Also, isn't the major difference that the USSR was not sponsoring terrorism?

If I had to choose, Ray, I'd prefer a country sponsoring terrorism over a country like the USSR that was literally, militarily, occupying a number of other countries.

You think Iran wants an unstable regime on their border?

Given the history of Iran and Iraq, and the history of Iran and the U.S., I think it's reasonable that Iran might not view the prospect of an internally unified Iraqi regime as an unalloyed good thing, especially an internally unified Iraqi regime with close ties to the United States.

That's not the same thing as wanting an unstable regime on their border -- but I can see how an Iraq too absorbed in its own internecine struggles to think too much about Iran might look like the lesser of two evils if Iran thinks their other alternative is an internally unified U.S.-supported government.

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on this, but didn't Reagan have a set of pre-conditions in place before he sat down to talk with Gorbachev? Also, isn't the major difference that the USSR was not sponsoring terrorism? I don't claim that spreading communism isn't bad, but it seems to me that what the USSR was doing is different in kind from what Iran does.

This ought to be good for another 100 or so posts... but that's not my intent in pushing it

I'd point out that in the 1980s Reagan equation, a perfectly legitimate argument can be made that the US, in fact, was the sponsor of a group that relies on terrorism (I suppose I won't outright call the Contras or any number of other groups in Central and South America terrorists... but I wouldn't argue if others do).

Hell... Why do you think Ollie North, Ronnie, and company had to break the law and funnel money to the Contras?

Because Congress made it illegal for the US government to financially support a group that was murdering nuns, blowing up cafes, and what not.

Terrorism is terrorism -- I don't care if you're an Islamic fundamentalist that wants to slaughter all the unbelievers, or, an enemy of the country government in power.

If you're blowing up civilian targets to spread terror -- you are committing an act of terrorism.

Let me quickly add to post 5203 -

It's also incorrect to say that the USSR didn't sponsor terrorism... From Columbia to the PFLP to various groups throughout Asia (Pakistan, for example) into Africa (too many to name).

Neither the USA or the USSR have clean hands when it comes to "sponsoring terrorism".

What sorts of things do you think the Iranians want that we're not prepared to give. I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm sure if they could get it they'd want dominion over all of former Persia. But they're not going to come to the negotiating table expecting to get Asia Minor out of the deal.

I suspect they'll want a permanent say in Iraq and that they'll only give up nuclear weapons as part of regional nuclear disarmament.

(Man, that ignore list gets weaker all the time.)

I took you off about 100 posts ago. I don't keep anyone there permanently, it's rude.

Given the history of Iran and Iraq, and the history of Iran and the U.S., I think it's reasonable that Iran might not view the prospect of an internally unified Iraqi regime as an unalloyed good thing, especially an internally unified Iraqi regime with close ties to the United States.

That's not the same thing as wanting an unstable regime on their border -- but I can see how an Iraq too absorbed in its own internecine struggles to think too much about Iran might look like the lesser of two evils if Iran thinks their other alternative is an internally unified U.S.-supported government.

All I said was stable. A stable Iraq in which the Shi'ite majority was in control and the faction running the government had strong cultural and political ties to Iran fits the bill for them. Which for now is Maliki. Who also happens to be U.S.-supported, for the moment. That also allows them to play up the internecine stuff too: if Maliki tries to distance himself from them, or if it just serves their purpose for keeping Iraq militarily weak (which is all they really care about), they start to support one of the other Shi'ite factions more.

I suspect they'll want a permanent say in Iraq and that they'll only give up nuclear weapons as part of regional nuclear disarmament.

To which I'd reply "of course you'll have long term influence over your neighbor, with the understanding that your neighbor is not your client state, and of course we all want to broker a larger, more lasting peace in the region, and of course that would involve standing down nuclear brinksmanship by all regional players, and of course you know we're not going to ask Israel to give up its nukes until we have a much, much longer term stability in the region."

Not that I speak for Obama or his negotiators (obviously), but that's what diplomacy is. Are we going to ask Israel to disarm with nothing so much as a "by your leave" regarding their security? Of course not. Are there legitimate areas where Iran, the United States and (gasp!) even Israel can negotiate toward a commonly agreeable center? Of course there is. It just requires working towards that end rather than continuing to crouch in the bunkers and refuse to call the old enemy human.

Of course not. Are there legitimate areas where Iran, the United States and (gasp!) even Israel can negotiate toward a commonly agreeable center? Of course there is. I

What if there isn't?
To reuse an old example, using 20/20 hindsight we ca confidently state that there was no "commonly agreeable center" between Nazi Germany/ Poland/ UK and France... for instance

I don't "know" what would happen if we attempted negotiations with them. But I'd think the people advocating those negotiations might be able to say 1. What they hope to gain, and 2. What they're willing to give up. Especially since nobody is even considering the downsides of such negotiations.

What's the more, the notion that Iran is some inscrutable nation located in the middle of the dark continent. There have been ongoing international negotiations with Iran for several years now. They've tried economic carrots; they've tried sanctions. We know what Iran wants (or doesn't) and what it's willing to give up (not its nuclear program). The conceit that everyone is waiting for Barack Obama to sit down with them is either willful deception or ignorance.

The conceit that everyone is waiting for Barack Obama to sit down with them is either willful deception or ignorance.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for."

Not that I speak for Obama or his negotiators (obviously), but that's what diplomacy is. Are we going to ask Israel to disarm with nothing so much as a "by your leave" regarding their security? Of course not. Are there legitimate areas where Iran, the United States and (gasp!) even Israel can negotiate toward a commonly agreeable center? Of course there is. It just requires working towards that end rather than continuing to crouch in the bunkers and refuse to call the old enemy human.

I don't speak for Obama, either -- but another key point...

By engaging Iran - you also kick out a leg under the stool of their power.

Iran is a country that, had we not had our Mr. Toad's Wild Ride foreign policy, could very well be facing revolution without a push from us...

The nation is overwhelmingly young - and angry young... not just from a cultural perspective, but from an economic perspective. There are reports that the under 30 crowd in Iran faces unemployment rates nearing 20-30%.

There's a very real possibility that Ahmadinejad doesn't win the Iranian presidency without the US saber-rattling.

It's ironic... Our politicians here drum up the nationalism -- "you're either with us or with the terrorists" -- to win elections.... On the other side of the globe - politicians do the exact same thing.

It's one reason why I was personally so aghast at Clinton's "obliterate" comment regarding Iran. Would we respond, militarily, if Iran attacked Israel? Sure (assuming Israel didn't wipe Iran off the map first, without our help).

But you don't say that publicly - you don't say it publicly because the Iranian government simply uses it as more fodder to convince their own population that all their societal ills are due to the Great Satan.

A lasting peace in the region probably requires a new regime in Iran.

Iraq has proven pretty unequivocally that we cannot get that new regime militarily in Iran.

So we need another method - that method is undercutting the methods the Council of Guardians, etc use to stay IN power.

"of course you'll have long term influence over your neighbor, with the understanding that your neighbor is not your client state, and of course we all want to broker a larger, more lasting peace in the region, and of course that would involve standing down nuclear brinksmanship by all regional players, and of course you know we're not going to ask Israel to give up its nukes until we have a much, much longer term stability in the region."

In other words, they ask for things, you say "no." You couch it in fancy words but it's a "no."

Iran wants nuclear weapons, and as it stands right now they are going to get them, probably in a couple of years or even less. And given there are 2 hostile (Israel, US army in Iraq) and 1 unpredictable (Pakistan) nuclear powers in the region, it's easy to see why Iran wants, maybe even needs, nukes. And the only concrete thing you're willing to give is assistance on getting nuclear power, which they could get anyway from other countries.

Let me put it this way - if you were the Iranian President, would you make that deal?

The conceit that everyone is waiting for Barack Obama to sit down with them is either willful deception or ignorance.

A "conceit" that exists only in your imagination. We could build a haystack 100 feet high out of your strawmen.

As in "Obama cult," Brian? That BS belongs on Little Green Footballs.

I linked a minor story that illustrated a valid point that many people, if not you, believe: that Obama's gaffes are ignored by the media. The first response included this:

OK, I read this, and boy is it reaching. Sure Illinois is closer. Is it appreciably and insanely closer? I'm looking at the map they provide. Not so much.

Arkansas is 60-70 miles from Kentucky at the closest point, Illinois is 1 inch away. That is appreciably closer (Lord knows what insanely closer to something entails). In response I wrote "it's a cult". The absolute inability of some Obama followers to admit any flaws is cultlike and Lassus went on to deny that there is an implication on Obama's part that Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois. These people speak all day, 7 days a week; stupid stuff will come out of their mouths but Lassus can't admit that BO may have been wrong.
Your follow up was simply bizarre.

What if there isn't?
To reuse an old example, using 20/20 hindsight we ca confidently state that there was no "commonly agreeable center" between Nazi Germany/ Poland/ UK and France... for instance

Apples and oranges - at least, in regards to "talking".

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Chamberlain's mistake wasn't going to Munich, it was giving away half of Czechoslovakia.

A bigger mistake was the complete and utter allied miscalculation in regards to the Soviets. Had the French and British been more or less lackadaisical in courting Stalin, it's quite likely we never see a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- and the Nazis never go forward with the Danzig ultimatum.

A couple of thousand posts back I suggested possible carrots. Iran is not North Korea. My fear is that they are going to want a lot more than the US is willing to give.

What sorts of things do you think the Iranians want that we're not prepared to give. I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm sure if they could get it they'd want dominion over all of former Persia. But they're not going to come to the negotiating table expecting to get Asia Minor out of the deal.

Why do you think Iran wants anything from us in exchange what we want from them? We want Iran to (a) stop sponsoring terror, (b) stop supporting "insurgents" in Iraq, and (the big one) (c) stop pursuing nuclear weapons. Why do you think that Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons regardless of what we do? And they don't admit to the others at all, so how are they going to stop doing them? And if we're giving them things to get them to stop doing these things, why is it so beyond the pale to call that "appeasement"?

The jedi mind trick doesn't work- you keep arguing for this materialist understanding of labor as having the right to everything you touch, but no one is compelling anyone to care for anyone else against their will if, as you contend, the people laboring in such a system have freely chosen their careers and freely surrendered the labor that their career in health care involves.

If someone has a "right" to health care -- your claim -- then a doctor who chooses not to treat that person is violating her alleged "rights". But of course we're not just talking about doctors; we're talking about lawyers and teachers and plumbers -- IOW, taxpayers. A plumber who chooses not to work as many hours, thereby generating less income, thereby leaving less money to pay a doctor to treat that person, is also violating her alleged "rights."

From a material standpoint, the only ones caring for people are health care workers. Just because you gave some money to help it happen doesn't mean you did it. Is there a place where this tactic actually works? I paid for the computer I'm typing on- does that mean I built it?

No; it means you traded your labor for it. The "mind trick" here is your pretense that money is different from labor. When you take 15% of my income, you're taking 15% of my labor, 15% of my time.

Well, see, the thing about circumsicion is. ...

Oh, wait, you guys changed topics while I was at work?

Damn...

(Man, that ignore list gets weaker all the time.)
I took you off about 100 posts ago. I don't keep anyone there permanently, it's rude.

I don't entirely agree. There are some people with whom engagement is pointless (this coming from someone who knows it's fine to negotiate with Iran). I guess for me it's like being at a party, where out of a hundred people there are twenty with whom I enjoy talking, seventy with whom it's pleasant to talk, eight of whom are bores with whom I'll be polite for a minute, after which I'll excuse myself, and two to whom I'll return a hello and just find any reason at all to go to another section of the party. I don't see that as being rude. Rude would be something such as calling one of those two an idiot in a loud voice. I just use ignore here to enhance my substantial enjoyment of the site.

Iran wants nuclear weapons, and as it stands right now they are going to get them, probably in a couple of years or even less.

Do you have a credible source for this, AG? My understanding is they're not actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and that if they did resume pursuit, they're at least five years away.

I suspect they'll want a permanent say in Iraq and that they'll only give up nuclear weapons as part of regional nuclear disarmament.

To which I'd reply "of course you'll have long term influence over your neighbor, with the understanding that your neighbor is not your client state, and of course we all want to broker a larger, more lasting peace in the region, and of course that would involve standing down nuclear brinksmanship by all regional players, and of course you know we're not going to ask Israel to give up its nukes until we have a much, much longer term stability in the region."

1. Since Obama is promising to pull out of Iraq as quickly as feasible, he has nothing to deal with here. Iran will have that influence -- more than it already does, anyway -- no matter what.

2. Israel will not give up its nuclear weapons under any circumstances short of the First Coming, so we're not going to ask them to, so he has nothing to deal with here.

Okay, diplomacy's done. Now what?

No; it means you traded your labor for it. The "mind trick" here is your pretense that money is different from labor. When you take 15% of my income, you're taking 15% of my labor, 15% of my time.

The circulation of that labor changes its character. But you've refused to engage this point, so let's stick to the issue at hand- your constant claim to be doing labor that you're incapable of. Being "forced to" trade some of your labor for the labor of others is not the same as being forced to do the labor itself. Your attempt to conflate the two is a rhetorical strategy, and I'm calling BS every time you try it.

It was arki's point about health care. I'm not engaging you on that issue. I'm talking about your continued instance that you do labor you don't. You want to abstract your labor, then not discuss what happens in the abstraction process, and pretend it is still labor in pure, unabstracted form. You don't even need to understand Marx to get here. Your labor has no value until it is circulated; once it is circulated, that value is to some extent arbitrary. You want to lay claim to it as if it were an absolute value, but you need a circulation system for it to achieve a stable value which you can then call absolute. My contention all along has been that the stable value of your labor is derived from the context it is circulated within, and as such, maintaining the stability of that context is in your interests. If society collapsed completely tomorrow, your labor (practicing law) would be valueless. Once we've established this, it is a question of deciding what is necessary to maintain the stability of that context. We don't have to agree on what would be necessary, but you do have stop pretending that we'd all be just fine on our own. To pretend that your labor has a constant exchange value outside of a system of circulation, and that you have the right to expect it to maintain that exchange value once it has circulated, is simply delusional. This isn't overly complex, and yet you still don't understand it. I'm thinking it's just that Sam was right and you're incapable of seeing anything that might topple your ideological sandcastle.

Edit- It may also be that you think a stable currency just occurs naturally b/c we've had the luxury of operating with one in the US for your entire lifetime. If this is the case, it's understandable, but it's definitely not the norm historically.

1. Since Obama is promising to pull out of Iraq as quickly as feasible, he has nothing to deal with here. Iran will have that influence -- more than it already does, anyway -- no matter what.

2. Israel will not give up its nuclear weapons under any circumstances short of the First Coming, so we're not going to ask them to, so he has nothing to deal with here.

Okay, diplomacy's done. Now what?

I'm interested in knowing, David, why you're so qualified to speak for what an Iranian POV might be in a negotiation.

I'm also shuddering a bit at the implication that we somehow need to stay in Iraq so as to use it as a chit in talking with Iran.

As in "Obama cult," Brian? That BS belongs on Little Green Footballs.

I linked a minor story that illustrated a valid point that many people, if not you, believe: that Obama's gaffes are ignored by the media. The first response included this:

OK, I read this, and boy is it reaching. Sure Illinois is closer. Is it appreciably and insanely closer? I'm looking at the map they provide. Not so much.

Arkansas is 60-70 miles from Kentucky at the closest point, Illinois is 1 inch away. That is appreciably closer (Lord knows what insanely closer to something entails). In response I wrote "it's a cult". The absolute inability of some Obama followers to admit any flaws is cultlike and Lassus went on to deny that there is an implication on Obama's part that Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois. These people speak all day, 7 days a week; stupid stuff will come out of their mouths but Lassus can't admit that BO may have been wrong. Your follow up was simply bizarre.

My follow up was in reaction to this "cult" BS that you can read from every frustrated wingnut who can't face the fact that Obama is poised to win the nomination and likely has a good chance of being our next President. But if the Obama followers constitute a "cult," how would you describe

a. the followers of a President who can call and raise Obama 10 to 1 on malaprops and erroneous information?

b. a candidate's followers who seem to think that people are only voting against her because "she's a woman"? The Washington Post has had three separate essays or op-eds to that effect within just the last ten days.

c. the followers of a candidate who still holds fast to a fantasy of "victory" in Iraq?

Your secondary point seems to be that somehow the "media" ignores Obama's flubs. Considering the fact that "the media" has done its best to keep Rev. Wright front and center from early March until about a week ago, I hardly think that "the media" has been doing Obama's campaign all that much good as of late.

The BS is twofold: The idea that somehow Obama's followers---and ONLY Obama's followers---are victims of a "cult"; and that the only reason that Obama is where he is is because "the media" is giving him some sort of a free ride.

Obama's followers are just like any other candidate's followers: a mix of those driven by varying degrees of knowledge and emotion. He didn't exactly invent the concept of charisma, and Ronald Reagan could have given him plenty of lessons about how to create a cult. And if you look at the cold facts of the polls, the one thing they show is that Obama's followers are far more likely to be educated than Clinton's or McCain's.

That in itself doesn't mean a damn thing, since educated people are just as likely to be fools as anyone, but it's certainly not any indication that Obama's followers are likely to be taken in by empty rhetoric.

I'm also shuddering a bit at the implication that we somehow need to stay in Iraq so as to use it as a chit in talking with Iran.

The war in Iraq in a nutshell.

By engaging Iran - you also kick out a leg under the stool of their power.
I'm not certain that everyone here would agree that that's a desirable outcome (I would - but I'm in favor of engagement). After all, the current regime lends us a certain stability of sorts (knowns that are known and all that).

Andy and I don't always agree, but I think #5223 (slight hyperbole and all) pretty neatly flattens the "Obama cult" talk (not that he doesn't have one, but so does everyone else). I keep waiting for McCain's fairly frequent gaffes to get more attention - I imagine they're waiting for Clinton (the more compelling story) to drop out. (Caveat: I am supporting Obama, though I'm not particularly thrilled with any of this year's choices. I'd like to think that how I view how the election is unfolding to be relatively apartisan, though I'm admittedly not a fan of HRC.)
As for the specific comment about Kentucky being closer to Arkansas than Illinois - it was poorly worded, but I'm cool with it (for reasons others have already covered involving Chicago). All three remaining major figures have said a lot of ambiguous to stupid stuff of late, but are assuredly pretty bright and knowledgeable people (albeit not always about the things I wish they were).

I'm not certain that everyone here would agree that that's a desirable outcome (I would - but I'm in favor of engagement). After all, the current regime lends us a certain stability of sorts (knowns that are known and all that).

Perhaps you're right, but I'd be surprised were that the case.

I suppose I laid the case out very poorly -- leaning too much towards a violent overthrow/revolution in Iran.

Regardless, what I was trying to allude to wasn't some gumdrop fairy tale about flowering democracy, but rather, the more moderate elements within Iran taking a greater control of the nation's government.

FWIW, Ahmadinejad beat precisely one such 'more moderate' element for the Presidency... he did so by actually running as a populist (he was the mayor of Tehran who drove around in a cheap car!!! He's common man!!!), and by running against America.

I suppose there's little we can do about influencing the former, but we can absolutely play a role in influencing the latter.

Your labor has no value until it is circulated; once it is circulated, that value is to some extent arbitrary.

You seem to be confusing price and value here. My labor is my time, and has an opportunity cost regardless of the price of it on the market. I can substitute leisure for labor if the price drops.

What's the more, the notion that Iran is some inscrutable nation located in the middle of the dark continent. There have been ongoing international negotiations with Iran for several years now. They've tried economic carrots; they've tried sanctions. We know what Iran wants (or doesn't) and what it's willing to give up (not its nuclear program). The conceit that everyone is waiting for Barack Obama to sit down with them is either willful deception or ignorance

I'm impressed you seem to have such great knowledge of what Iran wants, what they are willing to accept , and at what level we have been negotiating with them over the past few years. Did you read the article from the American Prospect I linked to? cause that seems to blow a bunch of holes in your theory of what we "know".

Jon Lester throwing a no-hitter in the 9th.

David: "We want Iran to (a) stop sponsoring terror, (b) stop supporting "insurgents" in Iraq, and (the big one) (c) stop pursuing nuclear weapons. Why do you think that Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons regardless of what we do? And they don't admit to the others at all, so how are they going to stop doing them?"

I'm fairly certain that Iran does admit to funding Hezbollah and to funding Hamas. I recall there was a case in the U.S. courts in which some parties were suing the Iranian government after they were victimized by Hezbollah -- maybe it was a kidnapping case or some such thing. In order to assign some culpability to Iran for this, the plaintiffs presented public Iranian documents (from their published budget) which showed that Iran was openly funding Hezbollah.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs won their case and were awarded some huge amount in damages. Their hope then was to collect from Iran by asking the U.S. government, which since 1979 has held billions of dollars in Iranian money (given to the U.S. for aramaments paid for by Iran but never delivered), to award them the money from this giant fund. The U.S. government, though, in contravention to the American court, denied this claim. (I think the reason is because this would not only harm our long-term relations with a subsequent and reasonable Iranian regime, but because it would potentially harm our position by precedent, when and if some foreigners sued Americans in a foreign court and claimed American funds held in that foreign country.)

You seem to be confusing price and value here. My labor is my time, and has an opportunity cost regardless of the price of it on the market. I can substitute leisure for labor if the price drops.

Wow. Such a shameless expression of your own fortune, and yet you don't even have your tongue in your cheek. Maybe you personally have accumulated enough wealth to be able to not labor if the price drops, but for a lot of people, that isn't an option- if the price of their labor drops, they need to labor more to compensate for it, which further drives down the supply of that labor. You're actually now starting to get to the idea of inequality compromising one's autonomy. This also speaks to my point about more wealth equaling more freedom- if you have the resources, you have the freedom to choose not to work. If not, you've got to work in order to survive, and you don't always have the luxury of holding out until the price of your labor increases. The worker will be compelled to sell his labor even though it runs counter to his long-term interests because he is in a position where his immediate material needs (food and shelter) trump his ability to make decisions that will benefit him in the long run.

Did everyone at Princeton enjoy such a high level of privilege what you're saying actually came to be common sense in that environment, or did you sound like a silver spoon kid there too?

You're missing the bigger structural picture, but I'm not surprised at this point. It's willful ignorance, and comically simplistic thinking. None of this would be a problem if you hadn't built such a complex set of beliefs on top of such a poorly thought-out set of assumptions. The fact that all of this talk about the fruits of your labor is coming from a lawyer is ironic- the work lawyers do only produces value in a system that has a complex and stable network of exchange for people to quarrel over. Your labor depends on the circulation of the labor of others. Using the phrase "inherently parasitic" would be a little dramatic but not inappropriate.

My understanding is they're not actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and that if they did resume pursuit, they're at least five years away.

If they weren't after nuclear weapons they'd co-operate with the IAEA, and so would be able to receive overseas technical assistance in their nuclear programme, which would help them immeasurably. Of course so many people say that they don't intend to build any, but want other countries to think that they might have nuclear weapons (which would also act as a deterrent). But unless you have brilliant military intelligence (ha!), what's the difference? Everyone will have to deal with Iran as if it is a nuclear power, either way, because if you call Iran's bluff it might turn out they weren't bluffing. And that's not a risk you can take.

No-one knows how far away they are. My "couple" of years was meant to be vague. My point is that time is on the side of the Iranian government. And they don't need anything from the US, certainly not urgently. The biggest power and bargaining tool America has is not its army (military power is really pretty feeble) but its economy. But the Iranian government doesn't much want access to US markets. So the Iranians are heading towards a pretty satisfactory outcome for them if they don't strike any deal, and the US has limited carrots to offer. And I don't think America has a lot of credible sticks either. This is why the position is not good.

This is my point when I said Iran is not North Korea - which urgently needed lots of things from the West, and didn't much need nuclear weapons, so there was a clear deal to be made, if you could strike the right bargain. And the situation is not really analagous to the Reagan-Gorbachev talks either. There, both sides wanted peace and phased disarmament, but they (rightly) didn't trust each other. So there was a clear deal to be made, if you could establish a minimum level of trust (and check that the other side wasn't cheating!). But it's not at all clear what kind of deal can realistically be struck with Iran.

I hope I'm wrong.

Another recent report says that the leader of the Quds force sent a message through Iraqi President Jalal Talibani that was very conciliatory and open to dialogue. Link

Crocker and Petraeus are skeptical, and rightfully so, but again, what is the downside to trying?

No-one knows how far away they are. My "couple" of years was meant to be vague. My point is that time is on the side of the Iranian government. And they don't need anything from the US, certainly not urgently. The biggest power and bargaining tool America has is not its army (military power is really pretty feeble) but its economy. But the Iranian government doesn't much want access to US markets. So the Iranians are heading towards a pretty satisfactory outcome for them if they don't strike any deal, and the US has limited carrots to offer. And I don't think America has a lot of credible sticks either. This is why the position is not good

You know, you might be right, but there are indications that Iran wanted to negotiate with us in 2003 and we blew them off, so you could be wrong. Now, we're clearly a lot weaker now and Ahmedinejad is more extreme than Khatami, but the point is that we should be open to the idea, rather than Cheney's "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it". Maybe there are things Iran wants that we (as people whose knowledege comes from newspapers and blogs) have no idea about. They certainly would love our help getting the Mujahidin-e Khalq out of Iraq, so there's that, and given that Ahmedinejad ran largeley on an economic platform, and iran's economy is in trouble, maybe some kind of economic issues would be on the table.

which further drives down the price of their labor by increasing its supply.

Fixed the above. Edit function not working...

Iraq has proven pretty unequivocally that we cannot get that new regime militarily in Iran.

How so? We could take out Iran's current regime easily enough (we took out Sadaam's regime pretty easily)

It's getting a stable regime of our choosing in place that's hard.

Really hard.

I can substitute leisure for labor if the price drops.
Ceteris parabus, sure - particularly in the long run - but I'd be remiss if I didn't note that accounting for short-term considerations like locked-into expenditures and budgets, as well as a given person's incentives/moral considerations (not to mention that there are diminishing returns to both leisure and the monetary benefits of work), may make such a substitution less tenable in the here and now.
***
Inflammatory question: are rights truly self-evident, or are they "merely" a construct of the state? (Prompted by notion of health care as a right, which I disagree with, versus as a privilege a nation as wealthy as the US should deem worth pursuing more vigorously.)

didn't Reagan have a set of pre-conditions in place before he sat down to talk with Gorbachev?

One would assume. One would also assume that Obama would have a similar set of pre-conditions. The difference between his pre-conditions and those of the current admin is that they're not "give us everything we want and then we'll deign to give you and audience at court."

I don't know why one would assume that Obama would have any set of pre-conditions, given that he said that he wouldn't and he's not since, to my knowledge, "clarified" that statement.

How so? We could take out Iran's current regime easily enough (we took out Sadaam's regime pretty easily)

It's getting a stable regime of our choosing in place that's hard.

Really hard.

While I agree with the general principle of what you're saying -- when people talk about the weakness of our military, they're really talking about something else -- Iran is not Iraq. The Iranian government is far stronger and deeper rooted than the Iraqi one; it's popular and the populace is loyal. (That is, some of its policies may be unpopular, but the government itself has legitimacy.)

I'm fairly certain that Iran does admit to funding Hezbollah and to funding Hamas. I recall there was a case in the U.S. courts in which some parties were suing the Iranian government after they were victimized by Hezbollah -- maybe it was a kidnapping case or some such thing. In order to assign some culpability to Iran for this, the plaintiffs presented public Iranian documents (from their published budget) which showed that Iran was openly funding Hezbollah.

Yes, but they don't admit that these groups are terrorist.

Why do you think Iran wants anything from us in exchange what we want from them?

Rational self-interest. You're familiar with the concept, perhaps?

Why do you think that Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons regardless of what we do?

Rational self-interest. It's better to have the US as a friend than an enemy. I, unlike some (you?) don't think Iran is some crazy suicidal bunch of nutjobs just hoping to bring about the Apocalypse. I think they want nuclear energy to sand-bag their own dependence on oil (they know as well as we do that peak oil is come and gone) and I think they want nuclear weapons because it's the only way to keep the US from randomly invading. If we remove the threat of the latter, they are more open to not needing the former. Sure, they have some issues around prestige in the region, Israel's ever present threat and Pakistan but the elephant in the room is the US and our recently acquired willingness to invade nations for no legitimate reason.

And if we're giving them things to get them to stop doing these things, why is it so beyond the pale to call that "appeasement"?

Because we're not stupid? Negotiation and diplomacy isn't appeasement by definition, unless, again, you want to go on record saying Reagan appeased the Russians and Nixon appeased the Chinese. If you're going to go there, go there so we can at least be clear as to what you mean. Otherwise we don't call diplomacy "appeasement" because we know that words have meaning and context and the one isn't a loaded fire-bomb thrown about when ideologues run out of actual rational arguments.

If any further proof is required of how pathetic the Clintons are: Hillary is now approvingly quoting Karl Rove's math which suggests she will be the stronger candidate against McCain in the general.

Democrats know who Rove is, and what he is. How on earth can she consider this a selling point?

I don't know why one would assume that Obama would have any set of pre-conditions, given that he said that he wouldn't and he's not since, to my knowledge, "clarified" that statement.

I'm indifferent to pre-conditions. As long as I or my negotiator isn't planning to give anything away meaningful without getting what I want in return, who cares? If my opponent wants all my blond cheerleaders, or nuclear warheads, I'll thank him for his time, and call "next!"

Why do you think Iran wants anything from us in exchange what we want from them?

Rational self-interest. You're familiar with the concept, perhaps?

Funny, I seem to recall a post on the previous page of this thread sneering at the notion that people are rational. In any case, that's not an answer to the question; to answer the question, you'd have to show how it's in their rational self-interest.

Why do you think that Iran would stop pursuing nuclear weapons regardless of what we do?

Rational self-interest. It's better to have the US as a friend than an enemy.

Ceteris paribus, perhaps -- but that's not the question. The question is why they'd stop pursuing nuclear weapons. If we actually want to be "friends" with them, then whether they have nuclear weapons will be irrelevant. (See, e.g., Pakistan.)

I, unlike some (you?) don't think Iran is some crazy suicidal bunch of nutjobs just hoping to bring about the Apocalypse. I think they want nuclear energy to sand-bag their own dependence on oil (they know as well as we do that peak oil is come and gone) and I think they want nuclear weapons because it's the only way to keep the US from randomly invading. If we remove the threat of the latter,

But we can't do that. All we can do is promise not to invade. We can't remove the threat that we would. And we certainly can't promise that nobody else will attack them.

they are more open to not needing the former. Sure, they have some issues around prestige in the region, Israel's ever present threat and Pakistan but the elephant in the room is the US and our recently acquired willingness to invade nations for no legitimate reason.

Iran's nuclear program did not start when we invaded Iraq.

And if we're giving them things to get them to stop doing these things, why is it so beyond the pale to call that "appeasement"?

Because we're not stupid? Negotiation and diplomacy isn't appeasement by definition, unless, again, you want to go on record saying Reagan appeased the Russians and Nixon appeased the Chinese. If you're going to go there, go there so we can at least be clear as to what you mean. Otherwise we don't call diplomacy "appeasement" because we know that words have meaning and context and the one isn't a loaded fire-bomb thrown about when ideologues run out of actual rational arguments.

What do you think Reagan gave the Soviets?

"Negotiation and diplomacy" aren't anything at all; you're still back to pretending that talking is doing something. Giving an enemy stuff to avoid having to fight that enemy is appeasement.

1. Since Obama is promising to pull out of Iraq as quickly as feasible, he has nothing to deal with here. Iran will have that influence -- more than it already does, anyway -- no matter what.

I can think of nothing that would serve America's interest more, vis-a-vis emasculating Iran, than they get involved in Iraq after we leave. I'd just love to see them deal with static police actions and suicide bombings of their people with no end in sight.

Something Awful has some secret McCain Bonus Footage from his new 2013 ad.

I can think of nothing that would serve America's interest more, vis-a-vis emasculating Iran, than they get involved in Iraq after we leave. I'd just love to see them deal with static police actions and suicide bombings of their people with no end in sight.

And, as I think someone else mentioned, the idea of staying endlessly in Iraq in order to create some ephemeral negotiating leverage with Iran (it would get, what, exactly?), is bizarre.

If we actually want to be "friends" with them, then whether they have nuclear weapons will be irrelevant. (See, e.g., Pakistan.)

Bingo. It would also be possible to offer them nuclear defense treaty. I also think that a strong Iran might prevent Israel from taking unmitigated US support for granted. I support Israel's right to exist - but I do not think they have handled the Palestinian issue well. At all.

I am just saying this in the abstract - I don't really know what Iran _actually_ wants, and I don't think you can acertain this from reading blogs and or newspapers. It's probably somewhere between "world domination and destruction of all non-arabs" and "we just want a hug".

Giving an enemy stuff to avoid having to fight that enemy is appeasement.

We give other nations things all of the time, and it certainly isn't to avoid fighting them...why do you assume it's a binary choice WRT Iran?

I seem to recall a post on the previous page of this thread sneering at the notion that people are rational.

1) we're not talking about people in this instance, we're talking about nations, which are composed of multiple interests 2) the "sneering at" was in regard to your assumption that all people act rationally in pursuit of their own self-interest. We have a lot of indications that Iran is acting to pursue a set of objectives that would maximize certain aspects of its long-term self-interest, or the self-interest of certain parties in Iran. IOW, no one is assuming Iran's default state is rationality. We're making that conclusion based on some specific evidence. Big difference.

Really grasping at straws today, eh?

It's probably somewhere between "world domination and destruction of all non-arabs" and "we just want a hug".

Hedging your bets a bit?

:>

Ha -- the briss episode of Seinfeld is on right nop.

Sweet. Obama's speech in Montana is a solid attempt to turn the tables. "What are George Bush and John McCain so afraid of [in regard to direct diplomacy]?" 'Tough, direct diplomacy is a strong American tradition...' and so on.

Much of the Obama's-an-appeaser rhetoric seems to be based on the notion that every dialogue with an enemy, even a proven intransigent enemy, is a fool's errand. "These guys are nuts, they'll stop at nothing to advance their evil agenda, talking with them is something only a naïve egghead would do." To which the answer from history would be: Camp David, Reykjavik, the Good Friday Accord. It is just not the case that every dialogue, even between the bitterest of enemies, is Munich '38.

Much of the Obama's-an-appeaser rhetoric seems to be based on the notion that every dialogue with an enemy, even a proven intransigent enemy, is a fool's errand. "These guys are nuts, they'll stop at nothing to advance their evil agenda, talking with them is something only a naïve egghead would do." To which the answer from history would be: Camp David, Reykjavik, the Good Friday Accord. It is just not the case that every dialogue, even between the bitterest of enemies, is Munich '38.

That's absolutely true, Bob, but it's also true that part of diplomacy and negotiation is simply the lead-up to the meetings itself. IOW, people seem to be forgetting that being party to negotiation is a privilege that nations must earn, and nations often revoke that privilege or deny it to each other and do so for good reasons.

In this case, I'm not saying that Iran must be denied the privilege of diplomatic conversation (which, btw, operates at many different levels including "non-public" ones, which apparently are occurring). OTOH, it would be folly publicly to fail to condemn Iran's continued crowing that Israel must cease to exist and their continued support of destabilizing terrorism throughout the region.

And, as I think someone else mentioned, the idea of staying endlessly in Iraq in order to create some ephemeral negotiating leverage with Iran (it would get, what, exactly?), is bizarre.

It's also not the least bit what I suggested; I'm not the one who thought we could negotiate with Iran anyway. All I said was that if we leave Iraq, we can't "offer" Iran a role in Iraq because we won't be there to stop them from taking it.

I can think of nothing that would serve America's interest more, vis-a-vis emasculating Iran, than they get involved in Iraq after we leave. I'd just love to see them deal with static police actions and suicide bombings of their people with no end in sight.

Nobody thinks Iran is going to occupy Iraq, so your imagined scenario is irrelevant.

I can think of nothing that would serve America's interest more, vis-a-vis emasculating Iran, than they get involved in Iraq after we leave. I'd just love to see them deal with static police actions and suicide bombings of their people with no end in sight.

Nobody thinks Iran is going to occupy Iraq, so your imagined scenario is irrelevant.

Agreed. Iran isn't going into Iraq.

I am just saying this in the abstract - I don't really know what Iran _actually_ wants, and I don't think you can acertain this from reading blogs and or newspapers. It's probably somewhere between "world domination and destruction of all non-arabs" and "we just want a hug".

Iran isn't Arab, so that would include themselves; I assume that was meant to say "all non-Muslims."

Giving an enemy stuff to avoid having to fight that enemy is appeasement.

We give other nations things all of the time, and it certainly isn't to avoid fighting them...why do you assume it's a binary choice WRT Iran?

We don't "give" other nations things; we trade with them. (By that I'm referring to trade at the governmental level, not limiting my comments to routine commercial trade. Anything from military cooperation to lowered tariffs or the like.) But Iran only has two real things we want: oil, which they already sell so we don't need to negotiate with them about it; and not-fighting-us. Okay, and carpets.

But Iran only has two real things we want: oil, which they already sell so we don't need to negotiate with them about it; and not-fighting-us.

This is not quite true, unless under "not fighting us" you have hidden a bunch of tactically important stuff regarding their relationship with China and Russia. Iran is and has been a very important player in balancing relationships in the Middle East and Asia, and will continue to be so.

We don't "give" other nations things; we trade with them.

Yes we do. How much do we "trade" with Israel? How much does Egypt give us back in exchange for all the aid we direct their way. The US gives massive sums of money out all over the world. You have to know this already, I think you're just being thick. If only the world was as simple as the picture you've painted of it, we'd be all set.

How much does Egypt give us back in exchange for all the aid we direct their way.

Are you kidding? Do you mean aside from peaceful relations with Israel, aside from sticking its political neck out on the line for US interests in the area and aside from cracking down on dissidents?

Do you mean aside from peaceful relations with Israel, aside from sticking its political neck out on the line for US interests in the area and aside from cracking down on dissidents?

Right, but the idea that every nation we give aid to we're paying not to fight us is absurd. We buy cooperation all of the time. The "coalition of the willing" or whatever Star Wars-wannabe group Bush cobbled together to go into Iraq was assembled mostly through bribery. There are several shades of gray that make it too complicated to assert that giving any kind of assistance to Iran would be paying not to fight them. I'm not advocating we start throwing money at them, but if we did, it wouldn't merit a violation a Godwin's law...as the prez claimed...

also true that part of diplomacy and negotiation is simply the lead-up to the meetings itself. IOW, people seem to be forgetting that being party to negotiation is a privilege that nations must earn, and nations often revoke that privilege or deny it to each other and do so for good reasons

Very good point, JC, and as long as Ahmadinejad is determined to channel Qaddafi in his daffier days, there is no place to begin talking with him. Part of the problem in the last few years has been that 43 and Ahmadinejad are both loud talkers-at instead of talkers-with.

Very good point, JC, and as long as Ahmadinejad is determined to channel Qaddafi in his daffier days, there is no place to begin talking with him. Part of the problem in the last few years has been that 43 and Ahmadinejad are both loud talkers-at instead of talkers-with.

As important, if not more important, I just have no sense of what diplomacy under Bush-Rice is or was designed to be.

But Iran only has two real things we want: oil, which they already sell so we don't need to negotiate with them about it; and not-fighting-us. Okay, and carpets.

Christ on a rocking horse, you're just dense sometimes David. Iran wants normalized relations - which is what we "gave" the Russians and China, increased trade. No, they're not constrained to oil and carpets despite what your rather medieval conceptions of Iranian life might lead you to misbelieve. Yes, they would want other things from us. Investment in their region, for example. The sort of business relations we have no problems giving the Sauds and Egyptians. A lifting of the "anything but rugs" embargo. You seem to think you know a lot about Iran and what Iran wants, yet you don't seem to have any factual or evidentiary claim to back up your position. All you do is re-spout the neoconservative _assumptions_ that premise your stance, refusing whatsoever to engage the assumptions themselves for fear of not having the world behave according to your very, very precise methodology.

It's sort of a pattern with you.

It's also important to note that Ahmedinejad is up for reelection next year. He's had problems with the economy during his presidency, and lately he's been pissing off clerics by claiming the 12th Imam endorses his presidency, so there's probably a decent chance he may be gone in a year or so.

I'm curious as to how much the nuclear program is Ahmedinejad's policy or Khamenei's. Khamenei controls military matters, so development of nuclear weapons would seem to be under his authority. But, Iran claims their program is designed for energy purposes, and so far there isn't any real evidence that disputes that (though i'm sure it's not that hard to change course from energy development to weapons development once you actually start enriching uranium), so that might fall under the President's authority.

Christ on a rocking horse

lol. can i steal that?

WASHINGTON - The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills’ value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Sam - Iran is certainly not medeival, but it is a pretty "closed" economy. And it very much seems that the government likes it that way, for social and political reasons. So I really wouldn't put too much hope on the power of trade or investment deals with Iran. And normalised relations are a two-way street - if anything I suggest America would benefit more. Now there's no way of knowing exactly what the Iranians want without engaging them in diplomacy - and of course the diplomatic route is the one to take. But there is a very big chance that there is no diplomatic solution to the problem. And although I don't agree with everything DMN has said, he keeps raising some good points and they don't get an answer. To me the key questions are:

1. Exactly how much would you be willing to give Iran? What's the bottom line here?
2. What do you do if the Iranians say no?

Obviously, obviously, the future President Obama should try to find a diplomatic solution. But you need to go into it with your eyes open.

Christ on a rocking horse, you're just dense sometimes David. Iran wants normalized relations - which is what we "gave" the Russians and China, increased trade. No, they're not constrained to oil and carpets despite what your rather medieval conceptions of Iranian life might lead you to misbelieve. Yes, they would want other things from us. Investment in their region, for example. The sort of business relations we have no problems giving the Sauds and Egyptians. A lifting of the "anything but rugs" embargo. You seem to think you know a lot about Iran and what Iran wants, yet you don't seem to have any factual or evidentiary claim to back up your position. All you do is re-spout the neoconservative _assumptions_ that premise your stance, refusing whatsoever to engage the assumptions themselves for fear of not having the world behave according to your very, very precise methodology.

It's sort of a pattern with you.

Reading is fundamental, Sam. I didn't address the quesiton of what Iran wanted; I addressed the question of what the U.S. wanted. Now go slink away and think before you respond.

Or he can steal Hillary's notebook, listen to some of his more sleazeball advisors, and try to demonize Obama on a personal level, seizing upon every word of Obama's that can be re-formatted into a Halloween mask, in order to scare those voters whose attention span is strictly limited to sound bites.

It was also the Carter playbook vs. Reagan.

Yes we do. How much do we "trade" with Israel? How much does Egypt give us back in exchange for all the aid we direct their way. The US gives massive sums of money out all over the world. You have to know this already, I think you're just being thick. If only the world was as simple as the picture you've painted of it, we'd be all set.

We don't "give" massive sums of money; it's domestic pork. Our military aid is designed for these countries to buy stuff from American military contractors; our food aid is designed for these countries to buy stuff from American farmers.

Nobody thinks Iran is going to occupy Iraq, so your imagined scenario is irrelevant.

And so then your worry that Iran will co-opt Iraq once we leave is even more irrelevant, since it will be impossible for Iran to orchestrate things from afar without at least some of their personnel there, who will them make fat assasination targets for Sunni Nationalists and Kurdish extremists.

The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills’ value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

So only coins now? Bills with Braille? Christ on a rocking horse indeed.

Now there's no way of knowing exactly what the Iranians want without engaging them in diplomacy

Well there are other ways...

Anyway, I think the key question is not so much what does Iran (it's current Government) want, but what is it willing to accept.

I'm pretty sure that what they really want is completely unacceptable to us (and vice versa).
The question is then whether or what they are willing to accept is also something we are willing to accept.

There may be common ground where what they are willing to accept and what we are willing to accept overlaps. BUT there may be no such common ground (at least not anymore).

But Iran only has two real things we want: oil, which they already sell so we don't need to negotiate with them about it; and not-fighting-us. Okay, and carpets.

This is an unbelievably superficial analysis of the US' geopolitical interest in Iran.

It's also important to note that Ahmedinejad is up for reelection next year. He's had problems with the economy during his presidency, and lately he's been pissing off clerics by claiming the 12th Imam endorses his presidency, so there's probably a decent chance he may be gone in a year or so.

I'm curious as to how much the nuclear program is Ahmedinejad's policy or Khamenei's. Khamenei controls military matters, so development of nuclear weapons would seem to be under his authority. But, Iran claims their program is designed for energy purposes, and so far there isn't any real evidence that disputes that (though i'm sure it's not that hard to change course from energy development to weapons development once you actually start enriching uranium), so that might fall under the President's authority.

All of which are points completely lost on those who treat Iran as some monolithic Dark Tower forth from which will spring the Nazgul on their winged beasts. Ahmedinejad is a religious wacko but he has very little real, concrete power. That is reserved for the Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader of Iran" and commander-in-chief of the military. Khamenei is supported by the Islamic Council or "Council of Guardians." The office of the president, while no longer the empty figurehead position it once was, is the head of one of but many power brokerages within the Iranian government. (There's also a strong independence amoung segments of the military which is how you get things like the naval stare-downs like the one that was in the news a few months back without the actual powers in Tehran really being in the loop.)

The limited power of the president was once a favored talking point of the neocons who now routinely trot out Ahmedinejad as the great boogeyman who will destroy us all. Specifcally from 1997-2005 when the moderate and slight reformer Mohammad Khatami occupied the office. When he was replaced (after serving the two terms he is allowed by Iranian constitution) Ahmedinejad the talking points shifted to frame Iran as in the thrall of this apocalyptic religious fanatic bent on a final crusade for Allah.

Which of course brings us back to the concept of not taking Bill Kristol's word for the matter and actually going and talking, in some form, with the leadership of the country. Play internal factions off of one another, offer one side a carrot and the other side a stick, or vice versa. Use diplomacy in all it's many facets rather than sabre-rattling, threatening invasion at every turn and essentially giving the reactionary factions within Iran the external threat that every reactionary government needs in order to survive. The one single way to assure that Iran presents a unified, bellicose front to the world, after all, is by threatening it and giving the hardliners a "dissidence is treason" rallying call.

And so then your worry that Iran will co-opt Iraq once we leave is even more irrelevant, since it will be impossible for Iran to orchestrate things from afar without at least some of their personnel there,

Really? How many Iranian troops are there now? They don't need "their personnel." They've got plenty of Iraqi personnel; have you ever heard of proxies? How many American troops were in Nicaragua? How many Soviet troops were in South Vietnam?

JC, that's a pretty big score. Bills of different sizes fixes this problem pretty easily- a lot of other countries all ready have these. Even differently colored bills would go a long way to helping people whose vision is too poor to read numbers but can still discern colors.

So only coins now? Bills with Braille? Christ on a rocking horse indeed.

Bunyon, see above. It doesn't have to be that drastic. Even Braille on the bills would be pretty easy to do (you could go with a 3-dot matrix instead of the usual 6) and I would think fairly inexpensive. It's just about providing some minor tactile cue to differentiate one bill from another- notched bills would work as well, which would allow the money to stay the same size. Personally I like different-sized bills but that would be a tough adjustment for a lot of people, whereas Braille-style raised dots or notches would be barely noticed. I'm not sure what the complaint about this would be- sighted people would probably learn to ID money by touch as well after just a few months using it.

No matter how many times FMJ gets embarrassed in this thread, he keeps coming back for more. The tenacity of a bulldog, with the wits to match...

The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills’ value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

From an AP story:

The U.S. acknowledges that the design hinders blind people but it argued they had adapted — some relied on store clerks for help, some used credit cards and others folded certain corners to help distinguish the bills.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that such adaptations were insufficient.

The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.

But I think we need to distinguish between private and public actors.

The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills’ value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

I should have guessed that this came from the DC Circuit.

Opinions.

-- MWE

I like different-sized bills but that would be a tough adjustment for a lot of people

That would probably be the MOST costly alternative, when one considers the number of vending machines out there that now take ones, fives, and (in many cases) tens.

-- MWE

Or he can steal Hillary's notebook, listen to some of his more sleazeball advisors, and try to demonize Obama on a personal level, seizing upon every word of Obama's that can be re-formatted into a Halloween mask, in order to scare those voters whose attention span is strictly limited to sound bites.

It was also the Carter playbook vs. Reagan.

I have to admit that there's much truth to that. Carter repeatedly played on the "warmonger" theme during that campaign, and at one point even made a big show of telling us how afraid his 13-year old daughter Amy was of a nuclear war.

This in turn gave us one of Monday Night Football's great moments. Roger Staubach was in the booth during a game where Jim Plunkett was torturing the Steelers with long passes, and he turned to one of the other announcers and said, "The Steelers are just like Amy---they're afraid of the bomb." I was watching that game in a room full of fellow Democrats, and it wasn't hard to tell from the universal laughter that Staubach's crack elicited, that Carter, unlike Amy, was doomed.

Before we get all crazy on this OMG TEH BRAILLE MONEY, keep in mind that in a lot of places, this isn't an issue b/c it has already been addressed. Most of the solutions are "invisible" to sighted people b/c they're not feeling for them- what you're taking to be visual ornamentation or anti-duplication measures serves a dual function to distinguish the feel of one bill from another (foil stamps, different sized bills). Just b/c we've been doing it one way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best way. Hell, Tokyo has bumps on the sidewalks so blind people can navigate them easier.

Question:
Cheaper to give blind people anything they want for free, or retool all the money?

The issue with bill sizes is the number of vending machines that would be made obsolete (although I wonder the impact if you kept the $1 the same size... also don't they turn over every few years anyway?)

The issue with notches or bumps is that the bills don't last as long.

That would probably be the MOST costly alternative, when one considers the number of vending machines out there that now take ones, fives, and (in many cases) tens.

Yeah, but this could be phased in pretty easily. Especially since the most common currency accepted is the $1 bill, you could leave that constant and change the others. This would leave the 20 year-old Coke machine at the motel intact...

I assume when they change even the visual presentation currency, the optical scanners in these machines needs to be at least reconfigured. So with the all the new bills- fives, tens and twenties- these machines have probably had to be serviced. Maybe not- maybe they kept certain aspects of the bills constant so that the machines wouldn't be affected. Any vending machine service guys lurking want to chime in?

Question:
Cheaper to give blind people anything they want for free, or retool all the money?

I think I just became blind. Nope. Can't see a thing.

the number of vending machines that would be made obsolete

The scanning mechanism would have to be changed. The rest of the machine would be fine. I assume when these break they can be swapped out without requiring a whole new machine. I think we passed "replaceable parts" on the Civilization technology tree several years ago...

Seriously, money blind people can recognize so they don't get ripped off by the unscrupulous vs. gradually making some modifications to vending machines, and there's even a debate?

Cheaper to give blind people anything they want for free, or retool all the money?

We just retooled the money. It didn't f things up that bad...actually, it was kind of exciting- "did you get a new five?" "yeah, wow, the most exciting change I've gotten in years...I even got a little patriotic chubby when I saw the stars and the eagle next to Lincoln's head." Hell, you might see people full erect when they get a gigantic twenty...

Now there's no way of knowing exactly what the Iranians want without engaging them in diplomacy

There's a chasm of difference between diplomacy and Presidential level negotiations without preconditions. I support the former and think the latter is naive at best. We should attempt to open channels, back door if necessary, with Iran to try to get concrete ideas of what, if anything, they want from us. That's common sense and will help us find the leverage we currently lack with them. Why that needs to be done on a Presidential level is beyond me however.

Other people have somewhat addressed this already, but yesterday somebody asked me what drawbacks there could be with Obama negotiating directly with Iran. I was too busy then, but here's a list off the top of my head.

1. The very act of granting the negotiations offers legitimacy and prestige to Iran, the regime running it, and their demands. This has already been addressed up thread, but typically there is intense negotiation and diplomacy that takes place before even agreeing to enter formal negotiations. We'd be waiving all that by agreeing to negotiate without preconditions.

2. There are a number of other nations in the region who have a bigger stake in what Iran does than the US. The very act of entering into such negotiations, not even taking into account what comes out of them, could have a major impact on Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and pretty much every other Gulf state nervous about Iran's power. Our relations with many of those nations are shaky already, making them feel we're selling them out to Iran could have nasty consequences.

3. Iran is a bad actor. They're a state sponsor of terrorism. They're virulently anti-semitic. Their human rights record is sickening. They make wild, genocidal threats against Israel. When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Before any lefties say the US is worse, remember that we're in an Obama administation here, so it's OK to be proud of America.

4. How will the negotiations be spun by the Iranians and perceived around the world? The Iranians can (and IMO would) spin them as the US crawling to them like beaten dogs, weak and defeated. It'll feed perceptions in the middle east (and around the world) that the US is feeble and can be bullied. It's a reasonable position for them to take... you don't request unconditional negotiations with an enemy when you're doing well. It's why we should try to find some leverage with them first. Even if you ARE weak and in a bad position, it's not wise to advertise it unless you absolutely have to.

Those are just off the top of my head and independent of the actual issues at play, which are almost impossible to resolve around mutual interests.

The US wants from Iran:

1. No nuclear weapons.
2. No state sponsorship of terrorism.
3. No screwing up Iraq.
4. Oil? Seems like a bad idea, but maybe.
5. Carpets.

Iran wants from US:

1. No military attacks. Almost certainly not happening anyway.
2. US out of Iraq so they can "influence it". Iran does NOT want a strong, independent Iraq next door.
3. US out of Middle East in general.
4. Normalized relations? Is this even true? US may be more valuable politically as a boogeyman. Iran has plenty of buyers for their oil already.
5. Stop supporting Israel.

I don't see a ton of overlapping interests.

Just b/c we've been doing it one way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best way

Seriously. I mean, you go to Europe, you notice that each denomination of bill is a different size, your first thought is "what quaint notions these silly little people have," and then you realize, ah, right, there's some purpose behind this.

One counter-argument I've heard is that the Bureau of Printing and Engraving would have to spend $$$ retooling their presses to print different-sized bills. Meanwhile they seem to have no problem changing the paper money every six months anyway, with red 10s and red-white-and-blue 50s and aqua-colored 20s with Andrew Jackson in a fright wig and purple fives with enormous 5s on them that are basically the Gilda Radner version of visual accessibility. Give me a break.

Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing against the change to accomodate the blind, I was just pointing out that it could quickly devolve into a mess. Not to mention that we did just spend oodles of money changing our currency and, in so doing, didn't make the obvious changes others have pointed out. But, of course, there must be a reason because governments are eminently rational.

The US wants from Iran

1. No nuclear weapons.
2. No state sponsorship of terrorism.
3. No screwing up Iraq.
4. Oil? Seems like a bad idea, but maybe.
5. Carpets.

Of those five I'd require #1, require a good-faith measure on their part to ratchet back #2 and give 3-5 a "what'll you give me for it" airing.

Iran wants from US:

1. No military attacks. Almost certainly not happening anyway.
2. US out of Iraq so they can "influence it". Iran does NOT want a strong, independent Iraq next door.
3. US out of Middle East in general.
4. Normalized relations? Is this even true? US may be more valuable politically as a boogeyman. Iran has plenty of buyers for their oil already.
5. Stop supporting Israel.

#3 and #5 are off the table. #1 is our preferred future as well (common ground!) The rest are negotiable.

Iran does NOT want a strong, independent Iraq next door

I think they do. An independent Iraq is going to be governed mostly by shi'as, who will no doubt have pretty good relations with Iran. I'm sure they would be particularly happy to have an independent Iraq governed by Maliki and ISCI. They certainly don't want all-out civil war that carries the risk of another Saddam coming to power. I can't really think of any country in the world that wants an unstable neighbor, and I don't see why Iran is any different.

Really? How many Iranian troops are there now?

You mean besides the ones who were picked up by American troops and are being indefinitely held? I don't know.

They don't need "their personnel." They've got plenty of Iraqi personnel; have you ever heard of proxies?

Yes, and I also understand that Iran understands that there is a large, discontented Sunni Kurdish population in the north of Iran that could also be used as proxies.

How many American troops were in Nicaragua? How many Soviet troops were in South Vietnam?

Answer to the first question: Quite a few, if you list "advisors" and "CIA personnel" as troops.

Answer to the second question: A whole lot, if you don't artificially exclude North Vietnam, for obvious reasons.

I was just pointing out that it could quickly devolve into a mess.

Maybe you're right, I'm just not seeing it though. It obviously wouldn't be as devastating as other changes that make sense but we've postponed for years (metric system?), but I could see some minor issues emerging. I suspect after a year or so, we'd be OK. Or to put it another way, if we're ready for legal gay marriage, can't we handle different sized money? Maybe we need to stagger the two so people's heads don't explode....

I can't really think of any country in the world that wants an unstable neighbor, and I don't see why Iran is any different.

???? If your neighbor has been conducting a 1000 year old blood feud against you, why wouldn't you want them divided by internal problems?

Iran does NOT want a strong, independent Iraq next door

Perhaps not strong, but stable is massively valuable to Iran. They want an Iraq that they can influence, and you can't influence Somalia - that is, there needs to be something that reasonable people can call "Iraq" and refer to a single institutional / administrative thing. The US and Iran have very close interests in this area, even if they differ on a number of other issues - the preponderance of the Shi'a, perhaps, or the best deal to cut with the Kurds, or the exact nature of the Iraqi oil industry.

Iraq is a matter that needs to be hashed out in high-level talks between the US and Iran. It seems pretty obvious. Other issues - trading assurances of security and paths to trade for scaling back or abandoning of the nuclear program - seem to be within reach and worth discussing even if a successful end is far from a guarantee.

I can't believe that you think Iran doesn't want normalized relations. This is the sort of analysis that can only come from a deep level of ignorance - Ahmadinejad's election had basically nothing to do with his international aggression, and everything to do with his economic populism. The overall value of improving their place in the world economic community is far more valuable to the Iranians than having a bogeyman. It's not like Iran would suddenly be unable to fear-monger about the West, any more than Reagan's meetings with Gorbachev left the Republican Party unable to do the same with Russia. It cuts into your domestic credibility to some degree, and you have to moderate your domestic rhetoric, but it's in no way determinative.

Fareed Zakaria had a very strong column in Newsweek on the issue of diplomacy more generally. Some key excerpts:

The Bush administration's strategy against Hizbullah has consisted of a mix of isolation, belligerence and military pressure. It refuses to talk to the group or its supporters in Tehran and Damascus. Two years ago, Washington unquestioningly supported Israeli Prime Minister's Ehud Olmert's decision to attack southern Lebanon, Hizbullah's stronghold. The United States provides the Lebanese government and Army with aid and has responded to the current crisis by promising to speed up delivery of weapons. Yet today Hizbullah is stronger in Lebanon, Iran is more influential in the region, and the United States and its ally, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, have been marginalized.
...
We are trying to handle Lebanon with one hand tied behind our back. We will not make contact with the Syrians or the Iranians to find out if their interests are identical, or to discern the contours of a deal. We have little political leverage and we refuse to engage in a process that might give us some. "It's a much broader regional problem," says Norton. "When I was advising the Iraq Study Group I noticed that though the members disagreed on many things, the one on which there was unanimous support was the need to make contact with Iran." One of the group's members, Bush's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, made precisely this argument last week.

But #2, #3 and #5 are the important ones because they are concrete - and the Iranians probably figure #2 is happening anyway. Anything you can do on #1 is just going to be words. The US is going to retain the capability to attack Iran. Any promise a US President makes not to attack Iran is fundamentally untrustworthy, because at the next Presidential election a more aggressive President may be elected. This is basically one of the major deals that has poisoned the well with Russia. America promised not to expand NATO eastwards beyond such-and-such a point, then the President changed and NATO expanded. Nuclear weapons, though, provide the Iranians with a long-term security, which they can control, rather than the vagaries of American foreign policy, which they can't.

So you're asking the Iranians to trade their long-term security for a short-term promise not to attack. And that deal becomes even worse once you realise that a President willing to make that promise probably wouldn't attack anyway. Perhaps there will be some small air raids, but what do you think are the chances of a major American bombing of Iran in the next 8 years? Slim to nil. And what are the chances of an American invasion? Less than nil.

Then regionally you're asking them to give up supporting Hezbullah and Hamas (which they see as good and legitimate organisations) in exchange for... nothing. Well you'll withdraw from Iraq, which you were going to do anyway.

I'd offer:

1. Stopping/restricing defence sales to Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, to prevent the regional escalation.
2. Strong pressure on Israel to renounce nuclear weapons, this to include withdrawal of aid.
3. No-strings technical and scientific assistance.
4. Normalisation of diplomatic relations, and return of Shah-era assets.
5. Defence sales.
6. General long-term withdrawal of military bases from Middle East.
7. Good-faith efforts to reach satisfactory settlement w.r.t Israel/Palestine.

I'd want:

1. Verifiable elimination of the nuclear project.
2. Ceasing support for Hezbollah unless and until they renounce violence against Israel.
3. Ditto Hamas.
4. Cease interfering in Iraq.
5. Normalisation of diplomatic relations with Israel.
6. Pressure on Hamas to deal with Israel.

Some of the points I'd be offering are desirable anyway, of course. This would be a long-term plan - you can't do such a deal immediately anyway, it would be phased, by stages, and I'd want to bring Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (at a minimum) into the deal.

There's a chasm of difference between diplomacy and Presidential level negotiations without preconditions. I support the former and think the latter is naive at best. We should attempt to open channels, back door if necessary, with Iran to try to get concrete ideas of what, if anything, they want from us. That's common sense and will help us find the leverage we currently lack with them.

That's a fair point, but I don't think Obama is suggesting that he'll just ask Iran for a sit-down without having the groundwork laid down first. Here's a quote from Obama on Meet the Press:

"Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, 'We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out,'" from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting."

It seems that by preconditions he means things like saying we won't talk until they give up their nuclear program, not that he'll meet with them without lower-level meetings happening first.

I haven't claimed Iran wants another Somalia next door. Only that they don't want Iraq to be strong or independent. They'd probably most prefer it to be a Shi'a dominated puppet state.

If Iran wants normalized relations, they sure haven't acted like it. They haven't said they want it either. They may, they may not, but assuming so makes one... what's the word... ignorant.

If your neighbor has been conducting a 1000 year old blood feud against you, why wouldn't you want them divided by internal problems

What are you referring to?