The only drawback from my generation of readers seems to be that the habitual readers among them prefer riding below the radar. Most of my great-reading friends don't participate in any of those on-line reader review vehicles.

As for the younger generations not reading, there's lots of hope if they can assemble blogs. Soon enough they'll find that they have to read to know enough to keep filling the spaces they create or to perpetuate their opinions. I've seen this increase in reading already among the 20-somethings with whom I work. So I have lots of hope.

I will not put such concerns aside.
How dare we judge them by both what they say, and their past actions?

I'm sorry, when did Iran say they wanted a Caliphate? Because any Caliph supported by the majority of the Ummah would almost certainly not be Shia. Your fears don't even make sense, let alone having any foundation in reality.

They're sitting on enough il and natural gas to keep their country spinning at far above it's current living standard for most of 1000 years, and we're supposed to accept the idea that they need to use nukes for power generation?

Only if they don't export that oil and gas. Having nuclear power would allow them to consume less of their own resources, making more available for export. Giving them light water reactors would let them accomplish this publicly stated goal, without giving them weapons technology or material.

They're sitting on enough il and natural gas to keep their country spinning at far above it's current living standard for most of 1000 years, and we're supposed to accept the idea that they need to use nukes for power generation?

Please...

That's highly questionable even absent their long history on the matter.

Correct. But not with terrorists bent on imposing a world wide caliphate.

Ok, putting aside the ridiculous assumption that Iran wants a caliphate, why shouldn't we give them a light water reactor?

Why not? Light water reactors have been out carrot of choice to stop proliferation.

Correct. But not with terrorists bent on imposing a world wide caliphate.

Credibility.

I'm sure Iran feels they would be making the same sacrifice. So again, what are we sacrificing that puts the onus on them to show good faith before entering negotiations?

Arrrr. You've just disqualified yourself.

You CAN'T be SERIOUS.

Why not? Light water reactors have been out carrot of choice to stop proliferation.

Credibility

Already gone...

light-water nuclear reactor technology

Arrrr. You've just disqualified yourself.

You CAN'T be SERIOUS.

... but what is the US giving up by talking to Iran or Cuba?

Credibility.

FWIW, even an unloaded gun can be a decent weapon if all you are facing is a guy with a rubber chicken.

Again, I ask, since it was outright ignored on the first pass; Let's hear it, liberals.. what carrot would you offer Iran?

Lifting sanctions, light-water nuclear reactor technology, replacement parts for their mostly US manufactured military equipment, business and trade deals, a place in determining the future of the middle east, and that's just off the top of my head.

Anyway, I would say a carrier battle group or 2 is pretty decent leverage, and we already have these.

Only if Iran believes we will use them absent successful negotiations. Iran has good reason to believe that we won't.

Having a gun is useful in negotiating, unless the other guy is convinced it's filled with blanks, then it's as useful as a rubber chicken.

Sounds pretty conditional to me...

Only if you are hearing what you want to hear. Gates has not named any preconditions for talks with Iran.

Anyway, I would say a carrier battle group or 2 is pretty decent leverage, and we already have these.