A remarkable story:

Quote :

"NINE years ago, Ahmad Batebi appeared on the cover of The Economist. He was a 21-year-old student, one of thousands who protested against Iran’s government that summer. He was photographed holding aloft a T-shirt bespattered with the blood of a fellow protester. Soon afterwards, he was arrested and shown our issue of July 17th 1999. “With this”, he was told, “you have signed your death warrant.” During his interrogation he was blindfolded and beaten with cables until he passed out. His captors rubbed salt into his wounds to wake him up, so they could torture him more. They held his head in a drain full of sewage until he inhaled it. He recalls yearning for a swift death to end the pain. He was played recordings of what he was told was his mother being tortured. His captors wanted him to betray his fellow students, to implicate them in various crimes and to say on television that the blood on that T-shirt was only red paint. He says he refused."

Quote :

"Three months ago, on the day of the Persian new year, he escaped into Iraq. On June 24th he arrived in America."

(http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11707464)

Seriously -- we're going to sit down and talk to a regime that treats a 21-year old kid like this for protesting?

7/10/2008 8:42:55 PM

obama says they are not a real threat and code pink is against sanctions.....yay liberals

7/10/2008 8:48:01 PM

Quote :

"Seriously -- we're going to sit down and talk to a regime that treats a 21-year old kid like this for protesting?"

We have normal relations with China, hardly a paragon of human rights. We actively ship prisoners to countries we know engage in torture (Egypt, Saudi Arabia).

Since when have human rights been a predicate for diplomatic relations?

7/10/2008 8:52:15 PM

he's obviously a terrorist.

throw him in Gitmo with the rest.

7/10/2008 9:01:37 PM

Wait, torture is bad now?

7/10/2008 9:19:13 PM

Quote :

"he's obviously a terrorist. throw him in Gitmo with the rest."

Quote :

"Wait, torture is bad now?"

What goes around comes around.

7/10/2008 9:28:59 PM

Quote :

"Since when have human rights been a predicate for diplomatic relations? "

Since when have we ever thought we could have diplomatic relations with the insane leadership of this country?

7/10/2008 9:30:49 PM

Quote :

"Wait, torture is bad now? "

Quote :

"What goes around comes around. "

Oh hell no. Don't go down that road and try to group all of us in with that crowd--I'm pretty sure that there's nobody in this thread that generally approves of torture.

7/10/2008 10:23:42 PM

I don't think anyone was talking about anyone else in this thread.

But I don't see how we can condemn them on the basis of torture, when we ourselves torture. I don't think they are fluffing anyone's pillow at the CIA black sites.

Iran definitely has worse human rights than us, and it's atrocious they violently silent domestic civil disputes. But it's ridiculous to act on the basis that they shouldn't be torturing.

7/10/2008 10:27:02 PM

^

So we're just supposed to take it on faith that the U.S. treats people as badly as Iran treated him? Water-boarding doesn't sound pleasant to me, but compared to that? Give me a break!

More so the question I'm raising is -- how do you, as a foreign power, negotiate with a regime that treats its own citizens with this level of contempt? Even if we did negotiate some "diplomatic" arrangement with them, it'd have be done entirely on the basis of "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil." It didn't work with Saddam, it won't work with these religious nuts.

It seems to me that Iran is nothing more than a typical tin-foil-hat petty dictatorship wrapped in high-minded concepts of theocracy. Why do some prominent politicians insist on treating them as a legitimately organized state worth talking to?

7/10/2008 11:19:24 PM

Quote :

"It didn't work with Saddam, it won't work with these religious nuts. "

So why does it work with the Saudis, Egypt, Pakistan, and so forth?

We treat with murderers and thugs all the time when it suits our interests. Why are we now to suddenly take special exception to Iran?

7/10/2008 11:36:20 PM

^^ Yes. And more specifically, if you're Israel (and the United States), how do you "talk" to a nation such as Iran that (1) is almost certainly building or already has a nuclear weapon of some sort--even though it claims otherwise; (2) is actively firing test missiles that could deliver nuclear or conventional payloads at least regionally; and (3) is repeatedly calling for the destruction of your nation?

Quote :

"Israel is convinced Iran is building nuclear weapons, despite Tehran's insistence that it is developing energy. Israel's fears about Iran have only been heightened by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the Jewish state's destruction."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5geQPSlbLaYgF8CqPnKtBychk-IIQD91R2R600

[Edited on July 10, 2008 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2008 11:42:08 PM

to Duke:

Quote :

"I don't think anyone was talking about anyone else in this thread. But I don't see how we can condemn them on the basis of torture, when we ourselves torture. I don't think they are fluffing anyone's pillow at the CIA black sites. Iran definitely has worse human rights than us, and it's atrocious they violently silent domestic civil disputes. But it's ridiculous to act on the basis that they shouldn't be torturing."

7/11/2008 12:20:09 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how we can condemn them anyone on the basis of torture, when we ourselves torture. "

yeah, we really took the last bit of what was honest and decent about our country and flushed it down the shitter.



thanks, Dubya. nice legacy you've made for yourself. nice inheritance you've squandered for our children.







[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ]

7/11/2008 1:13:19 AM

Quote :

"(1) is almost certainly building or already has a nuclear weapon of some sort--even though it claims otherwise; (2) is actively firing test missiles that could deliver nuclear or conventional payloads at least regionally; and (3) is repeatedly calling for the destruction of your nation?"

I think point #3 is the most important one here. Iran distinguishes itself from other mere "thuggish" or "unsavory" nations in that they are actively arming themselves to kill us and our allies, without any inclination to do otherwise.

But here's a more pointed question for the pro-diplomacy side:

Will "Iran" even sit down with an American president and talk? I don't mean President Ahmadinejad. He and the so-called Guardian Council are not in fact the leaders of Iran; they're figureheads or, at best, proxies. The real question is would a President Obama have a direct one-on-one negotiation with Grand Ayatollah Khamenei?

It seems to me that as a Grand Ayatollah, Khamenei has a status that is comparable to the Pope in the world of Shi'a Islam. Clearly his basis for opposition to the West is not merely political; it runs much deeper. Although I think the customs of Iran and its government are reprehensible, I also think they are legitimately rooted in a kind of religious study of which these "revolutionaries" are considered the thought leaders.

I cannot imagine how any secular political leader negotiates a political compromise with a predominantly religious leader, who himself basically represents the Word of God. And if you're in the position of representing God, how many compromises are you fundamentally willing to make?

Quote :

" yeah, we really took the last bit of what was honest and decent about our country and flushed it down the shitter."

I really hate liberal self-guilt. We do not condone torture anywhere on the level of what Iran did to this kid.

Oh, and by the way -- if this were Iran, you're be tortured for complaining about the government's treatment of prisoners. Here we have Congressional hearings.

7/11/2008 1:38:49 AM

Quote :

"Wait, torture is bad now?"

[/thread]

---

Quote :

"Smoker4: And if you're in the position of representing God, how many compromises are you fundamentally willing to make?"

Ask the Pope about that Sun...

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 1:55 AM. Reason : ...]

7/11/2008 1:54:34 AM

Quote :

"I really hate liberal self-guilt. We do not condone torture anywhere on the level of what Iran did to this kid."

what the fuck ever.

its a matter of degree. have you even read the shit we've done to break people in Gitmo? thats not even counting the cases of "extraordinary rendition" when we fly them to Syria.

i really hate "conservatives" with their head-in-the-sand mentality and/or moral equivocation.

grow a fucking set of nuts, and stand up for something besides the herd, why don'tcha?

7/11/2008 2:11:22 AM

^

So you're saying you really do think America is equivalent to Iran in terms of its stated policy and implementation of torture?

^^

And the king of liberal self-guilt arrives. Late to the party, huh?

7/11/2008 2:30:28 AM

^^^ The inquisition! WHAT A SHOW!

The inquisition! HERE WE GO!

*cough*

This is fucked up, but I'm glad he made it out of there and that he chose to come here of all places. Even with the past news showing some of the more shadowy elements of our government to carry out some fairly unpalatable things, I'm glad we're still seen as a destination for political dissidents.

'Cause the inquisition's here and it's here to staaaaaaay!

(ok i'll stop)

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 2:33 AM. Reason : ]

7/11/2008 2:33:17 AM

lol

yes

the liberal anarchist

nice new war drum

7/11/2008 2:33:19 AM

Quote :

"I'm glad he made it out of there and that he chose to come here of all places."

Gee, why? I mean, hasn't he been reading the news? He has an equal chance of being tortured here just like in Iran!

7/11/2008 2:37:12 AM

AMERICA: WE TORTURE LESS

And since when has avoiding dialogue improved anything?

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 3:04 AM. Reason : did the old one break? or just get too expensive?]

7/11/2008 2:41:02 AM

Quote :

"do think America is equivalent to Iran in terms of its stated policy and implementation of torture?"

equivalent? of course not. similar? yes. at least in terms of torturing our political prisoners, we're closer to middle eastern theocratic dictatorships than we are to civilised western european democracies.




[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : ]

7/11/2008 3:09:32 AM

Clearly we should invade this nation over Ahmad Batebi, further entangling ourselves in an impossibly expensive and bloody war. It'll end the recession DAMMIT!

7/11/2008 3:16:05 AM

Quote :

"I think point #3 is the most important one here. Iran distinguishes itself from other mere "thuggish" or "unsavory" nations in that they are actively arming themselves to kill us and our allies, without any inclination to do otherwise."

The same was infinitely more true for the Soviets during the Cold War. Nikita Khrushchev? "We will bury you"? Worse yet, they had a nuclear arsenal that could wipe out humanity. Yet we still found a way to sit at the diplomacy table with them. (Or was it perhaps because of the inherent danger of direct conflict?)

Quote :

"Will "Iran" even sit down with an American president and talk? I don't mean President Ahmadinejad. He and the so-called Guardian Council are not in fact the leaders of Iran; they're figureheads or, at best, proxies. The real question is would a President Obama have a direct one-on-one negotiation with Grand Ayatollah Khamenei?"

While he's the figurehead so to speak, I'd assume that as the acting head of state, this would be the person we'd be talking to. Even if he is not the one pulling the puppet strings.

Quote :

"It seems to me that as a Grand Ayatollah, Khamenei has a status that is comparable to the Pope in the world of Shi'a Islam. Clearly his basis for opposition to the West is not merely political; it runs much deeper. Although I think the customs of Iran and its government are reprehensible, I also think they are legitimately rooted in a kind of religious study of which these "revolutionaries" are considered the thought leaders. I cannot imagine how any secular political leader negotiates a political compromise with a predominantly religious leader, who himself basically represents the Word of God. And if you're in the position of representing God, how many compromises are you fundamentally willing to make?"

Not to be flippant, but world leaders of secular nations regularly have audiences with the regular pope, right? While the Vatican certainly wouldn't be characterized as having a deep-seated grudge against Westernism, one could argue that many of its preferred political policies are sharply out of sync with the politics of the U.S. and Europe. Yet these parties still find a way to amicably meet to discuss their differences.

I realize that the divide is far more radical for Shi'a Islam, which represents whole culture foreign to the Judeo-Christian roots of the United States. But how the hell else should we be dealing with these people, other than through direct engagement? What exactly is the alternative, other than alienation, which so far hasn't worked out so great for us?

7/11/2008 3:18:52 AM

If only they were a democracy...

















...that we could overthrow AGAIN.

Quote :

"We do not condone torture"

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 3:32 AM. Reason : period]

7/11/2008 3:31:38 AM

Yeah, our military doesn't do anything for imprisoned militants. . .

Iraqi Militants Becoming Citizens
Major General Doug Stone is trying to turn jailed Iraqi militants into citizens.
Call him a do-gooder, but guess what? It's working.

Quote :

"After Major General Douglas Michael Stone arrived in Baghdad in April 2007 to take command of security prisoners in Iraq, he promptly assembled his officers for some blunt talk. The abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib were a 'moral failure' that had shamed a nation long admired for respecting international law and human rights, he told them. They were also a betrayal of the U.S. military's and America's 'core values.' 'Abu Ghraib was a leadership failure that telegraphed to 1.3 billion Muslims that we had no respect for them,' Stone told me as we flew in an H-60 Black Hawk helicopter to Camp Bucca, the sprawling civilian detention facility in the flat desert of southern Iraq. 'Abu Ghraib will not be forgotten. But it is being replaced.' Unvarnished assessments and cool determination are Stone hallmarks, say his friends and colleagues. So, apparently, is unorthodox thinking. Gen. David Petraeus, who commands the multinational forces in Iraq, says it was Stone's ability to 'think outside the box,' and his flair for encouraging creativity in subordinates, that prompted him to recruit Stone for the vexing, politically charged detention mission. Although the two men had never before 'soldiered together,' Petraeus says, 'we needed that kind of thinker and leader to take the detainee effort to the next level.' A little over a year after Stone's arrival, America's civilian detention program in Iraq has indeed been transformed. Cement walls and concertina wire still surround the two vast camps where nearly 23,000 people suspected of aiding the Iraqi insurgency are being held. But the men, women, and teenagers 'inside the wire' no longer languish without hope, not knowing why they have been detained or what they need to do to be released -- and they're no longer subjected to horrific and occasionally criminal abuses. Nor are they burning down their tents or hurling 'chai rocks' made of dried tea and sand at the soldiers who guard them, as they did before Stone arrived. Rather, thousands of once illiterate detainees have learned how to read and write. Hundreds more are now studying math, science, geography, civics, Arabic, and English and learning carpentry, bricklaying, and other skills that may enable them to feed their families after their release. They play soccer and Ping-Pong, visit their families, pray, and debate how to accurately interpret the Koran they can now read for themselves. And detainees appear in person every six months before a military review board that determines whether they can be released. While more than 8,000 have been released since last September, only 21 have been recaptured for suspected insurgent activity, a recidivism rate that Stone calls unprecedented."

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/iraqi-militants-becoming-citizens/article76144.html

Despite the mistreatment of some detainees by a few--who were severely punished--we treat our detainees a hell of a lot better than our people have been treated by the terrorist neck-choppers.

7/11/2008 3:32:55 AM

^

Wait. So you mean to tell me that when a few act out, that's not the same as a systemic top-down policy that regularly punishes ordinary citizens for exercising normal human rights?

No way! This is AMERICA WE TORTURE LESS!!!!1111

7/11/2008 4:21:03 AM

Quote :

"I'd assume that as the acting head of state, this would be the person we'd be talking to"

Well, I'd assume that too. I'd also assume that would be eminently disgraceful to us, for a legitimately elected U.S. president to sit down and conduct 'negotiations' with a sock puppet. Hey, maybe he can take a tour of some propaganda towns while he's at it!

Quote :

"While the Vatican certainly wouldn't be characterized as having a deep-seated grudge against Westernism"

Actually I would characterize them as "not developing nuclear weapons they'd gladly fire at us if they ever get the chance." I would also further characterize them as not having denounced all free Western society as patently and inherently evil.

You might note that I was comparing Khamenei to the Pope to show the degree of his intellectual influence; I was NOT comparing Iran to the Vatican. Let's not get carried away here.

Quote :

"But how the hell else should we be dealing with these people, other than through direct engagement?"

Oh, I definitely think direct engagement is the right path ...

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 4:29 AM. Reason : foo]

7/11/2008 4:27:20 AM

^^ Less is more.

7/11/2008 4:29:39 AM

Quote :

"Oh, I definitely think direct engagement is the right path ..."

It scares me that you prefer militarily engagement over verbal engagement.

It scares me more that there are others with the same mindset.

7/11/2008 7:29:38 AM

Quote :

"No way! This is AMERICA WE TORTURE LESS!!!!1111"

obviously this is true...the dude escaped and couldve gone anywhere and he came here.

we must not be all that bad.

7/11/2008 8:23:52 AM

The Palestinian question is the answer to our middle east troubles. Once Palestine has a state, those despotic regimes in the near east will no longer be able to distract the citizenry of their own questions by showing the plight of the Palestinians.

Solve that question and the Middle East will fall.

7/11/2008 9:38:59 AM

Quote :

"He is cagey about how exactly he escaped. But he says he used a cellphone camera to record virtually every step of his journey, and will soon go public with the pictures and his commentary. Meanwhile, he seems to be enjoying America. He praises the way “people have the opportunity to become who they want to be”. Shortly after he arrived, he posted a picture of himself in front of the Capitol on his Farsi-language blog, with the caption: “Your hands will never touch me again.”"

Incredible story. And for those of you who disparage our country, take it from the people who perhaps know best what it offers: immigrants and those in political asylum. We take for granted what means the most.

7/11/2008 9:50:38 AM

Quote :

"And for those of you who disparage our country, take it from the people who perhaps know best what it offers: immigrants and those in political asylum. We take for granted what means the most."

You heard it here first folks, America is perfect, we never do anything wrong.

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason : a]

7/11/2008 10:01:51 AM

Never said we were perfect. But if we weren't good, perhaps Mr. Batebi would've fled somewhere else...

7/11/2008 10:10:13 AM

Quote :

"Well, I'd assume that too. I'd also assume that would be eminently disgraceful to us, for a legitimately elected U.S. president to sit down and conduct 'negotiations' with a sock puppet. Hey, maybe he can take a tour of some propaganda towns while he's at it!"

Who exactly else would you expect us to conduct negotiations with, other than the head of state? Besides which, it doesn't mean that we have to send the POTUS out to meet face to face - there are other cabinet officials we can send, for instance. So this talk of disgrace simply by meeting with them is nonsense.

What it seems like here is that you're setting up an elaborate dilemma under which there is no possible way a diplomatic resolution is possible, namely by shifting the goalposts around. First, they're bloodthirsty savages. But, well, plenty of folks we have dealt with and still do deal with are bloodthirsty savages. Then they're hellbent on the destruction of the West. But so were others who were far scarier than some camel jockeys who don't even have a working nuclear device. Then we'd be dealing with sock puppets, so it'd be disgraceful.

To be honest, it feels a little insincere. Like there's a pre-determined outcome ("No way diplomacy can work!") and any argument is going to get shoehorned into that spot when another fails.

Quote :

"Actually I would characterize them as "not developing nuclear weapons they'd gladly fire at us if they ever get the chance." I would also further characterize them as not having denounced all free Western society as patently and inherently evil. You might note that I was comparing Khamenei to the Pope to show the degree of his intellectual influence; I was NOT comparing Iran to the Vatican. Let's not get carried away here."

My point was simply in stating that we meet with major religious authorities and all the baggage that goes with it all the time as a secular state. I'm not trying to imply a comparison between the Vatican and the Guardian Council, but simply that it's not out of the question for us to have dialogue with major religious leaders.

Would having dialogue with Khomenei be more difficult than the pope? Sure - orders of magnitude more. But what in particular rules it off the table when precedent is there?

Furthermore, and this is just a side point - I don't really think the chief threat of Iran's nukes is us per se - at least, not the primary target. Their missile range and their hated enemy is Israel. Now, you can certainly make the case that Israel is a crucial strategic ally of the U.S., and allowing them to come to harm from Iran developing a nuclear device would be unthinkable, but let's get the situation straight, here.

The most probable harm coming to U.S. citizens would be through Iran attacking a regional military base with a nuke. To do so however would invite such a massive nuclear retaliation that I doubt they'd try. (They'd bluster, most certainly, and any nukes in their hands would make them much more difficult to deal with - and thus preventing them from obtaining one is certainly a worthwhile goal.)

On the other hand, I think they believe they could cripple Israel with a first strike without such a massive retaliation. Therefore, it seems like the real threat is not necessarily us, but our interests in the region.

Quote :

"Oh, I definitely think direct engagement is the right path ..."

Somehow I doubt your meaning of the term "direct engagement" is the same as mine...

[Edited on July 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2008 11:42:50 AM

its like some people can't acknowledge how bad Iran is without talking mad shit about the United States..."Iran tortured this guy for protesting" "oh yeah well some US soldiers have fucked up at Gitmo, therefore we are just as bad as Iran"

I think we need to somehow encourage the youthful citizens of Iran to revolt and overthrow their government...supposedly there are a TON of young people over there who want more freedoms, who want to be able to not have the government block American tv and internet sites, who want to live a much better life than Iran currently provides for, who don't want to be beaten and tortured and gagged in raw sewage for criticizing the government...somehow we need to get them to decrease the power of Iran's government cause if our country does anything...well this thread has a number of examples of how we'd get completely ripped

7/11/2008 11:53:55 AM

trite piece of toilet paper

Quote :

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

7/11/2008 5:13:45 PM

I agree with Phil Gramm.

7/11/2008 5:18:41 PM

I realize that many of you will say it doesn't matter, but for my part, I recognize a difference between:

1) Torturing somebody to acquire potentially life-saving information, and

2) Torturing somebody to coerce them to participate in propaganda

3) Torturing somebody as punishment

Iran is doing 2 and 3. I've yet to see the evidence that we are doing anything other than 1. And while I think our implementation has been overreaching and poorly done, I don't have a problem with #1 in general.

Quote :

"Why do some prominent politicians insist on treating them as a legitimately organized state worth talking to?"

Well, they meet all the qualifications for "legitimately organized state." Their system of government is odd and religiously-based, but it is functional and unified.

And I don't know that they're worth talking to, but fighting them is damn sure not worth it, if only for purely military reasons.

Quote :

"We treat with murderers and thugs all the time when it suits our interests. Why are we now to suddenly take special exception to Iran?"

You answered your own question: it doesn't suit our interests. We have very little to gain internationally or domestically by playing nice with Iran.

Quote :

"And more specifically, if you're Israel (and the United States), how do you "talk" to a nation such as Iran that (1) is almost certainly building or already has a nuclear weapon of some sort--even though it claims otherwise; (2) is actively firing test missiles that could deliver nuclear or conventional payloads at least regionally; and (3) is repeatedly calling for the destruction of your nation?"

What alternative do you propose? It is precisely for those reasons that talking is necessary. Certainly, guard should be kept up and preparations for conflict should be made, but if you don't talk you have to fight. When a nuclear country hates you, you don't just "ignore." And as much as I'd like to see Iran's leaders strung up and it's people liberated, I recognize a few basic facts:

1) No matter the circumstances, the Iranians will not feel liberated. They have a profound sense of nationalism; they predominantly consider themselves Persians first and Muslims second, if Dr. Khater is to be believed (and he is). The country has a history dating back to ancient times, unlike Iraq, which was drawn up more or less at random by a notorious alcoholic, Winston Churchill. Any foreign incursion into the country for any reason will be seen as just that: a foreign incursion.

2) Iran is better armed, much larger country than Iraq with worse terrain, more united people, and more will to fight. Every problem we see in Iraq would be compounded in Iran.

3) Israel won't start anything if they can help it, and they won't be all that useful besides, because Israel doesn't have much in the way of force projection. They can lob some cruise missiles and contribute special forces, little else.

4) There is even less popular support at home and abroad for war with Iran than there was for Iraq.

So I ask again, if you don't talk to these people, what in the hell do you do?

Quote :

"I cannot imagine how any secular political leader negotiates a political compromise with a predominantly religious leader, who himself basically represents the Word of God. And if you're in the position of representing God, how many compromises are you fundamentally willing to make?"

It's happened before. The Mormon leadership was pretty hardcore in its religious zeal, but when we made monogamy a prerequisite for statehood suddenly they had a revelation that polygamy was bad. The word of God is happily vague and open to interpretation on many points, and religious leaders get where they are by taking advantage of that.

Besides, the hatred of America and Israel appeals much more to the nationalism side of things than to the religious.

Quote :

"Nikita Khrushchev? "We will bury you"?"

One of the great out-of-context-quotes in history. While it certainly isn't a very nice thing to say, it didn't really carry a threat; he was merely explaining that communism would outlive the West. One of the basic tenets of Marxism is that, sooner or later, all systems in all countries will eventually be communist of their own accord. It didn't require invading and imposing the system. However, the West's failure to understand this point made us very paranoid in the early years, and helped contribute to the colossal series of misunderstandings that we call the Cold War.

As Wikipedia puts it:

"On August 24, 1963, Khrushchev himself remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you", a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism"; a popular articulation of the materialist conception of history as the inevitable progression of class struggle towards communism."

Quote :

"I'd also assume that would be eminently disgraceful to us, for a legitimately elected U.S. president to sit down and conduct 'negotiations' with a sock puppet."

He's not a sock puppet; he does have meaningful authority. The religious leadership's primary role is in selecting which people get into office, not telling people in office what to do. Yes, that gives them enormous influence, but you could make the case that the whole system is analogous to wealthy, influential people involved in politics here.

Besides which, the President frequently talks to heads of state with even less real power, because by definition "head of state" is the person you talk to. The Queen of England arguably has even less power/influence than Ahmadinewhatever; if she publicly tried to influence policy at all she'd likely get the boot.

Quote :

"The Palestinian question is the answer to our middle east troubles. Once Palestine has a state, those despotic regimes in the near east will no longer be able to distract the citizenry of their own questions by showing the plight of the Palestinians."

This is hopelessly optimistic.

7/11/2008 5:19:04 PM

Quote :

".the dude escaped and couldve gone anywhere and he came here. we must not be all that bad"

you've got logic problems, too, i see.

if i were in Iraq, arrested, imprisoned and being tortured by the iraqis/americans... and i had a chance to split.... where would i go? at that point, where COULD i go?

hmm.

tricky.

:dur:

7/11/2008 6:49:55 PM

^^

Not a sock puppet? What is ambiguous about the title of Supreme Leader (the guy he works for)?

He's a tool of an absolutist theocrat and we should not entertain him.

7/11/2008 10:49:00 PM

Once again then, what exactly is our criteria for dealing with sovereign leaders?

Should a general who deposed a democratically elected government in a coup be shunned? Or do we talk to General Musharraf if he's useful to us? How about Mubarak, who's been living under a "State of Emergency" for over 30 years now? Or hell, how about the House of Saud?

Hell, we even deal with the government of a sociopath in direct negotiations (Kim Jong Il). So what exactly is the criteria for not dealing with Iran while dealing with every other unsavory tin-kettle despot out there?

7/11/2008 11:23:14 PM

Iraq: Hussein repeatedly claimed that he does not have weapons of mass destruction; complied with the US, let inspectors walk in and verify it. They find some mustard gas bombs what are 2 decades old and probably won't even work, and are found in basically any 3rd world country with a military. Bush invaded them as soon as he found out that it's an easy victory.

North Korea: Kim repeated claimed that he goes have the capability to nuke a nearby country (namely, Japan). He fired missiles over Japan, etc. Bush gets scared and sits down and talks to them, ends up giving them plenty of aid too.

Iran: If you can't tell why the hell Iran wants nukes so bad, then you should stop thinking that they're the aggressor and start thinking they're doing this in self-defense.

7/11/2008 11:50:46 PM

^ the two decade gas shells with residual traces of inert mustard gas was found AFTER we invaded, and AFTER every CIA and IAEA inspector concluded Saddam didnt have and never did have anything since the early 1990's.

and as soon as they were found, every kneejerk conservative knucklehead on here was like "Well lookee here, we found us some WMDs!"

7/12/2008 1:21:34 AM

^x6 NB: I never indicated that we shouldn't talk to Iran. Clearly, I asked how Israel and the United States go about talking to leaders that call for their very destruction on a routine basis. I mean, Iran doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist and the United States is the "Great Satan"--that's a pretty poor starting point, wouldn't you say?

To compound matters, we have left-wing loons at a major university in this country giving the dangerous and hate-filled nutball Ahmadinejad a platform to speak. And all the while these same loons and their supporters mouth meaningless mush that should be understood as, "If we just talk to the people that would slit the throats of all Americans and Israelis in a second, they'll be nice to us."

Iran needs to do much more to indicate that they are willing to be active participants in any talks. They might start by shutting the fuck up with the "Destroy Israel!" shit every other day.

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 3:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2008 3:06:00 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: how do you, as a foreign power, negotiate with a regime that treats its own citizens with this level of contempt?"

Shocking you wouldn't think of multi-lateralism.

Seems to have worked with North Korea.

So, really, what does an absence of dialogue resolve?

Quote :

"Smoker4: Even if we did negotiate some "diplomatic" arrangement with them, it'd have be done entirely on the basis of "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.""

Like Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Just about any of our South American friends?

Seriously, I can hear the thuds of your war mallets from the East Coast...

Quote :

"Smoker4: It didn't work with Saddam, it won't work with these religious nuts."

What the hell do you mean it didn't work with Saddam?

That's like saying, "It won't work because we're paranoid and lack patience."

Please step away from the crystal ball.

Quote :

"Smoker4: Why do some prominent politicians insist on treating them as a legitimately organized state worth talking to?"

My guess?

Because they seem to control access to the oil and bombs within their territory.

Quote :

"Smoker4: I cannot imagine how any secular political leader negotiates a political compromise with a predominantly religious leader, who himself basically represents the Word of God."

Quid pro quo, like most negotiations. Doesn't require much imagination. Just because they're working towards a caliphate doesn't mean this isn't still statecraft. Religion is just their political tool. They still have an economy to manage.

Or do you not think the Shah realizes this?

Quote :

"Smoker4: I'd also assume that would be eminently disgraceful to us, for a legitimately elected U.S. president to sit down and conduct 'negotiations' with a sock puppet."

Oh please. You present a highly one-dimensional view of Iran's leadership. By your own terms, the sitting U.S. President is a 'sock puppet' for the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century.

Why shouldn't William Kristol sit down with Khamenei instead?

Because he doesn't claim to represent God?

Feel free to insert whatever figurehead from whatever political movement du jour that you or the Economist finds palatable. But, given the depth of your political knowledge, I'd say you're well aware a Secretary of State would be a more appropriate official for us to send.

Quote :

"Smoker4: I was NOT comparing Iran to the Vatican."

Oh but you were.

Who does the Vatican claim to represent, exactly?

---

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Like there's a pre-determined outcome ("No way diplomacy can work!") and any argument is going to get shoehorned into that spot when another fails."

Pretty much. The Soap Box last saw this song and dance from Smoker4 in 2003. It was just as eloquent, then, too.

---

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: We have very little to gain internationally or domestically by playing nice with Iran."

What do we have to gain on either front with Smoker4's brand of "direct engagement?"

All I see in his OP is "moral pride."

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: So I ask again, if you don't talk to these people, what in the hell do you do?"

And to be specific -- WHAT IS YOUR EXIT STRATEGY?

---

Quote :

"damosyangsta: Iran: If you can't tell why the hell Iran wants nukes so bad, then you should stop thinking that they're the aggressor and start thinking they're doing this in self-defense."

gg

Prisoners dilemma FTW.

The geopolitical world is not a vacuum after all.

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 4:22 AM. Reason : WHODA THUNKIT?]

7/12/2008 4:17:42 AM

Quote :

"Not a sock puppet? What is ambiguous about the title of Supreme Leader (the guy he works for)?"

I know this is coming from a guy who has explicitly stated that everyone should have to major in an engineering field, but there are subtleties to the situation that even you are not grasping -- and I respect you very highly among soapboxers.

Sadly, some of these subtleties are things I already covered. Rather than repeat myself I'll simply say that titles are just that: titles. They don't always carry the weight that they imply. Queen Elizabeth has a boatload of titles regarding her leadership of many countries, but she has relatively little sway in any of them.

The "Supreme Leader," as I said, has considerable influence in selecting which individuals can realistically run for office. And to be sure, that means he holds considerable influence in general. But that doesn't mean he has his hand up Ahmadinejad's ass.

Quote :

"Iran: If you can't tell why the hell Iran wants nukes so bad, then you should stop thinking that they're the aggressor and start thinking they're doing this in self-defense."

Here it's a little from column A, a little from column B. There's a defensive aspect to it, but probably larger than anything there's a national pride consideration -- Persians are big on Persia, and nuclear weapons put them right back into a select club of important countries. And, in the minds of some (if not many), real offensive capability is a big deal.

At the end of the day, Iran's leadership is not mentally deficient. They realize that actual aggression will bring down more on their heads than they can deal with. We might not be willing to start a preemptive war against Iran, but I think we're more than willing to launch a retaliatory one -- and even a limited engagement would cause massive damage and dislodge the regime. Ultimately, religion or not, the regime will do what it thinks most likely to keep it in power.

This is a game that, arguably, Saddam Hussein played quite well. His invasion of Kuwait brought him popular support that he had lost after the disastrous war with Iran. Sure, it caused a war and the loss of much of that support, but he did retain power in large part because of his actions. The one thing he didn't (and really couldn't) count on was an American president who acted largely irrationally in order to bring him down. In certain key regards, I admire that irrationality, but the point stands that pretty much any government is going to do what it takes to keep itself in place.

Quote :

"Clearly, I asked how Israel and the United States go about talking to leaders that call for their very destruction on a routine basis."

Fair enough, but it's a wording that invites questioning, because more often than not (especially with the follow-up you provided) it implies impossibility. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, simply because I've nothing further to say on the point of how ridiculous a war with Iran would be and so further discussion on the point is bound to be useless.

Quote :

"that's a pretty poor starting point, wouldn't you say?"

Absolutely. We need a credible basis for threat against Iran, and at the moment, we have that thanks to the nuclear program nobody really wants them to have, as well as the fact that we have large military contingents stationed on either side of them. And that threat needs to be apparent, but we don't need to beat them over the head with it.

The biggest threats are the ones that need talk the most. There are exceptions -- I don't particularly think we could have talked Hitler out of his plans, because he came in with a very specific set he was determined about. But Iran's system of government has been in place for a while, sticking to the same old popular themes. It isn't necessarily that they believe them anymore, it's that it keeps them in charge in their own country. Even the most religious, seemingly irrational leaders are, often as not, fairly reasonable at their base -- at least when you take into account their motivations. People in power want to stay in power, and they are willing to act as bugshit crazy as they have to towards that end.

Quote :

"To compound matters, we have left-wing loons at a major university in this country giving the dangerous and hate-filled nutball Ahmadinejad a platform to speak."

This is a minor concern overall. He hasn't spoken to a warm reception anywhere in this country. Let him talk all he wants as long as the response is so overwhelmingly negative. I'm not particularly worried about it until lots of people really start believing his shit.

It's the only reason I don't at all mind public Klan rallies: at this point, they're pretty much a laughingstock anyways, why not let them do our propaganda for us by opening their mouths? It's more convincing that way, anyhow.

Quote :

"Iran needs to do much more to indicate that they are willing to be active participants in any talks."

I fundamentally disagree here. You don't make talks conditional on action, you make action conditional on action. It costs us relatively little to sit down and discuss matters with the bastards. We can sit and chat with them forever. The thing we can't do is give them anything tangible until they do the same. You want sanctions lifted? Cut the crap about wanting to drive the Jews into the sea. You want US foreign investment? Drop the nuclear program.

Ultimately, it's difficult to the point of impossibility to get a result without talks and the offer of deals.

Quote :

"What do we have to gain on either front with Smoker4's brand of "direct engagement?" "

Probably even less.

I don't know why you're arguing with me, I agree that "direct engagement" is a bad plan. But the actors in this situation have their motivations. Fortunately enough, they point away from war even more than they point away from diplomacy. An actual conflict would be disastrous internationally and domestically, whereas a purely positive approach would be merely undesirable.

The result is what we see now: a lot of tough talk, relatively little action.

Quote :

"And to be specific -- WHAT IS YOUR EXIT STRATEGY?"

An exit strategy isn't that difficult to come up with when you're really concerned about it, and when you listen to the right people with ideas. Honestly, I'd be less concerned with how we left Iran than with how we went into it (ie, all the military problems). Our only real goal would be to demolish their large-scale weapons systems and remove the personnel most knowledgeable about it. This in and of itself is not terribly difficult.

7/12/2008 6:00:59 AM

^ Except there's at least one major flaw in your rather lengthy response: Several European countries have been "negotiating" with Iran for some five years now. NEWSFLASH: We're no better off now concerning the issue in question than we were five years ago.

Iran Warns Europeans to Respect Its Rights on Nuclear Program

Quote :

"Iran has been negotiating with three European countries - Germany, Britain and France - for nearly two years to find a solution to the crisis over its nuclear program. The United States has accused Iran of trying to make a nuclear bomb, but Iran contends that its program is peaceful and has reiterated its view in recent days that it should be allowed to develop nuclear energy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/international/middleeast/24iran.html

Quote :

"If we just talk to the people that would slit the throats of all Americans and Israelis in a second, they'll be nice to us."

7/12/2008 7:31:51 PM