The Wisdom In Talking Remember what he said in the 04 campaign? "The US should reach out to its allies and unite to address our concerns" Remember the French, German and UK envoys talking almost non-stop with Iran a year or two ago? Remember they got NOTHING? Read the whole thing... it's like he's some French wolfhound chasing his tail! And that is EXACTLY what was on the table when the EU guys went to talk! Oh, yeah and this: It {Iran} has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is really helpful. I'm just trying to figure out what it means.. so far it keep coming out looking like a three sided box. The Mass Democratic brain is still recuperating in Hyannisport! What a F##$$KG IDIOT! Or does 'definition of insanity' fit the best?
First... we ARE talking. Somewhere, Someone is talking. Not just trading barbs and headlines, it's called 'back channel negotiations'... that's not double entendre, either..I hope. Staying FIRM... not cutting and running, esp in Iraq. Big Stick. In this case, surgical deep penetration airstrikes. Aint NO way anyone's 'invading Iran' under the present and near future circumstances. That's all you can do with a messianic sociopath. - - - - -- - -- - - - - But let me explain I dont REALLY think Kerry's an actual mental idiot... that's a figure of speech. He's a mental midget.. there's a difference. He knows exactly what he's doing, I bet. He thinks WE are all idiots. That's why that article is a lot of hot air about nothing. Some politicians think speaking and writing about world affairs is actually DOING something.
Basically "our way or the highway". This has usually worked very well throughout history. :Rolls eyes:
So... you recommend we do it Iran's way? What do you recommend we give them to prove we wanna be friends? - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - Actually it has worked very well. Unless your sense of history has been highly warped. Where did we get into major problems in the last century? WWI got out of control because it was none of our business. At the armistice, France wanted revenge, we said it was none of our business so the UK sighed and went along with the punishing terms which resulted in Germany being humiliated for years after losing. so Adolph took power. And we had to had to go back and do it again. After we got dragged into it because SOME in Japan had the feeling we didnt really want to fight. OTHERS in Japan felt they had no choice or we would stifle their influence in the PAcRim. Then we got sucked into Viet NAm.. where, it's true we had no business.. because FRANCE got their asses kicked and asked us to police South Viet Nam. Then we left Nam, not because we lost any war, but because we insisted it had to be 'fought fair' and then because we lost the will. Now we're in Iraq.. and WHY? Because France was on the take and looking out for their oil and weapons interests. If France and Germany had signed up on the last resolution it just MIGHT be that Saddam would have hollered 'uncle'. I doubt it.. but MIGHT. See a pattern there? It doesnt work to sit back and let others decide FOR you. You have to make your intentions clear and not equivocate. It's how you train animals, it's how you play sports and it's how you do statesmanship and diplomacy, whether it's on the school playground or the global stage..
Well, I must say, you're about 5% correct on the 20th century war rundown ... of course, that means that you're 95% wrong. Also, in your earlier riposte to FFC24, it was nice to see the return of "cut and run." I guess we're once again primarily concerned about the war as a means of delinieating "them" from "us" in this country. I guess that makes people who would like for Americans to stop being killed in Iraq traitors AND cowards ... again. Return with us now to those glorious days of 2004. Like our president, 'fog, you're quite the uniter. So, so, so sad. You cheerlead the drumbeat of war while making fun of a guy who has actually taken part in a war. How solidly in lockstep with the Bush/Cheney inner circle; how tragic. Think I'll take Memorial Day off from the site. Celebrate well, all, and lift a glass to those brave men and women who died in the service of our country.
So I'm 5% right, in the very simple but TRUE points I made.. but 95% WRONG. Oh, yeah... WHERE am I wrong what point was wrong, other than you saying so. With you it's just either a drive-zing or "some meme' but you NEVER SEEM to be able to explain it.] I am 95% RIGHT in what I said..PERIOD.. until you disprove it! And dont fucking quote Churchill while you're doing it. Have a great memorial day
Pettyfog and his views aren't always easy to decipher but on Iran they're crystal clear; "there's going to be a war...there is no alternative" http://www.fulhamusa.com/index.php?name ... pic&t=3661 Given this position its no suprise your all for escalating the escalation with some handy deep penetration air stirkes. Yet when Zigby makes some statement on how the right is beating the drums of war, likely signaling an eventual attack, a page long diatribe is drawn from you. Given the position of you and your types on the issue such an assesment would seem like a non starter but anything to bring out the old Carter punching bag I guess. I also like how you've know attributed the whole god damn mess to France and Germany. You and you're responsibility no victims mantra yet it seems we, the United States, are always the victim, no questions asked.
Happy Memorial Day! - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - And yet.... Not a single rebuttal to my points. Under the rules of debate, rebuttal consists of facts or logic presented COUNTERING. Not just saying they're WRONG! Of course there are other factors involved, and I never said US is a 'victim'. I pointed out factors in events. What I pointed out is that France had a significant involvement in all three instances.... a little musing would then cause a chuckle when considering its link with the term : 'Diplomacy' None above dispute the citations, they seem to dislike me pointing them out. Sidepoint but ANOTHER connection: When Kerry got out, he went to Paris to 'observe' talks with North Viet Nam... that has nothing to do with anything but Kerry's cred. By then, of course, France's de-facto position was on the side of the North. Do notice, gentle reader, that words are put in my position. I did not say war with Iran is inevitable{*}, I said the worst case response is a surgical strike on the Nuke facilities. And that is a PROBABLE. There's also possibilities of strikes on Iranian training camps. There will be no 'Boots on the ground' war with Iran in the NEXT FOUR YEARS. I said it.. I'm 95% sure of it. Rebut THAT added: * I did not say that here, I said it on the link Spencer put up. The premise is that Achmeni will continue to tease and provoke. I dont think I said 'boots on ground' there, either. There, my niggling pessimism is "We can either provoke further conventional hostilities by striking inside Iran, or wait for Iran to set off a nuke." One or the other IS going to happen! But in that thread is the same circular logic, the answer is ALWAYS 'negotiate', the core question is is never answered. What tools do we negotiate with?
Let us chant: O-o-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O-o-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Ad Homine-e-mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Sorry.... couldn't resist. :twisted:
Petty, we have to compromise to get anything done in talks. I know the word compromise strikes fear in the hearts of Republicans, but if it saves us from war, then so be it. I know you think Iran is a major threat to us, but you'd be wrong. Iran knows it and is waiting for us to be serious. You can go on about the war history and such, but sticking by "Our way or the highway" won't work and will only see our downfall.
Okay.. let's compromise. Why dont you suggest one thing we give them that we havent offered already? Hope... Change... Negotiate... Compromise Why do I think the highlighted parts are the only points you want to make? NAME SOMETHING, ANYTHING!
Ahmedinidaanaogiaogna is going to lose the next election in Iran. The Iranians are pissed that he hasn't come close to fulfilling his election platform for economic prosperity...and they'll vote him out for a "moderate" in the mold of past president Khatami. Even the Mullahs in Iran are pissed at M.A. right now for invoking religious rhetoric in the name of political rhetoric (such political shenanigans are unheard of in the USA, right?). The people of Iran, by and large, are pro-USA....shit, most of their TV is broadcast from L.A. A stick (no matter what is happening in Iraq, the US is very capable of bombing the country into the stone age - and personally, I don't agree with this option at all, but it needs to be spoken to the face of a high ranking Iranian diplomat) and a carrot ($$$$$$$$$$$). But my question to Petty (not flaming), what is the appropriate solution without verbal engagement? Did "W" craft the thread heading?
I think he can write okay... he just cant talk so good, sometimes. Actually I wrote it.. you see he wasnt around and i didnt study hard in collich... and just lucky I didnt get stuck in Iraq
Oh really. This is what you said dork. Your dishing the blame and it wasn't one of many factors you listed with regard to Iraq it was the only one. You didn't say the "v word" but you might as well have. You titled a thread "theres going to be a war" and the first sentence you wrote in it was "theres no alternative". You believe that because the EU negotiations failed all subsequent negotiations will fail. It wasn't "theres going to be airstrikes", it was "theres going to be a war". Thats your position don't try and run away from it. The die is cast, your just watin for us to pull the trigger. I do however find your no boots on the ground in the next four years prediction interesting though. So just in time for McCain's reelection then. So there it is once again. First we didn't want the WMD's to turn into a mushroom cloud and now we have to start another war before Mahmoud can bring back the 12th mullah. When it comes down to it everyone is self sustaining but you've always got that goodie in your holster to fall back on. Just scare em. It worked last time and it won't fail this time. Put it all on the table. The carrots and the sticks. Sit across the table and try to hammer out a deal. If that fails then we have the leverage to enact the "real sanctions" McCain speaks of. Those set in and if there still at we sit down again and talk more sticks tell them exactly what were going to do to em. They're already hurting economically and they'll cut a deal, if they don't then go ahead with the air strikes and take out their nuclear proliferation vitals. They'll unleash hell in Iraq but if comes to that it comes to that. The point is you have too do everything possible before you pull the trigger and send thousands more to their graves and half hearted EU negotiations are not everything and we did not do everything prior to Iraq. As I said in the other thread its one thing to negotiate willy nilly, its another thing to negotiate when the heat, the tension, the consequences, the death of war are looming. Speaking of which here's another one of your "points".... So if we are talking anyway whats the basis of your opposition bringing those talks on to a larger scale? What are you afraid of? That is of course the central premise throughout Kerry's op-ed. You failed to address that point among others but that didn't stop you from saying he was like a "French wolfhound chasing his tail" and calling him a "F##$$KG IDIOT!" and a "mental idiot". You know after reading your wiki link I might call that a ad hominem. We have some time on our side to put this right and we must try. Not talking has done nothing and the clock ticks. If your right and the die is cast then negotiations will fail and war will come but we must try first. And before you go on blabin about not addressing your points again... Yes, make your intentions clear not with sound bites that are used to escalate tensions for political purposes by both sides but with negotiations. Make your intentions clear in negotiations! The neo-con mentality minimizes the value of life and the consequences of war. Its all relative is not a good enough excuse when your sending men to their deaths. That is my main bone of contention. You must do everything to avoid war but they will not. They will go to war before they negotiate. The consequences of another war will be devastating, this is never at the front of the neocon's mind.
What a piece. I explain the vaunted diplomatic tack, which was raised, didnt work. You say I blamed it on FRANCE. What I did was point out cases where we went too far in assisting allies.. or ignored them.. both to the world's detriment. AGain, you're attacking the ' stick' but you cant describe the carrot! You ignore/forget/never realized we HAVE been attempting to negotiate. Why is that... I think you know the answer. The only carrot the Iranian Revolution wants is the one we wont give them. And they arent afraid of.. or will welcome... any stick. WSJ: The Problem With Talking.. So... Do you suppose that was not known in foggy Bottom? I'm betting it was. Just last night, even Pat Buchanan said that Ryan Crocker is talking to Iran at the moment. But any results will be to the advantage of Iran. As to Neocons and 'rush to war', I'd suggest you actually look at the facts since 1979. Or you could just look at the statements of the Iranians themselves. Why do you think it's all hot-air? I suggest that opinion pretty much sums up the problem. If you're really interested in understanding the issue, read it. If you insist the US is at fault... just keep on reading campaign propaganda.
I think Spencer understands and delineates the problem quite nicely. I don't think there's an ounce of campaign propaganda in what he says. And I think he understands "the issue" much, much better than you do. I put "the issue" in quotes, because it's not really an issue to you, is it? The hard right wants more war against Islam. They want to try and swat another gnat so that we can look all strong and resolute. On this site, you're their cheerleader. The problem for you guys is that you're having a lot of trouble selling it to a population that was hornswoggeled by your bunch on Iraq. As a result, you keep hammering away at it and positively fume at those of us who recognize that further US-generated elective war in the Mideast does nothing positive for us here at home, but that it does kill a lot of young Americans. Obviously, the point of your entire diatribe was to convince us of the need for this war by hammering home the following point: IT'S THE FRENCH! IT'S THE FRENCH. IT'S THE FRENCH. Even to the point of giving Kerry the ultimate [in the eys of the feebleminded right-wing] insult: there's just something so, I don't know, French about him. Now there's a logic train whose absolute correctness everyone can applaud. What a sad joke.
and, speaking of deja vu, here's Scott McLellan's take on the pre-Iraq war drumbeating by the Neocons and the White House: McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002. But in a chapter [of his new book] titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option." "Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage." McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary." Well, it's a little late, Scott, but we're glad you finally got religion anyhow.
He finally 'got religion' for the obvious reasons... NOW Olbermann likes him. And you do too. Dont notice you talking about Doug Feith's book on the Iraq run-up. He ACTUALLY DID POLICY. Not just 'mouth-piece' it. Aint it funny how some of the comments on there reflect what's on here.. stupid revisionist neocons! Christian Science Monitor Review of Feith's Book. and USN&WR Dont hold your breath waiting for NYT and WaPo to review it. Bet McClellan's will be up within the week on both.
