Shouldn't we talk with Iran and Syria in hopes of changing their ideology, just like Reagan did with the USSR?

Question

Looks like talks are starting to work with N. Korea.....I know its early, but lets hope so..

oh, I'm no fan of Iran and their prez or government structure, but I think their general public should see that we aren't against regular Iranians.

SALT Treaties, I need to look that up....sorry for my ignorance...

I knew about the SALT Treaties.....I just didn't know the acronym

peg, isn't musharff in Pakistan

Isn't Assad in Syria....

Ironically, Reagan used arms build up as a prelude to mutual arms reduction and communication.

Answer 1

Hmmmm - I guess the SALT treaties didn't accomplish anything huh? We should have just gone in shooting? Dumb wartards make me puke.

Answer 2

Reagan Rayguns? If you think Rayguns talked with them? ha ha
He made them an offer they couldn't refuse? He put their back against the wall and meant it and he had the whole country on his side until Iran-Contra! Then Bush Sr. screwed up everything in the middle east and South America and Cuba? Duh? The only ally we supposedly had was Russia ha ha yeah the mob?
What about Reagan the Alzheimer president? He was forceful I will give him that and we needed a cowboy in office then as well. But that little cowboy we have now is a steer in disguise and he does not scare anyone! He is manipulating this whole pic to give you propaganda and a TV war just like he promised! It won't do any good to talk now it is way past that action! Just surround your wagons and pray that is all we can do for the next two years. Time is sometimes the cure for all things, and in this case it better be or we are in for a blood bath and that won't be nice at all!

Answer 3

I think we should give diplomacy the first option- this was the approach of france and germany prior to the iraq war and it seems that they were on the right track.

you have to see the context of the middle east conflict in that it is not localised in particular countries. These are muslim countries and apparently 1 in 6 people on earth is a muslim. The main outcry in muslim countries appears to be that agressive capitalist and foreign policy by colonialists and later imperialists have been a source of strife, poverty and political instablility in the middle east and africa and any action we commit to will be seen in that context.

It pays to understand that both the Syrian (Baathist (secular(athiest)) government and the Iranian governments are against the actions of al-qaeda. Its also worth knowing that recent conferences in the middle east have come up with a unanimous verdict that terrorism is illegal in islam as it always has been apparently.

Now if we are to win the hearts and minds of "these peoples", speaking from a western perspective, we must engage in dialogue. We cannot simply impose our values on them when their systems of infrastructure is unable to handle it- this was the fault of western foreign policy in much of africa which has led to failed governments there,

As with N.Korea, Talks have begun long time ago- the consular officials of the US PRK and japan have all been in discussions behind closed doors with the US president saying "we dont negotiate with terrorists" meaning that he doesnt but his guys do.

Answer 4

Talking is great as long as you're aware of who really is in charge of the Government in these places. Musharraf of Syria has little influence with the Extreme Radicals gaining more and more control in that Country. The Party of the Ayatollah Khomeini is now in control of Iran. I don't believe their Ideology is going to change in the next Decade or two. I'll always be in favor of trying to come to the "Round Table" with our enemies.

Answer 5

Reagan walked away from the Soviets. He said he could build them faster and better and the Soviets knew they couldn't keep pace. Which is the basis of peace through strength

And they are the 6 party talks. China owns North Korea. So they are the ones that can make the change with North Korea

Answer 6

Nothing can replace diplomacy. Of course we should be holding talks with both the nations you mentioned. It is an unfortunate fact that Mr. Bush refuses to speak with anyone he doesn't like - and anyone who disagrees with him. He has no concept of diplomacy and no one has yet been able to convince him... He surrounds himself with "yes" men and women who spend their time "kissing butt", if you will.

Diplomacy is the only way to get along with the nations of the world. And he simply won't practice it..... I just hope we can hold it all together until he is out of office; when a serious leader will sit in the Oval Office and begin repairing the damage Bush and his thugs have done.

Answer 7

Of course we should. America should be opened-minded enough to talk to Iran, Syria, and North Korea, but in an international convoy. But the problem is that their regimes and governments are totally opposite to ours. And when Bush referred to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and Cuba, Syria, and Libya as "Beyond the Axis of Evil", it does not foster hopes of having open and honest dialogue. Its hard to believe about 25yrs ago Iran and the US had cordial diplomatic relations.

Answer 8

Talking didn't bring down the USSR & won't bring down the Baathist or the Mullahs. The USSR's economy colapsed leading to disintegration. The only thing they understand is force or the credible threat of force. China has more leverage on N Korea than we do. I'll believ the N Korea talks are succeeding when we see results. Remember Carter's talks with N Korea in the early 90's brought "results" that got us where we are today.

Answer 9

Are you nuts?!?!?! Fanatics are not in touch with reality so trying to reach them and suggest a change in their ideology would be idiology. The only thing these two countries would be good for is a spot in the desert for nuclear fusion and establishing a glass parking lot!!

Answer 10

Sure lets sit down and have tea and crumpets with them,maybe they will give us a key to their city.