There’s an example in the post you’re responding to. You quoted it. But your creative and relevant use of the word “messiah” and the witty inclusion of a “rolleyes” smiley add up to a devastating argument, even if you couldn’t be arsed to read more than one paragraph of a post before replying to it.
Are you talking about Iran or the US?
Count me in with those who find McCain’s stance illogical. He wants to put other countries in a position where they can’t win wrt US relations–he’s asking them to concede ground before the battlelines are even drawn. The US tends to act like a playground bully when it comes to international relations, and frankly its time to grow up
The U.S., but it can also apply to Iran.
I saw McCain’s response sychophantically pandering to Israeli interests. As someone raised Jewish, but who is essentially an atheist, I have heard more than a few rumors and fears of anti-semitism regarding Obama from my family and community. In that regard, I interpreted McCain’s pro-Israel comments as an attempt to put Obama on the other side of the imaginary fence. If you listened, he painted Obama as one who legitimizes Iran’s anti-Israel sentiment simply by sitting down and talking. (FWIW, I am voting for Obama, and do not believe that Obama is anything but a supporter of Israel)
Do we apply this logic generally? So if McCain were POTUS and wanted to meet with the head of another state, that person would get to make demands the US must fulfill first before the meeting?
The US should keep acting like a bully because “They started it” then?
As TWDuke has so astutely already pointed out, you quoted the answer you were seeking, but I’ll be more specific and link you to a direct source.
But if you were paying the kind of attention necessary to make an informed decision in this election, you would already know that, instead of spouting off nasty barbs against him.
As a Jew, I saw his remarks exactly the same way. I found them nothing more than offensive pandering. If it would be helpful, feel free to copy and send the email I posted in this blog post regarding Obama’s record on Israel and his support among prominent Jewish leaders, replete with links and sources, etc. It’s all about fighting ignorance.
And if you think anyone in your family would find this amusing (I laughed my ass off), have them watch this Sarah Silverman video*, called The Great Schlep. 
*Warning: Rated R for language. Probably NSFW. Abides by the 2 click rule - requires 2nd click to actually play the video (does not start automatically like a You Tube video).
I can see McCain’s problem.
Bush’s idea of negotiation was to call countries part of an ‘Axis of Evil’, or to invade them, looking for non-existent WMDs.
What would McCain say?
“I was a POW. The surge worked. Our troops are the finest in the World. We fight the War on Drugs. Give us what we want!”
The chronology of US-Vietnam relations since 1980 are instructive here - they started with talks to address the MIA issue, proceeded to addressing the Cambodia situation, and then moved steadily toward more normal relations. Diplomatic relations were reestablished in the mid-1990s - former President Bush visited around that time.
President Clinton visited in 2000. Vietnamese leaders visited the United States two years ago as Vietnam was lobbying for permanent most favored nation trade status. Around this time they joined the WTO.
So this proceeded slowly over four presidential administrations (I don’t count Carter as relations in his term were still pretty sour, through no fault of his.) And it didn’t kick off with Reagan heading off to Hanoi. And it probably shouldn’t have - this was a relationship that had to be grown into.
With so much bad blood between us and the Iranians over a generation or more, why should we expect a different outcome in that country if that regime doesn’t change in the interim? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Which regime? Do you expect one side (the Axis of Evil) to do all the change, and the US waits expectatly? Or does the US do some changing to, and both meet somewhere in the middle?
Who said anything about expectations? We’re talking about at least starting the process instead of continuing to ignore and antagonize them. Why shouldn’t we? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Jaw jaw is better than war war. Winston Churchill
Talking is what politicians and diplomats do. Spoken and written words are all that keep us from war and lead us to commerce, culture and friendship.
That said, Iran willfully violated the sanctity of diplomats by seizing hostages. We had done our dirt in Iran twenty years earlier, and both states had violated international law, but the Iranian violation of international law was far more serious: lots of regimes had been overthrown in human history, but no civilized country seized several dozen diplomats as hostages. It was and remains an outrage to all diplomacy and it is a precedent that remains a threat to diplomatic peace making efforts all over the world. And it was intentional, and it is without any repentance to this day.
That said, it is high time for countries to start talking to Iran to get them to start to repair the damage that they did to international law itself.
By that I meant wholesale change of the regime itself by some internal Iranian event.
Dealing with the current Iranian regime would necessarily go slowly. And there are lots of things we could do along the way to ease things along - like easing travel restrictions and economic sanctions.
Name one specific, quantifiable benefit Iran gains from making the US blink first. And I mean real benefits, not just bragging rights that give them power only if we let them rent space in our head. This is not the playground.
As they say they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
What do folks think will happen in a sit-down between us and Iran? Maybe we say: Just so you know, if you get the urge to feel froggy with regard to Israel, we will bomb your ass off the face of the earth.
What does Iran gain from that?
I’d like to ask Obama’s defenders here what they think of his statement blasting the UN for letting Ahmadinejad speak there:
Seems pretty far from his professed beliefs from before.
For the record, while no fan of Ahmadinejad, I can’t fault the UN for letting him speak - that’s pretty much its intended purpose, and I think Obama either made a mistake here or is pressing an unsustainable argument.
I’d be curiousa why you would characterize “disappointment” that Ahmadinejad “had a platform” as “blasting” the UN. I saw no statement that he condemned the General Assembly, no call to (repeat old Republican practices of) cutting UN funding, no chiding of Ban Ki-moon. Expressing disappointment that some jerk used a chamber purportedly established to provide rational discussions among nations for spouting hatred hardly rises to the level of condemning the forum or calling for censorship.
?
The way I see it, the US started it. But whoever started it*, the American president should consider direct talks with Iran. Also with Spain.
*Meddling in Iran, that is, by supporting the Shah. Allow me to waste your time with an anecdote that goes nowhere. I remember when I was a child I had a subscription to National Geographic’s *World *magazine for children, and I remember a several-page spread of gorgeous pictures of the Shah’s family’s gold-plated everything. It was really impressive. Boy, did America like the Shah.
[quote=“Mr.Moto, post:36, topic:465434”]
I’d like to ask Obama’s defenders here what they think of his statement blasting the UN for letting Ahmadinejad speak there:
My take on what Obama said in your quote is that he condemns Ahmadinejad’s statement’s as inflammatory, hostile, and an unproductive/inappropriate usage of the U.N. “stage.” However, I don’t think he was against Ahmadinejad speaking there on principle. Like you, I agree that I can’t fault the UN for letting Ahmadinejad speak - that is the U.N.'s intended purpose. I may agree with Obama on the “strong sactions” necessary for dealing with Iran, but I can’t say for sure whether I agree or disagree here because the quote doesn’t go into much detail as to what Obama means by “strong sanctions.”
As I mentioned above, I don’t think Obama was against Ahmadinejad speaking in principle. I base this off the fact that Obama has articulated a belief in meeting with foreign leaders often enough that I believe him. I think Obama (and certainly the rest of the world politicians present) were hoping that Ahmadinejad might make a productive use of the U.N. by presenting grievances, concerns, and a desire to work with the world community, and not just to spout rancorous rhetoric.
Okay, you’re right. That was an unnecessary barb. Having just come from the Debate thread, I’m a little skeptical of many posters’ ability to be unbiased.
I am not voting for Obama, but I do find him to be intelligent, charismatic, hard working, etc. Although I disagree with 80% of his positions, I actually like him. The issue in this campaign that’s turning me off is the constant fawning over him by some posters.
In any case, do you see the problem with sitting down with someone who wants America to die? As stated in the debate, these kinds of talks start at low levels. Joe Schmo talks to Joe Schmo-ski, then usually, if the other party actually wants to reach an agreement, the rhetoric coming from the leader tones down to a point that higher-ups become involved, and so on.
There is real value in refusing talks with maniacs. For Obama or McCain or anyone else to agree to talks with Iran immediately grants credibility to the statement “Israel should be destroyed.”
In your workplace, let’s say there was someone who started a big stink about having all the Jews fired. Maybe a vice-president or senior executive. He’s also the company owner’s son, so there is a problem with just firing him.
Do you think it would be acceptable for the management to sit down and “discuss” his position? Of course not - it would not only be pandering to a anti-semite, it would also be damaging to the company’s relationship with all of the other employees. Because they would be giving credibility to his position. So whatever mid-level guy delivers the message that his position in not okay, and until he cools it, he will not be granted his raise.
Guess what? Not all people deserve understanding and discussion. Madmen who have the desire to kill all Americas or Israelis or whoever do not deserve to immediately have access to the president. Doing so would send a very bad message to the other madmen of the world.
And as an aside, I know everyone likes to talk about this as an esoteric political exercise, but please keep in mind, Ahmadinejad would like to see you dead. Me too, and everybody else in America. He may soon have nukes, and he’d love to shoot them at us.
As I have been accused of not “paying the kind of attention necessary to make an informed decision in this election” please remember that this election, and American politics as a whole, is a lot more than a me vs. you activity. It has real consequences, and just because your guy (or my guy or whoever) has a position, it doesn’t mean it’s right.