And I thought I had seen it all...

[spence]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

[Jim in CT]

It doesn't paint a picture of mutual understanding and bipartisanship, that's for sure...

When Obama said to the GOP, "Republicans got to stop just hating all the time", he lost me, and he's never going to get me to stop despising him.

He reaps what he sows, Spence.

I don't like the GOP being as bratty as he is, we should rise above that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And I thought I had seen it all...

Well . . . guess you didn't . . .

So . . . Spence . . . what do you think Iran wants? After all, it has never wanted to build nuclear weapons. And doesn't now. It only wants peaceful use of nuclear power. Do you think, maybe, Iran is angling for some U.S. investment. A sort of Solyndra deal . . . say, maybe, half a bill to float them through the finish of their strictly peaceful nuclear program?

And why do we care? What's it to us if they get the bomb? After all, they are a civilized country, whose people are like us. And, even though it's an Islamic State, it is not that nasty radical Al Qaida or ISIS brand, but the more moderate, majority Islam that we shouldn't be discriminating against and unjustly singling out like some reprobate that needs electric tethers to monitor their every move. And Netanyahu, the real problem (along with his running dog Republican Congress), claiming impending doom is typical right wing BS. The Republicans and Netanyahu should disappear. They just keep effing up the negotiations. Like Bush did ten years ago. We shouldn't even have to be doing this stuff now. And anyway, if we can trust the Iranians later to abide by some negotiated agreement, shouldn't we trust their word now that they are not, nor are they interested in, manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't it be a gesture of good will and trust to quit dogging them about there intentions, and let them do what they, as a sovereign nation, have a right to do.

Maybe, that is what we're offering them, but ten years down the road. For now, we can pretend to have reached an agreement in order to satisfy those fear mongering right wingers that we have deterred nuclear holocaust . But we know, wink and nod, that the right-winger "fear" is bigoted ignorance, so just hang on a few more years, and by then you will have your peaceful nuclear program, and will be allowed to run it as you wish.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It doesn't paint a picture of mutual understanding and bipartisanship, that's for sure...

He reaps what he sows, Spence.

I don't like the GOP being as bratty as he is, we should rise above that.

Maybe being as bratty as he is allows the Congress to show Obama that it cuts both ways, as Spence used to say. Obama has stolen far more of Congresses power by doing with executive actions what was supposed to be Congress's responsibility than the two little gambits they've just played--inviting Netanyahu, and this.

Actually, Congress has acted far more within Constitutional limits with these than Obama did with his. And he has damaged Congress's rightful power, but these two tweaks by Congress really haven't put a dent in Presidential power.

So he is hardly sowing what he reaped, just a little bit.

[Nebe]

Treason
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Treason
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting. Splain.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...cmp=latestnews

not unique or original....guess they are just "taking a more assertive role regarding a president who is a deceiver"

4/4/2007

DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.

Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/n.../#.VP61vfnF86w

about 10 years ago. Jim McDermott(D-Mich.) and two other anti-war liberal congressmen traveled to Iraq in September 2002 as the Bush administration tried to persuade Congress to authorize military action against Saddam Hussein. Joining McDermott were Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).

On September 29, 2002, the Iraqi government eagerly positioned McDermott and Bonior for an interview with ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Right on cue, McDermott mouthed the Iraqi Baathist Party line, declaring that President George W. Bush “will lie to the American people in order to get us into war.”

When an incredulous Stephanopoulos pushed McDermott for clarification, asking if he stood by his claim that the president would intentionally lie to drag the nation into war, the congressman held firm: “I think the president would mislead the American people.” The Seattle congressman deduced that Bush and the administration would “give out misinformation … information that is not provable.” When Stephanopoulos asked for evidence of Bush’s lying, McDermott didn’t proffer any, simply reaffirming his conviction that the president was a deceiver.

Stephanopoulos seemed taken aback when McDermott suspended the same suspicion toward his endearing Iraqi hosts. Whereas Bush operated on duplicity, McDermott said of Saddam and his regime: “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value.”




of course there was Ted Kennedy and Russia....Pelosi was asked/warned by every living Secretary of State not to go to Syria and it was discovered that Mc Dermott & Co.'s little trist was financed by the Hussein Regime


if you want to have a little fun GOOGLE "Syria Deadline" and "IRAN Deadline"

....................


"On that last point, it has become the approach of transnational progressives to circumvent the Constitution’s treaty requirements. Presidents sign bilateral or multilateral international agreements that often contain statist and counter-constitutional provisions that no president (except maybe Obama) would dare propose as legislation.

On the basis of all this, the international lawyers and organizations such as the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the European Union — all of which have an interest in being able to trump the U.S. Constitution’s protections of individual liberty and American sovereignty — begin to argue that the unratified agreement has transmogrified into “customary international law”; thus, the argument goes, lest it be considered an international outlaw, the United States must abide by the terms of the agreement even if the Senate has not ratified it.

This hocus-pocus works, at least as a practical matter, because the Senate fails to defend its institutional turf by speaking up and conveying dissent in a formal way. Senators seem to think they need do no more than resist approving international agreements. But as we’re seeing with Obama’s Iran negotiations, they are sometimes not even asked to approve. In any event, it is not sufficient to refrain from saying “yes”; the Senate needs to take unambiguous action by saying “no.”"

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/415104/print

[spence]

The Pelosi/Assad meeting was quite a bit different. She was there with a group of Congressional reps including a Republican to promote reform. There were other Republican reps meeting in Syria at the same time.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The Pelosi/Assad meeting was quite a bit different. She was there with a group of Congressional reps including a Republican to promote reform. There were other Republican reps meeting in Syria at the same time.

Different in "bi-partisan" form, but not in function. It too, was "criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts."

And as for the strange accusations that the letter to Iran is treason, how is it treason to explain the truth, openly without deceit, how our system works. Or as it is supposed to work?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Different in "bi-partisan" form, but not in function. It too, was "criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts."

And as for the strange accusations that the letter to Iran is treason, how is it treason to explain the truth, openly without deceit, how our system works. Or as it is supposed to work?

Efforts to "isolate", not efforts to reach a pending negotiated agreement with the P5+1 nations.

Big difference.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So . . . Spence . . . what do you think Iran wants? After all, it has never wanted to build nuclear weapons. And doesn't now. It only wants peaceful use of nuclear power. Do you think, maybe, Iran is angling for some U.S. investment. A sort of Solyndra deal . . . say, maybe, half a bill to float them through the finish of their strictly peaceful nuclear program?

I think Iran wants to get the most they can from the situation. If it means trading off nuclear capability to benefit economically from reduced sanctions they'll do it. At the same time if we think they're crazy and hell bent on destroying Israel it's probably going to help them get a better deal. It's a position to negotiate from.

The Zakaria piece you so adored makes a great point. Does Iran have more to gain by having some capability than actually having a bomb and starting a new arms race? If they really wanted a bomb couldn't they have had one years ago? According to Bibi they've been on the cusp for decades.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Efforts to "isolate", not efforts to reach a pending negotiated agreement with the P5+1 nations.

Big difference.

The current letter is an effort to reach a pending negotiated agreement as well. But it clarifies all the conditions and consequences of an agreement. It helps to ensure that the agreement is on solid ground.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The current letter is an effort to reach a pending negotiated agreement as well. But it clarifies all the conditions and consequences of an agreement. It helps to ensure that the agreement is on solid ground.

It doesn't clarify anything, it's an attempt to stir the pot.

This is pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ighten-authors

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Iran wants to get the most they can from the situation.

Oh my . . . this senseless discussion is, at best, like being on laughing gas. Yeah . . . like most negotiations where parties try to get the worst from the situation.

If it means trading off nuclear capability to benefit economically from reduced sanctions they'll do it.

This is as hilarious as watching a dog chase its tail. Let's see . . .there were no sanctions (ergo beneficial to its economy) on Iran until it was suspected they were trying to develop nuclear weapons. So, when sanctions were imposed, negotiations went on and on for years (while Iran continued enrichment). And agreements appeared to have been reached, only to be broken. So now we are to believe that Iran will finally trade off that which caused the sanctions in order not to have sanctions. Which is supposedly where they were before sanctions.

But it doesn't want to trade it all away. So the U.S. says, OK, just give it up for 10 more years. Well, of course, the round and round has been going on for more than 10 years, so what's another 10? Besides, during the previous 10++ years Iran has been gaining the nuclear capability it wanted, and that advance will not be forfeited. And, if during the coming 10 years it "appears" that Iran is still working toward the bomb, we'll do what? Negotiate some more? Militarily attack it--which we haven't been willing to do the previous 10 years because that would create a supposedly worse mess? And Iran probably realizes that we won't do so in the future. Especially since, if sanctions are lifted now, it will be welcomed into the anti-Western SOC and BRIC alliances (which are basically run by Russia and China). And which will serve as an even more powerful face against Western military action.

At the same time if we think they're crazy and hell bent on destroying Israel it's probably going to help them get a better deal. It's a position to negotiate from.

Negotiate what? This is maddening. If all Iran wanted was a nuclear program for peaceful purposes it could have had it YEARS ago. It could have restarted the program the Shah had started. There would be no need to be in "a position to negotiate from." I don't know if "they're crazy and hell bent on destroying Israel". Do you? They keep threatening to do so. What? . . . is that merely a ploy to get a deal which they could easily get without misleading us into thinking they would destroy Israel? What's the point of creating disinformation to get what can be had by an honest contracting with an outside designer and implementer of a peaceful nuclear program? Why do the dogs in this charade keep chasing their own tail?

The Zakaria piece you so adored makes a great point. Does Iran have more to gain by having some capability than actually having a bomb and starting a new arms race? If they really wanted a bomb couldn't they have had one years ago? According to Bibi they've been on the cusp for decades.

If you try to understand what Iran has to gain by filtering their thoughts and desires through YOUR brain, you will, in effect, decide what THEY want to gain by what YOU think it is worth it for them to gain. I don't think the leaders of Iran view life, the world, the way you, or I, or the West does. What they consider gain is probably worlds apart from our opinion.

I don't know if they could have had the bomb years ago. And the world has changed dramatically in some major respects in the last decade or two. And seems to change more rapidly as time goes on.

Are we going to rely on our ability to monitor Iran's nuclear progress? Then do we rely on that ability which was supposedly monitoring it all along, and that monitoring has been saying that Iran has been creeping toward nuclear weapons ability to the point where, as Zakaria says, it is only months away? I don't know if Iran could have had the bomb years ago. There were stronger forces against it back then. But I believe they could have had a peaceful nuclear program years ago--very easily by continuing the Shah's program.

What are we supposed to think Iran has to gain from getting a bomb? Wouldn't we have to think like the Iranian leaders in order to have an idea of what they believe they will gain from getting it? What were they thinking when they replaced the West friendly Shah with their theocratic regime. And what do they profess are the aims of their theocracy? We refuse to accept what they actually say their world view is and what they say about us, what their aims are vis-a-vis the West. We want to rationalize their desires into what is desirable in ours.

Iran, even more than being on the cusp of getting the bomb, is only a moment away from joining powerful anti-Western alliances. The only reason they are not at this moment a contractual partner in those alliances is because of U.N. sanctions. Once those sanctions are lifted (as would happen when an agreement is reached) they will very quickly become official members of SOC and probably BRIC. And the most pacifistic desire of those alliances is merely to neutralize the power and influence of the U.S and what they consider its lackeys. But their darkest desire may be far more than a neutralization, maybe closer to a replacement. A destruction of Western civilization to be replaced by what they refer to as a Eurasian civilization.

Let us just ignore all that. Iran and everybody else in the world, is basically like us. Go along to get along. Social justice, equality, everybody pursuing their individual dreams. Respect for the integrity of other nations. Hey, if Obama and Iran get together on a deal, the mullahs will recognize Israel's right to exist, correct?

Is it conceivable, in your mind Spence, that what Iran wants to gain is not only nuclear weapons but a stronger more secure face to the West, whom it considers an enemy to its values, and the power, through military might and powerful alliances to face down the West, even defeat it?

No, Zakaria's piece doesn't make a good point.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It doesn't clarify anything, it's an attempt to stir the pot.

It clarifies how U.S. treaties are supposed to be made. If the truth stirs the pot, the pot has a problem.

This is pretty interesting.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ighten-authors

Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:

"governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations."

He doesn't seem to recognize that the President alone is not U.S. government. That Congress is a major part of that government, and is a responsible party in performing international obligations.

The article states also that "Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been 'mere executive agreements,' and not full treaties that received Senate ratification."

If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it can stand, so long as they don't later object, as an international "agreement." But not as indisputable "law." The first notable international "executive agreement" that was later made law, was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Even though he made the agreement with France without first getting senate ratification, the Senate afterward did ratify it. If it had officially decided not to ratify it, to strike it down, the deal would have been nullified. Nor do those type of agreements being made somehow rewrite the Constitution thereby nullifying Congresses role in ratifying treaties.

And, by the way, are we supposed to think that if the Iranian theocrats decide they don't like some treaty their country had signed on to that they wouldn't junk it?

[spence]

Update: I haden't seen it all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-firing-squad/

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mr. Zarif doesn't grasp what the U.S. government is. He says:

US education including his PhD in International Law & Policy. I'd wager he's got a pretty good understanding of what the US Government is.

Buck, he even went to prep school!

The article states also that "Zarif also noted that many previous international agreements the U.S. has been a party to have been 'mere executive agreements,' and not full treaties that received Senate ratification."

If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, it can stand, so long as they don't later object, as an international "agreement." But not as indisputable "law." The first notable international "executive agreement" that was later made law, was Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. Even though he made the agreement with France without first getting senate ratification, the Senate afterward did ratify it. If it had officially decided not to ratify it, to strike it down, the deal would have been nullified. Nor do those type of agreements being made somehow rewrite the Constitution thereby nullifying Congresses role in ratifying treaties.

The "treaty" was ratified by the Senate long ago when we adopted the NPT. Any action against Iran today under the guise of UN Security Council Resolution isn't a new "treaty" and doesn't require Senate ratification.

And, by the way, are we supposed to think that if the Iranian theocrats decide they don't like some treaty their country had signed on to that they wouldn't junk it?

A strong resolution makes it the responsibility of the P5+1 to enforce the resolution. Sure, they can try and skirt the law, they've tried before, but this would add significant insurances not present before.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Update: I haden't seen it all.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-firing-squad/

Ah . . . current events chipping away at your hubris?

Re the Utah firing squad thing . . . sometimes, when the new-fangled doesn't cut it, we have to go back to basics. Speaking of cutting and going back-- you know even bullets sometimes misfire. A quick and painless way would be the guillotine. Or, if we really wanted to scare the bejesus out of the bad guys, instead of the guillotine, we could use the ISIS method, including the videos.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

US education including his PhD in International Law & Policy. I'd wager he's got a pretty good understanding of what the US Government is.

I'm not as enamored of PhD's as you. Often, the joke that PhD stands for Pile it high and Deep is more true than joke. Obviously, the pilers don't always agree on the meaning of what they pile. His understanding of U.S. government conveniently stops short of its total scope.

The "treaty" was ratified by the Senate long ago when we adopted the NPT. Any action against Iran today under the guise of UN Security Council Resolution isn't a new "treaty" and doesn't require Senate ratification.

I'm sure, for the sake of his argument, that he wants to say that a treaty must stand forever. Unfortunately, that is not true . . . not in ANY treaty, certainly not in U.S. government treaties or involvement in treaties. Treaties can, and have been, modified, or abolished. And the U.S. Congress, as well as the President with the approval of Congress, can remove us from a treaty or change our involvement in it.

A strong resolution makes it the responsibility of the P5+1 to enforce the resolution. Sure, they can try and skirt the law, they've tried before, but this would add significant insurances not present before.

So the six resolutions up to now haven't been strong? Were they not strong enough for the P5+1 to enforce? Or is it that they just need to be stronger . . . and stronger, etc. That enforcement thingy is most interesting to me. How would the P5+1 enforce. More sanctions?

Sanctions haven't worked up to now, and I thought that Obama said sanctions didn't work. And that unbroken circle of wanting sanctions removed if nuclear enrichment is stopped, but enrichment being necessary as a motive to remove sanctions has no logical end. To break the circle, one or the other has to unilaterally stop. Either the sanctions must unconditionally end, or the enrichment must unconditionally end. Making one dependent on the other logically results in the endless circle.

So then would enforcement be Military? Now THAT would be interesting. Especially since Russia and China are part of the P5. And the +1, Germany, really doesn't, since the Hitler thing, like the mantle of aggressor.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you try to understand what Iran has to gain by filtering their thoughts and desires through YOUR brain, you will, in effect, decide what THEY want to gain by what YOU think it is worth it for them to gain. I don't think the leaders of Iran view life, the world, the way you, or I, or the West does. What they consider gain is probably worlds apart from our opinion.

[Filtered through our secular Western eyes] Iran and everybody else in the world, is basically like us. Go along to get along. Social justice, equality, everybody pursuing their individual dreams. Respect for the integrity of other nations. Hey, if Obama and Iran get together on a deal, the mullahs will recognize Israel's right to exist, correct?

Is it conceivable, in your mind Spence, that what Iran [its theocratic rulers] wants to gain is not only nuclear weapons but a stronger more secure face to the West, whom it considers an enemy to its values, and the power, through military might and powerful alliances to face down the West, even defeat it? [Isn't that what the Iranian leaders SAY]

Obama's address to the Iranian people exemplifies this myopic, self-centered view of the world:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...rack-obama-usa

Who is he talking to? Voices, as Sea Dangles might say, in his own head? Voices that agree with him and see the world as he does?

Is he talking to the common people in Iran who he thinks surely must view the world as he does? Where was he during the hope of the "other" Green Movement that Spence regrets was not successful? He spoke encouraging words but did nothing else to support their movement to overthrow the mullahs and gain democracy. Yet the Iranian people see that he takes action to sabotage Netanyahu's re-election. And now threatens to throw Israel's independence to the dogs in the U.N. He interferes in Libya, in Syria, in Egypt, and those all become a mess. He abandon's the democracy gained in Iraq, and it becomes a mess again and is increasingly falling into the clutches of the very oppressive regime that the Iranian people want to be free of. What do the common people see of Obama exercising his words and views in his own country? Contrary to the words of their own Green Path leader Mousani "you can't follow some parts of the [Iranian] Constitution and throw the rest into a bin" Obama does exactly that here. And acting more and more like a dictator rather than a servant of the people. They see him abandoning his democratic allies in their neck of the woods, cozying up to the dictators, making rationalizations about the Islamic nature of ISIS, so how are they supposed to view his patronizing and rather empty message of encouragement to them?

Is he speaking to Khamenei and the mullahs? Really? Do they see their celebration as he does? He says:

"Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays – by
gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.
Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams."

Does he really believe those are dreams common between him and the mullahs? That the ultimate leader, Khamenei, shares those dreams in common with him? Is their any possibility, in his mind, that they not only view the world and their place in it differently than he does? Haven't they SAID so? But never mind what they say. What HE says is the real reality. As he is demonstrating with Israel and what Netanyahu said to get elected. He is only going to believe his version of what Netanyahu said re the so-called two state solution. Even though Netanyahu says that he would consider it with certain reservations--EXACTLY THE SAME RESERVATIONS that he and Israel had all along. But no, only what Obama understands, sees, believes is, in his own self-centered mind, the truth of the matter.

And he cannot, or will not, recognize that his view, what he sees to be the "common dreams," would actually be the demise of Khamenei and mullah rule of Iran. And, therefor, that any "negotiation" which would threaten that rule, and deny its desired power and expansion throughout the Middle East, would not be accepted by the Iranian theocrats.

[spence]

Are you debating yourself?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you debating yourself?

Nope.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you try to understand what Iran has to gain by filtering their thoughts and desires through YOUR brain, you will, in effect, decide what THEY want to gain by what YOU think it is worth it for them to gain. I don't think the leaders of Iran view life, the world, the way you, or I, or the West does. What they consider gain is probably worlds apart from our opinion.

[Filtered through our secular Western eyes] Iran and everybody else in the world, is basically like us. Go along to get along. Social justice, equality, everybody pursuing their individual dreams. Respect for the integrity of other nations. Hey, if Obama and Iran get together on a deal, the mullahs will recognize Israel's right to exist, correct?

Is it conceivable, in your mind Spence, that what Iran [its theocratic rulers] wants to gain is not only nuclear weapons but a stronger more secure face to the West, whom it considers an enemy to its values, and the power, through military might and powerful alliances to face down the West, even defeat it? [Isn't that what the Iranian leaders SAY]

I don't think you have to look at the situation through any lens, there's plenty of history to establish likely motives and predictable actions.

Certainly the US and Iranian leadership differ on many values, but I think we've become mistakenly tuned to this idea that Iran's policy is driven by an irrational group of clerics and as such any effort to engage will only legitimize irrationality. Sure, Iran wants to be stronger but I don't believe they want to defeat the West. Hell, remember just after 9/11 they were actively engaged in helping the US target the Taliban as it was a shared interest.

This attitude will certainly just make things worse. Like it or not Iran is and will always be a significant component stability or chaos in the Middle East. Disengagement over the past 30 years doesn't seem to have helped and in fact has likely made things worse.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Certainly the US and Iranian leadership differ on many values, but I think we've become mistakenly tuned to this idea that Iran's policy is driven by an irrational group of clerics and as such any effort to engage will only legitimize irrationality. Sure, Iran wants to be stronger but I don't believe they want to defeat the West. Hell, remember just after 9/11 they were actively engaged in helping the US target the Taliban as it was a shared interest.

This attitude will certainly just make things worse. Like it or not Iran is and will always be a significant component stability or chaos in the Middle East. Disengagement over the past 30 years doesn't seem to have helped and in fact has likely made things worse.

"we've become mistakenly tuned to this idea that Iran's policy is driven by an irrational group of clerics...Sure, Iran wants to be stronger but I don't believe they want to defeat the West "

There you have it...

From the mouth of President Ahmadinejad...

""Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.” "

"Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a myth, has previously called for Israel's annihilation, in a 2005 speech in which he used a Persian phrase that translates literally as "wiped off the page of time."

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/...ihilate-Israel

He also called the 9/11 attacks "a "big lie intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan,"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...tan/index.html

And the Iranian mullahs support the notion of stoning women to death, and executing homosexuals.

Nope, according to Spence, there is nothing the least bit irrational going on in Iran. No reason to be concerned if they get a nuke. So Obama was right to sit on his hands over the whole thing, and therefore deserves a second Nobel Peace Prize.

[spence]

Petty fear mongering. Our politicians do it as well. They just have a different style.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think you have to look at the situation through any lens, there's plenty of history to establish likely motives and predictable actions.

Yes, and if you study history as written by different historians writing it from the perspective of their political or theological orientation, you will see opposing motives and the failure to predict actions because of myopic, self-centered views which disregarded those of their opposition. The twentieth century is full of those misperceptions of opposing view, and the inability therefor to predict horrible reactions.

Certainly the US and Iranian leadership differ on many values, but I think we've become mistakenly tuned to this idea that Iran's policy is driven by an irrational group of clerics and as such any effort to engage will only legitimize irrationality.

There you go again. Who is saying the clerics are irrational? I haven't heard that as part of the argument. Are you imputing irrationality to their Islamist theo/politics. You may say, from your point of view, they are irrational, but they would say you are mistaken and ignorant. And any effort to engage with them needs to acknowledge their stated motives and their fundamental belief in their place and mission in this world. And if that mission is in fundamental opposition to your own, your desire for peaceful rapprochement is in deep trouble.

Sure, Iran wants to be stronger but I don't believe they want to defeat the West. Hell, remember just after 9/11 they were actively engaged in helping the US target the Taliban as it was a shared interest.

In the same paragraph you cast the clerics as being irrational, then you give an example of acting, I assume in your opinion, rationally. Getting rid of the Taliban, however,might have been a shared interest, but didn't share a common goal.

This attitude will certainly just make things worse. Like it or not Iran is and will always be a significant component stability or chaos in the Middle East. Disengagement over the past 30 years doesn't seem to have helped and in fact has likely made things worse.

Clarity, if applied, should not make things worse. Then, again, it depends on what you mean by worse. Fuzzy, myopic thinking, not regarding what are the most fundamental motives and desires of those you wish to engage, certainly can make things worse.

And what is this notion of disengagement over the past 30 years? How long have negotiations been going on? And sanctions, and various political machinations for and against all sides are forms of engagement. Maybe you mean the really and truly right kind of negotiations? And, of course, for you those negotiations should continue to discount fundamental differences in world view between the Iranian theocrats and the western secularists. The latter, of course, have the "correct" view. And the Iranians, of course, really know that, they're just shamming us into thinking they're irrational so they can scare us into lifting sanctions.

Yeah, that'll work.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Petty fear mongering. Our politicians do it as well. They just have a different style.

Right, since our politicians are, and apparently are expected to be, liars, that means everyone else is. Again, the just like us paradigm. It is amazing how everyone in the world is just like us, yet they're all at each others necks. But that's OK. That's what sibling rivalry is for. Good natured violent competition. Just need the wiser older brother to step in and straighten things out. Big Brother will tell all the irrational little siblings the correct way to act.

Funny how Spence can excuse the Iranians for petty fear mongering, but he thinks Netanyahu's politicking was not excusable and needed the wiser older brother to correct him. Maybe his style was just tooooo different.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Petty fear mongering. Our politicians do it as well. They just have a different style.

And we should bet the lives of everyone in Israel that they don't mean what they say? They stone women, the execute gays, why doubt that they'd use a nuke if they got one.

"Our politicians do it as well" Ah, now you are guilty of solipsism, the belief that the world is like me. You assume that because our leaders bluff and fear monger, that the Iranians must be doing the same, you don't think they could possibly be capable of what they threaten.

Too bad for the Nazis that you weren't US President in the 1940's. "Hitler isn't really interested in creating an Ayrian race, he's just fear-mongering, no one could be that irrational. The Japanese aren't really raping and cannibalizing their way across China, they're just bluffing".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The Pelosi/Assad meeting was quite a bit different. She was there with a group of Congressional reps including a Republican to promote reform. There were other Republican reps meeting in Syria at the same time.

she was there to try to make foreign policy and was roundly criticized for doing so, not her job, the "republican" was Arlen Spectre, not sure many considered him a "republican" at that point and pretty sure he soon became a "democrat"......the "the other republican reps" were there separately on a fact finding mission and were also criticized for going but were not attempting to make foreign policy......Pelosi ended up making some unfortunate comments while there which also drew her quite a bit of criticism from all sides....it's quite a bit the same and actually much worse in Pelosi's case...Congress was perfectly within their right...Pelosi was far outside her scope ....in the case Pelosi/Obama, we have "leaders" bargaining with our enemies and not in our or our allies best interest...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Funny how Spence can excuse the Iranians for petty fear mongering.

it's expected