Would someone please define the so-called preconditions?

You'll have to ask the "liberal" media, since they are the ones who injected it into today's election vernacular.

It'a absolute bullshet...preconditions could mean anything you want to say it means.

Time... place... common language or interpreter?

Size and shape of the table.

M&Ms or Reeses Pieces.

Check your weapons at the door... No taking negotiators hostage... Stuff like that? ;>)

 

I believe firmly there should be pre-conditions before the U.S. State Department (and whatever other Federal Government resources might be included) begins talking to Iran, and it's various representatives of it's people...

The pre-condition I believe is required, is a change of the administration of the U.S. Government.

Once that pre-condition is met, then the ground for a constructive dialogue with the representives of the Iranian people (a dialogue with the singular objective of securing the National Security of the American People, and of promoting peaceful relations in Iran's part of the world, particularly with U.S.-occupied Iraq)... once that pre-condition is met, then those talks can begin.

But such talks would be nothing but a waste of time, under the present administration.

Until and when the Bush administration is dismissed, and the American People are relieved from their governance, is when we can begin to talk to Iran (and with the objective in mind that I cited, of course)...

That's the pre-condition.

 

 

Once that pre-condition is met, and we are rid of the Bush administration and all it's people, then we can begin a better diplomatic relationship with Iran, and it's people.

And for those who are sure (and they may know something that I don't) that Iran truly is a National Security threat to the U.S., and a threat to the lives of the American People... even they should desire at least the cautionary pretense of a friendlier relationship with Iran, than we already have... because under such a pretense even, we would better be able to assess Iran's nuclear program or "ambitions" or whatever... because under even just a pretense of a friendlier relationship with Iran, then some of our people would be able to travel to and tour Iran (which is difficult to do presently)... in such a friendlier environment (however phony), we'd have a much better access and insight into the objectives and capabilities of the Iranian government, yes? Of course yes. And we would have more and better access to them and their nation, and we could only be better off for it, in terms of Intelligence and interaction... we might even have access enough to their country and their government, as to collect information they'd otherwise desire no one should have, for their own national security reasons, yes? Of course yes. We might even, from within Iran's own borders, have an influence on their people and their government, if we had a better (even phony) relationship to them... we might be able to play their politics, and promote those political interests in Iran, that are most in line with our own...

Wait a second... isn't this how we got into such a frosty relationship with Iran in the first place?

 

Dem,

One small point in your precondition that I think needs to be pointed out. The U.S. will not be negotiating with the Iranian people as you suggested.

They will be negotiating with an Islamic fundamentalist  regime.

 

Thanks for that small point.

The names on the place-cards at the negotiating tables will be changed accordingly.

 

That's correct AA. I doubt that the average Iranian supports the Islamic Fundamentalist Regime.

But if anyone thinks the Iranian people would not rally behind the same Islamic Fundamentalist Regime if their nation was attacked, they're delusional.

Also, I find it very amazing that we were able to negotiate with the "evil empire" and succeed. correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it plausible to think that Reagans, Carter's, and Ford's negotiations work in the end? Even if Obama were to take such a direct and unmoving approach such as Reagan did in Iceland isn't that better than what we have now? When did we lose our way in terms of identifying the importance of direct diplomacy?

Wow...Kissinger, Christopher, Baker, Albright and Powell, all in the same room agreeing on the same things that Obama agrees on.  So I really want to know...why should we not meet with Iran without preconditions again?  Is there a reason?  Or are the righties here just spouting talking points that they heard on the news?

Oh, and they all agree that Gitmo needs to close...amazing.

"Is there a reason?"

Their reason is that it smacks of Neville Chamberlain.  Of course, many of them don't know who Neville Chamberlain is or what he did, but they're willing to repeat it over and over again regardless of how incongruous it is.

I've seen that so many times now...it still makes me smile ;)

It was my favorite TV moment of this year.

"Or are the righties here just spouting talking points that they heard on the news?"

BINGO! The best example of this phenomenon I've seen lately is when Chris Matthews pinned that Bush Toadie to the wall and demanded to know what Chamberlain had done that was so objectionable. The poor schlub didn't have a clue; he just kept shouting "Appeased and enabled". I guess Karl forgot to include that bit of info in his talking points memo.

After seeing that clip, I almost started liking Matthews again.

I don't know why smackdowns like that don't become more common place in this day and age of talking heads constantly talking out their @$$es.

Not only does it make for great television, but it's a great way for the media to vet these morons publicly for all to see.

Absolutely. Matthews did it once before with Michelle Malkin, but he seemed to back off after Zig Zag Zell Miller challenged him to a duel. I'm glad to see him rediscover his cojones. I just wish more of these "journalists" would do it.

DB,

Perhaps the U.S. could enter negotiations. The sticking point is Obama suggesting he'd go talk to them himself as President... without any preconditions.

Heck even Carter didn't go talk directly with the Iranians during the hostage crisis.  

So precisely how would this be a bad thing?  An "aggressive personal diplomacy" sends a pretty powerful statement.  That can be a good statement or a bad statement, I guess that depends on your point of view.

Exactly DBEDEN. Sometimes appearance can mean so much. Just the willingness to have direct talks could send a profound statement to the rest of the middle east that we are no longer prepared to shoot first and ask questions later. I can't get any conservative to call Reagan an appeaser for meeting directly with the "evil empire". I wonder why?

This is so stupid.  How can you ask for preconditions (IOW - Negotiate for concessions) if you never actually sit down to ASK (NEGOTIATE)?!  How the hell do expect a country to give you something, if before you sit down to discuss the matter, they have to have already conceded the matter?  WHO THE HELL WOULD DO THAT?  That's like agreeing to pay a certain price for a car before they allow you on the lot to see what's available!!!

The right are acting like spoiled childeren in their search for a excuse to justify endless war.

If you are so fired up for Obama to sit down with the Iranians and negotiate, tell me what would Obama negotiate? 

Let's see...there's a steady drumbeat in Washington to bomb Iran. Surely there must be something we could talk to them about...I guess. If only we could set some darn preconditions...whatever the hell that means.  ;>)

From the transcript that the Media Matters' article linked to:

"TERENCE SMITH: Let me turn to Secretary Baker and quote something from the Iraq Study Group which you co-chaired, in which the report read: Of all the neighbors of Iraq, Iran has the most leverage in Iraq and could help bring about stability. The report recommends that Iran be actively engaged without preconditions. So should the new administration approach Iran and how? SECRETARY BAKER: Our report recommended that we start talking to Iran in the same way we talked to Iran about Afghanistan. [PAPERS SHUFFLING] This administ -- current administration, Colin was probably Secretary of State, talked to Iran about our common interest in a stable Afghanistan after we went in there, and Iran helped us and cooperated a little bit with us. Colin can amplify on it. We need to do the same thing with respect to Iraq. That's what our Iraq Study Group Report suggested. Because a dysfunctional Iraq, chaotic Iraq is not something that is in the interest of Iran. They don't want that. They'll have a ton of refugees, so there's every incentive on their part to help us the same way they did in Afghanistan, if we're willing to approach them without preconditions. Now, they may not do it, but what do you lose by giving it a shot? "

There is plenty to negotiate. such as both of our roles concerning Iraq. Oil, nuclear weapons, the fact that a figurehead is making the country look ridiculous. The list is endless really.

You tell me.  What do YOU want out of Iran?  More oil?  No nukes?  Human rights?  Sitting down with Israel?  More moderates in the government?  Non-interference in Iraq?  HELP in Iraq?  You name it.

Whatever it is you want, you will never get it by "talking tough" on American television.  And if you think war is the answer, then you haven't learned shite from Iraq (or Vietnam for that matter.) 

Whatever you want, the first (and easiest) thing to try is to ASK for it.  You can't say "You can't negotiate with these people." if YOU'RE the one that refuses to TALK.  You may not get everything (or anything) and to get something you'll have to gice something.  BUT THAT'S LIFE, NO MATTER WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH!!!

The last 8 years have proven that ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.  Iran is more radicalized, most hostile to America and more nukular than it was eight years ago.  We have not made progress on ANY front, and the situation has gotten worse on EVERY front.  If NOT TALKING has been so disastrous, why the hell shouldn't we try TALKING?

The best way to get them to meet any of these so-called CONDITIONS is to sit down and negotioate for them.

Isn't Norah O'Donnell the one who kept saying last Tuesday evening that Oregon voters for Obama were white working class (the ones that the corporate press keeps saying he has trouble with) but "more liberal" than voters elsewhere?  A totally false premise.  Now she distorts Baker's comments to make them sound different than Obama's.

Does she have a precondition or something?

Does she have a precondition or something?

I believe she is pregnant...and we all know what the precondition for that it.  ;>)

Gin and tonic?

Have some madeira m'dear?