We are talking to Iran - we have our army on two of their borders. It's a return to cold war politics. You cannot negotiate when there is no trust. Does anyone really believe that a country as rich in oil as Iran really needs nuclear energy? The Europeans don't believe them either.

The only thing keeping us from talking to Syria is their insistence on the return of the Golan Heights from Israel. Israel will never return it because is would make them vulnerable to an effective attack. When Israel is ready for peace with Syria then we will bring them into the process. We are trying to weaken Syria by supporting the Lebanese government - who the Syrians through Hezbollah keep assasinating.

Whether these are effective policies only time will tell.

Trust can never grow without negotiation. After what we did to Iraq, who can blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. If I were Iran, I'd want them.

Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons long before the Iraq war. They were purchasing technology on the black market from Dr. Khan in Pakistan. We actually did them a favor by removing Saddam. Iraq was their biggest enemy. The Iranians are trying to change the balance of power in the middle east and they are not Arabs. Most of the middle east is with us and fear Iran, and Syria would like peace with Israel and us as well. They just do not want to give up the Golan Heights. Sometimes unpopular cold war tactics are the only effective means for negotiation - see Libya.

N. Korea is an example of why you cannot negotiate without trust. They will only give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons if their back is up against the wall. The soviet union did not crumble through negotiations and niceties. It took hardball politics and we made them go broke trying to keep up with our defense spending.

Negotiating with dictators and tyrants is usually a dirty experience. Do you know of any who have willingly given up power? Look at Cuba - Fidel has replaced himself with his brother! Why do cubans risk thier lives to leave?

Take a look at the CNN web site today, the main article is about the N. Korean nuclear plant that they have finally agreed to shut down. Do you remember all the rhetoric and noise the Koreans made a few years back and everyone was questioning Bush's tactics. Whether he was a good president or not will be determined in the future. While he is no great statesman and is hugely unpopular and it is certainly time for a change, popularity and effectiveness do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Sometimes it takes hardball politics to negotiate. I know I negotiate business contracts all the time. They are not easy and often times very unpleasent. Giant companies like Walmart, GM, etc... know they have leverage and they use it.

It's not always a pretty world out there.

What I would like to ask is if were having talks with them then why are we geting ready to attack them. Could it be there wanting nuclear weapons, and we have to say no.

Talk good. Talking to a raghead sack of shit, bad.

Nothing personal youse guys but I wouldn't darn my socks with this thread.

The only reason, historically, for talks when two parties are at such loggereheads has been to buy time to advance weapons production and forces training. Only Iran would benefit from this.

I've been stating since "Mission Accomplished" that now we have Iran surrounded. With Iran we have an objective that -- unlike Iraq -- the UN wants cleaned up.

Ending slavery was not a cause of the civil war, but it became a sanctifying consequence. In the end, eliminating nuclear potential in Iran could become the sanctifying consequence of invading Iraq, and history may yet show that it was the plan all along.

Recall Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea. He basically stated which countries we would target.

Might he have been telling those countries that we knew their nuclear weapons development programs to be collaborative? It was after that speech that they stopped sneaking around with what they were doing.