[edpc]

Robert E. Hunter is a senior adviser at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. He was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998.

The time period of his ambassadorship shows the origins of this pap. How in the hell can this guy believe we can have any reasonable dialogue with this current crowd in Iran? Does he bother to read the papers to which he submits his articles?

[PetroniusMaximus]

How do you talk to this?

[Number57]

There's no question that if Iran developed nuclear weapons the move would further unsettle the Middle East

"IF"... seems like we've heard that "If" before.

[Aussiebabe]

I am sure that Hunter and the Washington Post would have been urging the USA to talk to Germany and Hitler back in the 1930's. Nothing much has changed has it?

[Tzimisce]

...all we've been doing is talking to Iran. Meanwhile, they're busy building bombs...

[Bobibutu]

"It might even draw Iranian forces over the Iraqi border to attack U.S. troops."

I would like to see a mass charge of Iranian "troops" al la the Iran/Iraq war and meet up with the non-lethal "heat ray" now deployed with our forces.

The little Golden Keys (purchased from Tiawan) given to the chargers who were willing to give up their lives for it's promise - might just change their minds.

Call it instant re-programming! This would be a good thing.

Bring it on!!!

[Number57]

Yes - time to talk.

[tomahawk]

Talking to the Mullahs is far more dangerous than going to war with the Mullahs.

Millions dead (talk) vs. thousands dead (air strikes).

[boycottliberalhollywood.com]

Time To Talk With Iran

U.N.

Please stop.

Iran

No.

Okay, now what?

[claudiustg]

Bomb first, talk later.

[luvbach1]

At the same time, a U.S. attack on Iran would likely cause a spike in the price of oil, alienate Muslims, create a split within the NATO alliance, and lead to an increase in terrorism. It might even draw Iranian forces over the Iraqi border to attack U.S. troops.

And what would the nuking of an American city or cities likely cause?

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

American and Iranian leaders are talking a great deal about each other -- when they should be devoting far more attention to talking to each other. Both sides are throwing sharp verbal punches with increasing frequency, amid news reports of a possible U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and continued efforts by Iran's leaders to advance their nation's nuclear capability.

This is the same old crap we heard from the liberals during the Cold War.

Before dispensing his advice (which was usually some form of appeasement or surrender), the liberal policy wonk would first criticize both the U.S. and the Soviet sides -- tsk, tsk -- in order to appear "evenhanded" and to establish himself at a "morally superior" Olympian position from which to hand down his advice.

The liberal policy wonk would be wilfully blind to the huge moral discrepancy between the two sides, one being an aggressive, expansionist totalitarian dictatorship holding numerous countries captive under the heel of its boot, and the other standing for freedom and democracy.

However, the liberal policy wonk would get to gratify his ego by seeing his advice on the pages of the NYT or WaPo and feel important schmoozing at Georgetown or Upper West Side cocktail parties.

[Reactionary]

As usual, wonderful liberals are true to form. When Iran has treated everyone on the planet like clowns, liberals figure it's merely a sign that the Iranians are really interested in, you know, "coming to terms with the problem."

Such delusional stupidity should be illegal.

[Leatherneck_MT]

We should send 2 faxes to Mamood the Mad.

1 of Nagasaki
1 of Hiroshima