Well, *that* was productive...Follow

Of course. Two major reasons.

(A) To make the Iranian conservatives happy.
(B) Because when you're going to negotiate, you intentionally over-inflate your position so you have more to "give away" without hurting yourself.

So Iran is saying that the US has to stop supporting Israel and allow Iran a free, unmonitored nuclear program and Obama is saying that tight sanctions will remain on Iran and their nuclear program must be stopped. Now they can "compromise" on allowing IAEA inspections and loosening sanctions in return for supporting a Two State solution*.

Did you think there was anyone who didn't get exactly what was going on?

*Examples

Do I take your silence to mean, no, you're so blindly partisan that you can't find one good thing about the man as POTUS?

Before last year's election "meeting without preconditions" didn't even mean anything.

ICUWATUDIDTHAR.

Your paranoia causing you into stretching the comparisons a little bit, no?

Wait. Does Iran know about this?

No. You can take my silence to mean that your question/demand was moronic.


Tell you what. The next time we're in a debate I'll insist that you are blindly partisan unless you can say one good thing about the position you don't agree with. Fair? No?...


Of course I can find a whole bunch of good things about Obama. But what exactly is the reason for insisting I do it right now in this particular thread? Ask why you're doing it and you'll understand why I'm not going to answer it. It's childish to do what you're doing.

Doesn't matter much. Obama has given ground before ever having that first meeting.

No one ever said not to meet. The issue was the insistence that we meet regardless of any pre-conditions with regards to context and issues on the table. And no. It's not about glory or majesty or whatever. It's about the very real fact that if you say that and the other guy doesn't, you are showing him that you want to meet with him more than he wants to meet with you. That gives the other guy ridiculous leverage in any negotiations which occur.


It's not about appearing to be aloof or powerful or pretending that Iran is "beneath us" or some other silly strawman. It's about setting the terms of the discussion. There is pretty much zero chance of *any* diplomacy between the US and Iran working out now. Not without giving massive amounts of freebies to Iran, and then we'll face a likely Agreed Framework situation in a few years when they renege on their side of those agreements.


This really isn't a partisan thing. Obama was stupid to make that statement, and he's even stupider that he appears to be following through on it. Of all of the campaign promises he broke, he choose to keep this one? Gah!

No. Well, I guess "yeah" if you thought that anyone was ever going to slobber all over themselves and start giving things up just to talk to the United States. I mean, that strategy worked swimmingly with N. Korea, right?

Saying you'll talk is the start of negotiations, not something you say will happen after the other guy has already gave stuff up. Otherwise the other powers just laugh at you as they've done for the past eight years.I think of it as more of an intellect thing.

So, you'd answer this question in another thread, but not in this one?

And Ugly is the childish one?

We're not in a debate. That was my second post in this thread and the first one had nothing to do with the topic at hand. It was a jab at someone. No, I really would like you to say something nice about Obama. You've spent the last year and a half going on about how horrible of a President he's going to make and I don't recall you ever saying anything positive about the man. Over 60% of your country approves of him and you can't find one positive?

I know you think I'm out to get you, but really, I'm not. I've defended my Conservative government quite a few times. You and I are on the same page on economics, at least on the basics anyway. Where we often see differently is on social issues. That's where my Canadian comes out and I lean hard to the left. But economically, we're in the same park. Because I'm left socially and right economically, I see positives from both sides, but I've never seen a single positive thing come out of your mouth regarding anything Liberal.

No gbaji, there was no hidden motive there beyond simple curiosity. It was your choice to not acknowledge my first question that brought along the post where I "demanded" a reply from you.