Peter_Puget Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 When I posted the appeasement thread I was thinking of the very narrow question of the Spanish election. It of course drifted to “how should terrorism be dealt with. J_B added a series of logical errors and partisan sloganeering suggesting I was thinking that the GW way was they only way. After tiring of correcting his inane claims I realized I was bored with the thread. The I read this story in the Financial Times. If this story is true, then I think the offer should have been seriously considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Hard to tell, is that an op-ed piece or standard journalism? It reads like the former even though I see no indication it is an op-ed. The article is simplifying what I'm sure is a complex issue. I won't pretend to know all of the details and the article doesn't elaborate (of course), so I can't or won't pass off an opinion. Certainly, I'd like the U.S. and Iran to be friends. Can't we all just get along? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 How is talking going to hurt? Diplomacy is much less costly than warfare. I say go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersling Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I think we should hold out until the hardline clerics are overthrown there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I think we should hold out until the hardline clerics are overthrown there. (That's what I thought about Iraq. If the danger isn’t "imminent” and we’ve got them hemmed in with overflights and an inspection regime, why not just wait it out and spend our resources helping Afghanistan? Better climbing there too. Water under bridges, back to the topic.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I see Cheney and Rumsfeld are opposed, which just confirms for me that the idea must have merit. Anyone have any ideas why the Swiss were chewed out for "exceeding their mandate"? I thought their mandate in this was to be the conduit between Tehran and Washington, and it appears they have been doing just that. So who in Washington is taking shots at the messenger, and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgersling Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Being a conduit doesn't involve negotiating for the U.S. or pushing the U.S. by telling the world we aren't responding to what they feel is a decent offer from Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 When I posted the . . . thread . . . It of course drifted fukin a. how bout them huskies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 so the bush administration tells us they are considering a compromise with iran ("Mr Bush was looking for an "opening" with Iran"), but they can't really talk about it ... considering the source and the adminstration's record in international relations, i'd say it must be an election year. seriously what are really the chances our politicians would study a compromise with iran on nukes, israel and terrorism? unless of course, they are not really talking compromise but a one-sided solution (which then would be foreign policy per usual) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Being a conduit doesn't involve negotiating for the U.S. or pushing the U.S. by telling the world we aren't responding to what they feel is a decent offer from Iran. Agreed, if that was the case then they should be rebuked, but there's nothing in the article to suggest that's what was happening. Iran laid out the framework of a plan, and the Swiss relayed it to Washington. They probably also relayed Washington's response back to Tehran, and so on. That's how it works, and there's no-one on earth with more experience at it than the Swiss. Where do you get that they are "negotiating for the U.S. or pushing the U.S. by telling the world we aren't responding to what they feel is a decent offer"? The article doesn't say that the Swiss were carrying on active negotiations, nor does it claim that the Swiss went public with the information. All I see is that the Swiss were rebuked, but no reason is given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.