PDA

View Full Version : Media To recognize or not recognize Iran, that is the question.


Direckshun
06-15-2009, 12:20 AM
We all know where Iran is going at this point. The powers that be, as corrupt and fraudulent as they are, are taking hold in Iran against the will of much (if not most) of its population.

But we still need to work with Iran in the near future, especially if we are looking to improve Middle Eastern relations.

So what is our way forward with Iran? Your ideas are welcome.

Do we recognize the """""election""""" or not?

Do we continue to try to communicate with Iran without preconditions?

Do we have preconditions now?

etc etc. Thoughts welcome.

trndobrd
06-15-2009, 03:48 AM
The Supreme Council was in charge before the 'election', and they are still in charge after the 'election'. Whether or not the guy at the front desk changed, the management is the same. They are not any more corrupt or fraudlent today than they were last week, they have only been exposed. There isn't any reason to 'recognize' or 'not recognize' the election. Iran is a budding nuclear power and we will have to deal with whoever answers the phone.

That does not mean negotiations without preconditions, but there are plenty of ways to engage at lower levels.

BigRedChief
06-15-2009, 06:36 AM
That does not mean negotiations without preconditions, but there are plenty of ways to engage at lower levels.
negotiations with pre-conditions before we will talk to our enemies or hostile countries is asine. Just look at the results of Bush's policy. Then look at what other Republicans did? Nixon, Reagan, what did they accomplish by talking to our enemies without pre-conditions?

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 06:43 AM
That does not mean negotiations without preconditions, but there are plenty of ways to engage at lower levels.

I have a question for you? Are you a neo con or a libertarian, because you sound hardly libertarian to me when it comes to FP?

Why engage in anything? Why not just leave them alone?
Why do you believe state propaganda?

mlyonsd
06-15-2009, 10:04 AM
We all know where Iran is going at this point. The powers that be, as corrupt and fraudulent as they are, are taking hold in Iran against the will of much (if not most) of its population.

But we still need to work with Iran in the near future, especially if we are looking to improve Middle Eastern relations.

So what is our way forward with Iran? Your ideas are welcome.

Do we recognize the """""election""""" or not?

Do we continue to try to communicate with Iran without preconditions?

Do we have preconditions now?

etc etc. Thoughts welcome.

All interesting questions that I don't think can be answered until we see how it all plays out.

memyselfI
06-15-2009, 01:14 PM
You let the Iranian people figure this out.

The US had sanctions and very little diplomatic action going on before the election and it should not change a thing at this point. We must see how this plays out and stay the FUGG out of it.

trndobrd
06-15-2009, 01:25 PM
I have a question for you? Are you a neo con or a libertarian, because you sound hardly libertarian to me when it comes to FP?

Why engage in anything? Why not just leave them alone?
Why do you believe state propaganda?

I have a question for you?

OK...shoot.

Are you a neo con or a libertarian, because you sound hardly libertarian to me when it comes to FP?

I understand that everyone that does not fall within your absolute isolationism is a dreaded 'neocon'. You seem perfectly willing to assign labels, so I'll leave you to it.

Why engage in anything?

That's what countries do with one another. They engage in trade, diplomatic relations, treaty negotiations, bilateral agreements, telecom and air transport agreements. Everything from quiet behind the scenes talks to armed conflict.

Why not just leave them alone?

Iran is showing indications of both pursuing a nuclear program and sharing. Iran is directly attempting to destabilize Iraq with money, weapons and intelligence agents. It would be nice if they would stop doing those things.

Why do you believe state propaganda?

You'll have to explain that one.

trndobrd
06-15-2009, 01:29 PM
negotiations with pre-conditions before we will talk to our enemies or hostile countries is asine. Just look at the results of Bush's policy. Then look at what other Republicans did? Nixon, Reagan, what did they accomplish by talking to our enemies without pre-conditions?


Reagan's negotiations were, in the begining, part of the previously established SALT series of talks. Kissinger had made several trips to China before Nixon went.

petegz28
06-15-2009, 01:52 PM
negotiations with pre-conditions before we will talk to our enemies or hostile countries is asine. Just look at the results of Bush's policy. Then look at what other Republicans did? Nixon, Reagan, what did they accomplish by talking to our enemies without pre-conditions?

The fall of the Soviet Union and freedom brought to several countries who otherwise knew nothing but oppression and communisitc rule?

Calcountry
06-15-2009, 05:48 PM
We all know where Iran is going at this point. The powers that be, as corrupt and fraudulent as they are, are taking hold in Iran against the will of much (if not most) of its population.

But we still need to work with Iran in the near future, especially if we are looking to improve Middle Eastern relations.

So what is our way forward with Iran? Your ideas are welcome.

Do we recognize the """""election""""" or not?

Do we continue to try to communicate with Iran without preconditions?

Do we have preconditions now?

etc etc. Thoughts welcome.Sophomoric

BucEyedPea
06-15-2009, 06:16 PM
OK...shoot.



I understand that everyone that does not fall within your absolute isolationism is a dreaded 'neocon'. You seem perfectly willing to assign labels, so I'll leave you to it.
I am just asking what your affiliaton is. I know there's different kinds of libertarians but the basic belief that unites them is the non-aggression doctrine. Plus you tend to believe the state a lot.



That's what countries do with one another. They engage in trade, diplomatic relations, treaty negotiations, bilateral agreements, telecom and air transport agreements. Everything from quiet behind the scenes talks to armed conflict.
The first six don't conflict with libertarianism unless the trade is managed by govt. People trade. The armed conflict part violates the non-aggression doctrine unless you are being attacked. That is the core essential of libertarianism. That and the state lies. Believing and trusting state's information is another.

Iran is showing indications of both pursuing a nuclear program and sharing. Iran is directly attempting to destabilize Iraq with money, weapons and intelligence agents. It would be nice if they would stop doing those things.
So what? You're having those concerns are still not libertarianism including the fact that the state has lied to us before on such thing...like Iraq. And they have a legal right to pursue a nuclear program including per the treaty they signed. As for destabilizing Iraq I read they also support the current Shia govt there. But we put up a LOT of money to destabilize Iran too and have been in there using car bombs and kidnapping officials just as we began to invade Iraq. How does this comport with the non-agression doctrine? It does not.

Murray Rothbard was right there are too many self proclaimed libertarians who really aren't libertarians despite the different kinds that exist, when they don't act out a belief in the non-aggression doctrine and trust the state's information.



You'll have to explain that one.
I did above. I just know that a libertarian is anti-state, anti-war and pro-free market.

You are believing the same folks ( they're in both parties) about Iran being a threat.


Iran's internal affairs are NONE of our business and no libertarian would be concerned with getting on a high horse and telling them how to conduct those affairs.

You may not be a NeoCon but you're no libertarian. Not according to the father of the movement Rothbard. At least I know I am not a libertarian.

stevieray
06-15-2009, 06:43 PM
Interesting, we shouldn't give a shit about people and democracy in the ME when it's Bush and Iraq, but we do with Obama and Iran?

patteeu
06-15-2009, 08:26 PM
negotiations with pre-conditions before we will talk to our enemies or hostile countries is asine. Just look at the results of Bush's policy. Then look at what other Republicans did? Nixon, Reagan, what did they accomplish by talking to our enemies without pre-conditions?

Neither Nixon nor Reagan ever talked face to face with an adversary without plenty of preconditions. The Bush administration did plenty of talking with the Iranians without the preconditions for a face to face being met.

patteeu
06-15-2009, 08:37 PM
This thread must be a joke.

Taco John
06-15-2009, 09:18 PM
I think we should figure out our own problems, and let the Iranians figure out theirs.

Direckshun
06-15-2009, 10:57 PM
I've been reading some tonight and realizing, slowly, what a shitty no-win situation we're stuck in.

If we decide that we will work with this corrupt regime, we risk alienating the future generations that will be key in rebuilding a modern Iran decades in the future. If we decide to continue shunning this corrupt regime, our interests will fail to get a fighting chance in Iran and they will speed ahead with a nuclear program. If we are even bold enough to speak out against this corrupt regime, they will paint their internal revolution as puppetry by foreign hands.

Allowing this mess to play itself out is the only recourse we have.

Taco John
06-16-2009, 12:24 AM
Good take Direckshun... Here's your new avatar:

http://homedir-a.libsyn.com/podcasts/295449d5eda423b654abe02f4f533f9e/4a373b12/ronpaul/images/RonPaul_flag.jpg

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 06:52 AM
Allowing this mess to play itself out is the only recourse we have.
no chit. It's the obvious and only course. Just say what the President said yesterday....The Iranian people have a right to elect their own leaders. It's not our business.

You say anything more it will be used against the reformers and they will be labled lackeys of the American dogs.

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 06:53 AM
Reagan's negotiations were, in the begining, part of the previously established SALT series of talks. Kissinger had made several trips to China before Nixon went.
So you don't think there will be talks between state departments and Hillary and the Iranians before Obama meets with them?