I can disagree with a number of the specifics (shah-era assets, "interfering" in Iraq) but I think Alou lays out a number of areas in which it makes obvious sense for hte US to be negotiating with Iran, and in which shared concessions seem like realistic goals.

I still think that security assurances are valuable - that the US might break those deals (a) weakens rather than invalidates their utility and (b) derives from the same insane neoconservative vision of US power that I am hopeful 2008 will marginalize in US politics for a time.

I'm sure they would be particularly happy to have an independent Iraq governed by Maliki and ISCI.

The illusion here is that the numerical superiority of the Shi'ia translates into them being ones who will dominate and prevail after the protective shelter of the American military umbrella up and leaves. Not only do I think this presumptive, I think it is also wrong.

First, Saddam made sure that Shi'ia leadership remain weak, and accomplished this by either killing or exiling any potential threats. The pitiful performance of Maliki and the Iraqi government shines a spotlight on this problem. Almost all people in the country who have meaningful senior political, military and counter-insurgency leadership training are Sunni.

Second, the Sunni minority will be vigorously supported by the surrounding Sunni-dominated countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, provided they can be assurred the support will be rewarded with future cordial relations. If Sunnis can be persuaded to blow themselves up in front of Americans and Iraqi collaborators, they can certainly be persuaded to do the same in front of the apostate Shi'ia.

If an internal civil struggle turns against the Shi'ia majority, whom Iran has been materially and philosophically supporting, I would think it would be hard for them to resist intervening on their behalf. At the very least, they could expect Iraq would endeavor to instigate civil strife within Iran, possibly by supporting the Kurdish separatist movement there. If it got so bad that Iraq went back to war against Iran, there is a solid chance Iran would lose, as there would now be no reason for the United States to not fully support Iraq, either openly or through Saudi Arabia. And Iran knows it cannot win in a scenario like that. It would be bled white, as it was in the 1980's without having overt US belligerency to deal with.

I'd offer:

...

I'd want:

Without going any further into the details of what you or I or any of us might want/give if we were magically made ambassadors let's take a step back and consider that this conversation we're having is exactly the conversation that the right-wingers who scream "appeasement" want to avoid at all costs. Now, ask yourself, is the United States better served by an administration that would consider the value of these sorts of conversations, or one that categorically refuses to consider them. The answer, as far as I am concerned, is obvious.

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.

Here's the problem: Iran is NEVER going to voluntarily agree to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons, which are still one of the primary Holy Grails for inclusion into the world superpower club. They will lie, obfuscate, hide, do whatever they have to to try and keep the heat off, but they will never abandon this determination.

And given that Iran is Israel's undisputed number one enemy and a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to that country, an inevitable showdown is coming sooner or later, especially considering that Benjamin Netanyahu is quite possibly going to become the Prime Minister once again. It's going to be Osirik and Syria redux.

And guys like Fareed Zakaria and Barack Obama can't do a damn thing about that with all the mealymouthed diplomatic argle-bargle in the world.

They'd probably most prefer it to be a Shi'a dominated puppet state

Sure, and we'd prefer it to be a US-puppet state, but given the situation in Iraq, neither of those outcomes are happening, so I think they'd prefer a Dawa/ISCI-governed independent Iraq to a civil war.

Iran is NEVER going to voluntarily agree to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons, which are still one of the primary Holy Grails for inclusion into the world superpower club. They will lie, obfuscate, hide, do whatever they have to to try and keep the heat off, but they will never abandon this determination.

Just like Saddam Hussein!

Oh, wait.

While Iran and Iraq are obviously quite different in any number of ways - I'd suggest that Iran's leadership have proven themselves far more cautious than Saddam ever did - I think that the fact that we see basically the same rhetoric being deployed as was used in the run-up to the Iraq War, that was proven to be simply false on the key issue of the nuclear program, should give anyone pause before taking up the same rhetoric again.

Just like Saddam Hussein!

Do we even consider Joey B. worth replying too? By we, I mean "other people."

Just like Saddam Hussein!

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Saddam Hussein "gave up" his pursuit of nuclear weapons when Israel made it clear they weren't going to allow him to develop them by destroying his nuclear reactors over 25 years ago.

Saddam Hussein "gave up" his pursuit of nuclear weapons when Israel made it clear they weren't going to allow him to develop them by destroying his nuclear reactors over 25 years ago.

That's just false. Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program after Osirak, but gave it up following 1991, during the sanctions regime.

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.

And then you see that they have those idiotic euro coins rather than paper 1€ bills, and you figure that they're just crazy and annoying.

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.

Come on; there's a huge difference between changing the color of something and changing the size of it.

(No, to answer other people, it's not merely a question of changing the scanner on a vending machine. Look at the physical slot on the machine -- it isn't made to accommodate different sized bills. To put in a larger bill, you'd need to redesign the machine. And as for vending machines not taking bills higher than $1, some do and ATMs certainly do.)

Ted Kennedy, hospitalized over the weekend after suffering a pair of seizures, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, his doctors said today.

To put in a larger bill, you'd need to redesign the machine.

So? If people want to do business using the coin of the realm they'll need to invest in the proper technology. Welcome to capitalism.

So? If people want to do business using the coin of the realm they'll need to be able to see it.

I mean, yours is a tautological argument. I have no real problem with changing money so the blind can use it. Just don't imagine it's all going to go as smoothly as the posters here seem to think it will.

Ted Kennedy, hospitalized over the weekend after suffering a pair of seizures, was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, his doctors said today.

Oy, a malignant glioma. I think I would have preferred the stroke. I hope he progresses well, but that's a pretty grim diagnosis.

Just like Saddam Hussein!

Call me a wild-eyed pessimist, but I'm not sure even Saddam Hussein ever "gave up" the pursuit of nuclear weapons, in the sense that he ceased to have the ambition to get them. At minimum, he put his nuclear program on hiatus -- but if the sanctions came down, the U.S. went back to worrying about abortion and tax cuts, and he no longer felt like he had to worry about an invasion, would he have gone back to pursuing them? That's an unanswerable question, but I think the answer is probably "yes". I don't think he gave up on nukes -- I think he was prepared to wait for a more propitious time before he made another big push for them.

So I can see Iran being persuaded to wait for a more propitious time. I can't see Iran abandoning the quest entirely, not without a major sea change in Middle Eastern political dynamics. But as I say, maybe I'm just a wild-eyed pessimist.

If your neighbor has been conducting a 1000 year old blood feud against you

Talk about get off my lawn.

1. No nuclear weapons.

This, in itself, seems like a pretty unreasonable request. Basically, you're telling a purportedly sovereign nation to be less capable of defending itself than you are.

Can you imagine the reaction of a typical American to the idea that some other government wants to restrict our ability to build a certain type of weapon? Not agree not to use them, mind you, but agree not to develop the technology at all.

I don't see how you ever get this unless you are willing to actually invade to prevent it. We should expect that within the next 25-50 years, pretty much everyone will have some nuclear weapons.

The National Cancer Institute says that malignant glioma is the most common form of brain cancer, accounting for about 9,000 cases diagnosed each year in the United States. The prognosis depends on the severity of the tumor, although the institute’s website says it is generally poor.

Best wishes, Teddy.

I see Gov. Paterson has glaucoma as well. Since he's already legally blind, is it cruel that it's piled on or merciful that he couldn't see anyway?

If people want to do business using the coin of the realm they'll need to be able to see it.

Right. So the question isn't "should the government cater to the limited interests of a subset of the citizenry" but "which subset of the citizenry should the government be more concerned about serving?" If the choice is "pring money that all citizens can use, regardless of their visual accuity" vs. "throw a subset of the citizenry under the bus in order to placate the interests of a very narrow band of business owners" the decision seems pretty cut and dried. Invest in the new mint machinery as budgets allow, serve the entire citizenry by public policy and leave the free market to sort out who can provide services in the new money marketplace.

Iran is NEVER going to voluntarily agree to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons, which are still one of the primary Holy Grails for inclusion into the world superpower club. They will lie, obfuscate, hide, do whatever they have to to try and keep the heat off, but they will never abandon this determination.

Just like Saddam Hussein!

I don't think you read what he wrote very carefully. I'll highlight the part you seem to have missed: Iran is NEVER going to voluntarily agree to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons...

Saddam Hussein certainly did not do so "voluntarily." If you meant that we could convince Iran to give up its nuclear program by smashing its military; cordoning off almost half of its land area and telling it that it couldn't fly aircraft within that area; flying fighter patrols continuously over the country and routinely bombing defense radar installations; not allowing it to sell oil to the outside world directly, but only by going through us; having nuclear inspectors roaming the country under threat of more bombings; completely controlling its foreign trade so that military equipment could not be imported; etc., then I think that sort of begs a few questions.

I don't see how you ever get this unless you are willing to actually invade to prevent it.

Is it really so difficult to believe that if we negotiate in good faith other nations will as well? No, it's not.

We should expect that within the next 25-50 years, pretty much everyone will have some nuclear weapons.

That is a completely unacceptable world. That is a world where nuclear war is assured. The goal of western civilization should be to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons. The best way to do this is to work with nuclear-ambitious nations to ameliorate their concerns while simultaneously working with current nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals. The United States needs to lead this. Currently they are leading it in the exact wrong direction.

So? If people want to do business using the coin of the realm they'll need to invest in the proper technology. Welcome to capitalism.

I'm not arguing that this ruling violates people's rights the way requiring private businesses to accommodate disabled people would/does. I am merely pointing out that it's not a trivial matter the way some here seem to think, and it seems likely to me to be an unreasonable accommodation to make.

there's a huge difference between changing the color of something and changing the size of it

Well, but it hasn't been just a matter of ink. They've added watermarks and imbedded plastic strips too. We spare no expense to stop counterfeiters, but we are unable to add a little expense while we're at it to make the currency more accessible.

idiotic euro coins

I can't figure the romance of $1 bills. Europe, the UK, and Canada all seem to do fine without a 1-bill (although the Canadian pastime of knocking the center out of a twonie is a drawback of that particular denomination). Meanwhile, while they could have been making paper money accessible, the US embarked on a goofy program of Presidential dollar coins that are supposed to parallel the state quarters. I think we should have new mini-five-dollar-bills with different portraits of Hall of Fame baseball players on them; that might kick things in gear.

Very sad news about Ted Kennedy. He was the first Presidential candidate I ever voted for (New Jersey primary, 1980).

I am merely pointing out that it's not a trivial matter the way some here seem to think

Non-trivial certainly. The expense of re-outfitting the mints is significant but not unbearable and probably within existing budget.

and it seems likely to me to be an unreasonable accommodation to make.

Why would it be unreasonable to pay for a one-time upgrade that allows you to better serve the citizenry?

to answer other people, it's not merely a question of changing the scanner on a vending machine. Look at the physical slot on the machine -- it isn't made to accommodate different sized bills. To put in a larger bill, you'd need to redesign the machine.

Look at the physical slot on the machine -- it isn't made to accommodate different sized bills.

Every time I think you can't come across more simplistic and pigheaded, you blow me away...no matter what the issue.

You'd need to swap out the scanning mechanism. They have vending machines in Europe, where the money is different sizes. They have them in Japan, where bills come in different sizes. The first time I used one I thought it was magic- "how does it know I put a 1000 yen bill in? The slot is WIDER than the bill!!! Those magical Japanese and their mysterious technology!" You don't even have to change the width of the money- you could just change the length. I'd bet some of the same manufacturers who sell the machines in the US sell them in Europe and have some experience in this area. This would not require a whole new vending machine. The bulk of the machine, from the part that holds the candy to the part that spits it out, could remain intact. The thing that says "got money, give candy" would need to be redesigned only if the bills got wider. Making $20s $10s and $5s different lengths wouldn't require a new slot.

If there's a viable argument against making paper currency that can be differentiated by touch, the current layout of vending machines is not it.

it seems likely to me to be an unreasonable accommodation to make.

There's a shocker...are there any accommodations you think we should make to include people not as fortunate as yourself, or are we back to the "go #### yourself" principle you're so fond of?

"Is this paper in my hands worth $10 or a $5?" should not be information a blind person needs to rely on the kindness of strangers to provide.

So the question isn't "should the government cater to the limited interests of a subset of the citizenry" but "which subset of the citizenry should the government be more concerned about serving?" If the choice is "pring money that all citizens can use, regardless of their visual accuity" vs. "throw a subset of the citizenry under the bus in order to placate the interests of a very narrow band of business owners" the decision seems pretty cut and dried.

Sure, if you misrepresent the decision like that.

The real question is much more complicated:

"Should the government spend the resources required to design, produce, and implement modified currency that is distinguishable for those without sight, taking into account the secondary costs that will be placed upon businesses, and as a direct result, consumers?"

I should add that there are reasonable arguments, independent of your political philosophy, for an affirmative or a negative answer to be in the best interests of society. A society that empowers those without sight allows them to be more productive emotionally, physically, and financially. Spending money, a limited resource, means it can't be used elsewhere.

This, in itself, seems like a pretty unreasonable request. Basically, you're telling a purportedly sovereign nation to be less capable of defending itself than you are.

Can you imagine the reaction of a typical American to the idea that some other government wants to restrict our ability to build a certain type of weapon? Not agree not to use them, mind you, but agree not to develop the technology at all.

I don't see how you ever get this unless you are willing to actually invade to prevent it. We should expect that within the next 25-50 years, pretty much everyone will have some nuclear weapons.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you in principle. However, I do believe that Iran remains an official signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Granted, the treaty was signed by a different government than the illegitimate Mullahcracy that is in charge now, but it is a long-established principle that a change in government does not automatically nullify a signed treaty. If it is their intent to develop nuclear weapons (and it is), they should announce to the whole world that they are unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty.

Is there Braille on vending machines currently? I've never paid attention.

"Should the government spend the resources required to design, produce, and implement modified currency that is distinguishable for those without sight, taking into account the secondary costs that will be placed upon businesses, and as a direct result, consumers?"

I would be very interested in seeing a cost estimate for this from those on both sides. It's a one-time cost for a long-term benefit, and should probably happen at some point regardless. Blind people aren't going away anytime soon.*

The government is spending a huge amount of money for people to upgrade from analog to digital TV signals- they're giving rebate checks to anyone who needs to purchase a conversion box; you could do something similar with vending machines...

*barring some awesome advance in medical technology. Which is maybe what we're waiting for...

I can't figure the romance of $1 bills.

Strippers get mad when you try to cram a Sacagawea dollar down their g-string?

Strippers get mad when you try to cram a Sacagawea dollar down their g-string?

I see you frequent the really high-end clubs :)

1. No nuclear weapons.

This, in itself, seems like a pretty unreasonable request. Basically, you're telling a purportedly sovereign nation to be less capable of defending itself than you are.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT.

I don't see how you ever get this unless you are willing to actually invade to prevent it. We should expect that within the next 25-50 years, pretty much everyone will have some nuclear weapons.

I think you underestimate the expense, the engineering difficulties, and the obstacles to obtaining nuclear material. No chance that "pretty much everyone" will have it. Will a few more countries join the nuclear club? Yes, likely. But really, we're talking only about countries in the middle east; nobody else has both the economic assets and sufficient regional instability to make it worth their while. (I guess I could see Venezuela being interested as well.) (Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan might want them for defense, but Japan has obvious cultural objections, and it would be far too destabilizing for the other two countries to build them; either one would risk attack if they even hinted at being interested in nuclear weapons.)

Is it really so difficult to believe that if we negotiate in good faith other nations will as well? No, it's not.

It isn't possible to negotiate in good faith on this issue. If I have nuclear weapons and you don't, and I tell you not to have them, I'm demanding that you place yourself in a subservient position to me. I am saying "you are weaker than I am now, and I insist that you remain that way." I am saying "I can be trusted with weapons of this power, and you can't."

Unless you think the US and all other nuclear powers are going to agree to destroy all of their own nuclear weapons or hand them over to some international authority. I don't see either happening.

We should expect that within the next 25-50 years, pretty much everyone will have some nuclear weapons.

That is a completely unacceptable world. That is a world where nuclear war is assured. The goal of western civilization should be to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons. The best way to do this is to work with nuclear-ambitious nations to ameliorate their concerns while simultaneously working with current nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals. The United States needs to lead this. Currently they are leading it in the exact wrong direction.

I don't think this world is ready to embrace the level of neighborly trust required to effectively shut down the nuclear option. There are certain groups that, as currently composed, will simply never reach agreement and will never arrive at a peaceful solution. Until those groups change in a fundamental sense, true peace is an impossibility.

I'm not saying "Muslims are crazy lunatics who will never allow there to be peace," mind you. I don't think Americans or Europeans or any people from any other cultures are free from fundamental principles on which they will not compromise.

Oy, a malignant glioma. I think I would have preferred the stroke. I hope he progresses well, but that's a pretty grim diagnosis.

Yeah, a stroke would have been preferable. I guess he'll resign, at which point they'll have a special election:

Were he to resign or die in office, state law requires a special election for the seat no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after the vacancy occurs.

If it is their intent to develop nuclear weapons (and it is)

Evidence? I'm not saying there's no way they are, but right now there's no real evidence proving they are seeking nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy, and Khamenei has said that nuclear weapons are unislamic. After Iraq, i'm just not willing to blindly accept what the administration says without hard evidence, even if it's a common assumption.

Maybe the Mint can save money by ceasing the production of pennies?

Any chance this doesn't break the record?

Evidence? I'm not saying there's no way they are, but right now there's no real evidence proving they are seeking nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy, and Khamenei has said that nuclear weapons are unislamic. After Iraq, i'm just not willing to blindly accept what the administration says without hard evidence, even if it's a common assumption.

After North Korea, I'm not just willing to blindly accept the laconic reassurances from Iran and their liberal allies that Iran's ultra-secretive ongoing nuclear program is for purely peaceful civil purposes.

In any event, I think your complaints on this one are going to have to ultimately be forwarded to the Israeli Air Force. Because when the Middle East proliferates, Israel decimates. If you don't believe me, ask Syria.

I think you underestimate the expense, the engineering difficulties, and the obstacles to obtaining nuclear material.

25-50 years is a lot of time, especially with how technology improves exponentially. If not nuclear, some technology that is equal or superior in its ability to kill on a massive scale.

The 15-kt bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed almost nine thousand pounds. The B83 weighs less than a third of that, and the yield is two orders of magnitude greater. 1950s technology could create a rifle round (the Davy Crockett) that weighed under 75 pounds and about half a kiloton equivalent.

Like everything else made by man, engines of mass destruction are getting better, and it's happening faster every day. I don't see any developed country in 2050 being 100 years behind in weapons tech.

dp - I thought that you could just make the bills longer, too - but ATM machines (often) dispense bills in the other (length wise) orientation.

In any event, I think your complaints on this one are going to have to ultimately be forwarded to the Israeli Air Force. Because when the Middle East proliferates, Israel decimates

It's commonly stated in the US that Israel would destroy any Iranian nuclear facility if it came close to producing weapons. Now, if we think this is likely, don't you think Iran knows it's likely too? And couldn't that be used as leverage in negotiations? "You better make a deal with us so you actually get something for stopping your nuclear program, cause we both know Israel's just going to destroy it if you get close".

I can't figure the romance of $1 bills. Europe, the UK, and Canada all seem to do fine without a 1-bill (although the Canadian pastime of knocking the center out of a twonie is a drawback of that particular denomination).

It's not a question of "romance" (for me, anyway); it's a question of not-having-coins-jingling-in-my-pocket. I hate carrying all those coins around when traveling in Europe. (Not such a big deal anymore, since I use credit cards for almost everything, but still.)

Every time I think you can't come across more simplistic and pigheaded, you blow me away...no matter what the issue.

You'd need to swap out the scanning mechanism. They have vending machines in Europe, where the money is different sizes.

Yes, and if we lived there, that would be great. But we live here, where there's an installed base of tens of millions of ATM and vending machines. Nobody is arguing that it's a great engineering feat to design machines to accept bills of different sizes; just a practical problem of changing over to such a system. Yes, if they're different lengths rather than widths -- the Euro is both, though -- you don't need to have wider slots, but you do need possibly an entirely new mechanism inside, since the thing is actually designed for bills of a certain size.

If there's a viable argument against making paper currency that can be differentiated by touch, the current layout of vending machines is not it.

From the dissent:

There are approximately 7,000,000 food and beverage vending machines in the United States; by one estimate, it would cost $3.5 billion to retool or replace these machines if the size of different bills were progressively increased.

And that's only food vending machines. But, hey, it's not your money, so you're happy to spend it freely.

There's a shocker...are there any accommodations you think we should make to include people not as fortunate as yourself, or are we back to the "go #### yourself" principle you're so fond of?

Private people should make whatever accommodations they choose. The government should make accommodations that pass a cost-benefit analysis.

"Is this paper in my hands worth $10 or a $5?" should not be information a blind person needs to rely on the kindness of strangers to provide.

The sad part about this is that you're too (ideologically) blind to understand that that's exactly what the ADA is: the kindness of strangers. (Of course, in that case the "kindness" involves those strangers being willing to impose costs on other strangers.) The really bizarre thing about the liberal weltanschauung is that the "I want to be left alone" position is derided as "selfish" but "I want to force everyone else to accommodate me" position is somehow noble.

"You better make a deal with us so you actually get something for stopping your nuclear program, cause we both know Israel's just going to destroy it if you get close".

Why the hell should we have to offer them bribes to get them to agree to stop doing what they shouldn't be doing anyway? They deserve nothing.

And as I said before, we already went down this futile road once before with North Korea, and it failed spectacularly.

The sad part about this is that you're too (ideologically) blind to understand that that's exactly what the ADA is: the kindness of strangers. (Of course, in that case the "kindness" involves those strangers being willing to impose costs on other strangers.) The really bizarre thing about the liberal weltanschauung is that the "I want to be left alone" position is derided as "selfish" but "I want to force everyone else to accommodate me" position is somehow noble.

This isn't really right, is it? Placing aside the question whether it's actually discriminatory to force blind folk to guess the denominations of their currency, the ADA is not "the kindness of strangers" but the governmentally enforced protection of rights claims made by one segment of our population. It relies not a whit on kindness and indeed is effective despite the grudging and angry abiding of it by "unkind" people. IOW, it's not structurally different from the protection of property rights, is it?

Next up: the government requires automobile manufacturers to install AI microprocessors into cars so that blind people can drive!

Are blind people discriminated against because we don't have rails on driving lanes? Is using money a "right"?

Damn, Ray scooped me!

Gotcha.

Great minds think alike.

EDIT: But I have no idea why you two had similar thoughts.

The government should make accommodations that pass a cost-benefit analysis.

Of course, and in your model, the financial priorities of private business seem to pretty much always come first, since you equate those directly with "freedom", so that you are weighing costs and benefits differently than a guy like formerly dp does. It isn't really about whose "weltanschauung" is more "noble."

And as I said before, we already went down this futile road once before with North Korea, and it failed spectacularly.

The futile road of refusing to negotiate until after they aquired nuclear weapons, you mean?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

They deserve nothing

To quote William Muny: "deserve's got nothing to do with it". Getting states to do what you want sometimes means making deals.

Great minds think alike.

Them's fightin' wurds!

You edited it on me!!

Is using money a "right"?

I don't really have a position on this, but I think you could say it's kind of a "necessity" although you can do most things with plastic now. I still pay cash a lot, and it seems like most people don't.

Great minds think alike.

EDIT: But I have no idea why you two had similar thoughts.

Well, it takes a great mind to see genius. That's obviously why you can't see our genius, JC.

Getting states to do what you want sometimes means making deals.

I don't think that Israel has any interest whatsoever in playing these stupid little games you guys love to play. The actual solution to the problem is going to be a lot easier, and quicker.

Fuel for the fire: the French government admits "contacts" with Hamas. Predictably, the Bush administration says that nobody should ever talk to Hamas until they stop being Hamas.

But of course, this is France, they actually have an embassy in Tehran. Quelle niaiserie ...

I don't think that Israel has any interest whatsoever in playing these stupid little games you guys love to play. The actual solution to the problem is going to be a lot easier, and quicker

And we get to the heart of the matter: Joey, like most of the neocons, wants to bomb Iran, and doesn't think we should make any attempt to avoid such an outcome. Of course, bombing Iran would lead to an increase in support for the more radical elements in Iran, but that's not important, right?

Joey, like most of the neocons, wants to bomb Iran,

Waging a war that would have been entirely justified decades earlier is a neo-con tradition.

bomb Iran

,

...reminds me of a song....

Why the hell should we have to offer them bribes to get them to agree to stop doing what they shouldn't be doing anyway?

A recent article was published by an oil market scholar in The Procceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)that supports the claim Iran needs their nuclear power plant because their oil industry is such bad shape that they may not be able to support their domestic and export needs in the near future.

This was regarded as good news from a US foreign policy POV because it suggested Iran would soon be in a more malleable position, as they need US technology to modernize their oil industry. It also strongly suggested the attempt by the Iranians to build a nuclear reactor was meeting a legitimate domestic need, and was not a ruse to build bombs (however, it was bad news for the neocons, who want every excuse to attack Iran and any data that supports the intention of the Iranians to build a legitimate peaceful nuclear industry should be ignored). The conclusion of the study was a recommendation to US policy-makers to just sit tight on Iran, as their (Iran's) leverage would be reduced by falling oil receipts and would be more interested in rapproachment with the US.

This study was further supported a few months ago when the CIA deliberately leaked a white paper (probably to forstall the Bush administration from repeating a misinformation campaign supporting the initiation of another optional war counter to US strategic interests) indicating the Iranians had stopped their nuclear weapon program under international pressure, but had kept it a secret so that they would not be domestically seen as capitulating to international (read:US) coercion.

It's a good read:

The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security

Since then, the price of oil has skyrocketed, delaying the approach of the Iranian balance of payments crisis and strenthening their hand in keeping domestic unrest at bay. It begs the obvious question, however, of why the Bush administration has dragged their feet so doggedly in developing policies that would put downward pressure on international oil prices and avoid enacting policies that would strengthen their negotiating position with the Iranians.

bomb Iran

,

...reminds me of a song....

OK, I have a serious question here. When McCain did his now-immortal Beach Boys routine, was he full of the hilarity of bombing people, or was he making fun of the inconceivable idiot who was asking him the question from the audience? The YouTube videos cut away immediately, as soon as McCain sings his bit. What did he say next? Did he say, you're an inconceivable idiot, I'm not going to bomb people indiscriminately? I find McCain to be a wingnut, but I want to be semi-fair to the guy. As with the 100-years-in-Iraq thing, which didn't mean 100 years of war; it is still a doltish proposition, but misrepresenting a doltish proposition as a bloodthirsty one doesn't do McCain's opponents any good. I also felt bad for 43 when he was sound-bitten as claiming that Mandela was dead; he had a point (as George Sanders might say, an idiotic one, but a point) that was an analogy of sorts to distinguish Iraq from South Africa, and instead of refuting his point, we all just laughed as if W didn't really know that Mandela was alive.

I don't think that Israel has any interest whatsoever in playing these stupid little games you guys love to play.

Excuse me for a minute, Joey but I want to ask you a question:

Why should the United States subbordiate their strategic interests and foreign policy initiatives to what Israel wants and feels is in their stragetic interest? Isn't this the worst kind of tail wagging the dog scenario?

This isn't really right, is it? Placing aside the question whether it's actually discriminatory to force blind folk to guess the denominations of their currency, the ADA is not "the kindness of strangers" but the governmentally enforced protection of rights claims made by one segment of our population. It relies not a whit on kindness and indeed is effective despite the grudging and angry abiding of it by "unkind" people. IOW, it's not structurally different from the protection of property rights, is it?

The "strangers" I was referring to in this case were the people who supported the laws / supported the legislators who supported the laws. It relies on their "kindness" (*) to enact the ADA in the first place.

As for property rights, I think it's structurally different because (contra dp) I don't believe that property rights derive from government, while the "rights" in question wrt the ADA (**) do.


(*) Except that as I've said, I don't view the spending of someone else's money to reflect "kindness." Charity constitutes kindness or generosity. Welfare does not.
(**) To be precise, this is a Rehabilitation Act case rather than an ADA case, but the underlying principle is similar here.

What did he say next? Did he say, you're an inconceivable idiot, I'm not going to bomb people indiscriminately? I find McCain to be a wingnut,

I don't know the answers to your questions, but to be clear, I see it simply as a soundbite, and I don't hold it against McCain. I try to stay big picture in candidate evaluation. I was making a little joke. My guess is some of the righties can answer those questions.

I was making a little joke

Exactly, no offense intended to you. I am merely holding out the hope that McCain was laughing with us ...

Joey, like most of the neocons, wants to bomb Iran, and doesn't think we should make any attempt to avoid such an outcome.

He also committs the common mistake of his type by conflating potential actions and interests of Israel one for one with potential actions and interests of the United States. Israel is an ally. It is not a member state.

When McCain did his now-immortal Beach Boys routine, was he full of the hilarity of bombing people, or was he making fun of the inconceivable idiot who was asking him the question from the audience?

That he hasn't attempted to walk back from it the way he has walked back from the "100 years" bit suggests that he doesn't see it as contradictory to his platform. Remember, back in 2000 John McCain was the preferred candidate of the neocon right. They saw Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" as too weak, not enamoured enough with their "national greatness" uber alles campaign. That Cheney proved pivotal in turning Bush into the neocon's lapdog post-9/11 doesn't change the fact that McCain was one of the crazies (at least on foreign policy) before crazy was just so gosh darned cool.

Remember, back in 2000 John McCain was the preferred candidate of the neocon right

Indeed. If the GOP nomination had been in doubt when they got to Texas in '00 I would have crossed over and voted for Bush, seriously. I'd even vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain :)

That Cheney proved pivotal in turning Bush into the neocon's lapdog post-9/11

Yes, the change in Bush's foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11. It's just a coincidence that it happened after that. It was really Dick Cheney.

Another interesting news note: Robert Byrd endorses Barack Obama.

And we get to the heart of the matter: Joey, like most of the neocons, wants to bomb Iran, and doesn't think we should make any attempt to avoid such an outcome. Of course, bombing Iran would lead to an increase in support for the more radical elements in Iran, but that's not important, right?

And we get to the heart of the matter: nycfan, like most leftists, doesn't really care if anyone violates the NPT or if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and doesn't think anyone should make any serious attempt to avoid that outcome. If they do, much like as with North Korea, their response will be "Whoops! Oh well, too bad, but what can you do."

Another interesting news note: Robert Byrd endorses Barack Obama.

Well, it would've been more interesting a month or two ago.

Announcing your endorsement for Obama now is like picking the Red Sox to win the 2004 Series when Foulke stepped to the mound in Game 4.

I find McCain to be a wingnut, but I want to be semi-fair to the guy.

Not for nothing, but doesn't anybody know how to use Google around here? Still, for the third time this thread, someone has given me the opportunity to play the Rational Analytical Guy card, and far be it from me to pass it up.

CNN says that McCain "finished his answer by discussing the Iran's nuclear ambitions and the country's desire to wipe Israel off the map to emphasize the real dangers that it poses to the world."

Is Raw Story too rightist or leftist for your taste? Well, it came up in the search and I don't have a lot of time to comb for the most unbiased possible sources. They say that "McCain stopped short of answering the actual question and did not say if he supports an invasion of Iran."

The same link quotes him as saying, "Please, I was talking to some of my old veterans friends ... My response is, Lighten up and get a life."

Quickie Evaluation: McCain was not seriously endorsing an attack on Iran when he did his little song and dance number -- but he does not appear to have publicly ruled it out, either. The clip of him singing misses some important context on his actual view. Contra Sam, it appears that he has "walked back" from it, at least in the sense of declaring that it was a joke rather than an accurate reflection of his actual view.

And we get to the heart of the matter: nycfan, like most leftists, doesn't really care if anyone violates the NPT or if Iran gets nuclear weapons, and doesn't think anyone should make any serious attempt to avoid that outcome.

In an unusual turn of events, I'd say the leftists are being the realists here. Treaties are something countries adhere to until they have the ability and the desire to break them.

When it comes down to it, while we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, even if we had the ability to stop them without a huge mess, which we probably don't, we don't have the political will to do it anyway.

So the best thing to do is consider Iran a nuclear power and work from there. As such, I think we're best served in liberalizing our relations with Iran. Ahmadinjehad becomes absolutely irrelevant if, like the UAE, Iranians discover that making money is a lot more fun than making bombs.

The Israelis would get pissed, of course, but they'll still lick Iran in a war whether or not they're happy with us. And without the Iranians and Syrians cooperating, they'll probably remember they hate each other just as much as the Jews.

The Israelis would get pissed, of course, but they'll still lick Iran in a war whether or not they're happy with us. And without the Iranians and Syrians cooperating, they'll probably remember they hate each other just as much as the Jews.

The problem with saying, "Screw it, not our problem, let the Israelis take action if they want" is that Israel may well do that. And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site. It won't be as trivial as when Israel bombed Osirak.

doesn't anybody know how to use Google around here?

Hell no. I get all my news now from the Fred Schwarz Thread.

And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site.

But in reality, how would we prevent that anyway?

And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site.

But in reality, how would we prevent that anyway?

Diplomacy, of course. Sheesh.

And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site. It won't be as trivial as when Israel bombed Osirak.

So, would we rather absorb the repercussions of doing it ourselves?

I don't think so.

Announcing your endorsement for Obama now is like picking the Red Sox to win the 2004 Series when Foulke stepped to the mound in Game 4.

Except that in this case it's more like picking the Red Sox to win the 2004 ALCS going into the bottom of the ninth of game seven, and with Hillary Steinbrenner sitting there in the Yankee dugout telling everyone that "it's not over."

Diplomacy, of course. Sheesh.

That's what I'm suggesting. Iran having nuclear capabilities is essentially a fait accompli. When it comes down to it, if Iran has the option, they'd certainly much rather be Dubai than the Ammonites.

And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site. It won't be as trivial as when Israel bombed Osirak.

You said something similar a couple of thousands posts back. There might well be negative consequences for Israel if they did that - but that is their own look-out, and something for them to take into account when considering whether this course of action is desirable. I'm intrigued. What do you think the consequences for the US would be? And why do you think the consequences for the US would be worse than if this was done by the US military?

Hell no. I get all my news now from the Fred Schwarz Thread.

Mike Hampton News: We report. You deride.

Dan, I was just fooling around. I do agree with you though. We should endeavor to expose as much of the Middle East to western decadance as possible. It's hard to resist the temptation of money, drugs and sex and those three things can work their magic on those countries like they have on us.

Sorry, Mike Hampton, for the derision. Your research confirms a sense I had about the McCain bomb-Iran gaffe: that it is severely sound-bited (the man is not as unnuanced as all that) but reveals a kind of flipness about serious stuff that ... well, unfortunately, that modern voters actually like, to judge by them electing Reagan, Clinton and W over some pretty humorless opponents.

Sorry, Mike Hampton, for the derision.

No, not at all, I didn't think you were being derisive -- I just needed a suitable rhyme for my Fox News joke. :)

Isn't the "bom-bom-bom bom-bomb-Iran" an early Reagan era punchline?

I don't believe that property rights derive from government

But who determines ownership of property? Who recognizes and defends that right?

Isn't the "bom-bom-bom bom-bomb-Iran" an early Reagan era punchline?

Perhaps you're thinking of this timeless classic.

sn't the "bom-bom-bom bom-bomb-Iran" an early Reagan era punchline?

Perhaps you're thinking of this timeless classic.

I thought I might be conflating the Beach Boys and "I've just outlawed Russia, we begin bombing in 5 minutes" - but I distinctly remember a 1980-81 joke to to which McCain's comment was the punchline. Maybe something inane like "Hey, Brian Wilson, how you gonna get those hostages back?" I guess that would be a 1979 joke.

As an update, this MSNBC story says:

McCain has long said that the military option should not be taken off the table but that it should be used only as a last resort.

That's a slightly stronger form of my Quickie Evaluation; take it for what you will.

BDR: "But of course, this is France, they actually have an embassy in Tehran. Quelle niaiserie ..."

We had an embassy in Teheran, too, Bob. How did that work out?

McCain should simply quote lyrics any time he's asked about Iran, just to confuse people.

"And Iran, Iran so far away!"

"And isn't it Iranic...don't you think?"

"Now the time is here, for Iran Man to spread fear"

"Iran, I said."

Edit: This should easily get us the record.

Since then, the price of oil has skyrocketed, delaying the approach of the Iranian balance of payments crisis and strenthening their hand in keeping domestic unrest at bay. It begs the obvious question, however, of why the Bush administration has dragged their feet so doggedly in developing policies that would put downward pressure on international oil prices and avoid enacting policies that would strengthen their negotiating position with the Iranians.

Very strong post, kevin. The "why", above, is easy to answer. You, like a great many people, have difficulty fathoming the motives of people who are, at a minimum, borderline sociopaths. The purpose of the war in Iraq, and the purposes of all policies, really, enacted or proposed by the Bush administration, is to enrich, and to increase the power of, Bush, his administration, and those who support him and his administration. War, to the right people, is extremely lucrative. Why did the Borgias behave the way they did? Why did Leopold II behave the way he did? Why did Carlo Gambino behave the way he did? It's not as though there isn't a long history of sociopaths and psychopaths who became extremely powerful, or became the heads of nations. Follow the money, and follow the increasing concentrations of power, and to whom those increases accrue. The answer is right there.

Ark, the problem with the debate:
"George W. Bush: Evil or Stupid?" is that no one will take the other side (joey?)

We had an embassy in Teheran, too, Bob. How did that work out?

There comes a time when the bearing of grudges against an enemy is more for domestic show than any international purpose. The two minutes hate serves its purpose here – to distinguish steely tough guys from wimpy appeasers – but in terms of actually achieving anything else in the world, it's pretty futile.

You, like a great many people, have difficulty fathoming the motives of people who are, at a minimum, borderline sociopaths.

Oops, I let Dr. Arkitekton, Telepathic Clinical Psychologist off the ignore list too quickly.

But, I guess, as Wilde said, "In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."

Go-go Gadget De-Frootloopamatricificator!

And we really don't want the repercussions of Israel bombing an Iranian nuclear site.

I'm not so sure the repercussions would necessarily be as bad as you think. They just did it with Syria a few months ago, and for all intents and purposes absolutely nothing happened.

Granted, Iran is a lot bigger and louder than Syria, and there will be plenty of threats and fist pounding and people in the streets screaming Death to the Great Satan and the Little Satan for sure.

Will they cut off all oil exports? A possibility, and that would hurt, but at current prices I think it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us.

Will they activate their terrorist sleeper cells here and around the world to wreak mayhem? That's a possibility, but I'm not so sure they have as many anymore as people might think. I think most of their agents and terrorists are in Iraq, and languishing in prison down in Guantanamo Bay. If they've got more here, we can deal with them if necessary.

The anti-diplomacy crowd keeps reminding me of Rufus T. Firefly:

I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it.

And then of course Trentino comes in, and he slaps him.