Topic

[Borys]

.

[Skiptastic]

To play Devil's advocate, if these countries really are "tiny" as Obama says, going to the table with them only gives them more clout that they do not deserve. It encourages small countries further down the road that if you threaten America with nukes, we'll pay more attention to you. Just talk a big game and you'll be a big player in the international community. It rewards bad behavior, when we should be rewarding good behavior.

That's just to play Devil's advocate, I haven't really solidified my position on Iran and stuff.

[Tauntaun]

Damn that was a good speech.  I don't agree with national health care but I might have to vote for this negro, he's the most like Ron Paul of the 3 remaining. 

[Van Cruncheon]

To play Devil's advocate, if these countries really are "tiny" as Obama says, going to the table with them only gives them more clout that they do not deserve. It encourages small countries further down the road that if you threaten America with nukes, we'll pay more attention to you. Just talk a big game and you'll be a big player in the international community. It rewards bad behavior, when we should be rewarding good behavior.

That's just to play Devil's advocate, I haven't really solidified my position on Iran and stuff.

i'd say INVADING them gives them even more international clout, AND sinks our stretched finances well past the breaking point. we HAFTA negotiate with them if we are honestly concerned about them, and the moment we are concerned about them, they have clout.

[Phoenix Dark]

hell, threatening them gives them more clout as well. Iran is no threat to us currently yet the Bush administration talks them up like they're the USSR. smh

if we found out their government was directly involved in sending IEDs into Iraq and training insurgents I'd be all for smacking their ass.

[huckleberry]

With the worlds second largest reserves of natural gas, third largest reserves of oil, and 70 million consumers that the worlds corporations are just itching to market to.....I would say that Iran has plenty of clout with or without us.  It is goddam ridiculous to think that by isolating Iran that we can bend them to our will.



and a side note; it doesn't help our position with the Iranians that we invaded the counties to their left and to their right, with a military presence in Turkmenistan to their north.  To the Joe Blow Iranian that probably lends credence to the shit rhetoric that spews from the mouths of the mullahs.

[Tauntaun]

hell, threatening them gives them more clout as well. Iran is no threat to us currently yet the Bush administration talks them up like they're the USSR. smh

if we found out their government was directly involved in sending IEDs into Iraq and training insurgents I'd be all for smacking their ass.

 

[Human Snorenado]

[McCain]No option is off the table in regard to Iran, my friends, except for diplomacy of course.[/McCain]

Do they realize how fucking DUMB they sound?  And at least 45% if not more of America will vote for this distinguished mentally-challenged fellow this November.  DUM DUM DUM

[Phoenix Dark]

becuz he's a MAVERICK amirite 

[huckleberry]

It's sad to know that even after more than 2 centuries on the worlds stage that America still sucks at diplomacy. 

[cool breeze]

What an awesome speech.  Not only did he create a peaceful solution, he also showed them how manly he was by saying that if they ever attempted anything, he would smack them down with raw power.

[APF]

I wasn't aware we had invaded Iran.

The comparison to summiting with the USSR is bizarre; as Obama suggests, the power differential alone makes them completely different situations.  While invasion and blistering rhetoric are not always the answer, neither is dithering around summiting with every country who might wave a stick at someone.  Having high-level talks is different than President-to-President "negotiations," and the latter is itself a negotiating chip that is severely devalued by offering it up without precondition.

[Fragamemnon]

In a related note to what APF mentioned above, the the current in-vogue conservative comparison of radical state-sponsored Islam and 1938 Germany is beyond ridiculous. I swear if I hear one more bobblehead prattle on along those lines I'll kill my television.

[duckman2000]

Meeting and discussing with leaders, any leaders, should be definitely be in the interest of any US president. Meeting with does not mean that the President or the nation gives its blessing to these leaders, as its simply a matter of communicating. Hearing other candidates spout of bullshit about not meeting with these leaders unless change is apparent is down right sad, as it signals a passive approach, hardly fitting of the supposed western role model. Simply shutting off the lines of communication is far more dangerous to everyone involved, and taking military action is potentially even worse. How many future terrorists will rise from the blood pools of their families in Iraq? it's a quick fix, jackhammer approach that doesn't fucking work.

[Mandark]

I think I started taking Obama seriously after reading his interview with the NYT on foreign policy.  His Iran policy is completely right.

Piggybacking on what Frag said...

Do you remember what it was like? Don't you remember what a hooligan atmosphere there was in American intellectual life for a long time because of the Cold War? Anyone who had any doubts that this war was worth fighting and worth the risk of a nuclear exchange was accused of being a dupe or a secret sympathizer or a fan of Neville Chamberlain's umbrella or all these other things. People were constantly being crushed and coerced and derided and driven out of the argument. I wanted to put that down before people forget it.

[MrAngryFace]

SEXISM!

[Phoenix Dark]

SEXISM!

he doesn't want to invade iran cuz he wants the women to keep their hijabs on 

[MrAngryFace]

CANT WIN CUZ MEDIA H8 WOMEN! NO RACISM EVAR ANYMORE! WOMAN HAVE HARDER TIME!

[Phoenix Dark]

[APF]

I think I started taking Obama seriously after reading his interview with the NYT on foreign policy.  His Iran policy is completely right.

   
I remember thinking how weird it was you'd say that, since that interview demonstrated nothing interesting or novel IMO, and he seemed IIRC to crumble when pressed.  I'm tempted to write this off as a "soft bigotry of low blah blah blah" situation, only one where you're expecting so little, anything you agree with affects greater significance than it otherwise should.
   

As an on-topic aside, what exactly do people expect the outcome of Obama's summit will be, aside from a photo-op?

[MrAngryFace]

A different approach, one that doesn't involve words like 'obliterate'

[APF]

"Different" doesn't necessarily mean positively-productive however.  Still, Obama does rattle the saber in saying essentially, "hey talk all you want but if you start some real shit we'll fuck you up."  Honestly there's no practical difference between the outcome of that philosophy and the current reality of the Bush Administration's policy as it pertains to Iran.

[MrAngryFace]

It still doesn't involve the word 'obliterate'

[APF]

It still doesn't involve the word 'obliterate'

How exactly is Hillary saying we can obliterate them any different than Obama saying a conflict would be no contest?  Both are accurate statements suggesting our relative military / destructive capabilities.

Still--and regardless of your approach--when you're dealing with the Iranian President, it involves obliteration:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

[MrAngryFace]

What words you say = IMPORTANT

how you say things = IMPORTANT

[APF]

Obviously--having argued against symbolically giving away a powerful negotiating chip--I understand the power of symbolism.  But as much as symbolism matters, so too semantics and actual meaning matter.  There's no practical difference between either statement; it's a distinction without a difference, something I submit is Obama's bread-and-butter.  To debate the diplomatic gains won by one millimeter rhetorical distance is something I'm not sure either one of us is qualified to argue.

[Van Cruncheon]

apf: active voice versus passive voice; and don't be completely disingenuous, it's a bad look

[MrAngryFace]

It matters because she could be PRESIDENT and she would be on WORLD WIDE TELEVISION saying things like OBLITERATE

[Mandark]

There's a wide gap between winning a war and obliterating a country.  Besides Clinton's comment was about a response to Iran attacking Israel.  Extending the American nuclear umbrella would be a new policy and is kind of a really big deal.

[APF]

Mandark: your suggestion then, is that Clinton's actual policy is to literally, "do away with completely so as to leave no trace," and by using nuclear weapons,* as opposed to simply defeating them militarily but using a strong word to assert the certainty of that defeat, in order not to be misunderstood?  Prole accused me of being disingenuous, but I think the label fits your post better.

Seriously, and leaving all disingenuousness behind, active vs passive voice--while perhaps having some symbolic significance--results in no practical difference in actual policy (Mandark implies the difference is our response to a nuclear attack on an ally vs ourselves, which reminds me I have a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge if you're interested), and overall none of these candidates have an actual, real, practical difference in policy between what they're really saying and the real, practical reality of what will happen in any of their terms.  Even Obama is (or at least his staff / surrogates are) backing down from the idea of an unpreconditioned summit between Presidents, meaning the difference in actual concrete and manifest policy is purely rhetorical.  And again, I come back to the central question, namely what do you expect the outcome will be from such talks.



*(maybe she was talking about a demographic shift, right?)

[MrAngryFace]

There are things you DONT SAY to the rest of the world as the LEADER of one of the most powerful nations. It just shouldnt be done. I dont know why you can't wrap your mind around the power of a word. Sure, Obama may end up saying the same thing in a different way some day, but thats what makes him a good politician. He knows that hyperbolic buzzwords are not the way to deal with the international community.

[Raban]

Pleasepleaseplease win the election Obama, please win the election, if McCain or Hillary wins, I'll... :'(

[APF]

I don't see the blanket utility in saying we shouldn't be frank about our intentions towards our enemies, were they to cross certain lines.  In  fact, I see the blanket utility in making those intentions crystal clear, and only hedging when it's absolutely necessary--especially in the face of equally-explosive rhetoric on the part of those enemies, where I see very little utility in demurring for the sake of demurring.  This has little to do with courting the international community; it has to do with setting expectations with your enemies, or those working against what you perceive to be the nation's interests.  Words do matter--that's why making your intentions clear is extremely important.  Dicking around with what should be a clear red line is only something you do when your intention is to tempt the other party to cross that line.

[Mupepe]

I didn't see Obama dicking around in that video.  He seemed pretty clear cut on what we would and would not accept.

[MrAngryFace]

I think there is a TIME and a PLACE for the use of certain words. We are coming off 8 years of pushing the entire world around like dickfaces. This isn't either the time or the place to continue being fucking dickheads.

But hey, lets just be careful, and tell EVERY country out there that if they fuck with us we will OBLITERATE them, so they KNOW where the line is. I bet they'd understand our attitude cuz we're just keeping it real.

[Mupepe]

The issue MAF, is that I don't think APF believes we've been pushing people around like dickheads

[MrAngryFace]

He probably thinks we should let the president decide who our enemy is too, with lies. Like that last time, that last 8 fucking years. Thats some good policy stuff, lets keep it up. Lets wave our big fat dick around and tell people to fuck off we're america U ARE OUR ENEMYZ even tho you just talk a lot of shit, kinda like everyone else, so that makes EVERYONE ELSE OUR ENEMY! OH NOES! AHHH PROTECT MOTHER AMERICA!

[APF]

Straw men much guys?

[Eric P]

i guess only nixon can go to china

[APF]

Lots of people can go to China.

[MrAngryFace]

APF: sure, but mostly cause it works in situations where people are ranting and there's no way to get through to them.

[APF]

Who is ranting here?

[Mandark]

"We are not going to permit them, if we can prevent it, to become a nuclear power.  But were they to become so, their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States."  -  Hillary Clinton

So yeah, I think she's talking about a massive retaliatory nuke strike.  And yes, that would be a major shift in policy.

[APF]

Different speech.  In that case I think she's simply lying (otherwise show me the treaty).  It won't happen, even if Iran were to strike Israel with nukes.  Frankly I don't think there's a scenario where the US will respond with nuclear retaliation to any realistic nuke hit--we're no longer in the cold war; realistically the calculation is completely different.  Not to mention, Israel has their own deterrent.  Plus, Hillary isn't going to be President.  So what are you arguing here?