retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I am not sure what you mean... I am saying there HAS been nothing but conflict for 6000+ years... and there is no answer. Nothing anyone including Obama can do to change that.
I am not sure what you mean... I am saying there HAS been nothing but conflict for 6000+ years... and there is no answer. Nothing anyone including Obama can do to change that.
Oh god so now threads that deal with fundamental Islamic countries are "Islamaphobic?"
And then you attack someone's education? Someone is over-compensating...
You can be an Iran sympathizer all you want. But you can be damn sure you will be called on it.
So are you agreeing that a lot of the people on this fourm are clueless?
or are you making a self proclamation that you are one of these clueless people?
No. You are clueless if you don't see that this turn of events is a significant victory for the US. The situation in nominal terms is the same as before: Iran and the US not talking, right? The difference is, that before the world saw the US as being the one that was unwilling to negotiate with Iran (correctly). This made it exceedingly difficult for us to get any sort of real international pressure on them, because it looked like we were just being stupid by refusing to even try.
Now on the other hand, the Iranians are the ones that look like shit. We haven't had to spend a dime, drop a bomb, or rattle a saber and Iran's international position has been weakened. People saw this coming, this was one of the reasons to elect Obama in the first place. He did more to weaken the Iranians simply by being elected than all that Bush has tried for the last 7 years.
You seem to be implying that by now refusing to negotiate Iran has strengthened its position, when reality is the exact opposite. That's probably why people were calling you clueless.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Let me try it this way then:
If I told you I was a democrat who voted Obama and made that statement as a sarcastic aside that in addition to the economic crisis and 2 wars that Obama has to deal with, that this article also raises the expectation that he can implement peaceable relations between Iran and the US, does that clarify my meaning for you?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Iran's real intention regarding talks hasn't changed one iota. It's just that their facade of bullshit and two-facery has now been exposed for all to plainly see. Anyone who didn't recognize that before Obama was elected was a fool or merely an apologist for Iran, of which we have a few of those in here.
Huh? I'm talking about diplomatic leverage, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Of course Iran wants nuclear weapons, now we're just in a better position to deal with it because Obama has signaled he will abandon Bush's retarded foreign policy of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
What diplomatic leverage? Are we going to force Iran to talk against their will?
Iran has now demonstrated that they were full of shit about talks taking place. They had no intent to do so then and now make it clear they have no such intent in the future. So apparently Bush was a hell of a lot smarter than all his detractors who claimed he was the big stumbling block to diplomacy. Everyone claiming that should now know they got played...hard. Bush ends up looking a hella lot smarter than any of you, in retrospect.
I'm not sure what to tell you other than you don't know what you're talking about, or you are being willfully ignorant.
No, not forcing Iran to talk. Talking to Iran is not the point of this, and I can't believe how you can't see that. I'm talking about diplomatic leverage over Iran with France, with Germany, with Russia, with the rest of the Middle East. For 7 years we've looked like morons refusing to talk to Iran, and they got to look like the poor picked on country that the US was trying to destroy. When we extend the hand of friendship to them and they slap it away, we score a HUGE victory. Now they can no longer hide behind the veil of persecution, and we can bring diplomatic pressure on them in the form of more sanctions, closer inspections, and god forbid if we need to use force on them we can show how we tried diplomacy first and they refused.
Bush's diplomacy towards Iran was catastrophically stupid. It is almost criminal how incompetent it was when someone who hasn't even been sworn in yet is able to score a diplomatic coup for our country that eluded Bush for the better part of a decade. We've had no luck getting other countries to follow suit with Iran for many reasons, but a big one was that they have always come back to us and said "have you tried talking to them about it?" To which we've always shamefully had to say no. The only person who has been played this whole time is Bush. If Iran was as bad as he says they are, then he should have known all he needed to do was call their bluff as Obama has. He was too pigheaded, too stupid, or too ignorant to do it.
So how exactly was Bush right again? Even if Iran never says a word to us, we are in a better position internationally today than we were with the onus of the diplomatic freeze being on the US. This cannot reasonably be taken in any way to be anything but a diplomatic victory for the US. That you're trying to argue otherwise is simply baffling.
You lose nothing by talking. Absolutely nothing.
Thank God Conservatives are not in control of this country anymore. They have failed us so horribly.
Thank God Conservatives are not in control of this country anymore. They have failed us so horribly.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Yeah, we're all going to be one big happy family with Russia, France, Germany, et al now.
:roll:
Are you really that politically naive or just a sad case of political idealism run amuck, as is the case with so many in here? I'm sure there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I will simply tell you this - Watch and learn over Obama's admin. You'll see how this plays out. Iran will be just as instrasigent with Obama in power as with Bush. Placing more diplomatic pressure on them, even assuming Russia and others are more on our side, won't change a damn thing where Iran is concerned.
Good responce, I guess you got me on that one.
I have to admit, it never occured to me that all the other countries negotiating with Iran where not implementing stricter positions solely due to sympathetic concerns that the US was to stubborn to sit at a negotiateing table without preconditions.
Thank you, now I understand that since the US is willing to negotiate without preconditions, all the other countries should have no reason to be sympathetic, and will respond with "real international pressure" to address their own concerns with Iran.
So, are the US preconditions no longer conditions the US cares about? are they no longer deal breakers?
BTW this doesn't negate the simple truth that Iran is trying to position itself as the dominant force entering into negotiations by having with their own preconditions, will it work? we will have to wait and see. However if you didn't see this test of our new president by Iran comming it wouldn't surprize me.
The best part of this whole discussion is watching those who wholeheartedly supported the Cheney song and dance about how "We don't negotiate wit Teh Ebil!" are now claiming that it's the Iranians who won't negotiate, and acting as if the bushistas really wanted to negotiate all along... quoting some rather obscure Iranian sources in the process, claiming it's the policy of Khamenei, who really has the final say. It's not, and no sort of talks could possibly even begin until several months after the June election in Iran...
But, rave on. The sad truth is that there's nothing about Iran's relationship with the West that couldn't be made a helluva lot better by recognizing that the Iranian govt is legitimate, that Iranians like it a helluva lot better than any we've tried to push off on them for decades... and that our continued efforts to topple the government there merely strengthens the Mullahs' hold on power... Iranians will sideline the Mullahs all by themselves once the Mullahs can't show themselves to be defenders against western imperialism...
Conventional "wisdom" wrt Iran hasn't worked over the last 30 years, and there's really no reason to think that it will, ever. The new US admin could really shake things up by unilaterally granting full diplomatic recognition to the Iranian govt, ending covert efforts to topple that govt, and lifting sanctions, insofar as that's possible w/o acts of congress... It'd cut the Iranian and Israeli hardliners off at the knees.
The Bush Admin needed foreign "enemies" to promote their domestic agenda, and went to great lengths to create those kind of relationships. I suspect, I certainly hope, that the new domestic agenda won't be leaning on the boogeyman, so maybe we can drop the pretense...
But, rave on. The sad truth is that there's nothing about Iran's relationship with the West that couldn't be made a helluva lot better by recognizing that the Iranian govt is legitimate, that Iranians like it a helluva lot better than any we've tried to push off on them for decades... and that our continued efforts to topple the government there merely strengthens the Mullahs' hold on power... Iranians will sideline the Mullahs all by themselves once the Mullahs can't show themselves to be defenders against western imperialism...
Conventional "wisdom" wrt Iran hasn't worked over the last 30 years, and there's really no reason to think that it will, ever. The new US admin could really shake things up by unilaterally granting full diplomatic recognition to the Iranian govt, ending covert efforts to topple that govt, and lifting sanctions, insofar as that's possible w/o acts of congress... It'd cut the Iranian and Israeli hardliners off at the knees.
The Bush Admin needed foreign "enemies" to promote their domestic agenda, and went to great lengths to create those kind of relationships. I suspect, I certainly hope, that the new domestic agenda won't be leaning on the boogeyman, so maybe we can drop the pretense...
Yes, yes.. This is all Bush's fault. Iran was clearly in line to be our friend until Bush came around. Yeah, thats right.. Bill Clinton certainly didn't act the same way when it came to Iran. Clinton didn't impose tons of sanctions. Clinton didn't refuse to talk to Iran. Nooo, of course not. Bush just started all this stuff when he came to office.
Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.
Our relationship with Iran has been the same for 30 years people. It doesnt matter who our president is, they will say what ever they can to look like they are the good guy in all this. People obviously buy off on it, as you can see in this thread. They aren't afraid of Obama any more than they are afraid of Bush. They have ALWAYS done stuff like this. Ahmadinejad's statements here are nothing new and nothing more than games to catch suckers; hook, line and sinker.
The problem with Iran goes as far back as the US putting into power the Shah of Iran, later we set up Saddam Hussein to fend off the Iranians after the Shah was deposed. Every problem we have in the Middle East is of our own doing. I dont think we would give a rat's behind what happens there if it weren't for oil and Israel, and we already know Israel can do a better job of defending itself than we can. It's definitely time to move away from oil dependence and let the Middle East go to wherever.
But Clinton!
Yeh, it's true, Bill was hated by the Rightwing because he stole their issues, and taking a hard line against Iran was one of them. He took the easy way out. He did the same wrt Iraq, too.
In many respects, he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower, foreign policy-wise... He never had the domestic standing to do it any other way, even if he wanted to.
Nowhere in all of this has anybody tried to figure out what it is that the Iranian people want, even though it's right under our noses. What they seem to want, first and foremost, is to be free of foreign domination, which is entirely understandable, given the past. What they also want, apparently, is to reduce the influence of the Mullahs, but that comes second, particularly when the Mullahs are the champions of what they want most, which is honest independence. They'll support the mullahs only so long as the West can legitimately be considered a threat to what they want most... Take away that threat, and they'll sideline the Mullahs the same way the Pope is sidelined in europe...
Yeh, it's true, Bill was hated by the Rightwing because he stole their issues, and taking a hard line against Iran was one of them. He took the easy way out. He did the same wrt Iraq, too.
In many respects, he was the best Republican president since Eisenhower, foreign policy-wise... He never had the domestic standing to do it any other way, even if he wanted to.
Nowhere in all of this has anybody tried to figure out what it is that the Iranian people want, even though it's right under our noses. What they seem to want, first and foremost, is to be free of foreign domination, which is entirely understandable, given the past. What they also want, apparently, is to reduce the influence of the Mullahs, but that comes second, particularly when the Mullahs are the champions of what they want most, which is honest independence. They'll support the mullahs only so long as the West can legitimately be considered a threat to what they want most... Take away that threat, and they'll sideline the Mullahs the same way the Pope is sidelined in europe...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter