Darn those pesky "liberals" who think negotiation is better than confrontation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080717/ts_nm/iran_usa_presence_dc_2

"The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office."

Darn those pesky "liberals" who think negotiation is better than confrontation.

Standard KKKonservative view of our attempting negotiations;

"Buncha pussified Neville Chamberlains!"

I bet their going to inform Iran "The Gig Is UP".

Since the US doesn't have diplomatic relations with Iran wouldn't they have to go there to declare war or do sovereign countries just start firing?

Interesting that they are going to be there, but who will only be listening. I guess that will be not negotiating will "terrorists". Of course anything talked in the hallway is possible.

Darn those pesky "liberals" who think negotiation is better than confrontation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080717/ts_nm/iran_usa_presence_dc_2

"The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office."


What is it that they're going to be negotiating?

Well, according to the linked article, a *diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse*.

IOW, a peaceful way to settle the question of their future plans for nuclear development.

Gosh, how the RightWingers are going to hate that. Might end up preventing getting a really impressive war off the ground. Dang.

If this is true ... it may be due to the U.S. finally realizing we have lost control of Israel, who may be on the verge of invading Iran. If we have americans on the ground there, it might be just enough to convince Israel to cool thier jets.

Man ... we created this monster and now we can't control them.

What is it that they're going to be negotiating?

It is interesting to see what could be did. In previous nuclear crises in other countries some deal was figured out. For example, in the Cuban Crisis, a deal was made quietly for the United States to remove our nuclear missiles in Turkey, while the U.S.S.R. removed the missiles in Cuba. More recently was the first and second deals made with the North Koreans. The first was not met by either country, the second seems pretty solid since the demolished the reactor on television.
I am not sure whether something could be worked out, but trying a deal is cetainly better than not trying. That is not surrndering for the U.S. It is trying to see if a reason deal might avoid a war.

Well, according to the linked article, a *diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse*.

IOW, a peaceful way to settle the question of their future plans for nuclear development.

Gosh, how the RightWingers are going to hate that. Might end up preventing getting a really impressive war off the ground. Dang.

They've been attempting that for more than 5 years. You're a little behind the times on that one.

It is interesting to see what could be did. In previous nuclear crises in other countries some deal was figured out. For example, in the Cuban Crisis, a deal was made quietly for the United States to remove our nuclear missiles in Turkey, while the U.S.S.R. removed the missiles in Cuba. More recently was the first and second deals made with the North Koreans. The first was not met by either country, the second seems pretty solid since the demolished the reactor on television.
I am not sure whether something could be worked out, but trying a deal is cetainly better than not trying. That is not surrndering for the U.S. It is trying to see if a reason deal might avoid a war.

See the previous post.

They've been attempting that for more than 5 years.

Apparently Mr. Bush isn't satisfied with the results and he wants to try harder.

They've been attempting that for more than 5 years. You're a little behind the times on that one.

They have not had diplomats in Iran.............

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country." ... establishing a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years

They have not had diplomats in Iran.............

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country." ... establishing a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years

No shit sherlock. But your statement was that they were seeking a diplomatic solution to the problem and that it was an unused tactic. The fact is they've been in various states/stages of negotiation with iran for a number of years.

As it take of getting the diplomatice of the problem with North Korea took along than not. The problems their started with the Clinton administration, and has continued until this month.

No shit sherlock. But your statement was that they were seeking a diplomatic solution to the problem and that it was an unused tactic. The fact is they've been in various states/stages of negotiation with iran for a number of years.The previous US position was that it would not participate in direct talks with the Iranians unless they suspended their uranium enrichment program. This direct talk will represent a departure from that position -- a concession to the Iranians, or an appeasement if you prefer that term.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

~ George W. Bush

President Bush said that?

I like it.

The previous US position was that it would not participate in direct talks with the Iranians unless they suspended their uranium enrichment program. This direct talk will represent a departure from that position -- a concession to the Iranians, or an appeasement if you prefer that term.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

~ George W. Bush

they're not participating in the talks. They're there merely as an observer.

various states/stages of negotiation

including denial and avoidance.