Glad someone grasps the concept.
Some here seem to think, that Iran gives a monkeys tail ,if thier percieved as good or bad guys. I don't know if thats just being locked into western thinking or if they have been playing to many video games?
Who cares if Iran has no intention of talking? Some here seem to think that the US/Iran relationship exists in a vacuum without the influence of other countries, world opinion, and geopolitics. The reason for making Iran into the bad guys isn't to make the mullahs so sad that they stop making nuclear weapons, it's so we can exert diplomatic, economic, and strategic leverage on them using all the tools of US power at our disposal.
Anyone that says being open to talking to Iran is a bad idea either doesn't understand the situation or is pushing an agenda. We lose NOTHING by being open to it, we could still bomb them if we wanted to, we can still do whatever we feel is necessary to get Iran to behave, we've just taken their single biggest club that they use against us out of their hands and now we can beat them over the head with it.
Maybe all the people who think being open to talking with Iran is bad can explain the virtues of pretending they don't exist and doing nothing instead.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
i think imadinnerjacket is done for. his domestic policies have been giant failures so he's trying to rally nationalism. unfortunately for him, his boogeyman in washington is gone.
odd how dub and imadinnerjacket are so very similar
if by 'fight' you mean educate and give people a piece of the real world instead of the afterlife through jobs, friends, and non-government/church civil organizations, then yes.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You don't seem to grasp what is being said. It's not that the pundits believe that being open to talking with Iran is a bad thing. It's that it's a waste of time because Iran had and has absolutely no intention of engaging in honest diplomacy in the first place. I think that's become pretty clear to all now (and to toot my own horn it's something I've claimed in P&N for quite some time). Somebody had to put their true intentions on display and Bush, with Obama's help, have done just that. Classic good cop/bad cop routine. Now that it's out in the open the RoTW needs to wake up, realize that diplomacy with Iran is futile, and impose that economic and strategic leverage on Iran. Talk is cheap. Iran knows that well. The time for talk with them is over.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
I have often thought about this meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad. What I picture is Obama offers Ahmadinejad a cigarrette, only it has a load in it. POP! Can you picture that? Obama ROFL & Ahmadinejad as white as a ghost, looking for his virgins. That is how a standown between the 2 Countries would go also. Doesn't really matter if Obama is strong or weak, in regards to Iran.
LL has it right- Iran is a politically diverse nation, much like the US. Ahmadinejad is the Iranian equivalent of GWB, a hard liner, but lacking real power. His position is a lot more ceremonial that being president of the US.
He was elected in response to the whole axis of evil routine from the Bush Admin, somebody who'd stand up to America, stand up for Iran, and he has.
And the remark wrt failure of our policy towards Iran is really quite true- we've allowed their government no legitimacy whatsoever for 30 years, yet they're still there, and show no signs of going away anytime RSN. Failure is as failure does. If we want things to be different, then we have to make the first move, which Obama has done.
The more our govt raves about teh ebil Eyeraynyuns, the more they'll feel threatened, the more they'll support their own hardliners. Unlike the Bush Admin, the Iranian hardliners don't have to puff up the threats they face- The military might and economic hegemony of the US, particularly under the Bush Admin, has been a very real threat to them. From their perspective, it doesn't help that we refuse to muzzle our nasty little attack dog in the region, Israel.
Possibilities for rapproachment, as was done with the Soviets and the Chinese, are quite real, and have been for many years. We've simply refused to engage in them. That's the kind of policy change required, and what the Iranians are talking about. Like it or not, their govt is legitimate, and has the support of the populace, particularly when it comes to rejecting foreign interference in their affairs. The only regime change they'll accept is of the internal kind, and the only way we might see what we want is to back off and let them determine their own destiny.
He was elected in response to the whole axis of evil routine from the Bush Admin, somebody who'd stand up to America, stand up for Iran, and he has.
And the remark wrt failure of our policy towards Iran is really quite true- we've allowed their government no legitimacy whatsoever for 30 years, yet they're still there, and show no signs of going away anytime RSN. Failure is as failure does. If we want things to be different, then we have to make the first move, which Obama has done.
The more our govt raves about teh ebil Eyeraynyuns, the more they'll feel threatened, the more they'll support their own hardliners. Unlike the Bush Admin, the Iranian hardliners don't have to puff up the threats they face- The military might and economic hegemony of the US, particularly under the Bush Admin, has been a very real threat to them. From their perspective, it doesn't help that we refuse to muzzle our nasty little attack dog in the region, Israel.
Possibilities for rapproachment, as was done with the Soviets and the Chinese, are quite real, and have been for many years. We've simply refused to engage in them. That's the kind of policy change required, and what the Iranians are talking about. Like it or not, their govt is legitimate, and has the support of the populace, particularly when it comes to rejecting foreign interference in their affairs. The only regime change they'll accept is of the internal kind, and the only way we might see what we want is to back off and let them determine their own destiny.
I don't know TLC, some would say the best strategery is to force a closed nation to be more open. Closed nations like NK and Iran thrive on being shut out by the rest of the world. It allows their leaders to engage in all sorts of crazy behavior and then blame the rest of the world, who are "obviously" out to get them. And who are their people going to believe? And then when some adventure-seeking yahoo like Bush lists them on a stupid "axis of evil," it simply makes the mad mullahs and crazed dictators all the more believable.
Someone wrote a book about this exact topic. I wish I could remember the name/author...
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Oddly enough, GWB has pursued diplomacy with NK while shunning Iran at the same. If he was as close-minded and simple-minded as you and your like-minded brethren in here claim, then why should he differentiate between the two? Besides that, you assume that Iranians are too stupid to understand that our beef is with their government, not the people. Poor assumption.
btw, the ad hominem idiocy of trying to couch this as some sort of backwoods, or cowboy, mentality shows how far you guys have to reach to make an argument in the first place. I guess that sort of thing appeals to the ignorant, partisan side of the isle though?
Last but not least, you can't force a closed nation to be open. Iran is the one closing themselves off and has been for decades. That has become apparent right now more than ever and the Iran apologists in P&N can't make excuses any longer. Your GWB ticket has been punched. There are no more holes.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I'm sure they he that with Bush at one point as well. I take RESULTS not promises from someone like him.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
He doesn't have much choice but to say this. Of course he'd rather not, but he's painted into a corner. It's kind of funny.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
They've been talking about a meeting for years. The difference is that Bush was predictable and could be counted on to not take them up on it. They don't know what to do right now because Obama is taking them up on the offer. As I said in my previous post, it's quite amusing to see them scramble.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Ok, and when talks fail.. And Obama takes the same position as Bush that there is no negotiating with that idiot.. then what? You'll praise the Obamamessiah for trying?
By that logic, we should also beat up on Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and pretty much everyone in the banking industry.
...wait, what am I saying? Let's get on with it!
Nope. Countries run on ideologies and rhetoric are brought down by information, not bullets. Just look at how the Soviet Union collapsed...its citizens were finding out that the morally bankrupt, socially divided, environmentally polluted West was, in fact, better than their communist utopia in every measure. Not a shot was fired, and our TV satellites did more of the work than our spy satellites!
What happens next is that the rest of the world is on our side, since we made the effort instead of writing it off as doomed before anything was attempted.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Jagec makes somewhat of an assumption in saying, "What happens next is that the rest of the world is on our side, since we made the effort instead of writing it off as doomed before anything was attempted."
When, in fact, US policy towards Iran has been about as rational as our Cuban policy, namely entirely self serving, and most other nations know and dislike that type of American Imperialism. Unfortunately, Obama seems predisposed to continue that US policy. And so does our Sec of State Hillary Clinton.
And when and if the talks commence, I am guessing that the lower level people doing most of the negotiations will quickly find a lot of common ground where US and Iranian interests dovetail, but at least in the initial talks, any consensus reached will be torpedoed when Obama, Hillary , and Achmadinejad start to weigh in. And as a result the initial talks will not result in much.
But in a year or two, those initial talks may result in more rational policies as future talks commence, as both sides realize the futility of present policies.
And hopefully, in another six months, Achmadinejhad will be voted out of office, as his term end 8/09, and be replaced by a more rational and less divisive Moderate.
When, in fact, US policy towards Iran has been about as rational as our Cuban policy, namely entirely self serving, and most other nations know and dislike that type of American Imperialism. Unfortunately, Obama seems predisposed to continue that US policy. And so does our Sec of State Hillary Clinton.
And when and if the talks commence, I am guessing that the lower level people doing most of the negotiations will quickly find a lot of common ground where US and Iranian interests dovetail, but at least in the initial talks, any consensus reached will be torpedoed when Obama, Hillary , and Achmadinejad start to weigh in. And as a result the initial talks will not result in much.
But in a year or two, those initial talks may result in more rational policies as future talks commence, as both sides realize the futility of present policies.
And hopefully, in another six months, Achmadinejhad will be voted out of office, as his term end 8/09, and be replaced by a more rational and less divisive Moderate.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Well, yeah. And when it does fail, it will prove how naive those who thought dialogue would help actually were. Well, except Obama. He'll get an award or something.
Nope, then we will be in a far stronger diplomatic position with all other countries that are interested in the Iran problem. Obama will have strengthened the US hand in securing further sanctions or whatever else we want, and we'll have paid nothing for it but a little jet fuel.
I will once again have to state how baffled I am that people are against even trying diplomacy with Iran because they think it won't work. It has other benefits to our country outside of anything that Iran does. The Bush administrations Iran policy was mind bogglingly stupid, literally the worst imaginable stance I can think of for a country to take. Not negotiating with Iran allowed them to continue activities we didn't like, and gave us no means by which to stop them short of bombing them. It's like it was amateur hour over here. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
On a related note: Ahmadinejad is now playing damage control. Aided by a more open tone by the west among other reasons, Khatami, the former moderate president of Iran has announced a challenge in the upcoming elections, and in response Ahmadinejad has been backpedaling on his stances against the US and other countries, trying to strike a more conciliatory tone.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
B...b..but Bush!
:roll:
The total embargo of Iran was imposed under Clinton in 1995. Katami attempted some reconciliation in '98 but the US set pre-conditions for any talks that included changes in Iranian policy on Israel, nuclear energy, and support for terrorism. Yet for some unknown reason certain people always blame Bush as if everyone before him was open and willing to talk with Iran. That sort of revisionism is ridiculous.
Nor am I against diplomacy with Iran. But let's not fool ourselves into believing it'll be anything more than going through the motions to expose the farcical nature of Iranian intent to those too dumb to recognize that Iran had/has no intent to deal diplomatically with the US in the first place.
The posters before me were saying that talking to Iran was a pointless idea, considering this is a direct and purposeful shift from the Bush administration's policy, mentioning the shortcomings of the Bush administration's policy on the matter seems pretty relevant, don't you think? People need to stop using the b..b...but Bush! thing to shut down legitimate debate the same way they tried to throw the dumbass BDS thing around the same way. Oh, and I like how you followed it up with a b...bu...but KKKlinton! No sense of irony today huh?
I never defended Bill Clinton's Iran policy in any way, nor the Iran policy of any previous president over the last half century or so. So what if other people had terrible Iran foreign policy too? Bush was the immediate predecessor, and he had 8 years to do something about it. He only made things worse, and the statements by other people on this forum were an implicit endorsement of them. As I have mentioned many times, the actual outcome of negotiations with Iran is only part of it. I have never claimed that diplomacy would solve our Iran problems, in fact I have repeatedly stressed the benefits outside of the negotiation. If it works, all the better. If it doesn't, we still win.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
No, I don't think focusing only on Bush's policy is relevant whatsoever considering his policy wasn't any kind of significant shift from previous admins. About the only thing bringing up Bush alone demonstrates is your myopic focus on Bush as the core of our problems with Iran, which is a clear sign of that "dumbass BDS thing." As far as Clinton, I'm not slamming his policy either. I'm pointing out that it was really no different than Bush and, like Bush, he did what he felt was right regarding Iran.
You should know well why nothing will change in regard to Iran's willingness to engage the us in any meaningful diplomacy. It's because it's the same religious conservatives pulling the strings regardless of who their president is, or ours. However, if we have to go through the motions to prove it to the fools who can't seem to comprehend the futility of it all, fine. Let's do it so they'll finally shut the fuck up. It's worth it for that, if nothing else.
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