A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wrong. You need to talk to your enemies as much or more than your friends. That doesn't mean you let the need to talk force you into inappropriate concessions, and it doesn't mean you ever necessarily agree on much, but if you don't talk you won't resolve much short of war.

To do otherwise is a fourth-grade approach to diplomacy and foreign policy which has been one of this Administration's great weaknesses. Think about it? Should Reagan have refused to talk to the Soviets? And we talked to worse (if that is possible) under both RR's administration and his successors.

S_A_M

You don't think that talking to the Iranians right now, and appealing to them for help, is going to make it more difficult for us to convince them to discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What position am I taking or line of reasoning am I positing that you think I couldn't possibly really subscribe to?

Well, one big clue was how, after you got no responses to your initial post for a day, you posted again saying -- "what's wrong with you people, do you hate Israel? Why is no one arguing with me?"

Then, after Wonk responded to your post, you gleefully leapt into the fray.

Whether you believe what you say or not, you have a remarkable appetite for argument.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think that talking to the Iranians right now, and appealing to them for help, is going to make it more difficult for us to convince them to discontinue their pursuit of nuclear weapons?

(a) Not at all. Talking to them gives us a direct line on what they are thinking and what they want -- whether or not we can agree or are willing to give it to them. (Just like with litigation or deals, you have to be willing to allow negotiations to fail.)

(b) We really, really could use their cooperation in Iraq, and yes, they now do sort of have us over a barrel in some respects.

That is a big problem for us which I'm not sure how to resolve -- a by-product of the "Fuck everyone (at the same time)" foreign policy style of the first Bush Administration and the mishandling of Iraq.

See, some folks love to shit-talk, but that makes it a little tough to come back around later and try to work things out.


S_A_M

[Spanky]

Hey ty - Look what I found.

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~mriedlsp/His...Maps/map2.html

This map is more subdivided than most than I have seen. I think you will notice that the political divisions of Europe after WWI looked a lot more like this map than before.

Plus I think you will notice that the changes in this ethnolinguistic map, since it was created, were done by Stalin's ethnic cleansing. At this point the ethnic lines were pretty set except where Stalin messesd with them. Germans no longer in Pomrania, Silesia and Konigsburg. Modern Poland, although not conforming to this map, is almost all Polish today because of Stalins ethnic cleansing. The other interesting thing to notice is that ethnic Ukrainians encompassed all of Ukraine and even some of western Russia. Where now Eastern Ukraine is full of Russians and Eastern Russia has no Ukranians. Another result (I think) of Stalin's ethnic cleansing.

It is also interesting to note (as Less pointed out) that Serbocroatia is considered one ethnic group where France is not. Also many people consider the different dialects of Italy (Tuscan, Milanese, Napolese) are more disctine from eachother than French dialects. The makers of this map didn't seem to think so.

One clear error on this map is showing the Czech area as solidly Czech. I know the Sudatenland, which is labelled as ethnically Czech was like 97 percent German.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Well, one big clue was how, after you got no responses to your initial post for a day, you posted again saying -- "what's wrong with you people, do you hate Israel? Why is no one arguing with me?"

Then, after Wonk responded to your post, you gleefully leapt into the fray.

Whether you believe what you say or not, you have a remarkable appetite for argument.

S_A_M

Just because I like to argue these points doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that I don't hold that position. In fact, one of the reasons why I hated practicing law was having to argue positions I don't agree with. On this board I don't have to do that. To me there is nothing more tedious than taking a position you don't agree with, or arguing with someone who is taking a position they don't agree with. In my opinion there is no more obnoxios post in the world than (I didn't agree with the position I was taking, I was just arguing with you to mess with you) hello GGG. Less warned me before I starting posting to the board that one of the typical retreats people take on posting boards when you have shown them the errors of their way. "I was just kidding" or "I was just messing with you" so they don't have to admit their erros in logic. I never have, nor will I ever type such a post.

I don't argue just to argue. My postions on issues often change, but I never post a position I don't currently hold. I currently hold a position on Israel that is probably not shared (at least openly) by a single member of congress. The position seems logical to me, and yet when I post it, the only thought out disagreement I get is from Slave. The only other response I get is an illogical, irrational harangue from Taxwonk. When I throw out a position, I am interested to see if someone can show me an error in my logic, or if they can show me an error in one of my assumptions. I find that interesting.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) Not at all. Talking to them gives us a direct line on what they are thinking and what they want -- whether or not we can agree or are willing to give it to them. (Just like with litigation or deals, you have to be willing to allow negotiations to fail.)

(b) We really, really could use their cooperation in Iraq, and yes, they now do sort of have us over a barrel in some respects.

That is a big problem for us which I'm not sure how to resolve -- a by-product of the "Fuck everyone (at the same time)" foreign policy style of the first Bush Administration and the mishandling of Iraq.

See, some folks love to shit-talk, but that makes it a little tough to come back around later and try to work things out.


S_A_M

So do you think we can talk to Iran without diminishing our ability to coerce them into not building a bomb?

I see almost no or zero upside in talking to them because they want us to be humiliated in Iraq, so why would they help us.

The down side of talking to them and asking them for help is that it makes it harder for us to stand tough on the nuclear issue. So doesn't talking to them about Iraq encourage then to finsh building a bomb?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think admitting that what happened was wrong would be a giant step in the "peace negotiations", and I giant step for Israel and the United States for developing a realistic middle east policy?

No.

I think that is what they call in the psychological world as projecting. You just agreed it was wrong. (and people on this board claim that no one is ever persuaded to change their minds). The only snarky thing here is you showing zero class when shown the fallacy of your arguments. Instead of responding, "you have a good point there" you respond to my posts by admitting the point I was trying to make and then calling me names and going off on irrational rants because you feel bad about having to admit you were wrong.

You were no more "right" than I was. All I did was point out that any evil you can point to on one side of the conflict can be matched by an evil on the other side.

(Kind of like what we should do in Iraq? Instead of focusing on how "Bush Lied", or what mistakes were made, we should try and find the optimal solution to the problem? Realize that maybe failure is unacceptable, and we need to do whatever it takes to succeed because failure would result in such a catastrophe for our interests? But I digress)

As I have said on this board many times, the solution is either they complete the ethnic cleansing job they started and create a strategically defendable nation or throw in the towel.

In other words, expel the Arabs from the Gaza strip and the West Bank or give up. Israel, without the West Bank is just not defensible militarily. It is also not feasible to occupy a people indefinitely. People seem to see this in Iraq but don't see it in Israel.

The reason why it is important that people realize the Palestinians have been totally screwed here is that it would stop the denial that leads to absurd policies and hopes. The Palestinians are never going to agree that what happened is OK or going to accept the nation of Israel. As long as people are in denial about what happened to the Palestinians, they will keep expecting the Palestinians to see the light, and accept Israel, and become happy neighbors that will want to work with the Israelis.

There is this delusion among the Israelis that somehow the Arabs will somehow see the light that the ethnic cleansing of their land was really just and moral. This ludicrous thinking is shown in the fact that no one is even allowed to talk about a "right of return". These people don't have a moral or legal right to return to their homes? The Israelis and many Americans think that if the Palestinians just understand the subject well enough, or see the logic, and see through the propaganda they have been feed, the Palestinians will understand that the ethnic cleansing was OK? And Woodward says Bush is in Denial.

The only way to prevent Jewish Holocaust part Two is for Israel to expel the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, put up a huge wall around Israel, prevent border crossings and develop an effective missile defense system. Otherwise Israel is doomed.
[/Quote]

A lot of this makes sense. I don't think it's politically feasible, but it would make Israel more secure. On the otheer hand, there's absolutely no way the US could ever adopt this as policy.

I only "harp" on it because you were tyring to defend what Israel did on moral grounds. And of course what you call "harp" is me pointing out the flaw in your logic. I showed the error of you reasoning, and now you agree with me. Why all the complaining?

I wasn't trying to defend what Israel did on moral grounds. On the contrary, I don't think morality has anything to do with international relations. When I accused you of harping on this subject, I meant that you bring up this same argument once a month or so, every time you feel unloved. It's getting tiresome.

Because I made you admit the truth?




I would say that your response to my post shows the opposite. The fact that you threw such a tantrum before admitting that what happened to the Palestinians was morally questionable, shows quite a lot of arrogance. It’s an over-weaning sense of self-importance, and some weird insecure sense, that prevents you from admitting when you are wrong.




What is with you and name calling? You say that I realize what you are arguing but pretend I don't. That might make some sense if you made an argument that made any sense at all. What does this mean: "We need so many troops over there that there's no room for resettlement even if that was our goal". Uh?




What arrogance? I am on posting on the politics board, making a point and backing it logically. If making a cogent argument is arrogant, well then you caught me. I don't get you, I make a cogent argument, you make inconsistent arguments, contradict yourself, make illogical statements like F-em and calling me an a-hole, snarky and arrogant and yet I am the one with a problem? Do you and NCS find common ground a lot?





You are using reason and logic. F-em, is reason and logic? Please.

I'm just going to let the rest of this speak for itself.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A lot of this makes sense. I don't think it's politically feasible, but it would make Israel more secure. On the otheer hand, there's absolutely no way the US could ever adopt this as policy.

Yes. There is no way the US could ever openly support such a move, but we could look the other way. Maybe I am off my rocker, but unless some drastic moves are taken it seems to me that Holocaust part two is on its way. And I belive if it happens, we will be partially responsible.

The Status quo is unacceptible. The occupatoin can't continue indefinitely and Isreal can't go back to the 67 borders. And the status quo could lead to some WMDs getting into Isreal through the West Bank or Gaza.

It seems to me that half doing anything is a reciped for disaster. The creation of Isreal should have either been done right or not at all (or at least at this point it shoud be finished). Otherwise I think it spells disaster.

Hopefully I am wrong about all this and the status quo won't lead to disaster.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I see almost no or zero upside in talking to them because they want us to be humiliated in Iraq, so why would they help us.

Though their interests in Iraq certainly aren't aligned with ours, they're closer than you suggest. If we want a stable democracy to emerge, that means a Shi'ite dominated government.

The down side of talking to them and asking them for help is that it makes it harder for us to stand tough on the nuclear issue. So doesn't talking to them about Iraq encourage then to finsh building a bomb?

Talking to them doesn't do anything of the sort until we agree to do something, which we don't do unless it's better than the alternatives. Refusing to talk to them encourages them to build the bomb, which they want -- at least in part -- to deter us from attacking them, a strategy that makes a fair amount of sense from an Iranian perspective.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. There is no way the US could ever openly support such a move, but we could look the other way. Maybe I am off my rocker, but unless some drastic moves are taken it seems to me that Holocaust part two is on its way. And I belive if it happens, we will be partially responsible.

The Status quo is unacceptible. The occupatoin can't continue indefinitely and Isreal can't go back to the 67 borders. And the status quo could lead to some WMDs getting into Isreal through the West Bank or Gaza.

It seems to me that half doing anything is a reciped for disaster. The creation of Isreal should have either been done right or not at all (or at least at this point it shoud be finished). Otherwise I think it spells disaster.

Hopefully I am wrong about all this and the status quo won't lead to disaster.

This month's Vanity Fair has a great overview of the Neocons' (Perle, Adelman, etc..) current thinking about how Iraq is going to unfold. They predict nothing short of disaster, which is, of course, a good sign things will stabilize.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though their interests in Iraq certainly aren't aligned with ours, they're closer than you suggest. If we want a stable democracy to emerge, that means a Shi'ite dominated government.



Talking to them doesn't do anything of the sort until we agree to do something, which we don't do unless it's better than the alternatives. Refusing to talk to them encourages them to build the bomb, which they want -- at least in part -- to deter us from attacking them, a strategy that makes a fair amount of sense from an Iranian perspective.

We can talk all we want, and it'll be worth little more than that. If they get close to a bomb, Israel is taking it out. It's just that simple. The Iranian "nuclear threat" is illusory. See "Iraq Nuclear Threat of 1986."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hey ty - Look what I found.

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~mriedlsp/His...Maps/map2.html

This map is more subdivided than most than I have seen. I think you will notice that the political divisions of Europe after WWI looked a lot more like this map than before.

Plus I think you will notice that the changes in this ethnolinguistic map, since it was created, were done by Stalin's ethnic cleansing.

One thing I notice right off is that ethno-linguistic divisions in Western Europe that existed before WWI no longer seem particularly salient. E.g., France is one country, despite the former presence of Bretons, Gascons, Provencals, Italians and Sardinians. Apparently the significance of these groups has diminished as France has developed, not increased. Perhaps post-industrial development tends to homogenize cultures, in at least some instances.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. There is no way the US could ever openly support such a move, but we could look the other way. Maybe I am off my rocker, but unless some drastic moves are taken it seems to me that Holocaust part two is on its way. And I belive if it happens, we will be partially responsible.

The Status quo is unacceptible. The occupatoin can't continue indefinitely and Isreal can't go back to the 67 borders. And the status quo could lead to some WMDs getting into Isreal through the West Bank or Gaza.

It seems to me that half doing anything is a reciped for disaster. The creation of Isreal should have either been done right or not at all (or at least at this point it shoud be finished). Otherwise I think it spells disaster.

Hopefully I am wrong about all this and the status quo won't lead to disaster.

The British public has a landfill's worth of nerve telling us they don't want their troops involved in the Middle East, considering every tribal feud amongst these Radical Islamists is partly a result of their drunken border cutting when they retreated from the furthest outstretched borders of their Empire.

Its funny India, the least Muslim (percentage-wise) turned out allright. Vibrant and brimming with Westerners and Western ideas, it's likely one of the top two emerging economies of the next century. It's much more Muslim neighbor to the left remains a third world garbage scow of a nation.

Actually, its not funny at all. Its predictable, and until we openly discuss the 800 lb gorilla that makes up the difference between those two nations, we'll be dancing around the issue.

Some things are better - more ideologically, practically and morally sensible - than others. Religion is not carved out of that axiom.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
So do you think we can talk to Iran without diminishing our ability to coerce them into not building a bomb?

I see almost no chance that we can coerce Iran into not building a bomb. Period.

We lost our ability to coerce Iran when we got the vast majority of our available land-based military power stuck dealing with Iraq next door. (Which has the added benefit for Iran of giving them a chance to bleed us or not -- and thus leverage.) They know that there is almost zero chance of us taking military action against them, and will act accordingly.

This make a diplomatic approach difficult to say the least,

Originally posted by Spanky
I see almost no or zero upside in talking to them because they want us to be humiliated in Iraq, so why would they help us.

Like Ty said, I disagree to some extent.

From their point of view -- a Middle Eastern/Muslim/Arab/Persian perspective - the U.S has already been humiliated in Iraq. Long-term, it is in Iran's interest that Iraq be stable. Any pseudo-democracy we create will be Shia dominated -- as Ty points out.
I'd expect that the interests of a democratic Iraq will be generally aligned with and peaceful towards Iran. (Big neighboring oil producers who share the same faith.) Iran has some interest in, but no real urgency towards, helping us get there.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I see almost no chance that we can coerce Iran into not building a bomb. Period.

Wow. Really. So do you think they will use it on Isreal once they get it?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man We lost our ability to coerce Iran when we got the vast majority of our available land-based military power stuck dealing with Iraq next door. (Which has the added benefit for Iran of giving them a chance to bleed us or not -- and thus leverage.) They know that there is almost zero chance of us taking military action against them, and will act accordingly.

This make a diplomatic approach difficult to say the least,

I think before Iraq, military action against Iran was pretty dicey. The only real way to get the weapons would be to invade. Before we were in Iraq, where would have we invaded Iran from?


Like Ty said, I disagree to some extent.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man From their point of view -- a Middle Eastern/Muslim/Arab/Persian perspective - the U.S has already been humiliated in Iraq. Long-term, it is in Iran's interest that Iraq be stable. Any pseudo-democracy we create will be Shia dominated -- as Ty points out.
I'd expect that the interests of a democratic Iraq will be generally aligned with and peaceful towards Iran. (Big neighboring oil producers who share the same faith.) Iran has some interest in, but no real urgency towards, helping us get there.

S_A_M

I think Iran's number one desire is to see the US leave humiliated. Even if that means a total mess. Then Iran will move in to set up a Shia theocracy, just like the one they have in Iran. The Sunnis will never go for it and there will be war for the forseable future.