To Talk Or Not To Talk

by West Virginia Rebel

Posted by dwex on 05/15/08 at 04:24 PM from

Not to mention Khadafi and Lil’ Kim, who, IIRC, are state sponsors of terror with whom we’ve had fairly high-level dealings with under this administration.

I actually agree about Obama and appeasement; I think he’s the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain.

But Bush equated talking with the bad guys with appeasement, which is just stupid.

Posted by Thrill on 05/15/08 at 04:37 PM from

I’ve seen the issue being talking with the Iranians without conditions, which is what Obama has pledged to do.

Gates says as much:

“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,”

Keep in mind that Barack Joseph Kennedy Obama simply isn’t going to threaten military action against Iran because it will demolish his anti-war credentials.  From your article:

A number of senior U.S. military officials have emphasized the need for robust diplomacy toward Iran, while not ruling out the use of force. “I’m a big believer in resolving this diplomatically, economically and politically,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview with The Washington Post. “The military aspect of this, which I think is a very important part of the equation and must stay on the table,” Mullen said, is an option of “last resort.”

Call it “big stick” diplomacy if you will, but we need to negotiate from a position of strength.  That’s all the Iranians respect.

Also, I don’t mean to be patronizing, dwex, but the quality of your arguments has dramatically improved recently.

Posted by dwex on 05/15/08 at 04:45 PM from

Also, I don’t mean to be patronizing, dwex, but the quality of your arguments has dramatically improved recently.

Nah, it’s fine. Thanks for noticing. I am trying to stay out of flamewars when I can. Mostly because debating with you, when we stay on topic, is fun and educational.

Posted by Thrill on 05/15/08 at 04:50 PM from

Good Lord, I’m flattered!  Fine, we’ll make a deal:

As long as there are strong, well-researched arguments on your side, there will be no flamewars on my side.

Posted by Ed Kline on 05/15/08 at 05:05 PM from

“We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them,”

Damnit we have leverage...Iran has only one oil refinery, and they actually have to send out oil to be refined, and then brought back in at a loss, just for their own energy needs. If they want to keep that refinery, they should be listening to us more attentively. Thats the prolemm with the diplomatic corp. They think everything is so damn complicated that they are neccessary. Obama is a weakling, and Bush hasnt been much better when dealing with Iran.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 05/15/08 at 05:15 PM from

Thrill: Does this mean you and I can still be friends? (Looks around for Manwhore) : )

Posted by on 05/15/08 at 05:16 PM from

Actually, Thrill, your own debating skills have improved in the last couple of weeks.  I actually look forward to your posts :) ...

Posted by on 05/15/08 at 05:34 PM from

I don’t think talk equates to appeasement at all.

Posted by Thrill on 05/15/08 at 06:40 PM from

I recognize that the tone of this blog became very vitriolic in recent months and that I did more than my fair share to make it so.  I am not apologizing for anything because Manwhore and I were only responding to the poorly prepared, overly critical, and emotional posts along with the inexplicable sympathy for Obama.  For the most part, I think that this has all been corrected thanks to much of the readership demanding better quality.

It is time to get back to what made RTFLC great: lively and intelligent debate with passion that may lead to occasional hurt feelings where nobody is censored but must argue on merits or face the consequences.

Naturally, I still reserve the right to fisk your posts mercilessly and relentlessly as well as flame anyone who refuses to make sense or make the case for their opinions.  Other than that, I have no interest in participating in any more flame wars for the time being unless someone attacks ThrillWhore or one of our friends first.

WVR, I do not see any reason why we cannot be friends, but you are going to continue to have abuse heaped upon you from all sides until you start putting more effort into creating and defending your posts.  This is not my doing, just a fact of life.

The last week has seen the best debate I think I have ever seen from all concerned on this blog.  Let’s keep a good thing going.

Posted by HARLEY on 05/15/08 at 06:57 PM from

Call it “big stick” diplomacy if you will, but we need to negotiate from a position of strength.  That’s all the Iranians respect.

I believe that we should talk to them, as long a we keep the BIG chainsaw, on the desk.

Oh BTW i think we are getting to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why he is really spending a lot of time running around Iran talking to the people trying to sell his vision for Iran, the people are not too happy.
My irannian friend has a new job, playing translator to a candian who is doing a documentary on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he follows him around Iran.

Posted by on 05/15/08 at 07:57 PM from

Bush has repeatedly said we shouldn’t talk to Iran.

First this is false and second, it negates the history that led up to the impasse.

Our talks with Iran had been on going until 2002 when it was revealed that they were secretly pursueing an illegal nuclear program for 15 years, Bush agreed to hand over the diplomacy to Germany, Britain and France, the so-called E3. Their efforts failed. So the Administration agreed to negotiate directly with Iran provided the mullahs suspend their uranium enrichment program. The Iranians refused. At that point the IAEA and the UN Security Council (which the US is a member) continued talks withIran concerning their enriched uranium program. The council set a dead line in 2006, this was flouted. The council then initiated sanctions. Bush has continued to go the multilateral route and adhere to the wishs of the UN.

Just last week the U.S. and other world powers offered new economic incentives (the same offer BTW that they made in 2006) to Iran in the hope of gaining its willingness to freeze its enrichment program. This offer to Iran included purely economic incentives, such as greater trade in certain high-tech and agricultural goods.

The administration has always maintained an open channel with Tehran, only asking that they adhere to the UN resolutions regarding their nuclear program, they have refused, but we still try.

Posted by on 05/15/08 at 08:46 PM from

Bingo richtaylor.  Remember, the narrative is more important than the facts, and the narrative says Bush is a go-it-alone cowboy.

Posted by dwex on 05/15/08 at 09:05 PM from

The furor today is over the inane thing Bush said today:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. “

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

It’s inane because his administration has been doing exactly this (Libya, North Korea, Iran). Not to mention the examples of Egypt (the peace treaty with Israel), the recognition of the PLO (where there as a ton of high-level diplomacy to get them to play ball), and negotiation with Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland (which wasn’t us, but is another example of the general concept).

I actually think it was directed more at Carter than Obama, given the uproar in Israel over Carter’s trip, and that Obama reacted way he did because he knows he’s weak in this area.

But Bush is still a hypocrite for saying it.

Posted by Para on 05/15/08 at 10:21 PM from

There’s a difference between negotiating and appeasing. We never stop negotiating. Appeasing is giving something without something in return other than “ false comfort”. We did that last with N Korea and it didn’t work (again). I’m actually glad Bush is at least aware of this concept.

Posted by Para on 05/15/08 at 10:23 PM from

RichTaylor,

Fine post, you beat me to it.

Posted by Manwhore on 05/15/08 at 11:08 PM from

Thrill: Does this mean you and I can still be friends? (Looks around for Manwhore) : )

I wouldn’t take it personally. My only issue with you was what I felt is a lack of respect on your part bogarting the blog and disregarding the advice I gave to the group from day one of us all blogging.

Doing this twice, this was something I learned. Post a couple of things per person and allow the conversation to biuld. It was the readers themselves that gave me that advice.

I’d be more than happy to participate in your threads, but it’s difficult when all of everyone elses are buried in tidal waves. I told Gripe this and I’d tell you the same. None of this is personal to me. It’s simply over the issues.

It’s no reflection on how I percieve you as a person. I just think it a bit arrogant to post something and disregard the opinoins (contrary or otherwise) to what you write.

I believe we need the readers too. I think it’s important to respond to the salient points. I’ll take dwex as an example. he and I disagree, but I do listen to what he says. I don’t like it, and he stumps me from time to time but his contribution is valuable. If he commented and I ignored his points, I wouldn’t blame him for giving up.

My flaming behavior has to do with cutting my teeth with Lee. I just enjoy it, and Lee’s knack for delivery chimed with me. It’s not for everyone, and I’ve been making it a habit to understand who is game and who gets the kid gloves. Gripeboy learned that I am not afraid of the nuke button, but for the most part I have made my changes by avoiding religious flaming.

After careful consideration I felt that people hold those debates dear, and they hae nothing to do wiht politics anyway. It was an easy thing to prohibit.

As for your post here, let’s start this up right (I hope this also means you will take my criticisms into consideration WVR, this is an honest opinion):

To me, this is yet another indication of why 2008 won’t be like 2004. The familiar charges of “Appeasement” and demonizing those who want to give diplomacy a chance won’t work they way they have in the past. McCain is a good guy in many ways, but in others he seems dissapointingly comfortable with continuing Bush’s policies with regards to Iraq and Iran. Bush made the right choice when Rumsfeld left. Will he still listen to Gates now?

This statement makes it obvious you haven’t been reading. Conservatives believe in negotion, but under conditions. Obama believes there should be no conditions. He thinks we drop our aggression, and Iran will too. He’s a fucking lunatic and here’s why.

1. Iran hans’t any regard for her people. It has no respect for the will of the people, and no respect for the will of the world community. I find it a hard pill to swallow that a cigarette smoking black man will change any of that.

2. history has proven appeasement to be the root of all evil. I am mostly against Obama’s diplomacy strategy in part of what happened to my people. Armenians supported the Turkish revolutionary government because it was the only way. they hoped and prayed that the young turks were in no mood to really discriminate Armenians the way the previous governances had. through peaceful acceptance and appeasement they ended up being victims of genocide. By taking no stance, and by displaying nothing in the way of a retaliatory stance, the emboldened the turks to commit the atrocity. I don’t blame turkey for the genocide, i blame us. (I get heat for this, but I believe it) Had the armenians held thier nation dear, and understood that defense is necessary, they might have averted the genocide.

I look forward to Obama’s experiments with trepidation. he will expose the most powerful nation in the world as the weakest, and that’s where problems begin. Only a fool or a lipstick liberal believes self defense is an option. Obama is a fool.

3. George Bush is absolutely right. I know you hate to hear it, but Obama endorses appeasing these thugocracies. He is a complete parallel to Jimmah in almost every way. Jimmah thought much the same about ME relations, and look at how well it worked out.

4. Obama hasn’t got a fucking clue about politics. He’s a used car salesman. My greatest fear is that all of you useful idiots vote for him and the car falls apart seconds after being driven off the lot.

Posted by on 05/15/08 at 11:12 PM from

WTF has happened to Thunderdome?

I don’t know you people anymore.

*turns back*

Posted by Manwhore on 05/15/08 at 11:15 PM from

WTF has happened to Thunderdome?

I don’t know you people anymore.

*turns back*

I’m still here ryan. You can’t change warrior. An experienced warrior picks the battles. Usually the ones that create the most carnage!

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 05/16/08 at 12:07 AM from

The real question is...who run Bartertown?

Posted by Manwhore on 05/16/08 at 12:12 AM from

The real question is...who run Bartertown?

No one. actually the question is really who respect bartertown?

anyway. that was my one and only attempt. Back to talking to yourself.

Posted by dwex on 05/16/08 at 05:30 AM from

There’s a difference between negotiating and appeasing.

Correct.

I’m actually glad Bush is at least aware of this concept.

But the point is that he’s NOT, at least not with yesterday’s pronouncement. Reread the quote again. He directly correlates negotiation with appeasement.