Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans

[EvilMonkey]

Courtesy of Cox & Forkum:

 

 

[Texsox]

Courtesy of Cox & Forkum:

 

 

that about sums it up.

[Jenksismyhero]

that about sums it up.

 

Lol, yep.

[Balta1701]

[bmags]

Y'all are misunderstanding me.

 

Any diplomatic overture from Iran towards the United States - however insincere it may be, is a tremendous opportunity for the United States' efforts within the middle east. By reacting to this with honest responses to what Ahmadinejad says in this letter, we can increase our standing within the international community. What Iran says or does after this moment, is irrelevant to this opportunity - because it gives the US the opportunity to grab the moral high ground in the eyes of many in the international community who feel that this is ground that we've lost.

 

Is this a breakthrough? Hell, no. Is it a start to creating the dialogue and international cooperation we would need to successfully take care of an Iranian threat on a military level? Hell, yes. And whether or not this is an inevitability is definitely open to question - but the idea of not making a start to finding friends for this potential theater is definitely something that the US, in its current position, should be considering.

 

I agree with this very much. I think dialogue is extremely important.

[EvilMonkey]

I agree with this very much. I think dialogue is extremely important.

So basically, true intentions mean nothing, and bulls*** is what rules here? Just say the right thing, even if it is total crap, and you get the 'high ground'. Doesn't make sense.

[Balta1701]

So basically, true intentions mean nothing, and bulls*** is what rules here? Just say the right thing, even if it is total crap, and you get the 'high ground'. Doesn't make sense.

That is 100% the way diplomacy works. It is also why a specific segment of american politics (the segment currently dominating the government) despises diplomacy above everything else...because it is so nuanced, so contradictory, and so contradictory, all of which are bad things if you only view the world in black and white. But none of that means it doesn't work.

[jackie hayes]

That is 100% the way diplomacy works. It is also why a specific segment of american politics (the segment currently dominating the government) despises diplomacy above everything else...because it is so nuanced, so contradictory, and so contradictory, all of which are bad things if you only view the world in black and white. But none of that means it doesn't work.

Balta, if you don't take a hard-line stance on Iran, what do you take on? Ahmadinejad has said that Iran's nuclear program can not even be on the table in any talks. So what exactly do you think the US should discuss?

 

This is not how "diplomacy works". Some hateful figure publishes a transparent pack of lies, so you arrange talks. Good Lord, no.

 

I'm as critical as anyone about this administration's sorry (read: disastrous) diplomacy with respect to Iraq. But you just lump this in without any reasoning, which is pretty ironic for someone claiming the upper hand in "nuance".

[Rex Kickass]

You want the upper hand? You call every bluff.

 

Iran says they want talks? Okay, let's talk. When they don't talk, you can say - see they didn't want to talk after all.

 

You can't just assume every promise is bulls*** publicly, even if it is bulls*** and everyone knows it. Because, you always leave the "what if" open. Establishing a dialogue with Iran would be a better policy than the one we have now, which is do nothing and b**** about it.

 

The best part about diplomatic dialogue is it can lead to real change over time - but at a pace in which societies can often adjust peacefully.

 

Don't believe me? Look at the end of the cold war. Had it not been for the detente opened up between the Reagan/Bush administrations and the Soviet politburo during the 1980's, there would probably still be two Germanys. Why? Because unification couldn't happen until there was mutual consent among the powers that be. And the USSR only gave their consent after a lot of diplomatic nuance from the US. Ask our current secretary of state, she was there when the older President Bush basically tricked Gorbachev into agreeing in principle.

[jackie hayes]

You want the upper hand? You call every bluff.

 

Iran says they want talks? Okay, let's talk. When they don't talk, you can say - see they didn't want to talk after all.

 

You can't just assume every promise is bulls*** publicly, even if it is bulls*** and everyone knows it. Because, you always leave the "what if" open. Establishing a dialogue with Iran would be a better policy than the one we have now, which is do nothing and b**** about it.

 

The best part about diplomatic dialogue is it can lead to real change over time - but at a pace in which societies can often adjust peacefully.

 

Don't believe me? Look at the end of the cold war. Had it not been for the detente opened up between the Reagan/Bush administrations and the Soviet politburo during the 1980's, there would probably still be two Germanys. Why? Because unification couldn't happen until there was mutual consent among the powers that be. And the USSR only gave their consent after a lot of diplomatic nuance from the US. Ask our current secretary of state, she was there when the older President Bush basically tricked Gorbachev into agreeing in principle.

You're talking in convenient generalities. Suppose the US agrees to talks on the condition that Iran's nuclear capabilities are not up for discussion. We go to the talks and insist on talking about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Talks fall apart. We say, "see they didn't want to talk after all." Iran says, see, they didn't want to talk after all. They even broke the conditions that they agreed to. But at least we'd have the moral high ground.

 

Our policy is pretty clear. We're willing to talk if Iran's nuclear development program is part of the discussion.

 

It's damn odd that 2 countries famously pissed about this administration's diplomacy support our position on Iran (France and Germany). Odd, since this is merely another example of the administration's hatred of diplomacy.

[Gregory Pratt]

You're talking in convenient generalities. Suppose the US agrees to talks on the condition that Iran's nuclear capabilities are not up for discussion. We go to the talks and insist on talking about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Talks fall apart. We say, "see they didn't want to talk after all." Iran says, see, they didn't want to talk after all. They even broke the conditions that they agreed to. But at least we'd have the moral high ground.

 

Our policy is pretty clear. We're willing to talk if Iran's nuclear development program is part of the discussion.

 

It's damn odd that 2 countries famously pissed about this administration's diplomacy support our position on Iran (France and Germany). Odd, since this is merely another example of the administration's hatred of diplomacy.

 

Exactly.