NO. What is wrong with these people, that they routinely shout “Death to America”, on the streets, and even in their parliament?
If you want to start a thread on the disturbing nihilism of a powerful faction in Iranian politics, feel free, but that doesn’t actually have much to do with attempts to reduce the likelihood of Iran (and those powerful and nihilistic politicians) gaining a nuclear weapon.
You appear to be in favor of increasing the likelihood of Iran obtaining nukes, all in the name of some strange principle that the US has never held to historically anyway. I think that’s extremely foolish, and in the real world, we sometimes negotiate with shitty people in order to improve US national security.
Why? Is the US an autocratic state with extreme religious overtones in it political discourse?
Negotiating with terrorists is NEVER a good idea. Do you disagree?
Um, yes?
I certainly disagree with such a blanket statement. We’ve done it many times before. Trump is getting ready to do it again with North Korea, and while I don’t expect it to go well, I hope it does.
Classic black and white world view. Unfortunately, the world is really billions of shades in between.
So, in other words, you’re in favor of bombing Iran, right?
I’m glad you’re not an elected official, then.
Trump is, though, and he’s been negotiating with terrorists for months, and is getting ready for the culmination of these negotiations in Singapore. Do you support Trump?
Do you think negotiating with terrorists is a good idea? Yes, or no, please.
It depends. Sometimes it’s a good idea, sometimes it’s a bad idea. In the real world, diplomacy and foreign policy is complicated.
I answered your question. Will you answer mine? Do you support Trump’s negotiations with terrorists?
No, it’s never a good idea. Also, North Korea is no where near Iran in terms of terrorism.
So you think there are shades of grey within terrorism? Some terrorists aren’t so bad as others? And if you’re so critical of negotiating with terrorists, why are you focusing on something from years ago that’s over, instead of the ongoing negotiations with terrorists of our current administration? There’ve been plenty of threads about Trump’s ongoing negotiations with terrorists, and I don’t recall you coming in and railing against negotiating with terrorists.
What have these alleged North Korean terrorists done in, say, the last five years?
So now they’re just “alleged”, even though they’re on the US State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism list?
I guess you’ve answered your own question about when it’s okay to negotiate with terrorists – when they’re at that acceptably low level of terrorism that D’Anconia deems not too bad. You’re okay with negotiating with terrorists, but they just have to be the right kind of terrorists.
It’s NEVER ok to negotiate with terrorists. Full stop.
And yet you’ve failed to criticize Trump for doing so in those other threads, while being happy to criticize a done and over with negotiation from Obama. I wonder why that could be? Any ideas?
Sounds like they don’t like countries that overthrow their government and install a dictator; support another dictator who uses WMDs against them; and shoot down their civilian airliners, killing all aboard. To name three.
Negotiations led to the release of the 52 hostages taken from the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Negotiations also led to the release of 102 hostages held by Hizbollah in 1982 on. Negotiations also led to the Good Friday Peace Accords between the UK and the IRA.
If it were up to you, you’d wouldn’t pursue the release of those hostages, and you’d rather have a continuing conflict in Northern Ireland?