Hypocracy is a matter of reality in this world. Without it, we would be in a constant state of war. We would refuse business deals with tyrants and twisted regimes and in the process halt our own progress. We would constantly have to deal with the disruption of entire regions because we didn't have our thumbs in it. Kandahar likes the word "diplomacy." Well, diplomacy sweetens the tension between the West and the gutter. Diplomacy insists that we ignore and turn our backs on what we believe in to ease the pressures of the day. And in many cases, it merely stalls our responsibilities until the military man has a tougher job to deal with. So let's not pretend that some of us are above hypocracy simply because some of us have chosen to unfairly blast Israel for doing far less than those we ignore or turn our backs towards.
The only difference between you and me is that I'm man enough to acknowledge the reality of our hypocracy and am willing to accept the price of "diplomacy."
"Hypocracy." I love it when the pulpet preachers think themselves above the muck that delivers their comforts.
These, among others, were demands impossible to meet. Somali pirates have a better chance of getting millions of dollars out of America before America could possibly even think about giving into Arab demands. The demands towards Iran and North Korea was about nuclear power and rocket launches. Something even the UN and the EU were actively engaged in. Our demands were and are not in the same category as those spewed out by those who's goal is destruction. Our demands are practical and are in keeping with global interests...not just our own. And our demands are meant to stay off destruction. Their demands gurantee it. There's your difference.
This is not a world absent of enemies. We do not live in a warm, cozy environment where everyone's intentions are pure or even fair. America is the superpower and Russia is not because we saw the world for what it was and "fairness" is not a part of the equation. "What we want" is aleways in the world's best interests. You and others may complain that the immediate deals and diplomacies is about America's interests, but our interests have benefitted the world for over two centuries.
I could care less about the interests of nations, which won't even ultimately serve to benefit the world's prosperity but just their own oppressive agendas over others in their region.
It was too late the moment Iran chose to place their religion and destiny in the hands of a madman instead of the future. The ball has always been in their court.
Nations are like people. We all have natures about us. Iran's nature has always been to control the region. This is historical. Our nature is to control the world's path. To think one can change the nature of another simply by having a few good conversations is stupid. North Korea's nature is to disrupt the feeling of security in their region. Russia's nature is to pretend to power.
President after president has dealt with these issues over and over and all have come to same conclusions. Simply blaming the world's policies and natures on the one single President you lose sleep over does not reflect honesty upon the subject. And considering that they have insights and intels far beyond the FOX or CNN news channel, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Obama has stipulated that we should talk with Iran.....but nuclear power is not acceptable. Talks after they comply or talks with the understanding that they are going to comply is very much the same thing. The only difference is that Europeans and weak Americans get to have their warm false feelings about America's openess to compromise on these matters. Illusion is for the weak.
Some things are inevitable. Change from this current path will only come from within Iran and no one else.
Last edited by MSgt; 04-27-09 at 01:07 PM.
You're equivocating here on the meaning of "practical." No, the demands of previous US administrations that Iran unconditionally give up its entire nuclear program before we'll even talk to them are NOT practical, because the people making the demands know perfectly well that the other party will never comply. Just like the demands of Al-Qaeda that the United States withdraw from every Muslim country are NOT practical, for the same reason.Originally Posted by GySgt
US presidents knew perfectly well that Iran wasn't about to capitulate just for the privilege of being graced by our magnificent American presence. Yet they made that a precondition for negotiation anyway.
That isn't how negotiations work...Let's say you're going to buy a car, so you go to the dealership. The dealer names his price, you make an offer, he makes a counter-offer, until you have an agreement (or until you're at an impasse). You don't walk into the dealership and tell the dealer "I refuse to even talk to you until you give me a free car."
Once again, you are the one who keeps dwelling on this, not me.Originally Posted by GySgt
I never said that they weren't.Originally Posted by GySgt
Straw man. I never said that American interests don't benefit the world. I said that refusing to even talk to other nations is not in America's interest.Originally Posted by GySgt
And this is exactly the problem. You expect other nations to recognize American interests, but you refuse to recognize that THEY have interests of their own. Are Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interests automatically non-negotiable? If so, then the United States will isolate itself and get no cooperation at all from those nations.Originally Posted by GySgt
Again, you are the one dwelling on the fact that I mentioned Bush...not I.Originally Posted by GySgt
Ahmadinejad has absolutely no control over whether or not Iran develops nukes, and he will have absolutely no control over when, where, and why they are used.Originally Posted by GySgt
Who said anything about changing the nature of another nation? Iran could be a useful ally some day...if we would talk to them. Talks with North Korea are not likely to prove useful, but they're certainly better than not even trying and instead doing nothing. Talks with Russia can be (and are) extremely useful, given the multitude of issues on which the US and Russia can cooperate or compromise.Originally Posted by GySgt
Well he has to say that. He isn't going to come out and publicly state "It's OK if Iran gets nukes" before they actually do. Nevertheless I'm sure he acknowledges (as you seem to have done) that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.Originally Posted by GySgt
"Talks after they comply" doesn't even make sense. Look at this from an Iranian diplomat's perspective: What is so wonderful about us talking with the United States anyway? Why should we give up ANYTHING for this "privilege"...let alone our entire nuclear program? For that matter, do we even WANT to talk to the United States since anti-Americanism has become a part of our reason for being in power?Originally Posted by GySgt
It certainly doesn't help if the United States is not present at the negotiations.Originally Posted by GySgt
That's funny, I thought this was about pursuing American interests, rather than assessing blame.Originally Posted by GySgt
I agree. At this point, an Iranian nuke seems to be inevitable. The world will have to learn to live with it. Therefore, why not reach out to Iran so that we aren't bitter enemies when they do become a nuclear power? The animosity won't disappear overnight, but eventually it will. Just look at how much better Sino-American relations are now than they were in the 1970s...and it might've not happened at all if Nixon hadn't gone to China and talked with Mao.Originally Posted by GySgt
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
US can't make demands for talks but everyone else can and should.
Its funny how Irans style of "diplomacy' is a-ok to you but not the USA's.
Maybe if the USA calls for the extermination of the Jew?
No why should people be oppressed or have to leave the land their the ancestors lived for centuries just because some people they didn't elected lost a war fifty years ago.
Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 04-28-09 at 05:00 AM.
- The U.S. and Britian were virtually alone in containing Saddam's Iraq nearly a decade after the Gulf War.
- The U.S. and its European allies could not get U.N. Security Council approval to act in Kosovo, so they used NATO to go to war.
The concept that outside powers might together decide to use force to strip a state of its right to govern took shape in 1991, when the U.S. forces occupied northern Iraq and established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. It evolved further in 1994 when American diplomatic and military action removed the military junta in Haiti and restored to power the democratically elected president.
We learned lessons throughout the '90s. From the pain in the ass cooperation of our allies in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and the behaviors of the whimsical apathetic attitude of the UN, we learned that future wars should be fought in a way that reduced the necessity for seeking consensus with allies. This proved the case the next time the U.S. launched attacks after 9/11.
Ignorance is what fueled people to tag Bush as the soveriegn killer. Ignorance is what fueled people to complain about Bush's attitude towards the UN. And ignorance is what keeps people complaining about America's policiy to shun and dismiss obvious never-to-change enemies. For the ignorant of the country, Bush prescribed this new American policy. But they were and are still very wrong. Bush merely carried on the foriegn policies set before him. And these were policies born from the lessons the world (more specifically our own allies) taught us post Cold War.
You call him the worse. He didn't start any of this. Like most people who target in on blast, your problems are truly with our policies, which were shaped from reality's lessons.
No. This is non-negotiable. If they wish to give up their nuke quest to satisfy the fears of the entire Arab nation, Asia, and the West in exchange for less sanctions or a bucket of bananas, then we can negotiate. But they have one demand - nuclear capabilities.
The thing about China, Russia, or even North Korea is that they are accountable for their behaviors and at least understand where that line is drawn. North Korea may play with rockets and the ocean, but they are harmless. Religious nuts with big toys are far more dangerous than any enemy anybody could ever face because they are unpredictable and impractical.
So when people complain about our unilateral path, I simply remind myself that we are the ones that ultimately deal with it anyway.