THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

What is the point of negotiating with someone unless they already agree with you?

My God man, if they aren't with us then they must be against us.

It's simple, Farmer - negotiating with Iran wrecks Bush's entire worldview and raises the specter that the whole Iraq thing was needless.

Cycloptichorn

Bush keeps calling Iran - Nobody picks up the phone, not his fault. I'd blame Clinton.

farmerman, there is no reason at all that we are not talking to Iran except that Bush is spoiling for a fight. Remember what he said to Cheney a few days after Mission Accomplished? "Well, Dick, shall we do Iran next?"

Bush could have replied to Ahmadinejad's long and rambling letter of many months ago, saying "It was good to receive your communication. We have many things to talk about, and I am gratified that you have made an overture toward discussions between us." (A didn't make such an overture but Bush could have ignored the contents of his letter and pretended that it was an opening for talks.)

Bush could have avoided the nuclear issue completely and told A that we were not interested in regime change in Iran (whether we are or not) and we were not out to undermine Iran's government. We could have suggested that the US could help Iran with research toward peaceful nuclear power, and could have sent some "experts" over to help.

There is no use discussing the nuclear issue with Iran. They will not put that item on the agenda...they've made that clear. We will have to deal with the possibility of Iran having a weapon in 5-10 years, but there is lots of time before then to figure out how the US will deal with it.

Once we get over the idea that we are not god and that we do not run the universe, all sorts of possibilities might open themselves to us.

THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:

we don't have a clue what to say.

Joe(or how to speak Farsi)Nation

My name is George Bush and if I said I'm not talking to you...I'm not talking!

Brilliant thread!

LOL, gus...

The failed diplomacy pathways that this administration has trod would make oleFDR ,heave in his grave. Even the supposed "cagy" stuff of George II has no substance.
Engaging Iran till its sick of our faces would be a perfect way to set the bar and pull in even more rea allies.

What is there to negotiate?

"We cant see any value at opening a dialogue with Iran as long as they continue to enrich Uranium" -- Condaleeza Rice (obviously speaking the party line)

DUUHHHH?

Why would we deal with people who have been one of the leaders and supporters of terrorism for the last 20 plus years?

Why would we deal with a govt that has been trying to undermine the democracy that has been established in Iraq?

Why would we deal with a govt that has been funneling weapons and people into Iraq to kill and destroy innocent civilians?

so we employ the terribly well asdvised method of "If we ignore them theyll go away" strategy.

This is why we need some really great new leadership. Take it away from this failed leader. Let Georgey go back to being a "trust Baby" hell have a decent pension, his family trust. HE can devote all his time to his Presidential Library where all his "Action Comics" will be stored.

Try again....


What is there to negotiate?

I bet, the day Bush leaves office the new administration will open talks with Iran and Syria. At least we can say Bush is a consistent Crusader.

Really good leadership? Are you kidding? No president has tried to handle the Iran issue but Jimmy Carter and look where that got us. Into this mess with Iran. When he stopped supporting the Sha (sp) of Iran it allowed these terrorists to take over in the 70's. Now look what we are left dealing with. A govt that is a major sponser of terror in the world.

Front page piece in today's NYTimes about how Europe is resisting our efforts to isolate Iran. What is happening is that we are isolating ourselves from reasonable diplomacy and its many possible outcomes.

The Persians have been the psychotic bête noire of the conservatives for almost 30 years now. Reagan dealt with them by attempting publicly to isolate and demonize them, and privately trading spare parts for their American weapons systems to get cash which could be laundered and funneled to the Contras in Nicaragua to bypass the Congressional prohibition on aid to the Contras. Publicly, Reagan sent his errand boy, Little Donny Rumsfeld to make nice with Saddam Hussein, because we wanted to use the Iraqis to fight a proxy war against Iran. Then when the Iraqi deal went sour, and Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Persians were quietly left alone, because they supported the Shi'ites of Iraq against the Ba'athists, who were no longer our buddies. Clinton basically ignored Iran, which had the downside of no engagement, and the positive benefit (in a negative sort of way) of not increasing the animus between the United States and Iran.

Little Georgie has publicly demonized the Persians, although nothing specific was (apparently) intended, and once again, they supported Shi'ite opposition to the new boogeyman, Hussein of Iraq. In fact, one group supported by the Persians was sufficiently well-supported to have had its own AFVs and heavy weapons. After the invasion, Iran got pushed to the back burner.

But the real sin of the Persians is the drive to price petroleum in euros. Sure the Europeans don't have a big case of the ass against the Persians--they buy most of the petroleum which Iran produces, and the Persians are happy to price their product in euros. It has only been since Iran began to push for all petroleum producers to price their product in euros that the Loose Cannon Crew have gone ballistic and begun to rattle their sabers as though there were no tomorrow. They're shittin' and steppin' because of the potential disaster which looms for American oil companies if pricing for petroleum is switched from dollars to euros.

That's what really sticks in the Shrub's craw . . .

BALDIMO

Learning history is not like scraping paint. Theres usually more history beneath.

Ahmendinejhad is only one of 3 of the present Supreme Leadership., and hes the least trusted by Iranians themselves. We have an opportunity , if we had a competent leadership. You want a world thats in better shape than weve got going now? or are you merely going to continue strumming about how great Bush is?
Bush's legacy will be the same as that earned by Jimmy Carter (except Bush will have been more the architect of hizzown disgrace) As someone lese said, as soon as Bush is gone, the new administartion will open a dialogue with Iran , (unless the whole Middle East hasnt already been shredded by a regional war)