Originally Posted By Dabob2 << Talking doesn't equal concessions, compromise, or anything else. >> <When you talk to rogue nations as though they are on equal footing with other nations that respect some manner of human rights for their citizens, you concede the fact that those governments are legitimate in their practices.> No, you don't. The Soviets were running their gulags all those decades we talked to them. And while we talked to them, we also said quite loudly that their practices were not legitimate. These things are not mutually exclusive. We talked to them not because we considered them legitimate, but because it was in OUR interest to do so. It was better for US to talk to them than not to talk to them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The Soviets were running their gulags all those decades we talked to them" They were also capable of blowing us to pieces, too, and we were in the midst of what amounted to a war with them. Have some sense. And when they invaded Afghanistan? We pulled out of the Moscow Olympics. Oh, and by the way we DO talk to North Korea, in case you have forgotten. We've been doing it for years. They are hostile and obstinate. They don't want to cooperate. So, what exactly would we gain by having this clown go talk to the Iranians? This guy who wants to see us all dead? The only thing that would result is us giving in to demands on their part, or nothing. Yeah, that's a great way to start. Giving in.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <They were also capable of blowing us to pieces, too, and we were in the midst of what amounted to a war with them. Have some sense. > I do have some sense. As I said, it was in our interest to talk to them. And I wasn't even responding to you here, but rather SportGoofy, who said that talking to someone in and of itself meant that you considered their practices legitimate. That is not so. <And when they invaded Afghanistan? We pulled out of the Moscow Olympics.> Yep. But didn't stop talking to them. <Oh, and by the way we DO talk to North Korea, in case you have forgotten.> I haven't (and didn't even bring them up, actually). <We've been doing it for years. They are hostile and obstinate. They don't want to cooperate.> That is often the case with countries whose interests are contrary to yours. But you talk anyway, because not talking just lets them go their own way with you having even LESS idea what they're up to. <So, what exactly would we gain by having this clown go talk to the Iranians? This guy who wants to see us all dead? The only thing that would result is us giving in to demands on their part, or nothing. Yeah, that's a great way to start. Giving in.> You're assuming things not in evidence - classic logical fallacy. You're assuming what Obama would do, when you have no idea. For all we know he'd be Mr. Affable for the cameras and then behind closed doors tell them they'd better knock off the nuclear program or we'll give the Israelis the green light to take it out. Or we'll do it ourselves. We have no idea what he and his team would do, and shouldn't pretend we do.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You're assuming things not in evidence - classic logical fallacy. You're assuming what Obama would do, when you have no idea." He said he would talk to them. That is a concession, and giving in. That's already a loss. When you do this with people who don't really want anything but to see us dead, they see it as a weakness and ratchet it up. After Vienna, when Kennedy was cut to pieces in Vienna, we ended up with the Cuban Missle Crisis and the Berlin Wall. You can't talk to people unless they are willing to be talked to in good faith. It wasn't until Nixon through back channels started conversations with the Soviet Union and China were we ready to start talking at a high level. You just don't show up and chat. Not unless you're a complete idiot. "behind closed doors tell them they'd better knock off the nuclear program or we'll give the Israelis the green light to take it out." Uh, right. That's just the sort of thing you'd have the president travel there for.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 May I suggest pseudephedrine, water, and sleep, jonvn? Hope you feel better.
Originally Posted By jonvn Thanks. I think I drank half a bottle of nyquil last night. I am just chugging it at this point.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He said he would talk to them. That is a concession, and giving in. That's already a loss.<< So, no talking, we just bomb the hell out of countries? Worked wonderfully in Iraq.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You don't just show up and chat.<< You think Barack Obama isn't smart enough to know that? LOL! I sincereley doubt he's just going to "show up" anywhere "to chat" without having done all the necessary behind the scene prepwork. Too much Nyquil.
Originally Posted By Mr X How many countries are we officially "not talking to" anyway. We talk to N. Korea right? Iran I'm not sure about. And since we now own Iraq, that's the whole "axis of evil"...who else? I can only think of Cuba.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< How many countries are we officially "not talking to" anyway. We talk to N. Korea right? Iran I'm not sure about. >>> We occasionally "talk" to North Korea through the four-party or six-party talks, but we do not officially have diplomatic relations with North Korea, or Cuba for that matter. These are among only a handful of countries with which we don't have diplomatic relations.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're assuming things not in evidence - classic logical fallacy. You're assuming what Obama would do, when you have no idea.>> <He said he would talk to them. That is a concession, and giving in. That's already a loss. > No, it isn't. Nyquil, Jon, nyquil.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So, no talking, we just bomb the hell out of countries?" No. There are other ways to pressure countries into behaving. "You think Barack Obama isn't smart enough to know that?" I don't know what he is smart enough to know or not. I wasn't talking to Obama in my statement. On the other hand, he has said he'd go and talk to these people. Who knows what that means. I wouldn't wonder if he went to Iran, and was then taken hostage. "How many countries are we officially "not talking to" anyway" I think Cuba might be it. I looked this up before, and there were maybe like 6 or so countries, but it was old information.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, it isn't" There is something called quid pro quo. This for that. The idea is that if you want to talk to us, you have to do something to show good faith. If they don't show good faith, and we just show up, hat in hand, then that is a concession, you see. If, in back channels, we say to Iran, if you ratchet down the rhetoric, and do this or that, we will come and talk to you, and they refuse to do those things or come back with anything, then you don't go talk to them. You don't try and make ammends with people who don't want to do that with you. If a nation is determined to be our enemy, unless we do something ridiculous like becoming an Islamic nation, then no, you don't go talk to them, and doing so IS a concession to their activity.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No more so than talking to the Soviets while simultaneously denouncing their policies.
Originally Posted By jonvn The soviets would actually make efforts towards discussion. But it was not until the 1970s, after 50 or so years of basic hostility did things begin to really thaw, and that was because of a change of leadership within the Soviet Union. During the Cuban Misslie Crisis, we didn't even have a "hot line" from one country to the other. That was the cause of its being created. We don't just go someplace and say "hey, what's your beef, anyway?" They have to show a willingness to at least cooperate in a very real sense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Basically, I agree. But it's a leap from that to "Obama's going to give away the store." That just doesn't follow. If you talk, and you find the other party to be obstinate, it's perfectly fine to say "look, you had your chance. We don't do this again until you at least do x and y."
Originally Posted By jonvn But it's a leap from that to "Obama's going to give away the store." I didn't say he was going to give away the store, but he is making concessions. And we've already told these nations what they have to do, and they refuse. So by going in and talking to them anyway, we have conceded to them their ability to do those things we don't want them to do. That is why talking to them is a concession.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sometimes what we demand of them is impossible. Classic example, of course, is insisting Saddam show proof of destroying WMD that he no longer had after the early 90's. It turned out to be an impossible demand for him to meet. In Iran's case, Bush insisted that they halt their nuclear program. Then it came out in the NIE that they had already halted it in 2003. So Bush said "well, you COULD start it up again, so we're still not talking." On the other hand, on Iran's involvement in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group suggested that Iran be involved in talks about the future of Iraq, since they were clearly players. Bush at first refused, then gave in to talking (if not himself, the next highest level, i.e. Sec'y of State), after they didn't really change anything they were doing in Iraq. Obama, Clinton, or McCain could hardly give off more mixed signals than that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So Bush said "well, you COULD start it up again, so we're still not talking."" Yes, well, Bush is a complete numbskull. He's nothing to point at as an example. He has done an absolutey horrid job, which is why Obama can only be better, because god help the planet if he is worse. I really don't think it possible.
