What is The Issue with UnConditional Meetings???
By Pitgull
@Pitgull (1522)
United States
May 20, 2008 4:28pm CST
I understand the fact that the United States has issues with Iran. I recognize the Iranian Hostage Crisis as a major turning point in relations with the country of Iran.
What I do not understand is this problem with unconditional meetings.
When you need to resolve an issue, say, with your brother, do you say "Hey, can we talk?" Or do you say "As long as you promise to listen to me, I would like to sit down and talk to you?"
Who sets the conditions?
Why do there need to be conditions set for people to sit down and talk? Maybe Diplomacy with other countries would go a little bit smoother if we opened up the lines of communication. We're not even willing to attempt to resolve the issue, if all we do is set conditions.
I believe the REAL PROBLEM is the United States is not trying to resolve this issue. I see Iran being our next target. We're not even willing to talk with the leaders of their country (regardless if you believe they are terrorists or extremists, those are their leaders).
Bush has said it's always been an option. You know, attacking Iran.
1 response
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
21 May 08
Do you mean preconditions such as recognizing Israels right to exist?
How about a condition of not supplying weapons and training to those terrorists we are fighting in Iraq?
How about a condition that Iran stop interfering in other countries and destabilizing the entire Mideast... bearing in mind of course that several of these countries have flat told Iran to butt out?
How about allowing inspectors in to ensure that Iran's nuclear ambitions are actually peaceful?
There are many more conditions that need to be met before we can be assured that Iran is serious about any negotiations... after all they have threatened our destruction, as well as the destruction of Israel.
A common mistake by Westerners is not understanding the Mideastern mindset. What we consider to be simple negotiations, they consider to be weakness.
Take the Gulf War for example, by not pursuing Saddam all the way back to Baghdad, and by signing the ceasefire agreement, even though we defeated Saddam, he thought that he won the war.
As you can plainly see, we had to go back and finish what we started.
If we accede to ANY demands by Iran for negotiations, then Iran would see that as a sign of weakness and nothing would be accomplished.
That is nothing short of appeasement, and that would be counterproductive.
That is why anytime one of those democrats call for unconditional talks I know that they are not suitable to be president, because they don't have the experience or the foreign policy knowledge to do the job.
When Obama says he will meet unconditionally with Iran or any other hostile nation, he is proving that he doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing.
THAT is the big issue with unconditional meetings.
