’)Sooooo refreshing.
President Barack Obama’s administration will engage in ‘direct diplomacy’ with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday.
Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.
‘The dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council. And its continuing refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase,’ she told reporters during a brief question-and-answer session.
Wait, you mean we aren’t just going to stamp our feet and hold our breath?
B-b-b-but this will legitimatize Adolph Ahmedinejad!
See how I slipped in that Adolph there? Unrelated villains successfully conflated.
And as we all know, Iranians live in constant fear of “firm messages” and “pressure”. No government in the history of civilization has withstood such a pressing onslaught.
Here’s a preview:
Hillary: “Say, could you please stop your nuclear program?”
Manouchehr Mottaki: Nope.
Hillary: “Okay, how about easing up on the whole Jew killing?”
Mottaki: “NEVER!!!”
Hillary: “If you don’t reconsider, we’ll draft UN sanctions against you. And use strong rhetoric.”
Mottaki: “And that’s stopped us when, exactly?”
Hillary: “Oh well. Let’s dring some tea.”
As opposed to:
Bush: *silence*
Iran: Well, America’s not saying anything so let’s go on building this thing!
I’m picturing the Hillary/Ahmadinejad conversation to have more of a Hans Blix/Kim Jong Il in Team America tone to it:
Hillary: Stop your nuclear program at once, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hillary: Or else President Obama will be very angry with you… and he will write you a letter, telling you how angry he is.
Let’s try this again:
Hillary: Stop your nuclear program at once, or else.
Ahmadinejad: Or else what?
Hillary: Or else President Obama will be very angry with you… and he will write you a letter, telling you how angry he is.
Bush: *silence*
Pushing for “passage of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to stop enriching uranium, imposing sanctions on Iran for continuing to enrich uranium and tightening sanctions” = “silence”?
Bush wasn’t a President with a history of voting “present”, unlike the current occupant of the White House.
Try again, Oliver.
Yes, diplomacy’s never solved anything in the history of the world! Idiots. Thankfully, you don’t matter anymore.
“passage of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to stop enriching uranium, imposing sanctions on Iran for continuing to enrich uranium and tightening sanctions” = a particularly good thing?
Iran clearly won’t have the bomb for years and years to come, if ever, assmung they even want it in the first place. Waggling our dicks about it will only get us into yet another pointless unwinnable war, which is of course what the NeoCons who ran the country until recently wanted all along.
Besides, Iran might as well have the bomb. You guys have more of the damn things than the mind can comfortably concieve and quite frankly you’ve committed or been party to just as many atrocities.
Start preparing yourselves to hear (and recite in the case of Oliver) statements like the following in the coming years:
“Despite the intense, cool-headed and just overall awesome diplomatic efforts of the Obama administration, they have been unable to overcome the 8 years of complete inaction on the part of the Bush regime with regards to stopping Iran’s nuclear program.”
Or stated more simply: Failure = Bush’s Fault
Nimrod,
You need to dial that blamethrower down a notch or two… you’re just wildly spewing that crap ALL over the place.
Waggling our dicks about it will only get us into yet another pointless unwinnable war, which is of course what the NeoCons who ran the country until recently wanted all along.
Yeah, and we would have gotten away with it too, if wasn’t for you meddling kids and your Hopenchange candidate [twirls mustache evilly].
This from people who up till last year were happily blaming Clinton for the recession/September 11th/the invention of pretzels.
God DAMN, does the word “hypocrisy” mean nothing to you people?
Neoconservatism’s defining concept is war. Bill Kristol has never said anything that wasn’t in some way encouraging the killing of brown folk.
As for the “blamethrower”, obviously I’m not saying AMERICA IS THE GREAT SATAN. We’ve got just as much blood on our hands from Ireland, the Falklands, Kenya, Rhodesia. Everyone does. Even Obama’s already got his fingers red.
But come on – you have a mindboggling number of nuclear weapons, even though one is plenty, and here’s a list of basic crimes you’ve committed, just off the top of my head and even before the Bush era is factored in:
- Killing Salvador Allende and replacing him with Pinochet for Christ’s sake
- Vietnam (the whole sorry mess of the US involvement there)
- The Contras
- Training Osama Bin Laden in the first place
- Installing Saddam Hussein in the first place
- Related to above: Halabja, not to mention using it later as an excuse to invade
And on and on. Seems just a trifle parochial to say that Iran can’t have one bomb with all they’ve done when you’ve – we’ve – got thousands with all we have.
So the Bushies engaged in direct adult diplomacy with Iran? Is this in the revisionary history texts y’all are sending out?
Today Iran, tomorrow Syria!
Maybe Nancy Pelosi can dust off her hijab and lay down the groundwork…
J.
Tell you what, folks: let’s play a little game. I’ll name a major advancement towards peace in the Middle East that was achieved without “direct adult diplomacy,” then you name one that was. I’ll go first:
The rehabilitation of Libya into a semi-respectable nation and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons program. All done with behind the scenes, indirect, quiet discussions — prompted by the almost-effortless removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Your turn.
J.
prompted by the almost-effortless removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
I think your timeline is a bit off.
J.G.Thayer: “Your turn.”
Okay, how’s this…
You are either a liar or a moron. Your summary of the events are so grossly wrong that I can’t tell which it is. Would you like to try and research the situation and try again?
Ahmadinejad is an elected official who is not popular in Iran due to the number of domestic problems in that nation. He can only remain if power by convincing the hardliners that he and he alone stands between the United States and the Iranian people.
If you talk to him directly, he loses that and he will likely be replaced in the elections by a much more moderate leader.
It’s win – win for the States.
J.G.Thayer: “Maybe Nancy Pelosi can dust off her hijab and lay down the groundwork…”
Yeah, cause it’s so horrible to wear traditional garb of the people you are visiting. Bush and people in his administration would never do that, right Mr. Thayer?
Tell you what, folks: let’s play a little game.
No thanks.
almost-effortless removal of Saddam Hussein from power
Those dead bodies? Effort free!
Also, you guys remember that time Bush sold America to China when he wore traditional garb, right?
“The rehabilitation of Libya into a semi-respectable nation and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons program.
Courtesy of a U.S. Navy interception of uranium-enrichment components bound for Libya via the Proliferation Security Initiative where the United States and more than a dozen other countries working together to prevent the illicit shipment by sea, land or air of weapons of mass destruction.
-AKA; Diplomacy. Not Shlock and Awe.
Thanks for playing.
Diplomacy = talking to your enemies.
Glad to see we have adults back in charge, not faith-based, fearful, little poopy-diapered babies.
Oliver, we invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. baghdad fell on April 9, and Saddam went into hiding. And by the best reckoning I can find, we lost 118 soldiers in those three weeks.
Our armed forces deposed the entire Iraqi government in less than three weeks. I know you’ll bring up the mess of the following years, but the lesson to Libya was clear: in 20 days, Saddam went from absolute ruler to wanted fugitive in his own nation — along with those of his cronies who weren’t dead.
For decades the world knew America had that kind of power, but was checked by two forces — our own self-restraint and the presence of a counterbalancing superpower in the Soviet Union. In 2003, it was driven home, loud and clear, that neither of those could be reliably counted on to restrain the US.
Shortly thereafter (with the indispensable help of Great Britain), Qaddafi (or however he’s spelling it this week) had his “come to Jesus” moment and gave up his entire nuclear weapons program — which was far more extensive than the CIA, the IAEA, or anyone else had the slightest inkling.
That’s what backstage diplomacy can achieve, when backed up by the right politics. And by politics, I mean von Clausewitz’ definition: “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”
J.
And by the best reckoning I can find, we lost 118 soldiers in those three weeks.
Yes, I’m going to bring up the period afterwards because history doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Just like how you guys try to claim Bush kept us safe from terrorism if you just ignore the worst terror attack in U.S. history that happened on his watch.
And the 3,900 soldiers afterwards – a rounding error. As I said before the war even began – nobody doubts seriously whether the USA can topple Hussein. What matters is WTF we do after. Its one of the few times I wished I was wrong.
The Iraq War showed the world that for all America’s might, we had a hell of a time pacifying a relatively small area like Iraq. It was the opposite of WWII. Even now, for Iraq to be peaceful we’ve got to choke it full of American servicemen and women. You guys on the right like to compare Iraq to U.S. cities with lots of blacks, but imagine if in order to contain the crime somewhere like Philly or L.A. we had to send the entire national guard in to patrol the streets every night?
There’s your flipping victory. Jesus.
.But Baghdad is safer than L.A.!
Hillary: “Say, could you please stop your nuclear program?”
What program? Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Tell you what, folks: let’s play a little game
There you have it, folks, Jay thinks that this is all a game. Wonder why his ilk has lost power?
Why do ultra-cons hate America so much?
J.G.Thayer: “Oliver, we invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. baghdad fell on April 9, and Saddam went into hiding. And by the best reckoning I can find, we lost 118 soldiers in those three weeks.”
Are you really expecting us to ignore the rest of the deaths that happened as the result of the Iraq invasion?
Do you really consider the later deaths unrelated to the removal of Saddam Husein?
Yes, Strowbrige, I am — in this context. The subject is Libya’s abandonment of its nuclear program. I’m not re-arguing the rightness or wrongness of the invasion (I’ve heard everything you have to say, and reject it; you reject what I’ve said on it), but how it most likely played a factor in Libya’s December 2003 action in admitting and surrendering its entire nuclear program.
One of the factors in the invasion of Iraq was Saddam’s WMD program. Libya had its own, secret WMD program, and saw that the US was willing to invade and topple a regime that assed around with WMDs. Also, like Iraq, we had a lengthy unpleasant history with Libya, including Reagan’s ordering a bombing attack on them over their sponsorship of terrorism (another fact he shared with Saddam).
In March 2003, Libya began quietly negotiating with the US and the UK — coinciding with the fall of Baghdad and Saddam’s becoming a fugitive. (The deaths of Saddam’s two monstrous sons in July 2003 also likely scared Gadhafi and his own family.) And it concluded in December 2003, with Libya surrendering its entire WMD program — including chemical weapons, nerve agents, and a lot of nuclear technology.
I see (no surprise) that no one wants to take up the challenge and cite a time when Obama-style diplomacy has actually achieved anything in the Middle East. Instead, as eminently predictable, the usual peanut gallery prefers to stick with the safe — attack only, offer up nothing of their own to defend.
No surprise there.
J.
The first Camp David accords, Tea. Not a shot has been fired in anger between Israel and Egypt for 30 years, Plus, Egypt recovered the Sinai peninsula.
Also, the Oslo accords achieved the recognition by the PLO of Israel’s right to exist.
Shorter Jay: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
The rehabilitation of Libya into a semi-respectable nation and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons program. All done with behind the scenes, indirect, quiet discussions — prompted by the almost-effortless removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Jay Tea, quick question for ya. What year did England restore diplomatic relations with Libya?
To make it easier for you, since I know how hard the google is for you, let’s make it multiple choice:
a) 1999
b) 2003
c) 2005
Any guesses?
Ah, the Camp David Accords. Those worked because Egypt had recently finally gotten to reopen the Suez Canal, the loss of which had devastated its economy, and it wanted to keep that money coming in. Making peace with Israel was the price to keep the eastern bank of the Canal secure from being taken again, like it was from 1967 to 1975.
The pledges of US foreign aid to both sides (in the billions of dollars each year to each side) certainly might have played a part in it, as well.
The Oslo Accords did wonders for Israeli-Palestinian relations. So wonderful, they heightened the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, culminating in the Second Intifada in 2000. It took Arafat’s death and the Hamas electoral victory for Fatah to wake up and smell the hummus — when Hamas took over Gaza and started lynching Fatah members, Fatah realized that it might not like Israel, but Hamas was a more immediate threat.
And no rebuttals to my Libyan point?
I thought not.
J.
And no rebuttals to my Libyan point?
A, B or C, my friend?
C’mon, Jay Tea. A, B or C?
Surely this isn’t something you have to look up! You know this Mid East stuff so well! What does your “gut” tell you?
Let me make this really easy for you Jay Tea.
What year did England reopen diplomatic relations with Libya?
A) 1999
B) 1999
C) 1999
Any guesses now?
…and the relevance would be what, fafaroo?
(Didn’t answer sooner because I started my last comment before you posted the first of your umpteen pop quizzes, and didn’t notice it before. Note the time stamps — one minute apart.)
The negotiations with Libya over their WMD program began in March 2003, and were concluded in December 2003. Further, the negotiations involved Libya, the UK, and the US. That the UK had re-established relations four years prior simply made them more convenient.
Gee, what else happened around March 2003? Involving the US, an Arab leader, and a suspected WMD program?
Eh. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
J.
…and the relevance would be what, fafaroo?
I think most immediately it’s a fact that “the indispensable help of Great Britain” you reduce to a parenthetical actually began 4 years before our invasion of Iraq and took the form of precisely the “direct adult diplomacy” you seem to think so ineffective.
Here’s a good timeline of what happened:
So what you have are intense back channel diplomatic negotiations that began in 1999 which started producing real changes in Libyan policy well before the invasion of Iraq.
Please also note that discussions about Libya’s WMD program began in earnest in 2002, not in 2003 as you assert.
So once again, you have a basic fact, crucial to your argument, completely wrong.
How relevant would that be, Jay Tea?
And from the same source cited above:
Once again, the picture is far more complicated than you suggest and diplomacy did in fact play a crucial factor in the Libya’s change of policies, as evidence of Libya’s offer in 1999 to dismantle its weapons programs.
The invasion of Iraq, it can be and has been argued, was entirely coincidental.
It’s the bad faith argument of those who want to push a belligerent foreign policy position could argue that diplomacy was irrelevant.
Fafaroo owns your ass once again, Tea.
And how silly of me to regard the Camp David agreement and the Oslo accords as important steps forward.
Here’s the link to the above quotes from the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10855/#4
Zython:
What program?
Fail.
Nimrod:
Iran clearly won’t have the bomb for years and years to come, if ever, assmung they even want it in the first place.
See the link above. Turns out, they do want it after all.
And as noted here, President Obama votes “Present” on the issue of Iranian nukes.
Dave, please explain why Iran WOULDN’T want nukes.
It faces a nuclear armed Israel to the west, and a Sunni regime in Pakistan to the east, also with nukes, It has US troops based in Iraq to the SW, and US and NATO troops based in Afghanistan to the NE. China could someday be a threat, and so could India, both nuclear powers. US nuclear subs are in the Persian Gulf.
The US has demonstrated that it WON’T invade nuclear powers, like North Korea, but WILL invade non-nuclear nations, like Iraq. If I was running Iran, I’d be doing my damnedest to get me some nukes!
And how would you like to be the Iranian politician who says to his people, “The US says we can’t have nukes, so I guess we can’t have them!”?
Here’s an interesting fact that i was not aware of from the article Dave linked to:
I did not know that Iran’s quest for nuclear power started under the Shah, a staunch ally of the US. That kind of jibes with the current regime’s argument that their nuclear facilities are for civilian purposes. Are we to assume that the Shah, too, wanted nukes, but was using civilian nuclear power as a cover?
Also interesting, here’s the first part of that article, as Dave only linked to page 2:
Fafaroo, you wanna play dueling quotes? Fine with me.
(Source linked in my name above)
I never claimed that the toppling of Saddam was the sole reason that Libya gave up its WMD program, but it sure as hell was a hefty factor.
J.
I never claimed that the toppling of Saddam was the sole reason that Libya gave up its WMD program, but it sure as hell was a hefty factor.
Jesus. Jay Tea, you wrote, above, in this very thread:
According to you, not only did diplomacy play NO role in Libya’s change of heart, but that what diplomacy did occur began only AFTER the invasion as an indirect consequence of the invasion.
You got your facts wrong.
Your thesis was dead wrong.
And now you’re telling us you didn’t say what you said at the top of the thread.
What a clown.
Now hold on there, Mr. Tea. Let’s rewind the tape.
January 26, 9:40 p.m.:
As you now acknowledge, the behind-the-scenes, quiet discussions were anything but indirect and they began four whole years before the removal of Saddam Hussein.
So are you admitting you missed? Or would you like to take a mulligan?
Bah!
I gotta learn to type faster than Duros!
Jay Tea says:
January 27, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Fafaroo, you wanna play dueling quotes? Fine with me.
(Source linked in my name above)
by JUDITH MILLER
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT
-Enough said.
by JUDITH MILLER
When you absolutely, positively have to find someone to push your bullshit, accept no substitutes.
Dave, please explain why Iran WOULDN’T want nukes.
I understand why they want them. Unlike you, Bruce (and Obama, apparently), I happen to think they shouldn’t be allowed to get them.
As for the reasons you listed, you forgot to include an important one:
Wiping Israel off the map
I expect this is at or near the top of their “To Do” list.
Oliver:
Bush: *silence*
Iran: Well, America’s not saying anything so let’s go on building this thing!
Obama: “Iran is not being helpful”
Iran: “Well, America’s not saying they’re against us having it, so let’s go on building this thing!”
Wow! Obama’s approach is so much better. I’m sure he will get excellent results.
“As for the reasons you listed, you forgot to include an important one:
Wiping Israel off the map
I expect this is at or near the top of their “To Do” list.
Then its Israel’s problem.
Then its Israel’s problem.
Then you’ll have no problem when Israel bombs the crap out Iranian nuclear facilities. Got it.
And what happens if Iran decides that “The Great Satan” needs some nuclear encouragement to get out of the Middle East and (more importantly) stop supporting Israel?
“Then you’ll have no problem when Israel bombs the crap out Iranian nuclear facilities.”
You mean as a pre-emptive measure? That’s working out just so delightfully elsewhere.
And what happens if Iran decides that “The Great Satan” needs some nuclear encouragement to get out of the Middle East …
buh-blah, blah blah blah..Yeah. In an unimaginable scenario, despite the umpteenth citation of Ahmadinejad’s money quote every wingnut wanks to -since they don’t speak Farsi.
Yeah, it was cool for Iran to have atomic technology under the rule of the Shah but with those scary mooslims; BOOGETY!! BOOGETY!! BOOGETY!! Oh no! Israel can’t defend themselves despite being the fourth-largest recipient of weapons from the U.S.!
Want to support Israel’s right to defend themselves? Go there and enlist, you miserable bedwetting prat.
Then you’ll have no problem when Israel bombs the crap out Iranian nuclear facilities. Got it.
They’ve done it before. So, no, I got no problem with that.