Since when do we not care about what the leader of a major regional power has to say, particularly where a war between his country and ours seems perilously close? And since when do we simply refuse to speak to people with whom we don’t agree?
I think the Bush Administration is to blame for this to a large extent. From the Korean Peninsula to the Middle East to Latin America, Bush’s instinct has been simply not to talk with our antagonists unless they meet preconditions, as though the privilege of a meeting is a prize to be doled out to the deserving. The Korean example is probably the clearest example of how shortsighted this policy is. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidates have mostly adopted Bush’s approach–recall how Senator Clinton took Senator Obama to task for suggesting he would speak with Pres. Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and how the pro-Clinton spin on the dust-up was that only Clinton had the necessary experience to conduct our foreign policy.
I say it’s time we grow up. It’s time we talk with our adversaries before we start shooting at them. It’s time we treat even bad actors with respect, not because they deserve it by our lights, but because it is in our national interest to do so–North Korea again being the best example.
I also think that leaving aside our legal obligations to allow foreign heads of state, even unsavory, to visit New York on U.N. business, it wouldn’t do us any harm to show a little bit of class and keep quiet if a particularly crazy head of state wants to make a fool of himself. Hugo Chavez’s speech at the UN is a good example. We don’t like him, we let him say his piece, and he ended up looking silly. Why not give Ahmadinejad the same medicine? Too subtle for most Americans, it seems. Too bad.
TedF
We would have understood him better and negotiated a peace in our time.
<
p>
Well…it’s unfair to compare the two…Hitler committed genocide, whereas the Iranian only talks about committing it.
That actually seemed to work quite well with the agreement between the Clinton administration and NKorea in the early 1990s. It appears that it was only after the GWBush malAdministration declared NKorea part of some silly “axis of evil” (obvious WWII reference) that NKorea began trying to refine plutonium out of the spent fuel rods from its nuclear power plant.
for food, oil, money etc etc etc? Either we give them all this stuff or they build nukes?
…it strikes me as particularly silly for the GWBush malAdministration to have virtually declared war (without Congressional authorization, of course) on NKorea. Thereby inciting the NKorean defensive reaction. If GWBush had not said anything, there would probably have been nothing with NKorea. What did GWBush believe that he was accomplishing by even mentioning the issue. He–as usual–was stupid.
<
p>
It was the PRC who reigned in the NKoreans on the nuclear issue. Not the Americans. The PRC recognized that the NKoreans’ activities were bad for business. Much like the Vietnamese did with Cambodia and Laos a couple of decades ago.
It is well know that the Clinton administration was sending millions in “extortion” money to the little megalomaniac dictator Kim Jong which was supposed to be feeding people but was instead being used to fund a nuclear weapons program [http://www.worldnetd…].
The Bush haters don’t want to admit that Bush’s policy of refusal to be extorted by N Korea ( unlike his predecessor) ultimately worked.
“The PRC recognized that the NKoreans’ activities were bad for business”
Of course they did… when America ( their largest customer) told them to do something about the little mad man that was terrorizing the entire Far East or suffer the financial ( business) consequences.
Bush held the line and leveraged our business relationship with the PRC to neutralize NK….brilliant!
all agog right now at accusations that NK is feeding nuclear technology and parts to Syria and Iran? So if you believe that to be the case how can you declare Bush’s policy regarding NK to have worked?
<
p>
And if you believe this policy did work, aren’t you making the case that diplomacy, not military action accomplishes these goals?
<
p>
As usual, the right is tripping over its own propaganda.
That would be a majority of the country, now, right?
the Congress haters
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456
Why must we look at this picture repeatedly? What’s the point?
<
p>
As for Congress: most polling indicates that Congress is not doing enough to oppose the President.
Republicans.
Democrats have the lowest approval for congress.
Taking THIS under consideration, is it any surprise that the overall approval for congress among the population at large is low?
lunatic looks like in the public eye. This little yuppie turd appears to have been thoroughly brainwashed by his “professors” and supported by his over indulgent Mater and Dadda. Imagine this loser defending America?
This is a juvinile right wing troll.
Take him home and make him some chocolate milk, will ya?
A “righty ” kid would probably have a shirt and tie on and have bathed within the last week and not have his mouth gaping like a grouper fish…. nice “beads’
No, this looks like your typical right wing trust fund baby. You called it perfectly in your first post. You just didn't know you were describing YOUR side.
đŸ™‚
Don't you just love that gutter discourse now that you've shot yourself in the foot?
that far left is filled with these days. They may disagree but I don’t believe they “hate” like a moveOn.org does.
hate, or “hate”? because “hate”, by virtue of being in quotes, isn’t bona fide hate at all, but something else. a psuedo hate, perhaps. i’m not sure what psuedo hate is, though, really. can you elaborate please?
Was it after it was revealed that a guy in charge of horse shows was put in charge of FEMA that Bush lost his popularity? Or was it after it was clear that the optimism about Iraq was fantasy?
<
p>
In any case, what we now have is more Americans strongly disapprove of Bush than strongly approve or somewhat approve. Maybe it’s not hate, but it’s stern disapproval. There’s a lot of it. Welcome to America.
<
p>
Let us turn to the polls.
<
p>
Presidential polling Latest polling shows every frontrunning Democrat polling ahead of every frontrunning Republican. Not good for you guys, eh?
<
p>
In the Senate, behind in money, with open seats to defend, and poor recruitment, Republicans are going to lose ground. In the House, it’s looking even worse for Republicans.
<
p>
The “far left”, as you quaintly call the advocates of positions polling in the majority on most issues, is united on strong disapproval, not “hate” — or even hate.
<
p>
The accusation of “hate” is actually kind of odd coming from one so misanthropic, who doesn’t even seem to like most Republicans at RMG. Hate, indeed.
congressional approval Yup, those Dems sure are doing a heck of job!
Congress Approval Rises Slightly to 24%
Gain almost entirely due to improved ratings from Republicans
http://www.galluppol…
Look at these polls.
<
p>
When asked what they want to do about their disapproval of Congress, what do respondents say? They say they want to elect more Democrats.
“Friends of Democracy” poll and burst out laughing. You’re not going to seriously present this “who the hell ever heard of these losers?” as a contemporary of the “Gallup” poll are you?
Please , if you’re going to present a counter position with links to a “poll” , please make it a polling entity that someone’s heard of… besides , the ultimate poll will come at the ballot box in 08 and right now Queen Pelosi and Dingy Harry are looking like losers.
…that you aren’t literate enough to have ever heard of James Carville and Stanley Greenberg.
<
p>
And you call us assclowns?
What a fun day to be arguing polling! Today the Democrats poll ahead of Republicans on national security. The last remaining issue Republicans used to lead on. I know you love Gallop. Enjoy!
<
p>
So we have polls from national outfits showing Republicans behind in every possible election. Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate campaign has $22.1 million on hand and $3.1 million in debts. The Republican Senate campaign is in the red in more ways than one: a paltry $1.6 million in cash and $4 million in debt. Why to you, I’m sure, they look like winners already! They’re so in the red!
<
p>
The one statistic you hang your tiny hopes on is the disapproval rating for Congress — even as Democrats have increased their generic lead over Republicans since April by 10 points.
<
p>
But you present no understanding of why disapproval of Congress is so high. Could it be that there are too many Republicans in it? There’s evidence that’s why. The only polls I’ve seen that ask that question confirm it. Me, I like to base my opinions on data.
<
p>
And you? Did you just pull your analysis out of your — hat?
This is quite rich coming from the guy who, just upstream, thought somebody was a lefty and called them “a yuppy turd” and “a loser” who he could not imagine defending America.
<
p>
Who’s full of hate?
Of course they did… when America ( their largest customer)
<
p>
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the PRC is as stupid as you think they are. I suspect, but also cannot prove, that their largest customer is the EU (plus Switzerland). The problem with confirming that is that the EU is actually 20-some-odd different countries, trading as something of a bloc.
… everything was working just fine for the Agreed Framework until the GOP congress cut funding and caused construction and delivery delays that scuttled the whole thing. The thing that pisses me off with regard to the whole NKorea thing is that when the idiot dictator claims that we broke the treaty first, he’s actually right, right wing wishful thinking aside.
Columbia’s Dean John Coatsworth has defended the Ahmedinejad invitation by noting that the University would indeed have invited Hitler to speak, “If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty.” What’s wrong with that? Listening to someone never hurt us, and it never committed us to reach an agreement. Listening to Hitler, per se, would not have been appeasement. And who knows, maybe we would have had a better insight into Hitler had he spoken in America to an American audience.
<
p>
Now, before I make my next comment, let me just say that I am not comparing Pres. Bush to either Ahmedinejad or to Hitler. Do we think it would be good for the world if those countries whose governments think our policies over the last few years have led to grave violations of human rights, including torture, refused to listen to what America had to say? Similarly, there are lots of countries in the world that have pretty atrocious human rights records, including major trading partners like China and Saudi Arabia, to name just two. Should we stop talking with them?
<
p>
TedF
…it would be irresponsible to stop talking with them.
<
p>
Engaging with them via discussion is not an imprimature on their deeds. That seems to be lost on a lot of people.
Right, Raj. It was a rhetorical question.
It was a rhetorical question
<
p>
I believed it had to have been.
Point one, it was unnecessary to invite Hitler to speak at Columbia Uni, or anywhere else in the US, for that matter in the 1930s. He had made it perfectly clear what his ambitions were in the 1923 (or so) book Mein Kampf
<
p>
Point two, if the French and the British had in 1936 exercised their powers under the Treaty of Versailles, when Hitler “remilitarized” the Rheinland, WWII in the European theater probably would have been averted. Hitler’s “remilitarization” was largely a lot of German army troups, many of whom carried what appeared to be guns, but were carved out of wood (hence my use of “remilitarization” with quotation marks). The French and British showed no interest, and that emboldened Hitler.
<
p>
The point being that we would not have had to “understand” Hitler. We–actually, the British and the French–would have had to exercise our treaty rights. We have no treaty with Iran, at least as far as I know, so I’m not sure what the analogy is.
<
p>
Point three. Regarding “Hitler committed genocide,” yup. A number of other despots and even some who Americans apparently like to consider non-despots have, too. So have Americans viz-a-viz Amerinds. This argument is a non-starter.
Point one: Ahmedinejad has also made it clear that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map. I can assure you he doesn’t just mean make a big black spot on all the maps we make where Israel is.
<
p>
Point two: the europeans were so traumatized from WW1 (with good reason) that they did everything they could to avoid more fighting (i.e. appeasement) and to them, using force to enforce the treaty of versailles wasn’t an option because they didn’t want any more war. They figured they could talk their way out if it. See: Chamberlain.
<
p>
Point three: The argument is not a non-starter. It’s an important issue to address. I feel like some people on this site are more disgusted that some white brats hung nooses from a tree than the fact a leader of a country talks about killing the Jews. Something is dearly wrong with this picture.
Unlike Madonna, I do not claim to speak for the Jews. But for what it’s worth, here is the perspective of one Jewish person concerned for the security of the State of Israel: talking to Ahmadinejad, by itself, poses no risk to Israel’s existence. And if there is to be a settlement of the intermittent warfare between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, short of another invasion of Lebanon, don’t we have to talk with Iran? Sure, Israel, America, and the West can say, “we’re bigger and stronger than Iran and we can bomb the bejezus out of them,” but as Israel’s recent adventure in South Lebanon and our own in Iraq show, there’s more to bringing peace to the Middle East than bombing the bejezus out of people.
<
p>
I guess I just don’t see the downside of talking.
<
p>
TedF
that talking to Iran is important. He is here after all, to address the UN. I just don’t see the need to have him at Columbia University.
<
p>
We also have to remember that talking might not provide a solution. Sometimes you can talk blue in the face and someone won’t listen to you. We have to keep all options on the table.
There is no need to have him at Columbia University. Columbia wanted to have him speak. And you’ve not provided any compelling argument why they shouldn’t. You just keep saying you don’t like what he has to say and so therefore he shouldn’t be allowed to say it.
Point one: Ahmedinejad has also made it clear that he wants to see Israel wiped off the map.
<
p>
It’s the urban myth that won’t die.
Good to have you commenting!
Iran isn’t one of our adversaries; their capability of damaging the US is between slim and none.
<
p>
Neither is Venezuela. If the GWBush malAdministration hadn’t cheered on an attempted coup against Chavez a few years ago, to the chagrin of the South American democracies, it is probable that relations with the Chavez government would now be relatively stable. But Bush did, and the relations aren’t. Apparently GWBush, for all his talk about “spreading democracy” doesn’t really believe that. In a democracy, the voters can vote for any idiot that they want–just look at the US.
It’s seems pretty clear that you dislike America intensely and support the “blame America for everything” attitude… The people that care more about what the jealous Europeans “think” of us than protecting our own interests. …Amazing how the “hate America” crowd in Europe can’t seem to immigrate here fast enough.
As for Iran,IMO, we’ve been at war with their government ( radical Islam) since they took American citizens hostage years ago during the Carter administration . Ever since , Iran has perpetrated one atrocious act of war and terrorism after another on us with ZERO reprisal . They’re behind Hezbolla, behind weapons to Iraq…. who do you think tried to blow up the WTC the first time? The list goes on and on. Yet you have no problem with this? This is America’s fault? Oh Ya, those Iranians are a really friendly country aren’t they? If we’d just be nice to them everything would be just dandy, right? It’s all that nasty GWB’s fault.
And Chavez? ..another tin horned magalomaniac dictator that wants to shut down his countries newspapers and freedom of speech? …and this is America’s fault? You’re OK with this dictator?
It might be the party that has candidates who attend events where the words “God Bless America” are changed to “Why should God Bless America?”.
<
p>
That would be the GOP of course, which had candidates debate at the “Values Voters” debate this weekend. They pathetically stood by and applauded as the chosen entertainment sang a mutilated version of the song.
<
p>
Lyrics included went:
<
p>
“Why should God bless America?
Shes’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back on everything
That made her what she is
<
p>
Why should God stand beside her
Through the night with the light from his hand?
God have mercy on America
Forgive her sins and heal our land”
<
p>
<
p>
So, who hates America now?
…I do not give in to idiotic invectives like your comment. If you have something to say that is relevant to the topic of the comment, say it. This “blame america for everything” claptrap is nonsense.
<
p>
If you are one of those who believe that US governments can do no wrong, feel free to say so, too. You’ll be ridiculed if you do, but, feel free to say so.
<
p>
BTW, regarding As for Iran,IMO, we’ve been at war with their government ( radical Islam) since they took American citizens hostage years ago during the Carter administration, apparently you never heard of Mossadegh, the 1953 democratically elected head of government in Iran, who was overthrown by the US CIA, at the behest of the British and British Petroleum. The coup brought back the Shah.
<
p>
That is one thing that led to the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran. The US has been at loggerheads with Iran since 1953, not 1978.
<
p>
I really do wish that you people would learn a little history. It didn’t begin yesterday.
You’re telling us that the Shi’ite regime in Iran was behind the Sunni radicals who tried blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. Let’s assume that was a typo. I will spew some kindness.
In general, liberals (and Raj will not say he is a liberal, by the way) care about policy outcomes.
<
p>
There are lots of different ways to deal with a wasps’ nest. Whacking it with a broom appears to be the favored approach of the neocons. While it might look brave, powerful, and awesome, in the end, it’s just stupid.
<
p>
In a comic book view of war, logistics don’t count. In an actual war, they’re crucial. In Iraq, the U.S. presence has long supply lines through the southern part of the country. You may think that Iran is totally awful, but the Shi’ites in Iraq do not. In fact, the government (remember the purple fingers) our “valorous” Bush Administration has been supporting is chock full of folks who’ve spent a lot of time in Iran. In fact, it includes groups far more pro-Iranian than Sadr.
<
p>
Dropping bombs on Iran is going to make any continued presence in Iraq very difficult. It will also destroy much hope of coming to any political resolve.
<
p>
Talk about whacking a wasps’ nest.
In general, liberals (and Raj will not say he is a liberal, by the way) care about policy outcomes.
<
p>
What I am concered about is what the Gesellschaft–the community–should be. I work backward from there. With compromises along the way, as might be necessary. That is neither liberal nor “progressive.” It is practical.
<
p>
Regarding “Who do you think tried to blow up the WTC the first time?” oddly enough, it was a disparate group led by Ramzi Yousef, a Kuwaiti. No evidence of any Iraqi activity. Or Iranian activity, for that matter.
…comments have to do with hating America?
<
p>
Feel the need to change the subject much?