Edwards urges direct talks with Iran

Ron Burgundy · 02-18-2007, 09:11 PM

AP - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran," Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them."

America's relationship with Iran emerged as a hot topic last week amid reports the Iranian government was shipping armor-piercing weapons to militias in Iraq.

Some intelligence reports suggested the shipments were being authorized by top Iranian officials. President Bush acknowledged Iran was providing hostile weapons to Shiite groups, but stopped short of blaming top Iranian leaders.

Edwards said Bush's reluctance to open diplomatic lines with Iran and Syria was costing the United States in its efforts to stabilize Iraq. The former North Carolina senator said the U.S. and its European allies have the leverage and resources to enlist Iran's cooperation.

"The way for America to engage them on this issue is to use the economic tools available ... to make it clear if they are willing to give up their nuclear weapons we are willing to make nuclear fuel available to them," he told the AP.

Edwards said the United States should offer a serious package of economic incentives and make it public, "so the Iranian people, who have not been historically anti-American, know that we've made this offer ... and hopefully drive a deeper wedge between a radical leader (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and his own people."

Edwards also discussed the Senate's failure Saturday to pass a resolution opposing Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He said it was up to Congress to find other ways to curtail America's involvement.

"That means using its appropriations authority in the Constitution to put a cap on the number of troops in Iraq so they can force (Bush) to start drawing down the number of troops," he said. The reality is the Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate and such a move would require Republican votes, and any such legislation would face a certain veto by President Bush.

Edwards also addressed criticism aimed at his campaign pledge to fight poverty in America. In recent weeks, Edwards has taken heat for his new multimillion-dollar home in North Carolina, which features a handball court, swimming pool and basketball court.

Laughing at a question about the home, Edwards said the work he and his wife, Elizabeth, have done to help less fortunate people speaks for itself.

"We've shown that commitment through our lives, not just in our public lives but in our private lives as well," he said.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070219/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008 [link]

Rouger2 · 02-18-2007, 10:10 PM

I don't like this buying off people to get them to act civilized. All countries have to do is act up a little and they know dear old uncle sugar will reward them with a little candy. I know people think we can afford it but we can't We are borrowing billions to keep us afloat and only paying back the interest on our huge growing debt.

hsmith · 02-19-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't like this buying off people to get them to act civilized. All countries have to do is act up a little and they know dear old uncle sugar will reward them with a little candy. I know people think we can afford it but we can't We are borrowing billions to keep us afloat and only paying back the interest on our huge growing debt.

It is a lot cheaper than war

SoFlaJDM · 02-19-2007, 10:13 AM

why would we want to talk to the enemy though? let's just turn that place into a big pile of glass

RMNIXON · 02-19-2007, 06:08 PM

Edwards:

Handouts and Wish upon a Star!

They are sitting on a shit pile of oil. They don't need our friendly nuke fuel and want weapons. Try listening to their leadership?

Try pretending to be leadership?

Kytro · 02-19-2007, 06:29 PM

Well of course they want weapons, getting nukes gives you more security than not having nukes.

Rouger2 · 02-21-2007, 03:24 PM

We can give Iran what they want but you know what happens when you give in to a child who is acting up they will just demand more, and more, and more until you are flat on your back

Kytro · 02-21-2007, 06:32 PM

First of all Iran isn't a child, it is another nation. There are political and sociological factors at play, reducing it to a simple analogy isn't possible.

There is no reason to believe the threat of force will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology. It has not stopped anyone else.

The use of actual force opens an entirely new can of worms and there is a significant danger entire region would be plunged further into chaos and increase the risk to US soldiers and civilians.

Rouger2 · 02-22-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

First of all Iran isn't a child, it is another nation. There are political and sociological factors at play, reducing it to a simple analogy isn't possible.

There is no reason to believe the threat of force will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology. It has not stopped anyone else.

The use of actual force opens an entirely new can of worms and there is a significant danger entire region would be plunged further into chaos and increase the risk to US soldiers and civilians.

Who is talking about force. I just don't want to give them a reward to stop them from doing what they are doing, and that is a perfectly good analogy. Don't try making the world out to be more complicated than it is.

Kytro · 02-22-2007, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Who is talking about force. I just don't want to give them a reward to stop them from doing what they are doing, and that is a perfectly good analogy. Don't try making the world out to be more complicated than it is.

Group behavior is entirely different individual behavior. The world is complicated, because people are complicated and groups of them even more so even when they display group think.

Rather than go with this US good, Iran bad attitude when trying to deal with a situation it is best to look at how best to deal with situation at hand. Iran might be doing things which the international community does not like, but the US and Israel, and other nations do as well.

The idea that Iran will obey the NPT while the US condemns it and ignores the NPT itself is fantasy. Sanctions are completely ineffective in stopping nations getting nuke tech (the knowledge is too common).

The concept of not rewarding bad behavior may seem sound but the consequences will most likely be Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

In light of what is happening in NK, Iran in unlikely to change it's course significantly via sanctions of threats, but diplomacy might work. It may not work forever, but as long as the US babbles on about Iran being evil and refusing to recognize / talk to them the more paranoid Iran will be.