Iran has no interest in Obama's olive branch.

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Thump553
It's amazingly superficial news analysis (to use the term very loosely) to conclude that the outreach gesture to Iran failed. But since this conclusion comes from Fox "News" and was reached within a few hours of Obama's video to the Iranian people, the analysis is bogus. One more example of the far right hoping that Obama fails.

Anyone halfway astute in negotiations of any sort (much less the big leagues of diplomatic negotiations) can tell you there are all sorts of nuances to every response. A loud no which sounds absolute may be just posturing. To conclude that either (a) the President of Iran speaks with an authoritative voice for Iran or (b) that the Iranian leaders are naive enough to irrevocably box themselves into a single strategy at this point is foolish, to put it mildly.

Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

The adults are back to work in Washington DC.

good post Thump553.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Iran

Obama is so out of his league here its not funny.

Speaking of being out of your league.... you and 'discussing' politics <plonk>

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: K3N
great Job on Iran's part, now hopefully Obama's guru and mentor Zbignew Brzezinski won't succeed in trying to play off Russia against Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k

I :heart: you

Big shock :roll: You guys should all have an EBT convention to celebrate.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

wow

someone let loose the "fear bomb" in this thread!1!!!11!

quick take cover!!!

*buries head in the sand*

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

You live with that sting every day of your cowardly life. You are magnatized by it. You masterbate your mind with it. You are a captive of fear, a first class terrorist success story. You are already dead, poor thing.

But you will never lift your hand to protect yourself. You will only blabber like you do here, in the hope somebody else will destroy what you fear. It's you who is the malicious traitor. You don't have the stomach to be a real American.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

You live with that sting every day of your cowardly life. You are magnatized by it. You masterbate your mind with it. You are a captive of fear, a first class terrorist success story. You are already dead, poor thing.

But you will never lift your hand to protect yourself. You will only blabber like you do here, in the hope somebody else will destroy what you fear. It's you who is the malicious traitor. You don't have the stomach to be a real American.

You threatened to kill someone in this thread, im not sure why you are still here, to be honest.

 

[Vic]

The quality of the political discussion is pretty much non-existent on these forums nowadays.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
The quality of the political discussion is pretty much non-existent on these forums nowadays.

Obama is causing the right to feel their childhood traumas and they are all reverting to that age. The cultural acceptance they enjoyed that supported denial is dying. There has to be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

You live with that sting every day of your cowardly life. You are magnatized by it. You masterbate your mind with it. You are a captive of fear, a first class terrorist success story. You are already dead, poor thing.

But you will never lift your hand to protect yourself. You will only blabber like you do here, in the hope somebody else will destroy what you fear. It's you who is the malicious traitor. You don't have the stomach to be a real American.

You threatened to kill someone in this thread, im not sure why you are still here, to be honest.

I already said what that was about but for you I'll make it especially clear.

In threads where folk support giving away their Constitutional freedom for the sake of feeling safe, say imprisonment without trial, I always suggest I agree and they would be the first I arrest. I try to show people what idiots they are by applying their stupidity to them. Every 'do good' simpleton in the world always imagines that he himself will never be touched by his own stupidity. By hoisting them on their own petard I try to help them think. All these cowards want terrorists dead and they don't care how. It is the nature of fear driven hate to be irrational. I just try to give them a taste of what that looks like.

You are probably a card board person with a regimented life that keeps you running on a specific track but I don't mind at all being a complete and total imbecile if you are if it's what it takes to show you who you are, not to kill you, but to help you.

It is something of an amusement, though, when I do this that folk like you want to punish me for being who you are.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I already said what that was about but for you I'll make it especially clear.

In threads where folk support giving away their Constitutional freedom for the sake of feeling safe, say imprisonment without trial, I always suggest I agree and they would be the first I arrest. I try to show people what idiots they are by applying their stupidity to them. Every 'do good' simpleton in the world always imagines that he himself will never be touched by his own stupidity. By hoisting them on their own petard I try to help them think. All these cowards want terrorists dead and they don't care how. It is the nature of fear driven hate to be irrational. I just try to give them a taste of what that looks like.

You are probably a card board person with a regimented life that keeps you running on a specific track but I don't mind at all being a complete and total imbecile if you are if it's what it takes to show you who you are, not to kill you, but to help you.

It is something of an amusement, though, when I do this that folk like you want to punish me for being who you are.

Well said moonbeam. That was very eloquent!

People forget that what goes around comes around.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

It seems like anything short of bombing the hell out of them is considered "enabling" to you. The hard line doesn't seem to have worked. Time for a different approach. Hopefully one that avoids getting us involved in another war.

 

[Farang]

That is nice the Iranian government responded, but that wasn't who he was talking to.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Thump553
Give it some time and watch the big boys at work. Perhaps the effort will fail, perhaps it will not, but it almost certainly is nowhere near decided yet.

You act as if this has never been tried before. With these specific details and parties, sure, but to think you're doing anything other than advancing Iran's goals through buying them time. It's not just ridiculous, or ludicrous. It has to be malicious.

Those who enabled them will be remembered, should we ever feel the sting of this weapon.

You live with that sting every day of your cowardly life. You are magnatized by it. You masterbate your mind with it. You are a captive of fear, a first class terrorist success story. You are already dead, poor thing.

But you will never lift your hand to protect yourself. You will only blabber like you do here, in the hope somebody else will destroy what you fear. It's you who is the malicious traitor. You don't have the stomach to be a real American.

You threatened to kill someone in this thread, im not sure why you are still here, to be honest.

I think we all know why. We're just not allowed to say without being sanctioned.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
The quality of the political discussion is pretty much non-existent on these forums nowadays.

Obama is causing the right to feel their childhood traumas and they are all reverting to that age. The cultural acceptance they enjoyed that supported denial is dying. There has to be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Obviously, there's quite a difference between Obama and what people perceive Obama to be.

 

[bamacre]

"Iran to U.S.: "You change, our behavior will change""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...us_iran_usa_khamenei_7

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday U.S. President Barack Obama's offer of better ties was just a "slogan," but pledged Tehran would respond to any real policy shift by Washington.[/b]

Speaking a day after Obama's videotaped overture, Iran's most powerful figure criticized U.S. actions toward Iran since its 1979 Islamic revolution and said he did not see any change in practice from the new U.S. administration so far.

But Khamenei, who has final say on all matters of state, added: "You change, our behavior will change."

Indicating areas where Iran wants a different U.S. approach, he said the United States was "hated in the world" and should stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs.

He also spoke of "oppressive sanctions" imposed on the Islamic Republic, Iranian assets frozen in the United States and Washington's backing of Israel, which Tehran does not recognize.

"They give the slogan of change but in practice no change is seen ... We haven't seen any change," Khamenei told a big crowd at Shi'ite Muslim Iran's most prominent religious shrine in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties for three decades and are now embroiled in a dispute over Tehran's nuclear work, which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs. Iran denies the charge.

In a major shift from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, who branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" and spearheaded a drive to isolate it, Obama has talked of extending a hand of peace to Tehran if it "unclenches its fist."

On Friday, the U.S. president offered a "new beginning" of diplomatic engagement between the two old foes.

Khamenei said a change of U.S. words was not enough and that Obama had "insulted" Iran and its government immediately after taking office, without elaborating.

U.S. "CRIMES"

While reaching out to Iran, Obama's administration has also warned of tougher sanctions if it continues to defy U.N. demands to halt sensitive nuclear work.

"You give the slogan of negotiation and pressure again ... Our nation cannot be talked to like this," Khamenei said.

During his televised speech, the crowd chanted: "Death to America. Death to America."

In his warmest offer yet of a fresh start in relations, Obama said in his video message released to mark the Iranian New Year: "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."

Obama said "that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

Noting Obama's New Year greeting, Khamenei said: "In the same congratulatory message they accuse the Iranian nation of supporting terrorism, pursuing nuclear arms and such things ... what has changed?"

Analysts have said that Iran is setting tough conditions for dialogue to buy time for its ponderous, opaque decision-making process. Adding to uncertainty, Iran holds a presidential election in June that could strengthen moderate voices backing detente over more hardline opponents.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has demanded Washington apologize for decades of "crimes" against Iran. Tehran also says it cannot let down its guard as long as U.S. troops are posted on its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Khamenei accused the United States of links with "terrorist movements" operating in border areas near Pakistan and also criticized it for backing former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

"Iran has many grievances and it expects that the United States would finally come to recognize this," said Professor Mohammad Marandi of North American studies at Tehran University.

"Change does not come about by saying Happy New Year."

How dare he suggest that we not intervene in the affairs of other countries! :|

Does he not understand we are the world's police? What we say goes. No matter how many people have to die.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre
"Iran to U.S.: "You change, our behavior will change""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...us_iran_usa_khamenei_7

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday U.S. President Barack Obama's offer of better ties was just a "slogan," but pledged Tehran would respond to any real policy shift by Washington.[/b]

Speaking a day after Obama's videotaped overture, Iran's most powerful figure criticized U.S. actions toward Iran since its 1979 Islamic revolution and said he did not see any change in practice from the new U.S. administration so far.

But Khamenei, who has final say on all matters of state, added: "You change, our behavior will change."

Indicating areas where Iran wants a different U.S. approach, he said the United States was "hated in the world" and should stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs.

He also spoke of "oppressive sanctions" imposed on the Islamic Republic, Iranian assets frozen in the United States and Washington's backing of Israel, which Tehran does not recognize.

"They give the slogan of change but in practice no change is seen ... We haven't seen any change," Khamenei told a big crowd at Shi'ite Muslim Iran's most prominent religious shrine in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties for three decades and are now embroiled in a dispute over Tehran's nuclear work, which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs. Iran denies the charge.

In a major shift from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, who branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" and spearheaded a drive to isolate it, Obama has talked of extending a hand of peace to Tehran if it "unclenches its fist."

On Friday, the U.S. president offered a "new beginning" of diplomatic engagement between the two old foes.

Khamenei said a change of U.S. words was not enough and that Obama had "insulted" Iran and its government immediately after taking office, without elaborating.

U.S. "CRIMES"

While reaching out to Iran, Obama's administration has also warned of tougher sanctions if it continues to defy U.N. demands to halt sensitive nuclear work.

"You give the slogan of negotiation and pressure again ... Our nation cannot be talked to like this," Khamenei said.

During his televised speech, the crowd chanted: "Death to America. Death to America."

In his warmest offer yet of a fresh start in relations, Obama said in his video message released to mark the Iranian New Year: "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."

Obama said "that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

Noting Obama's New Year greeting, Khamenei said: "In the same congratulatory message they accuse the Iranian nation of supporting terrorism, pursuing nuclear arms and such things ... what has changed?"

Analysts have said that Iran is setting tough conditions for dialogue to buy time for its ponderous, opaque decision-making process. Adding to uncertainty, Iran holds a presidential election in June that could strengthen moderate voices backing detente over more hardline opponents.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has demanded Washington apologize for decades of "crimes" against Iran. Tehran also says it cannot let down its guard as long as U.S. troops are posted on its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Khamenei accused the United States of links with "terrorist movements" operating in border areas near Pakistan and also criticized it for backing former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

"Iran has many grievances and it expects that the United States would finally come to recognize this," said Professor Mohammad Marandi of North American studies at Tehran University.

"Change does not come about by saying Happy New Year."

How dare he suggest that we not intervene in the affairs of other countries! :|

Does he not understand we are the world's police? What we say goes. No matter how many people have to die.

I can respect a personal decision not to defend yourself against evil if you are Christian enough to turn the other cheek, but do you really want to paralyze the rest of us with your personal decision? I believe in the notion of just war and rational self defense and offing anybody who is unjustly bent on taking mine and if you were to try to tie my hands in the process it would include you. But such is the nature of your ideological idealistic extremism. You just seem to gravitate to the inflexibly absolute.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can respect a personal decision not to defend yourself against evil if you are Christian enough to turn the other cheek, but do you really want to paralyze the rest of us with your personal decision? I believe in the notion of just war and rational self defense and offing anybody who is unjustly bent on taking mine and if you were to try to tie my hands in the process it would include you. But such is the nature of your ideological idealistic extremism. You just seem to gravitate to the inflexibly absolute.

Poor Moonbeam and those crazy Iranians hiding under his bed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can respect a personal decision not to defend yourself against evil if you are Christian enough to turn the other cheek, but do you really want to paralyze the rest of us with your personal decision? I believe in the notion of just war and rational self defense and offing anybody who is unjustly bent on taking mine and if you were to try to tie my hands in the process it would include you. But such is the nature of your ideological idealistic extremism. You just seem to gravitate to the inflexibly absolute.

Poor Moonbeam and those crazy Iranians hiding under his bed.

Why do you play these games. Are you afraid to defend your thinking because you can't? You pretend here that I was talking about Iran when I was addressing a universal statement you made that I quoted, namely, this one:

How dare he suggest that we not intervene in the affairs of other countries! :|

"Does he not understand we are the world's police? What we say goes. No matter how many people have to die."

Are you trying to tell me that other countries means only Iran? I thought other countries could be any country I could imagine which, in the context of a just war, to my mind meant that your statement, while a concept you might personally aspire too, in the broad context of other people, was selfish and absurd. If 'an other' nation acts in a way that is a threat a country, they have a moral right to strike down that threat, in my opinion, and I asked if you are absolutist enough and too ideologically wedded to your purity to go along with that. So do you believe that we never ever have a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, any of them, if what they do there constitutes a just war defined kind of threat?

If you get in an argument with somebody who wants your spare bills and credit cards in addition to any spare change, and he reaches for an ax do you try to kick it away or stand there and get chopped in half?

Naturally, if your option is to be cut in half, I can realize why you would want to avoid saying so publicly.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can respect a personal decision not to defend yourself against evil if you are Christian enough to turn the other cheek, but do you really want to paralyze the rest of us with your personal decision? I believe in the notion of just war and rational self defense and offing anybody who is unjustly bent on taking mine and if you were to try to tie my hands in the process it would include you. But such is the nature of your ideological idealistic extremism. You just seem to gravitate to the inflexibly absolute.

Poor Moonbeam and those crazy Iranians hiding under his bed.

Why do you play these games. Are you afraid to defend your thinking because you can't? You pretend here that I was talking about Iran when I was addressing a universal statement you made that I quoted, namely, this one:

How dare he suggest that we not intervene in the affairs of other countries! :|

"Does he not understand we are the world's police? What we say goes. No matter how many people have to die."

Are you trying to tell me that other countries means only Iran? I thought other countries could be any country I could imagine which, in the context of a just war, to my mind meant that your statement, while a concept you might personally aspire too, in the broad context of other people, was selfish and absurd. If 'an other' nation acts in a way that is a threat a country, they have a moral right to strike down that threat, in my opinion, and I asked if you are absolutist enough and too ideologically wedded to your purity to go along with that. So do you believe that we never ever have a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, any of them, if what they do there constitutes a just war defined kind of threat?

If you get in an argument with somebody who wants your spare bills and credit cards in addition to any spare change, and he reaches for an ax do you try to kick it away or stand there and get chopped in half?

Naturally, if your option is to be cut in half, I can realize why you would want to avoid saying so publicly.

Wow, talk about a straw man.

It should be obvious, I meant Iran, because the thread is about Iran, and the article I referenced was about, again, Iran.

And yet, you took my statement to mean that I don't think the USA aught to be able to defend itself. Absurd.

With the exception of Afghanistan after 9/11, when was the last time we needed to defend ourselves? WW2?

You know what I meant.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jonks
go read my thread from a couple after Obama got elected and iran recognized it actually would have to deal with the US and couldn't rely on Bush's obstinate "we don't talk to terror states" position as a means of deflecting criticism.

If Iran refuses the olive branch it makes them the assholes in the eyes of the world, not us. Maybe you think that's a small thing, but obama's position makes us the good guys and Iran the obstinate assholes. See how that works?
...
We need world opinion on our side to oppose Iran effectively, and refusing to talk to them put us in a position of less power, not more.

This.

However, the impetus is still on Obama to properly take advantage of this temporary geopolitical advantage. If he pauses too long, or takes too long to gather a proper coalition of like-minded allies, the world will quickly forget -- again -- that Iran is the party refusing to talk and cooperate... IOW, we'll be right back where we were four months ago, and Iran will be even closer to a nuclear weapon.

AFAIC, this exact issue may be Obama's most difficult challenge during his first term... even more of one than the economic mess.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Rhetoric is power...

The immediate, instinctive reaction from an assistant to an associate in Iran quoted on the BBC is ridiculous. Having had their president say that dialog was possible if the US gave "respect," and then with Obama doing that very thing, his reaction was to say, "But now they must admit their past mistakes."

This is significant.

If Iran now has to back pedal and show that they are the unreasonable ones, it defuses much of their support , and it plays very well among moderates in the Gulf. They couldn't support Bush. He made it impossible, because the only terms of support were sycophancy or loss of sovereignty. Obama, on the other hand, has now made it not only possible for moderate governments to support us, but he has made Iran's president more marginal.

What is the objective? The Persian elections are surely one objective. Iran's hard line "populism" looks more and more shrill against the backdrop of Obama's calm, and hopefully that makes it easier for Iranians to vote for change.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy


Iran's government is completely rational. It's silly to think that they aren't.

Anyone that allows Sharia law is not rational. Unless you are misogynistic.

So they are rational misogynists then. I'm not saying the guardian council is full of fabulous people, just that they act rationally, which they most certainly do.

Yes, I would love to know the precise actions by the Iranian government that people would describe as "unreliable" or "not rational"? And in regards to whom?

Not doing precisely what we say or purport to permit? Not unequivocally greenlighting and supporting everything Israel does? Not tolerating the overthrow of their democractically elected leader Mossadegh in 1953 (because he had the temerity to nationalize their one big natural resource) and replacing him and supporting a dictator (the Shah) of our choosing?

Amadinijhad does not run the show in Iran, Sayyid Ali Khamenei does. The former talks a lot of smack sort of like our former President Bush. Should that reflect the views of the majority of his countrymen? It didn't when our guy was doing it.

BTW, I'm unequivocally for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament - don't you think the country with more than every other nation combined could make a good faith gesture by going first with some symbolic decommissioning? Or are we too frightened?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can respect a personal decision not to defend yourself against evil if you are Christian enough to turn the other cheek, but do you really want to paralyze the rest of us with your personal decision? I believe in the notion of just war and rational self defense and offing anybody who is unjustly bent on taking mine and if you were to try to tie my hands in the process it would include you. But such is the nature of your ideological idealistic extremism. You just seem to gravitate to the inflexibly absolute.

Poor Moonbeam and those crazy Iranians hiding under his bed.

Why do you play these games. Are you afraid to defend your thinking because you can't? You pretend here that I was talking about Iran when I was addressing a universal statement you made that I quoted, namely, this one:

How dare he suggest that we not intervene in the affairs of other countries! :|

"Does he not understand we are the world's police? What we say goes. No matter how many people have to die."

Are you trying to tell me that other countries means only Iran? I thought other countries could be any country I could imagine which, in the context of a just war, to my mind meant that your statement, while a concept you might personally aspire too, in the broad context of other people, was selfish and absurd. If 'an other' nation acts in a way that is a threat a country, they have a moral right to strike down that threat, in my opinion, and I asked if you are absolutist enough and too ideologically wedded to your purity to go along with that. So do you believe that we never ever have a right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, any of them, if what they do there constitutes a just war defined kind of threat?

If you get in an argument with somebody who wants your spare bills and credit cards in addition to any spare change, and he reaches for an ax do you try to kick it away or stand there and get chopped in half?

Naturally, if your option is to be cut in half, I can realize why you would want to avoid saying so publicly.

Wow, talk about a straw man.

It should be obvious, I meant Iran, because the thread is about Iran, and the article I referenced was about, again, Iran.

And yet, you took my statement to mean that I don't think the USA aught to be able to defend itself. Absurd.

With the exception of Afghanistan after 9/11, when was the last time we needed to defend ourselves? WW2?

You know what I meant.

Wow, talk about a straw man. You use the term 'the affairs of other countries' and then when I ask you if you really mean any other countries including any country that might pose a real and immediate threat you pretend I'm speaking as though I'm paranoid of Iran and then implied I was suggesting you don't believe is self defense when in fact that was exactly what I asked you if you believed or not. If you want it to be obvious that you mean Iran I suggest you think about what you say and not say something like all countries when you're talking about a specific one. That bit of logical inconsistency is exactly why I questioned what you said. Do you mean Iran or all other countries and all other cases? I especially am in doubt in your case because you are, in my opinion fanatical in your absolutes like the absurd notion that fanaticism in the pursuit of justice isn't fanaticism when we all know that justice is represented by a scale.

And since I was speaking about general principles self defense vs pacifistic isolationism the last time this or that happened is immaterial. You claim you're talking about Iran but it was pretty clear, I think, that I was talking about principles and ideas.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jonks
go read my thread from a couple after Obama got elected and iran recognized it actually would have to deal with the US and couldn't rely on Bush's obstinate "we don't talk to terror states" position as a means of deflecting criticism.

If Iran refuses the olive branch it makes them the assholes in the eyes of the world, not us. Maybe you think that's a small thing, but obama's position makes us the good guys and Iran the obstinate assholes. See how that works?
...
We need world opinion on our side to oppose Iran effectively, and refusing to talk to them put us in a position of less power, not more.

This.

However, the impetus is still on Obama to properly take advantage of this temporary geopolitical advantage. If he pauses too long, or takes too long to gather a proper coalition of like-minded allies, the world will quickly forget -- again -- that Iran is the party refusing to talk and cooperate... IOW, we'll be right back where we were four months ago, and Iran will be even closer to a nuclear weapon.

AFAIK, this exact issue may be Obama's most difficult challenge during his first term... even more of one than the economic mess.

Indeed it will be difficult in my opinion because I can see no way around the rights of other countries to pursue nuclear power if that is their sovereign choice. I see no way around the fact that one country that has nuclear power and nuclear weapons can't logically or morally justify another country not having them too without implying the hypocrisy of moral superiority. We will either have to use force to stop Iran or welcome them as equals.

With the Soviet Union we comforted ourselves that God is on our side. That may come back to haunt us as Allah may have other ideas. I don't enjoy the thought of fighting people anxious to get to heaven.

But we will have to do the best we can because the day is coming, technologically, when a single mad man may be able to end all life on earth. One day we may actually have to treat the problem of self hate. But as you may already suspect, the denial of that reality is profound.