Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Once again, the people stand with Barack.
Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.
Here is an exclusive photo of noted leftist conservative president Ronald Reagan surrendering America conducting diplomacy with Mikhail Gorbachev:
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Did Gallup poll on meeting with Iran and other adversaries “without precondition”? Cause that is what Obama actually said.
The Bush/McCain doctrine is that we should always be afraid of countries we don’t agree with. Under no circumstances should we speak to countries that haven’t 100% signed up with our program. Because surely it isn’t like over the last 200 years we ever conducted talks with anyone who doesn’t agree with us.
And what does “precondition” mean to you, Farris? Because what we currently practice is the John Bolton model of diplomacy, in which we will agree to sit down with you only if you agree beforehand that we are correct and infallible on every point, and that you will concede everything we ask of you.
That’s not diplomacy, that’s Kafka.
SaveFarris of course you meet people without precondition. That’s the start of discussion. That’s how you find out what both parties want to move on to more substantial discussions.
The current regime, and McCain, announce their preconditions at rallies and fundraisers in a crass attempt at political point scoring.
Obama wants to announce his preconditions for serious talks in a private in diplomatic fashion without worrying about political point scoring.
Obviously the Obama way is better.
To this day I remember the damn Reds rolling their tanks down Main Street after Reagan tore up the Constitution and kneeled in front of the conqueror Gorbachev. I will never, ever forget it.
Look, we’re stronger than these guyes, so we should have some fun by yanking their chain. We should keep yanking it until something blows up in our face
…again.
To this day I remember the damn Reds rolling their tanks down Main Street after Reagan tore up the Constitution and kneeled in front of the conqueror Gorbachev. I will never, ever forget it.
I remember it, too. Me and the rest of my high school buddies sure gave those pinko Commie bastards a run for their money, though, before we were eventually overwhelmed.
WOOOOOOOLVERIIIIIIIINES!
SpiderJ:
Classic!!!
Because surely it isn’t like over the last 200 years we ever conducted talks with anyone who doesn’t agree with us.
I stand corrected: I forgot all about those FDR/Mussolini talks, the Ike/Che Summitt, and the LBJ/Pol Pot sitdowns.
I stand corrected: I forgot all about those FDR/Mussolini talks, the Ike/Che Summitt, and the LBJ/Pol Pot sitdowns.
Did you look at the picture that accompanied this post?
You bring up your satirical examples, obviously, because Iran is a perfect parallel to those situations. We are as heavily involved in combat operations in Iran right now as we were with Italy after Pearl Harbor and Vietnam after we put boots on the ground.
Yep, that picture was taken AFTER Gorby agreed to give up some of his ICBMs. If Iran agrees to give up their whole “Death to the Infidels” bit, then talks might actually have some value. Until then though, what’s to discuss?
Reagan? The guy who cut and run from Beirut instead of staying until the job was done, even if it took a thousand years? Fuck that loser.
By Iran’s “death to the infidels” bit, I presume you mean Ahmedinajad’s blustery rhetoric, which is little more than the radical Muslim version of “Bring It On.”
Iranians as a whole are not mouth-frothing conquerors ready to cut off your head. Do a little research into the facts of the country instead of just spouting off the recent spate of Evil Iran Bomb Them Bomb Them Now reports in the conservative media.
We do just fine negotiating with Saudi Arabia, after all, where more of these radical Sunni terrorists are grown. In fact…last I checked…they’re very good friends of ours.
Iranians as a whole are not mouth-frothing conquerors
The heads of State certainly are. And the Average Joe Iranian doesn’t exactly hold a lot of power, so negotiating with him/them would be about as productive as Japan or Finland inviting you or me to be the US Representative at some Summit.
Fair enough. But considering, again, that the Iranian leader’s rhetoric is just about as obnoxious and pompous–and in fact, slightly less effectual–as anything our own leader has said to the world in the past six years, who are we to be demanding “pre-conditions” for diplomatic talks?
Ahmedinajad rattles a saber he doesn’t actually have the power to wield.
I’d love to see Obama meet with Kim and Ahmedinajad. I don’t know how big of a propaganda you can make from any of it. Besides, university students in Tehran are mostly pro-American anyway. In North Korea, most of them don’t even have television sets anyway. When people talk, things get done.
Because what we currently practice is the John Bolton model of diplomacy,
i thought that consisted mainly of “Fuck you.”
the LBJ/Pol Pot sitdowns.
——————
Not necessary. We were already funding Pol Pot (with our partners the dreaded Chinese) in their war against the Vietnamese.
Samuel Beckett (the writer, not the time traveller) once said something along the lines of “if at first you don’t succeed, try again, then fail again, but each time fail better”
IMO talking and not talking are both failing, but talking has a chance of ‘failing better’ than not talking.
I would agree, but not talking also has a price as well. No friends!
And the Average Joe Iranian doesn’t exactly hold a lot of power
But they do get to vote for their presidents, just like we do. Remember, Mohammad Khatami was president of Iran from 1997 to 2005, and he was very much the sort of reformer that the US could have worked with well (though I’ll grant that the clerics have the ultimate power and they are die-hard conservatives). But instead of trying to support Khatami, Bush labeled Iran as part of his “Axis of Evil”, which, I have to believe, led to Iran’s Average Joes electing a fiery (blustery?) nationalist in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Continuing our own bluster, let alone dropping bombs, is not going to convince the people of Iran to vote for pro-(or at least non anti-)American leaders. This is not a difficult concept to understand, which is why 67% of the country gets it.
“And the Average Joe Iranian doesn’t exactly hold a lot of power, so negotiating with him/them would be about as productive as Japan or Finland inviting you or me to be the US Representative at some Summit.”
This is so obvious as to go without saying. The fact that you missed the larger point of Iranian popular support for the US is, however, not surprising.
One of the reasons for talking to the Iranian leadership instead of threatening the country with bombings or worse, is that threatening them with bombs would tend to radicalize the Iranian population against the US. That’s a huge mistake if our larger goal is to promote democracy and freedom in the Middle East. We want to cultivate popular sentiment in the Iranian population, not discourage it.
We went apeshit over 9-11 for good reason. I will never understand how the same conservatives who hungered for blood after the WTC attacks also seem to think that bombing or invading another country, or threatening to do so, would actually endear that country’s population to us. It makes no sense.
I will never understand how the same conservatives who hungered for blood after the WTC attacks also seem to think that bombing or invading another country, or threatening to do so, would actually endear that country’s population to us.
I suspect you answer your own conundrum here, fafaroo. They don’t care how any country’s population looks at us–they hunger for blood, war, and affirmation that their figurative phallus is big and hard. Bomb as desired, consider consequences, um, never.
“But instead of trying to support Khatami, Bush labeled Iran as part of his “Axis of Evil”, which, I have to believe, led to Iran’s Average Joes electing a fiery (blustery?) nationalist in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”
To sivapith’s point, you’re right on. We do have to keep in mind that Ahmadinejad is not the supreme leader of Iran. For all we know his popularity is probably as low as our fearless leader in Bush. The only difference between Bush and Ahmadinejad is our congress failed to put in him in check. Ahmadinejad can say all he wants, but he doesn’t even have the support of his clergy and government to act, much less the Muslim world.
As long as our policy towards Iran is regime change (and it is) the Iranians have no incentive to talk to us. They’re not going to negotiate themselves out of existence.
Maybe the the axis of evil is waiting for the US to have a regime change.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t Obama critics say he wasn’t ready for primetime because he omitted to say that he would have preconditions to the talks to Iran. Obama never actually uttered the words “I will talk to Iran without any preconditions.”
And it’s not just Iran, Cuba was included. What is the logic that McCain McSame uses to lump Iran and Cuba together? What are the preconditions needed to talk to Cuba? We want the 90% ownership and control of the tourist industry back like before the Castro revolution.
Does anyone seem to remember how Iran offered to help with our fight in Afghanistan, and we turned them down? I always find it astounding how our pre-Iraq war diplomacy was really dreadful and hurt us in the long run.
Iran did help us in Afghanistan. Among other things, they allowed us to use one of their seaports to resupply our troops.
People who oppose negotiation with Iranians or any other “evil” nations generally subscribe to that idea that whichever Muslims we don’t like at the time “hate freedom” and “are directly opposed to everything we stand for.” Of course, once they’ve been completely dehumanized, negotiation doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. You can’t debate an Ogre, he just wants to club your skull in and suck the marrow from your bones.
What negatives could come from Obama negotiating? That America would appear weak and girlish and evil Muslims everywhere would be emboldened, as if he was going over there to beg them not to hurt us? Give your head a shake. “Without preconditions” is just the latest Conservative talking point for hawks to get keyed up about, and it’s clear that most people don’t care.
It seems a lot of the countries in the region were willing to help the US prior to the Iraq invasion. After it, we seemed to lose most of that support, if it didn’t turn to covert opposition. Bush and Co. have it backwards. They think having no pre-conditions on diplomacy is wrong when in fact their policy of no pre-conditions on Military invasion of Iraq was wrong.
“Yep, that picture was taken AFTER Gorby agreed to give up some of his ICBMs. If Iran agrees to give up their whole ‘Death to the Infidels’ bit, then talks might actually have some value. Until then though, what’s to discuss?”
Maybe you could discuss their need to give up the ‘Death to the Infidels’ rhetoric.
On a side note, the quickest way to bring down Ahmadinejad is to have a picture of him smiling and waving with George W. Bush. That would kill his credibility with the hardliners, who are the only ones supporting his leadership.
I guess it’s just like America in that respect C.S. George Bush politician lodestone.