who needs a handful of cards when you have an ass-load of cruise missiles?

On this issue, at least, you’ve really revealed yourself here as a ****ing idiot. No cards in your hand = "no effective and feasible military option for peramently halting Iran’s nuclear program."

As long as we continue to pretend that juntas are sovereign

So hey, why aren’t we bombing all of the roughly 40% of the globe that doesn’t have a system of government that matches your personal definition of junta? Perhaps because it would be - I’ve got this term that I think you should spend some time reading about here - counterproductive
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
On this issue, at least, you’ve really revealed yourself here as a ****ing idiot. No cards in your hand = "no effective and feasible military option for peramently halting Iran’s nuclear program."
Maybe we don’t need to halt Iran’s nuclear program. Maybe it’s only dangerous because it’s being headed by a cadre of unelected theocratic thugs.
So hey, why aren’t we bombing all of the roughly 40% of the globe that doesn’t have a system of government that matches your personal definition of junta? Perhaps because it would be - I’ve got this term that I think you should spend some time reading about here - counterproductive
This is so lame I’m sure you’re already regretting having posted it. Your suggestion that we can’t defend ourselves or our interests from a belligerent junta unless we also attack all juntas whether they threaten us or not is a thoughtless non-sequitur.

You know what’s really counter-productive? Pretending tyrannical religious zealots can be productively negotiated with.

:peter
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
And look glasnost! I found my "personal definition of junta" in the dictionary! Man, I must be popular, huh?

junta (plural juntas)
1. A council; a convention; a tribunal; an assembly; esp., the grand council of state in Spain.
2. A military dictatorship.

Main Entry: junta
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a governmental council or committee, esp. one that rules after a revolution.
Etymology: Latin jungere `to join’.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
And look glasnost! I found my "personal definition of junta" in the dictionary! Man, I must be popular, huh?
Pfft. Webster’s a notorious rightwing shill...
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider