Motes and beams

steve

Sorry but talking to one's enemies (as was repeatedly done in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and China) is not the same as appeasement. It was a foolish comparison by Pres. Bush because, as Ms. Phillips rightly points out, members of his own administration have also advocated talking with Iran. I'm also surprised Ms. Phillips didn't go after another prominent American politician who expressed the following: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that." What left-wing appeaser said this? John McCain.

Antoine

Have you ever been to Iran Melanie?

I'm guessing not...

I have. And I have never visited a country whose government are more hated by their own people; think Scotland under Thatcher times 10. Elections are unreliable there, as most are contests between 2 mullah-sanctioned authoritarian conservatives whom noone much likes, so turnouts are very low. Student protests are very dangerous indeed for those who participate, and yet they remain common. This is demographically a very young country, and one in which the hunger for westernisation, democracy and secularisation is palpable, and there is an air of inevitability about such ideas - as I see it only one thing could possibly derail such a progression; attack by a foreign power. Give the Iranian government a scapegoat for it's own economic mismanagement, an excuse for it's repression and an external threat as a focus for patriotism, and all the regime's Christmases will come at once.

Iran is not a country of religious extremists or terrorists - it is a country governed by them. This distinction matters because, as with Iraq, the best way to make the Persian in the street into a violent extremeist would be blunt military action.

You advocate treating a cancer with a shotgun, and I profoundly hope you are ignored by those who are prepared to talk.

THX1138

From Drudge-People want to talk to him.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/19/2008-05-19_obamas_swept_away_by_sea_of_supporters_2.html

He is going to be a fantastic president.

Michael B

The double irony is that there were people whom the senator (and the PM and the President), in 1939, could have talked to. However, they had names like Goerdeler and Kordt and Bonhoeffer and they were members of Germany's underground resistance, seeking to depose Germany's leadership.

There's a lesson there, Senator Obama.

Lisa

Antoine, tell us something we don’t know, please.

We know that the ordinary people are owned by the fanatics, that’s the way these things work. Always have, always will do.

That is not an excuse for letting the fanatics get their way. Doing nothing only strengthens them. There is only so much the West can do to destabilise I’madinnerjacket, what it cannot do is let this man get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

Joe

he agreed with liberal New York Times columnist Tom Friedman that ‘we need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them.

Well to be fair to Thomas Freidman, this passage suggest that "we" only negotiate with Iran after we have something to blackmail them with to beat them into compliance.

Matthew Blott

Melanie please play another record. I expect this tired rhetoric from a moron like Bush but you are capable of better.

Verity

"But that’s ok cos as we all know, if you’re a Democrat what you say doesn’t have to correspond to reality — reality has to correspond to you." Thank you, Melanie! These words should be carved in stone on Mt Rushmore! Tee hee.

Matthew Blott - I'd like to see your evidence for claiming that President Bush is a moron, please. He seems highly intelligent to me, right from his SAT scores when he was in school up to winning a Bachelor's from Yale and went on to winning an MBA from Harvard. (And no, his Daddy didn't buy them for him.)

President Bush was elected Governor (that means chief executive) of Texas twice in a row. This was a first, and proved that a majority of 30m people thought he had done an outstanding job in his first term.

He speaks fluent Spanish. (Well, he may speak it the way he speaks English, but he is fluent).

I was wondering how the above tallies with being a moron.

Ann

A silly blogger calls Bush a 'moron'. Ah well, I suppose you have run a country the size of the USA from your pram without any difficulty at all, right?
Being steadfast in one's principles is not 'playing the same record', you silly little man.

Ian C

McCain needs to do 'angry' about the the way Obama painted him in this speech. He rebutted it well but needs passion to disconcert O supporters.

THX1138

Howdy Verity - Bush might not be a moron but he does have the lowest poll ratings for job since they started recording them.

Only 28% of Americans think he's doing a good job

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr10/0,4670,BushCongressAPPoll,00.html

So much more fun to link to a Fox news page.

I thought it was very funny that according to the polls Mcain was more tarnished by his association with Bush than Obama was with the Rev Wright.

Jacqueline

Yes, Antoine, isn’t the state of the Iranian people pitiful?

Iran is a template of how we will live under the Caliphate, only even worse, because we’re non-Muslims, so if it’s all right with you, I want someone to stop the Iranian President.

As for Matthew Blott asking Melanie to “play another record”, don’t worry yourself too hard, Matthew.

You won’t hear any records in the Caliphate because music will be banned.

Brian O'Connor

There's some thought that Bush actually was referring to Carter's recent visit to the middle east.
http://tinyurl.com/57htgu (scroll down)

There are good reasons not to negotiate with Iran, especially without preconditions.

First, the negotiations legitimize the mullocracy, and weaken the domestic opposition who would otherwise point to Iran's international isolation as an example of the mullocracy's failure.

But if you're going to negotiate, what criteria and what time frame will you identify beforehand which, if unmet, will cause you to unilaterally cease negotiations, perhaps in favor of something else (further sanctions, military action, or a ho-hum attitude)?

You know — what's your "exit strategy," the criteria you will use to identify the failure of your best negotiational efforts?

The price of negotiations is time. If you're going to negotiate with the mullocracy, how long will you do so without tangible results — as in they shut down their nuclear weapons program and allow that to be verified?

The problem with negotiations is that they tend to be never-ending, unless there are well-defined criteria for breaking them off.

(One can always make the case that even though A, B, and C failed, we still haven't tried D, or E, or A-sub-1 or . . . and if you have a vested (reputational/political) interest in seeing the negotiations succeed, you're less likely to end them than to pretend they are really working.)

If all your negotiating partner wants is to buy time to complete his construction of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and the purpose of negotiating is to stop such developments, then your negotiations are being used against you, more and more so as they drag out over the months and years. (It's worth noting that the Europeans have spent 4 years negotiating with Iran and have accomplished nothing.)

Mel — your point about Bush trying to force Israel to negotiate with their would be executioners is a good but chilling one.

Juan in Spain

I think it is irrelevant what Obama says and does, because he will never be president.
The remnants of racism in the USA will surely see to that.
What is interesting is that Israel Government are reportedly admitting to speaking to Hamas. So, not only are the speaking to the "good" bad guys (Fatah) - now they are speaking to the "very bad" bad guys.
This course of action is against Israeli Government policy.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "Howdy Verity - Bush might not be a moron but he does have the lowest poll ratings for job since they started recording them.

Only 28% of Americans think he's doing a good job"

Question: THX1138, what percentage of us 'mericuns think Congress is doing a good job?

Brian O'Connor

Steve: Your McCain quote was carefully and deceitfully edited from what he actually said by James Rubin of the WaPo, who left out one or two key phrases.

But don't take my word for it. Read this post by Ed Morrissey, and if you don't believe him, watch the video he links to of McCain saying the words that Rubin selectively cut-n-pasted: http://tinyurl.com/5kpd54

Lou Dobbs, no great friend of McCain, nailed Rubin here: http://tinyurl.com/5j9y9t

It's all on video.

Dave

I'd hope that Mel was a bit smarter than some US commentators. (about 4 mins in)
http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/16/1032033.aspx

Frank Pulley

Best stick to science fiction THX1138, Brian Connor has his feet on the ground and an eye out for bullshitters.

Frank Pulley

Antoine

You write: >You advocate treating a cancer with a shotgun, and I profoundly hope you are ignored by those who are prepared to talk."<

From this and many other posts I have always inferred that, on the contrary, Melanie recommends attacking this cancerous growth with a carefully focussed dose of radio therapy, before its metastases spread around the globe. And I hope that those who could apply the therapy will do it forthwith, rather than standing around rabbiting until it is too late. The time for talking is long gone: probably around about the time of the Third Crusade.

Reid of America

Juan in Spain says "What is interesting is that Israel Government are reportedly admitting to speaking to Hamas."

This is nothing new. Israel has communicated with hamas through Arab and European back channels for many years. The US has communicated with Iran through Swiss and European diplomats since the revolution and hostage drama in 1979. To equate back channel diplomacy with Obama's no preconditions for a state summit is laughable. It shows the juvenile nature of Obama and his supporters.

Brian O'Connor

Dave wrote: "I'd hope that Mel was a bit smarter than some US commentators. (about 4 mins in)" (URL truncated to http://tinyurl.com/63kbn9)

Chris Matthews likes to pick the low hanging fruit — it probably sends a thrill up his leg ( http://tinyurl.com/5jbhd7 ) to push hard a person whose opinion is based more on faith than knowledge.

It's a pity that Mr. Matthews is either unable or unwilling to push equally hard on Mr. Obama or one of his surrogates, but then, where would advocacy journalism be if he did?

In any event, there really are one or two more worthy adversaries for Mr. Matthews' rapier-like intellect to challenge, and it's too bad didn't pick one — say someone like this guy: http://tinyurl.com/4ymoqr .

THX1138

Danny Thinks Obama is Kosher too

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/05/will-the-jews-s.html

The money quote

"Overwhelmingly it is liberal sentiment. From marching with Martin Luther King to becoming a mainstay of Democratic fundraising, Jews have overwhelmingly identified with the liberal movement in America.

I think Obama will have a great deal of appeal to Jews."

THX1138

Brian-"Question: THX1138, what percentage of us 'mericuns think Congress is doing a good job?"

Well the answer is not many as I'm sure you knew when you asked the question.

You were probably trying to deflect from The Presidents historically awful polling by changing the subject which is fair enough I suppose.

I wondered why so I did some googling and the best explanation came from the Gallup web site.

Ironically even with a Democrat controlled Congress It would appear that these low Congress poll ratings are also the Presidents fault.

"Americans' ratings of Congress are almost always lower than their ratings of the sitting president"

Interesting reading if you have a minute

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx

Brian O'Connor

Juan in Spain wrote: "I think it is irrelevant what Obama says and does, because he will never be president.
The remnants of racism in the USA will surely see to that."

That's a pretty nasty thing to say.

It starts as an unsupported and unfair ad hominem attack (most 'mericun voters are racist http://tinyurl.com/65ke3o ) and then couples that false assertion with a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. http://tinyurl.com/57gnps

Here's the structure of your argument, which assumes that Obama loses to McCain:

1) There are remnants of racism in the USA.

2) Obama fails in his election bid.

3) Therefore he lost because voters are racist.

Here's the falsification of your thinking:

1) Ford builds cars.

2) I see a car.

3) Therefore it is a Ford.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 provided a URL to Gallop, and wrote: "Ironically even with a Democrat controlled Congress It would appear that these low Congress poll ratings are also the Presidents fault."

I guess I missed where Gallop said that. I see a correlation, but I fail to see causation. Is it possible — just possible, I mean — that a correlation is not causation, or that whatever causation there is might be in the other directioh?

Just wondering.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 provided a URL to Gallop, and wrote: "Ironically even with a Democrat controlled Congress It would appear that these low Congress poll ratings are also the Presidents fault."

It occurs to me that the THX1138 has elevated victimhood to an art form.

So what you (and the people at Gallup?) are suggesting is that our congressmen and Senators are, well, unable to present their own case in a convincing way? That grown men and women, elected by their constituents to exercise their independent judgement, are unable to stand up to Bushitler? That they ar victims of his power?

If that's true, what's the purpose of having 1/3 of our government (the other two being the Executive and Judicial branches)?

I must say that the idea that Congress are victims of Bushitler . . . well . . . seems improbable . . .

THX1138

C'mon Frank all I did was point out that Bush has historically low poll ratings for the job which is a fact & you resort to insults by calling me a "bullshitter". Please tell me where I have got my facts wrong?.

All Brian in round about way said was that Congress has worse ratings than the President I don't think that he tries to refute my point only change the subject

As you can see from my earlier post that Congresses historically low ratings are due to a drag factor from the Presidents

The insults always come when you make a good point.

Ann

That's not the falsification, Brian - that's just a demonstration of the stupidity of his 'argument' ;)
However, you did expose it better than I did, in my (mysteriously vanished) post.

susan

well said

steve

Brian. You're right that Rubin left out the second bit of McCain's quote but that doesn't change the ultimate point that he advocated a policy of talking with Hamas under certain conditions. I don't see how this differs from what Obama is proposing.

As for the discussion about Congress, the Republicans are in big trouble. They lost a "safe" congressional district in Mississippi last week, despite putting in considerable resources, and even senior party members are expressing despair. Regardless of what your politics are, it looks to be a good year for the Democrats all round. There is a real excitement around Obama's candidacy (witness 75,000 turning out to hear him speak in Portland on Sunday) that McCain can't match.

Doug

Ann, I'm fairly certain that your post disappearing is due to the fact that most,if not all of your posts are the sort of imbecilic claptrap that prior to the advent of the internet the world was thankfully spared from reading.

Frank Pulley

Doug

You admonish Ann for 'imbecilic claptrap' and point out that before the advent of the www it would not have been given a platform. Conversely neither would your put-down. So perhaps the world is a better place for both contributions being expressed in the public arena - or not, as the case may be. At least more people have a chance to decide, but only if the moderators cyber blue-pencil is wielded sparingly.

'The World' has a scroll button so it doesn't have to be 'spared' anything.

Ann

Thanks for your wise words, Frank.
I would add also that I have not seen Doug display much knowledge of the Middle East, or much else, in his postings.

THX1138

Brian-Actually I wasn't trying to make a partisan point I was genuinely interested & surprised that Congress so empathically won by the Democrats so recently should be less popular even than a Republican president who has such awful poll ratings.

The Gallup site (who I'm sure have the correct data) just pointed out that historically that Congress historically lags behind the popularity of the incumbent president & therefore it would seem a logical step to surmise that Congresses historically low poll ratings are in some way due to the unpopularity of Bush. I made no inference as to why this should be so but it does seem to be a fact.

If you want my opinion as to the reason that Government a whole is so unpopular well I think that can be seen in the polling that shows record numbers of Americans 81% who think the country is going in the wrong direction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

And the reason for that to para phrase Bill Clinton it's the war & the economy stupid

Surely as the incumbent President Bush cannot duck responsibility for 81% of his fellow Americans thinking the country is going in the wrong direction. Congress is a sideshow.

When Obama wins a convincingly in November (fingers crossed) I'm sure we will see these polling numbers improve markedly.

THX1138

Brian-Actually I wasn't trying to make a partisan point I was genuinely interested & surprised that Congress so empathically won by the Democrats so recently should be less popular even than a Republican president who has such awful poll ratings.

The Gallup site (who I'm sure have the correct data) just pointed out that historically that Congress historically lags behind the popularity of the incumbent president & therefore it would seem a logical step to surmise that Congresses historically low poll ratings are in some way due to the unpopularity of Bush. I made no inference as to why this should be so but it does seem to be a fact.

If you want my opinion as to the reason that Government a whole is so unpopular well I think that can be seen in the polling that shows record numbers of Americans 81% who think the country is going in the wrong direction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

And the reason for that boils down to the the war & the economy

Surely as the incumbent President, Bush cannot duck responsibility for 81% of his fellow Americans thinking the country is going in the wrong direction. Congress is a sideshow.

When Obama wins a convincingly in November (fingers crossed) I'm sure we will see these polling numbers improve markedly.

Levy

Ann:
I don't know how you can criticise anyone on this blog for content of postings or lack of knowledge, given some of the rabid, natonalistic contributions I saw from you on the 'war against the jews' blog.

You ranted about the ideals of 'Greater Israel' but refrained from answering other contributors' polite questions concerning the actual extent of this GI. You also at one point praised J Stalin.

Please look in the mirror before dishing out further muck.

Verity

The time for talking is long gone: probably around about the time of the Third Crusade. Classic Frank Pulley!

THX1138

Great Quote from Obama about talking to Iran

"Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America."

Ann

Levy:
I totally refute your comments. Although I do not wish to declare my agreement or disagreement with theses attributed to me on the previous blog you have cited, I can confirm that they are the work of some clown impersonator and not of me, the long-standing blogger on these pages.

Familiar Clown

THX - That 'great' quote from Obama seems a bit irrelevant and inmature to me. Can't imagine anyone actually having a meaningful pow wow with this madinnerjacket fella. Presidential diplomacy, huh! Peace in our time, Huh! Pull the other one.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "Great Quote from Obama about talking to Iran . . . But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies?"

Or not . . . I fear Obama is unable or unwilling to distinguish between the threat of conventional war between two rational nations, both of which fear destruction, with asymmetrical war as conducted by religious zealots who believe in martyrdom and the coming of the 12th Immam.

THX1138: what makes you think the Iranian mullacracy operate within the framework of the logic and values of the enlightenment, as viewed through your post modern prism?

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote on May 19, 10:45: "Ironically even with a Democrat controlled Congress It would appear that these low Congress poll ratings are also the Presidents fault."

Your recent post (May 20, 9:40PM), which was a response to my calling you on this quote, is a clumsy lateral arabesque that clearly avoids the point I made.

Thus, the Gallop Poll you cited did not say this. Neither is there proof that the "low Congress poll ratings are also the President's fault" any more than contra.

Believe as you will. But the readership deserves better than a distraction.

THX1138 wrote on May 19, 10:45:"Surely as the incumbent President, Bush cannot duck responsibility for 81% of his fellow Americans thinking the country is going in the wrong direction. Congress is a sideshow."

Surely, as a Democrat controlled Congress, Congress cannot duck the responsibility for 81% of their constituents thinking the country is going in the wrong direction. The President is a sideshow.

Think pork, immigration, precipitous pullout from Iraq, willing the goal of energy independence but denying the means, etc.

Brian O'Connor

Steve wrote: "Brian. You're right that Rubin left out the second bit of McCain's quote but that doesn't change the ultimate point that he advocated a policy of talking with Hamas under certain conditions. I don't see how this differs from what Obama is proposing."

Well, it's hard to know what Obama's position is. Is he fer or agin preconditions before he negotiates with Iran? Is it impossible for him to separate himself from the person of Rev. Wright, or not? Is Wright his spiritual advisor or not? Will he force a renegotiation of NAFTA or not? Is Iran a major threat or not?

We do agree that the Republicans are in deep doo-doo. And perhaps, too, that is their own fault. I believe that the Dems will pick up lots of seats in Congress, but Obama will be crushed.

Why?

Because people tend to vote their self-interests, base though they are, when they cast their ballot for House Representatives and Senators.

But they tend to vote for what's in the best interests of the nation when they vote for president.

It's only a theory, my personal theory, but there you have it. (I might note that Hillary has been crushing Obama, with one or two exceptions, over the past 3 months or so . . ..)

Ann (the original)

Levy, the one with the rabid nationalistic comments about 'Greater Israel', a concept I abhor, was not me at all but a troll pretending to be me - the same troll who posted the nonsense at 11:58 about being the 'long-standing' blogger and about me being 'some clown'.
And how can you tell? Very simple: I am not that ignorant that I'd use the word 'refute' when I mean 'reject' or 'deny'. Only illiterates make that mistake.

THX1138

Brian- THX1138: what makes you think the Iranian mullacracy operate within the framework of the logic and values of the enlightenment, as viewed through your post modern prism?

Your right I don't know & neither do you and unless you talk to them you will never find out.

Regan talked to the "Evil Empire" and a member of the "Axis of Evil". He negotiated with the Mullahs to get the US hostages back before he became President, they were released on the day of his inauguration

They were open to reason & logic back then why not now?

Juan in Spain

Brian O'Connor. You seem to have to respond to every post to put people right!
What I say about remnants of racism may seem "nasty" to you, but it is what I see as the truth.
If you read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7411868.stm
You will see what I am talking about.
Pockets of racism are alive and kicking in America.

Michael B

Obamanation1138,

Your "great" Obama quote, wherein Obama (yet again) rhetorically informs us of "the truth," has so many holes in it it's risible - and therefore serves as a tell-tale remark upon the quality of Obama's thinking as well as the thinking of his supporters, aptly named in the originating post.

Several items could be noted, but one is that while Obama has indicated he will meet with entities such as Iran and Hamas *** without any preconditions, Kennedy didn't meet with Khrushchev until after the missiles were removed from Cuba, a precondition of some note, to put it in very modest terms. (Or if Obama is thinking of the talks that were occurring in the midst of that crisis, those talks were proceeding only while a military blockade had been effected - another precondition of note.)

Such facile rhetoric, this time via analogy, is not uncommon among politicians, but given the gravity of this particular matter (compared, for example, to such overblown rhetoric when merely addressing domestic policy issues), relevant to global stability and a certain vision of the future, it is more than merely disappointing since it speaks to foundational misconceptions in Obama's thinking and planning for that future. This is facile, Carteresque reasoning and rhetoric, and I can't think of a worse pejorative expression.

(Overblown rhetoric applied to domestic issues is less notable because domestic issues are always finely filtered through the other two branches of govt. whereas international policy and relations is more directly managed by the executive branch. It is also less notable because it is of less consequence on the stage of history, in terms of global stability.)

In short, here and elsewhere you are THX in your own solipsistic world only - and you evidence literally no desire to escape that world. To the contrary.

*** E.g., entities such as Iran and Hamas have, all too literally and without any exaggeration, used Hitlerian eliminationist rhetoric.

THX1138

Brian- Avoiding the points that don't fit one's POV seem to pretty prevalent on this blog, did you not move the argument on re my post on The Presidents terrible poll ratings by changing the subject & talking about Congress. A successful strategy as it happens because I'm going to address your points.

I'm not sure what "lateral arabesque " means sound a bit high falutin latte liberal speak to me. I meant "fault" in the broadest sense I e that Congress always polls worse than the incumbent President & looking at the chart that does seem hard to dispute.

I really do think that you are stretching the point mighty to thin to blame a Congress controlled by the Democrats for 18 mths for the fact that 81% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction. I thought Bush was the decider & does the buck not stop with him anymore?

Bush has been very liberal with the pork with the US national debt now at record levels & way, way above the figure he inherited from Clinton.

A majority of American's believe that the Government should either set a timetable for withdrawal or withdraw immediately

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Bush was for further immigration as his buddies in big business want the cheap labour, my understanding was that this really got up the nose of the GOP base.

On energy independence I don't know. Bush has made some speeches but lets face he owes his job to big oil.

So on your points regarding Congress being responsible for 81% Americans thinking the the country is going in the wrong direction I can safely say that they are either the Presidents fault or his hands are dirty of the country agrees with Congress as in the case of troop withdrawal.

I personally still think that disastrous handling of the war, Katrina & the perilous state of the economy are the real reason that Americans are sick to death of their current president.

THX1138

Michael- Thanks for the reply to my post but was it really necessary to call me Obamanation1138 why would you wish to be rude to me? Obama has a very good chance of being the next president of the US lets show some respect.

I'm sure your right about the sequencing of the talks with Khrushchev but I think the key is in the talking without the talking we might have had nuclear armageddon. Talking is not the same as agreeing and as Nelson Mandela said of his negotiations with the National Party in South Africa.

"Things are always impossible until they happen"

I do resent being accused of having a closed mind (I think that's what solipsistic means). I come to this blog exactly because I want my views of the world challenged I wonder how many of you do the same? Of course I don't always agree with what is written & I disagree with Mel & many posters on social issues, Obama, climate change but I have completely changed my views on Israel since reading this blog regularly & now fight the Israeli corner with my lefty mates

I never post on Israel because I don't feel qualified my only point & in the context of this post would be to say that Israel's long term success surely lies in a negotiated peace with it's neighbours & I just don't see how that is going to happen without talking.

Brian O'Connor

I wrote: "THX1138: what makes you think the Iranian mullacracy operate within the framework of the logic and values of the enlightenment, as viewed through your post modern prism?"

THX1138 responded: "Your right I don't know & neither do you and unless you talk to them you will never find out."

Given their public pronouncements, what could they ever say in private that you'd trust?

If actions do not match words, which mode of communication should you believe?

What should Obama offer them that the Europeans did not?

Which modes of coercion, if any, should the US use?

What criteria would you used to determine whether or not the Iranians are negotiating in good faith?

(Please refer to my post of May 19, 6:42PM for other problems with negotiation, at least as I see them.)

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "Brian- Avoiding the points that don't fit one's POV seem to pretty prevalent on this blog, did you not move the argument on re my post on The Presidents terrible poll ratings by changing the subject & talking about Congress."

But I thought you wanted those issues to be discussed! Was it not you who brought them up when you introduced the topic with this (May 19th, 2008 5:32pm):

"Howdy Verity - Bush might not be a moron but he does have the lowest poll ratings for job since they started recording them.

Only 28% of Americans think he's doing a good job"

Brian O'Connor

Juan in Spain: "Brian O'Connor. You seem to have to respond to every post to put people right!"

Nope. Just expressing an occasional, curmudgeonly opinion. Not so much trying to persuade people to my beliefs as to test my own thought processes against those who think differently.

Juan in Spain: "What I say about remnants of racism may seem "nasty" to you, but it is what I see as the truth."

Nasty is a charitable term, when your original claim was that racism is sufficiently rampant in the US that a black guy can't get elected. At least my other adversaries on this forum — notably THX1138 — are positive that Obama will be elected. THX1138 understands that race is not an issue with most of us voters.

And would your sense of "what is true" be infallible? How do you test "what you see as the truth" to determine if it is objectively so? Or do you?

Juan in Spain: "If you read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7411868.stm
You will see what I am talking about.
Pockets of racism are alive and kicking in America."

In another post, THX1138 wondered what a "lateral arabesque" might be. Congratulations on having demonstrated one!

You shifted your position from saying that Obama would lose because the "remnants of racism" were so prevalent in the American electorate: ("I think it is irrelevant what Obama says and does, because he will never be president.
"The remnants of racism in the USA will surely see to that."

Now, you're merely saying that there are pockets of racism in America. That's a huge pull-back from your first statement. (And how vapid can you get? Can you show me any country where there aren't "pockets of racism?")

Michael B

Obamanation1138 is rather mild fare, given the subject matter. It's not as if I used "BS1138," which I'd more readily agree would have been rude and more personal. Obamanation reflects admittedly acerbic commentary, but it does so relative to his supposedly "great" "truth" you quoted, so again, it seems entirely fitting and wasn't intended as a personal slight.

THX1138

Brian- Do you ever feel that you are going around in circles shall we park the arguments about Congress & poll ratings I do think it's probably a sideshow for both of us & my head is spinning with graphs.

Iran is far more important I think we both can agree on that. I'm obviously not an expert in negotiations of this type & I doubt anyone else blogging here is either. I'm sure that history of negotiations between implacable enemies is littered with public pronouncements of hate while talking carries on behind closed doors.

An example might be the dialogue between the US & Europe and the other "Axis of Evil " countries N Korea & Libya both of those seemed to have reached relatively successful conclusions with the usual rhetoric carrying on in public.

If you don't talk to them how will you know if their actions match their words it would seem possible to negotiate in small steps building trust on both sides matching words with action and moving on.

I think your last points are very important, firstly It's nice to see that even in a hypothetical context you can imagine Obama as President.

Cheap jibe I know but I couldn't resist

Obama would bring the most important factor to the table the US Government & the power of his office not the Europeans but the most powerful nation on earth & we all know that nothing happens in the region without the US being engaged, when was the last time that Israel or the Palestinians listen to anyone but the US?

As for coercion- I don't know but bombing them isn't going to work it didn't seem to do much good with Saddam they all seem to glory in death & destruction & I doubt who ever wins in the US in Nov has the stomach for a second front in the Middle East & Israel would be foolhardy in the extreme to act unilaterally

I don't think any of this is going to easy ride but the least worse scenario to stop them getting their grubby blood stained little hands on the bomb is to talk to them everyone always has a price & who knows both sides might be able to pay it.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138: If I understand the thrust of your argument, it's this: we should try high-level direct negotiations with Iran (perhaps even presidential negotiations, as Obama wants) without preconditions because we don't know they won't work.

Is my understanding correct?

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "... is to talk to them [Iran] everyone always has a price & who knows both sides might be able to pay it."

Or a series of prices: Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

With World War II having the biggest price tag of all.

I fear you haven't read the post I referred you to outlining the cost of negotiations.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "If you don't talk to them how will you know if their actions match their words it would seem possible to negotiate in small steps building trust on both sides matching words with action and moving on."

Almost anything is possible . . . it's possible that if we nuke Iran into glass, Russia, China, Syria and the NoKors will appreciate that we we mean business, and will abandon their prejudices, ambitions and human rights violations in favor of the Multicultural ideal of tolerance and the celebration of diversity.

Of course, the Europeans tried your formula, and how far did they get? And while they were negotiating, how far did Iran progress with it's bomb?

I will repeat a point I tried to make in an earlier post: if Iran enters negotiations for the specific purpose of buying time until they can produce a nuke and a delivery system for it, isn't negotiation helping them achieve their goals, and working against us achieving our own? (I hope you will find time to read my earlier post, and to think about it a little.)

Forgive me, but you seem unable to think outside a Eurocentric, postmodern, multicultural box. I'm not sure you can conceive of other cultures thinking differently than you do.

Perhaps this will illustrate my meaning: When the Aztecs were faced with Cortez, they had absolutely no way to contextualize him or predict the events that would transpire, other than in their own mythology. So they regarded him as the god Quetzalcoatl, to their own destruction.*

I think a great many westerners are in the position of the Aztecs: as a culture, we assume our own ethnocentric values and ways of thinking are enduring and universal.

They are not. At least in my opinion.

(*Lee Harris wrote a fascinating article not long after 9/11 entitled "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" in which he developed the analogy I use here in the first few paragraphs. You can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/10hi

Verity

Brian O'Connor, much as I admire your arguments in this thread, I would have to pull you up on the Aztecs.

Moctezuma was a brilliant strategist and he lost to Cortez for one reason: the horse.

He had never seen, or even heard of, the horse, which is not indigenous to the Americas, before and was confounded by the speed with which men and supplies could be moved using using horses. He could not move his men, and equipment on foot, to compete.

Military buffs who study this event say that Moctezuma's strategies were brilliant and that he would have triumphed had not the Spanish brought horses with them.

Interesting.

Brian O'Connor

Verity, thanks for the response and the compliment.

My understanding, like yours, is that the horse was pivotal in Cortes's conquering of the Aztecs, but where we may differ is in this.

I gather from your post that you regard the impact of the horse as a force multiplier of battlefield kinetics. I agree with that.

But I believe that's only part of the "horse story," and perhaps the least important part.

As you point out, the Aztecs had never seen horses before, and they regarded their appearance as being consistent with the return of the fair-skinned god Quetzalcoatl, who, prophesy held, would be appearing from the east in the same year that Cortes arrived, and who Cortes was mistaken for.

The Aztecs weren't at all sure what to do with Cortes and his force (were he, his men and his horses gods? Should Monteczuma attack and gamble that Cortes et al were merely men, not gods who would destroy them?), and ended up trying to appease the Spanish with gifts of gold and jewels offered by Monteczuma's envoys who invited Cortes to withdraw. (Cortes declined the invitation: he understood appeasement and the weakness underlying the tactic when he saw it).

So the horse acted as a force-multiplier in psychological terms, too. Keep in mind that the Aztecs lived in a world where the influence of gods on men was a constant and proximate reality, where captives were sacrificed out of fear of the gods and to curry favor with them gods.

Cortes brilliantly recognized his tremendous advantage: though his band was small in number, he had the kinetic advantage offered by European tactical and material accomplishments, and the psychological advantage of a deeply religious adversary (Monteczuma) who tried to propitiate a god rather than kill a conquerer.

Had Monteczuma appreciated the threat Cortes posed, and acted decisively against him (as other, weaker, tribes did later), there is little doubt that the Aztecs would have prevailed.

Yes, the kinetic advantage of the horse was important, but only later in the campaign. In the early stages of it, the psychological impact of the horse was more important. Or so I'd argue.

(It's a fascinating period of history, and Cortes burning of his ships later in the campaign, to keep his men from deserting, was totally gutsy.)

THX1138

Brian- Yes I do think we should talk at the highest level & yes without preconditions.

These guys aren't Hitler they might talk big but we could annihilate the country anytime we liked but I'm sure we would feel plenty of pain too in the following years

I said everyone always has a price & they always do I'm not suggesting appeasement or betraying our allies in the region like Israel that would obviously be too higher price for us. But without talking to them whose knows if a bargain could be made.

Watch Jim Baker on Fox explaining on why talking to your enemies is not appeasement.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg&eur

And unlike us he is an expert on Middle East negotiations

Could you do me a favour and address my earlier point as I do think It's rather important and goes to the heart of my argument.

Regan talked to the "Evil Empire" and a member of the "Axis of Evil". He negotiated with the Mullahs to get the US hostages back before he became President, they were released on the day of his inauguration

They were open to reason & logic back then why not now?

Look it's late here & I'm off to bed but I look forward to your reply regarding Reagan's negotiations with The Iranians.

I will have sweet dreams of an Obama victory I see on Drudge he is 10% clear of McCain in the general.

Michael B

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

Excerpt:

"Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

"But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

"Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said ..."

Verity

Brian O'Connor - thank you for your brilliant addition to my post re Moctezuma. I read it with great interest.

These, to be sure, were two great men. Yes, the bravery of Cortez in burning the ships is mind-boggling.

Have you ever been to Téotéjuacan? The place, even today, is so atmospheric it gives one the shivers. (Wal-Mart wanted to put up a supermarket fairly near the site and the Mexicans said, "No way, amigo. On yer horse.")

Thank you again for your great post. I am going to reread it.

Dean

THX1138, political these people may be (that is a defining characteristic of Islam) but they are led primarily by their God and the word of their God, which is set out in The Koran. Their political agenda is always annexed to their God.

Many have been killed merely for ‘insulting’ that book. There is no ‘price’ that would have bought them their life and freedom, or any price that will buy ours.

The Koran pre-empts this with the concept of taqiyaa, which sanctifies lying for Allah and Islam. Thus it is we get the Islamists and their cowardly dupes mouthing propaganda that there is something we’ve all done wrong that we can put right.

What does this price involve exactly? Us saying: “Here’s $500 billion, run along now and make sure the next generation doesn’t try to turn the world into a Caliphate”? That’s the endgame. It was centuries ago and is now. That’s why the Crusaders put a stop to its spread. That’s why there was a battle at the gates of Vienna.

What’s the price the Christian dhimmis of Egypt, who are forced to live on the rubbish heaps there, have to pay to these people to get their freedom?

Guardian readers don’t care about them because they’re not furnished with guns and arms from their neighbours so they don’t count, innit?

Sorry, THX1138, your fantasies of appeasing these nutters are just like your poster pseudonym: pure science fiction.

Brian O'Connor

THX1138 wrote: "They [Iranians] were open to reason & logic back then why not now?"

I'll take the bait, and then explain why your logic is fallacious.

Because then, they were in a position of abject weakness with precious few assets, we in a position of strength.

Now, they are nearing completion of the bomb and a delivery system for it.

Oil is far, far more in demand and crucial to world affairs than it was then, and not only do the Iranians sit on an ocean of it, but they could close the straights of Hormuz if they chose (the fact that Iran is storing oil on off-shore supertankers now has had a huge impact on oil prices). They're gambling that we won't attack them because of what it would do to oil prices.

The UN has become decidedly and overtly anti-American, and Europe has become immobilized by political correctness and fearful of the Muslim populations it has welcomed with open arms into its bosom, so Iran can count on a lack of opposition from those two entities when in Reagan's time it could not.

Now, here's why your question is either an ignorant or a very sly one and an unanswerable one (you can play "but we don't know that any of the things you listed would prevent the success of negotiations.")

Your "why not now?" question essentially requires someone to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility. (You're not alone — one sees this form of argument, fallacious as it is, often enough, but it's not often recognized for what it is.)

I can just as easily say (as I did earlier, but you didn't catch the catch):

Almost anything is possible . . . it's possible that if we nuke Iran into glass, Russia, China, Syria and the NoKors will appreciate that we we mean business, and will abandon their prejudices, ambitions and human rights violations in favor of the Multicultural ideal of tolerance and the celebration of diversity.

So, THX1138, why couldn't this happen?

So what you do when you ask such a question — and what I did above in my Nuke example — is to improperly remove the burden of proof from the person advocating something and improperly place a burden of falsifying it on the person who he wants to persuade.

THX1138

Dean- Brian makes interesting & thought provoking points, sorry but your comment was just a rant much of which made no sense & seems to be predicated on your hatred of Islam.

As an atheist I find all religion either slightly batty or down right cruel & evil, Islam is no worse they all have plenty of blood on their hands

I have no fantasies of appeasement I have only advocated talking & seeing if a bargain can be struck If it can't it can't if it can fantastic.

I linked to James Baker Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State and no dove who agrees that talking to your enemies is not the same as appeasement

Verity

THX1138 - Did you understand the previous posts?

Do you understand taqyya and kitman, which are fundamental? Of course if we sit down and talk over a few mint teas and a lovely plate of babganouj with olive oil an agreement can be reached!

But will it be kept?

See taqqya and kitman.

THX1138

Brian-I disagree that the Iranians held a weak hand they had many US captives; America looked foolish in the aftermath of the botched rescue attempt ; the mullahs were in the grip of post revolutionary zeal with & more popular in the Tehran street than today & probably most importantly Regan wanted the deal badly to make Carter look a fool.

Your oil point is also a red herring oil is no more important now than it was in 1980 in fact the west had just been through a deep recession in the 70's thanks to the oil crisis precipitated by opec response to the Yom Kippur war. Negotiators on the Iranian side would be well aware of the bargaining power of their oil & gas reserves & could close the straights of Hormuz back then if they choose.

None of those factors puts us in a particular position of strength & still a deal was done that both sides we able to agree on because a rational discussion was possible.

Verity, Dean Michael B et all -For the last time I'm not advocating appeasement

Andrew Sullivan gets to my POV far more eloquently than I could (that is his job after all)

"We have their statements - which should at times prompt alarm - and we have their record for the past quarter century. That record suggests a despicable regime that nonetheless acts rationally in its own interests and defense. But what are our options if we assume that this regime - unlike Kim Jong-Il or Stalin - cannot be deterred? The only logical response is invasion of pre-emptive bombing, with no clear guarantee of success and an enormous chance of blow-back in the wider war.

It seems to me that keeping some sense of perspective and balance about the threats we face is not the same thing as "appeasement." Appeasement means giving a regime something in return for its aggression, in the vain hope that it will be deterred. And making the right calls in this dangerous and complex world is not made easier by facile, constant analogies to 1938."

I think Andrew Sullivan gets to the nub of the matter for me we either talk to them or destroy them personally I think we should a few words before we risk war & huge civilian casualties & you only have to look over the border to see the risks involved & Iran is a far more powerful country than iraq.

I found your last points rather confusing. My fault I'm sure.

Would you bomb or invade now with no discussion or would you talk with the threat of military action if you don't get your way?

Luckily for both of us these decisions are not ours to make I just hope that those making them think very carefully before acting.

This going to my last post on this matter you can have the last word if you wish. I wanted to say that I enjoyed the arguments which have been thoughtful & courteous on both sides unlike some of the unfocused rants & no doubt we will spa again in the run up to the Nov election.

Frank Pulley

Verity

I remember you telling us a few years ago now that you were going to relocate to Mexico. I infer from the posts on this thread that you may have decided to stay. A very interesting exchange between you and B O'C. Bet Melanie didn't realise where this thread would meander off to, but it has been a pleasant and informative diversion.

THX 1138

I apologise for implying that you are a bs; I was really warning you against selective quotes, or those out of context, as Brian has an eagle eye for such licence; perhaps I expressed myself a little crudely as I am wont to do; it's the bad company I have kept over the years. You are obviously a worthy adversary, but to return to our equine friends I think you are backing the wrong horse here, much as we would all like to think that reason always prevails and that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. America needs to let the world, not just the Islamists, know that they are the strongest nation on earth as well as the most generous and that they are prepared to flex their muscle on behaalf of the West. The craven emissions coming from certain sections of the USA, Obama in particular, and from European governments generally have convinced the Islamic jihadists that the West is divided and ripe for plucking. They have made their subversive moves already; if they go nuclear it's a whole new ball game and the outcome doesn't bear thinking about. Pacification of nutters is not possible, particularly when a death cult is involved. Sometimes attack is not just the best form of defence, it's the only form of defence, against homicidal delusion. Bush has balls, whatever personanilty defects you may perceive. One hopes that McCain's have not withered with age and political compromise. Obama is an upstart fellow traveller and Hillary Clinton is a joke as was her crooked, louche spouse.

Btw I think Brian has bested you on data and logic, but it has been a lively exchange and once again apologies for my lack of civility.

Brian O'Connor

Verity: Thanks once again for more kind words. FWIW, your post caught my imagination and forced me to assemble some ideas in ways that I really hadn't thought of before (for example, I'd never tied together the attempted propitiation of Cortes by Monteczuma with appeasement of the sort we're seeing now, and the importance of Cortes seeing it for the weakness appeasement always is). So for better or worse, it's all your fault!

And no, I haven't been to Téotéjuacan, and I am the poorer for it. I know I'd swoon — I'm an incurable romantic when it comes to history. (When in Rome some years ago, I spent an unforgettable hour sitting alone, just as the sun came up sitting alone, loving the solitude and staring at the Palatino, trying to imagine what it was like way back when.)

THX1138: Based on your last post, I fear you haven't quite understood what I've said about the impossibility of proving a negative, or the inadmissibility of shifting the burden of proof from the advocate to "prove it" to the skeptic to "falsify it." I'm sorry about that.

I do hope you will find the time to think through what I posted about making glass out of Iran — try to focus less on the concrete example, and more on the logical faux pas — which I tried to demonstrate, but which you apparently failed to grasp.

I also note with disappointment that you seem not to have read or understood the point I tried to make at least twice about the cost of negotiation with Iran — in terms of time, if nothing else. Ah well.

THX1138 wrote in another post: "As an atheist I find all religion either slightly batty or down right cruel & evil, Islam is no worse they all have plenty of blood on their hand"

I see this as a classic example of moral relativism: Islam is no worse than any other religion, because they all have blood on their hands, are cruel or evil.

I suppose it's true that no religion can claim to have been blood-free throughout its history. But if you're going to say that no religion is worse than another, then you could just as easily say that no crime is worse than another — that littering and serial torture, rape and murder are equivalent and should be punished equally because both are examples of lawbreaking.

You could just as easily extend this thinking and say that no country's policy (you pick which countries and which policy) is better or worse than any other. That, for example, that the Sudan is no worse than the US in its human rights record — which means that the US is no worse than any other country, and must not be criticized unless all countries are equally criticized.

Or, that the policies of the NoKors and Belgium are morally indistinguishable.

Do you really believe that?

Brian O'Connor

TRX1138 wrote: "This going to my last post on this matter you can have the last word if you wish. I wanted to say that I enjoyed the arguments which have been thoughtful & courteous on both sides unlike some of the unfocused rants & no doubt we will spa again in the run up to the Nov election."

It was enjoyable, and I appreciate your courtesy, too.

London Calling

Talking to Hitler, a complete obsessed Dictator, wouldn’t have stopped him or his henchmen from going to war with the world, there was nothing to negotiate.

All situations are different and as in some cases communication however distasteful is required to penetrate those on the inside to establish new relationships, which may be beneficial for future progress on the outside.

As with Iran, the Iranian people
want rid of their Government more than the West do, and therefore we have a duty to remember these important issue before any war is proclaimed and we have another Iraq on our hands, in the sense that we have to think through all the right moves before dropping any bomb’s on innocents that make up the majority.

The PMOI should be supported by the West to topple the Iranian Government as it is my believe that in doing so would be an important breakthrough that can be achieved.

It takes courage to talk to the enemy to save the lives of others, but if we cannot talk, then we must act accordingly and justifiably and with consent of the Iranian people.

These principles should also be applied to other groups who are not prepared to promote peace, but instead promote war and instability for their people.