Why Not Talk

Here’s a given: there will be governments and citizenry of other countries who we won’t like. There will be those who don’t like us, too. We will have enemies of various types, political, ideological, territorial. We can’t make everyone do exactly what we want. The very idea of democracy is the will of the people. Sometimes what the people want isn’t what we, the USA wants. Some people are downright crooks and bullies, too, don’t get me wrong. But we know, it’s a fact, we will live in a world with “enemies”.

So how do we deal with those enemies? We have diplomatic, economic, social and military tactics we can use. The Right always talks about how they won’t take military options off the table. Fine. In return we should never take diplomatic options off the table. As JFK said, we should never negotiate out of fear but neither should we fear to negotiate.

Why not talk to Iran? Why not talk to Syria? Talking isn’t promising anything. Options are not taken away. It’s talk. We have this retarded attitude that “strength” is my way or the highway. That’s bullshit. The best way to get rid of an enemy is to turn them into a friend.

Again, I’ll stress, there are, at times, regimes that can’t be legitimized by diplomatic actions. Iran does not fall into that category. Yeah, they hate us, so what? We gotta live in a world with them. I’m not afraid of that. We don’t have to be pussies. We can be tough assholes in the negotiation. But we should always be willing to talk.

Why Not Talk

8 thoughts on “Why Not Talk

  1. I’m operating under the assumption that we can’t change the regime in Iran and that we have no choice but to deal with them. I do despise the radical Muslim regimes. I am not down at all with their approach. I hate it. But I live in a world where some people in some countries have chosen that for their government and I think it is counter-productive to assume that we can’t have diplomatic relations with them.

    So I think we agree in a sense — I’m not a fan in any way, shape or form of regimes like that which rules Iran. Yet I believe we have no choice but to try to work with their government and their people directly. I still don’t see what is incorrect about that.


  2. micadelic says:

    If you really, truly believe that all they want is “autonomy, respect, and self-governance,” then sorry, dude, you are detached from reality. They (Iran) want to be the dominant power in the region. This idiot, Ahmadinejad, believes in the prophecy of the 12th Imam, or the Muslim messiah. (It’s kinda like how some folks think Bush is pushing the issue to bring on the Apocolypse and the Rapture) If you don’t know about this, read up dood. If you’re concerned or freaked out by the asshole Christan right in this country, I can’t fathom why you’re not in full undie-bunch mode about this particular fun-loving strain of shi’ite fucktardism. The enlightened in Iran are scared shitless of this madman and you want to conduct “talks” with him. If you were on the ground, in Iran, and hanging out with the intelligencia of Iran who is deeply opposed to, and deathly afraid of, the ruling mullahcracy, you would be arguing my point with me. Guaranteed.

    That is, unless your down with the subjugation of women, religious and racial intolerance, Sharia law, ethnic cleansing, facism, destruction of the jews and the jewish state, and the total integration of church and state (as opposed to separation), the teaching of hatred in the madrassas, etc, etc, etc. You do not want to live in the world this idiot wants to usher in.


  3. To your first point, no offense, dude, but you are always on the right, on virtually every issue we’ve debated (with some exceptions). I believe you are sincere but I am still amazed how radically different we seem to see every freaking thing.

    I have no idea what Iran and Syria would want. I don’t think what they want is war with the US/UK. I would speculate that what they want is what all countries want, autonomy, respect, self-governance, etc. I don’t dismiss them as radial terrorists who want to eliminate my way of life.

    The point is, we can be firm and use a lot of other tactics in conjunction with talks.

    Specifically in regards to Iraq, I think if we say, look Syria and Iran, we want a self-governing Iraq that is legitimate and can protect itself. Our goal is not to conquer the Arab world. If you want to gain some political clout in the world and do the right thing, let’s talk about a plan. If you are going to give us this jihad bullshit then, yeah, we could be forced to bomb the hell out of you to reduce your capabilities to harm us. Absolutely we have to have shit like that as an option.

    I think we have carrots with these countries that could work wonders. The big stick of the military does not solve these problems, it just postpones them. If that is true then talking is the only viable long-term option.


  4. micadelic says:

    First off, please quit with the “you guys on the right” crap. I am not your typical “righty” and frankly it’s pretty demeaning. I’ve tried to stay away from the generalizations. I’m just a guy with an opinion.

    So, please just answer my question without “pre-populating” what you believe my position is or what my solution would be.

    What do you think they would want in return for meeting our demands and what would you do if they broke their promises? Simple question.


  5. Your comments are predicated on the assumption that these countries have nothing to gain from negotiation in their view. I.E. yes, it is completely possible that we could change their minds on some of those things with various carrots and sticks.

    This ridiculous belief that our military is so great that we can continue to provoke (“axis of evil”), not talk, always have invasion on the tips of our tongues, etc. is wrong. In the 6 years under Bush, with that attitude at the helm, our relations with these countries are worse than ever. You think we can fight the whole fucking world at the same time? Yeah, let’s go invade Iran, Syria and North Korea. It’s worked so well in Iraq.

    You guys on the Right always confuse the actions of various radical groups as speaking for the government and all people. Yes, there will be interests in the mideast with the sole purpose of killing us. That is not what your average person wants. In Iran, the sentiment towards America among young people is not necessarily negative, from what I’ve read, and may even be positive. The government of Iran is absolutely someone we should be in diplomatic contact with. If moderate voices prevail, Iran could someday be our ally, even though there will always be violent dissonance.

    In regards to Iran nuking Israel, the nonsensical rhetoric of their president aside, everyone knows that it would be the end of Iran if they nuked Israel. Yes, we should prevent them from gaining nuclear power. We can do that best if we are at the table with them. It is hard as fuck to control millions of people militarily.

    What’s your solution? Nuke ’em?


  6. micadelic says:

    Oh, one more thing we would probably want.

    Would Iran, pretty please, not develop an atomic weapon and drop it on Israel? That would be a good thing to ask for.


  7. micadelic says:

    OK, if we talked to them we would want them to agree to stop funding the “insurgents,” encouraging the civil war, supplying the “insurgents” with weapons which they use to kill our troops and innocent Iraqis, and police their borders to keep the troublemakers out.

    What exactly do you imagine they would want from us in return? And, would you trust them to keep the bargain? And, what would you do if they broke their promises?


  8. bsherwood says:

    I take this idea a step or two further.

    The best way out of this mess and the best “forward thinking” strategy is through cooperation with Iran and Syria. They can absolutely take care of the problem in Iraq. Hell, they are the problem in Iraq.
    I also think Iraq “used to be”. I think it will divide or fragement into at least three pieces. Might take time and lots of bloodshed.

    I just have a hunch that the path of “overall” least bloodshed (ours and theirs) is by sitting down with Iran and Syria.


Leave a Reply to bsherwood Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s