Sure, face to face talks will solve all the ME problems!

About: Iran Says Offer to Talk Shows US Failure

Ahmadinejad apparently agrees with those who say that negotiating with terrorists is a sign of weakness. Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure...

Tired or Stoned?

Comments

Mark de LA says

Hmmm.... I wonder what those distasteful limitations of national sovereignty might be?

Mark de LA says

Hmmm... apparently Obama was in secret negotiations with Iran before he was even elected. Yahoo report of same is here. The Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 quote of the day (in view of 11352) - was mentioned in the article.

source: ...

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But what perhaps impedes understanding of the situation more than anything else is that the term "mankind" feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realize in imagination that the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they, individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly. And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons are prohibited.

...

The Pugwash Group , mentioned in the article, sounds like something that aligns with the Seth strategy.

The question of the day is: How Do We go about doing it without endless talks, conferences & other bullshit which never gets the job done?

It may be that Ahmadinejad is openly blustery to hide the negotiations & his own weakness in view of Netanyahu's own blustery comments about Iran nukes.
~

Mark de LA says

seth 2009-02-01 10:51:38 11377

I guess you didn't notice that it is Ahmadinejad and Rush and not Obama who is playing the RWG game. Ahmadinejad is bad news and hopefully will not be re-elected. And, yes, talking with Iran does signal that the policy of dominating the ME is a failure - on that point he is right. But it does not show weakness, rather the opposite, it shows a kind of mature strength.

Well, I removed Rush from the item as there are many on the right side who think that negotiating with a party who wants you eradicated from the face of the Earth is fruitless. It was a good idea to remove Rush because the point was good no matter who said it (& many did!). Unfortunately your knee jerked anyway. To say that Ahmadinejad was elected is laughable. It is similar to saying that Kruschev was elected. It was the mullahs & Islamists who qualified whether a candidate was allowed on the ballots. It is Iran & Islamists that want to dominate the Middle East! The US never wanted to dominate the Middle East. Instead we wanted to keep the free flow of oil at market prices from degenerating into a referendum on whether Israel should exist or not. We wanted to avoid blackmail by the islamofascists. Apparently Ahmadinejad thinks it signals US weakness which means, in as much as he has power outside of the mullahs or is speaking that way for the mullahs, he believes & probably will act as if the US is weakened. To that extent if Obama continues to crank up a depression it may give the islamofascists the idea that we are weakened & that they can win in an asymmetric war of terrorism. By calling someone an asshole, YOU were playing the RWG - that's why I removed your insults.

Seth says

I have always been astounded by how changing the context will change the conversation and will provide more possibilities. Now just what does it mean to change the context? Well it means to put other things on the table ... it means that possibilities which were heretofore assumed to be impossible are suddenly deemed possible ... new information is discovered ... new events and physical devises change the context. Obama has the possibility to get the Iranians and the Israelis to "unclench their fists" ... to change the context. A Middle East context without the clenched fists of Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu hurriling ultimatims and Hammas not lobbing missels is a context in which peace might emerge. Now i'm not saying that will be the context because i'm not pretending to know, but to prejudge the conversation before things start changeing is just to be fixated on failure to begin with.

Along with imagining fears of Obama's foreign problems before they happen, it might be interesting at the same time to start being aware of how the context of world affairs has already started to change for the better.

Mark de LA says

Iran wants to engage or enrage? Denies secret negotiations!

source: ...

Since Obama took office Jan. 20, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said accommodation with the U.S. is dependent not upon Obama's willingness to engage in direct talks with Iran, but upon fundamental changes in U.S. policy. The changes include a willingness to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan and drop support for Israel.

...

I wonder if Iran would withdraw it's support for Hamas & other terrorists in Israel, Syria, weapons smuggling, & it's own terrorists in Iraq, Afganistan & other places & stop it's covert nuclear ambitions.

Mark de LA says

Context is hard to shift. If it were easy then Obama would be able to shift from impending depression to return of prosperity in less than 8 years. Instead he is going in the opposite direction. Anyway, your example is strange since Castro & his brother have just signed mutual pacts recently. If the change in missle protection caused some change here then we wouldn't be facing something similar to the Kennedy missle crisis. To change context requires a lot of energy. You can't just tell the M$M "Ok, dudes we're going to put out this context shift today & all wars will go away". I had the experience once in the '97 when I shared a moment of what it took for ~1000 people to shift from a personality based organization to a vision & implementation based company. In 5 years they declared success with a lot of loose ends to play with, but the core had shifted. The context I mentioned in 11352 might have been declared for Einstein et al. in 1955. Not much has shifted because there was no existence system to keep it alive. Rather, things have turned to more dangerous options like a nuke in the hands of a terrorist. It is better to head things off early than wait for the due date & listen to apologies & the sound of OOPS! passing the lips of our leaders. We already have that sound going around like a bluster out of the mouths those who lead the country & maybe the world into the current economic mess!

Mark de LA says

Continued hard line from Iran with Iran dictating terms just like N. Korea did, while complaining about Bush's policy seems a lot like the hard line Bush took. Wonder if Iran is worth negotiating with. Wonder if a potential good cop - bad cop is in the wings if Israel elects Netanyahu as PM.

Sure, face to face talks will solve all the ME problems!

About: Iran Says Offer to Talk Shows US Failure

Tags

Comments

See Also