THE REASON THAT US WONT OPEN DISCUSSIONS WITH IRAN IS:?

It seems to me that sanctions and isolation usually harm the very people you are trying to help, all the while cementing the hold of the offending regime, making your final choice, regime change, all the more difficult. It also seems to me that we would need to do this to many, many different countries. So far we have Iran and Saudi Arabia on the list. Where else?

I agree sanctions and isolation are terrible solutions... but I suspect they'd make ample warnings were a systematic strategy put in place and adhered to. The list of worthy candidates is long, but would shorten considerably if actions were actually taken; rather than just empty threats and population starving sanctions being acted upon. A short list for the warning board might consist of Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Burma, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Swaziland, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Laos, Vietnam, Gabon, Angola, Egypt, Cameroon, Tunisia, Chad, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirate, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Maldives, Transnistria, Pakistan, and Libya, to name a few. Unfortunately China's probably too tough to finish the job as is Russia, though Putin grows increasingly suspect. Lots of work, but it's work that needs to be done. It is a shame on us all that the citizens of so many countries have to subsist on a few dollars a day while their Dictators live in the lap of luxury. To the extent a Tyrant is to blame; a Tyrant should be removed... and they should be assisted in trying again. Over and over, until the Tyrants are banished from this earth forever; and no sane person would seek to be one. It is, IMO, the only strategy for peace on earth. You could call it, "no human left behind". Food on this planet is plentiful, and no one should go without.

i've just started to read the book "nixon in china" - i'm sort of leafing through it right now .
he was able to start a process of talking to the chinese , even though the state department considered china an eneemy of the united states .
apparently nixon and kissinger did not advise the state department because they feared that the state dept would be able to scuttle their initiative .
initially most communication was by hand-carried notes "on plain paper" with president khan of pakistan as the intermediary .
apparently what brought china and the united states to the table was their common fear of the soviet-union .

there is no doubt that both nixon and kissinger had many faults , but at least they were able to see the need to communicate with many states - even those that were considered hostile or unfriendly .
they seemed to realize that wars would solve few problems and that a certain point one even needs to talk to an "enemy" .

this book should be interesting to read .
hbg

I am as much for isolating and sanctioning human rights violaters as anyone, but I find your cavalier attitude about the unique human costs of war disturbing. It strikes me as the nonchalance of a young buck who has no experience with what war means nor the imagination to realise it, but you're older than I am.

Yes, I do accuse you of black and white thinking here. What appears to be missing is an awareness of how large the differences in human suffering can be between gradations of evil.

War brings about a degree of dislocation and anarchy that goes far beyond the immediate casualties of the military action; it habitually unleashes massive numbers of refugees, a complete breakdown of basic safety in which murder, terror and rape flourish, an economic collapse and destruction of housing, water, electricity, indusrty and infrastructure that takes a decade or more to rebuild, often causes famine and acute impoverishment as knock-on effects, etc etc. That is why war is, or should be, a last resort.

Dictatorship, human rights abuses, police states, all are in themselves also evil, and also sources of massive human suffering. But it is easy to underestimate how much worse things can still be. Iran now, even with all its backsliding into repression and fundamentalism, is still a place where most people can work and live without immediate fear for their lives or livelihood. War would bring exactly that.

You seem to reason that it'll all be worth it when the war yields a new democratic order without abuse afterwards. First, I can not bring myself to so casually rationalise the at least temporary human suffering war will bring before that time comes - suffering that will without a doubt be worse than that inflicted by the present authoritarian government. Secondly, I think you are naive in believing that a war started to replace dictatorship with respect for human rights will also achieve that, or at least is likely enough to achieve that to justify the gamble. What you seem, to me, to be under-aware of is the extent to which going to war by definition means opening a veritable Pandoras box. There is a strong "may God be with us" dimension to starting a war - you are surrendering yourself to fate. Wars are by nature unpredictable, volatile times in history, and rarely do you end up where you were aiming for when the dust finally settles.

Today's Iraq should have brought that lesson home as forcefully as anything. Saddam's was one of the most brutal and absolute dictatorships in the world - far worse than today's Iran. And yet even there, a war that at least appeared to have the advantage that any result would be better than what existed before for the Iraqi people, has yielded a situation that is not. Murder and torture are now no less intense than they were in Saddam's last years, plus basics like electricity and water are now worse. If war can result in even making as miserable a country as Saddam's into something as bad or worse, how can you so nonchalantly propose military action in Iran, where repression is bad but life is in no way as shut down as in Saddam's Iraq?

Your passion about right and wrong and your intensity of feeling that human rights abuses should be acted against come what may, show that you have a good heart. But your Sturm und Drang betrays a certain lack of life's wisdom, of learning life's most ambiguous lessons. Perhaps it's harder for an American to be aware of just what costs and unpredictabilities are involved in war than for a European, whose parents or grandparents still witnessed the complete destruction of the continent in the last war, and for whom the "Never Again" has been imbibed with the mothers' milk. But yet other Americans seem to be more aware of it.

Finally, I apologise that I havent addressed the points you would like me to address. I only want to spend a limited amount of time on A2K, so nowadays I'm wary of responding point-by-point. I respond to what I perceive as the actual point of Krugman's article, and the actual issue at hand in this thread, and to nothing else if I can avoid it.

OK, to allow myself one tangent of my own - this accusation that I just levelled at O'Bill, I would also level at those liberals who say America should just withdraw its troops asap and leave the Iraqis to take care of their own business. This IMO comes down to as cavalier an attitude as O'Bills.

Lets be clear; if the US withdraws now, period, Iraq will be 90% sure engulfed in sectarian warfare and ethnic cleansing that will involve an intensity of slaughter as there was in Bosnia - and the country's a lot bigger.

The defenders of withdrawal would respond to this with some reasonable sounding arguments - the slide into outright civil war may be unavoidable in any case; the US occupation/intervention so far has made things only worse, so why submit that by staying longer they will help; etc. But that, to me, makes them sound as unaware of just how big a difference in human suffering can be involved in various gradations of evil.

Today, hundreds of Iraqis die every day. Its a slow-burning civil war. But if somehow the plug gets pulled that so far keeps a sort of status quo, however miserable, in place, or perhaps merely restrains the worsening of the status quo to a gradual decline; if that plug is pulled and a fully-blown civil war erupts, things will be 10 times as bad as they are now. There will be many thousads dead a day, and instead of 10s or 100s of thousands of (internal and international) refugees, there will be millions.

To come up with another of my far-fetched historical comparisons: today in Iraq we are in a kind of 1917-1918 situation (referring to revolutionary Russia, I mean); steady violence, fragmentation of the state, a gradual collapse into anarchy. But Russia in 1919-1921, with full-scale civil war and ensuing famine taking millions of lives, is another kettle of fish altogether. Ie, even an effort that seems to at best be able to arbitrarily patch things up with band-aids even while other things tear apart can be worth it if you consider the alternative.

My Grandfather was never quite right (they tell me) after WWII. In many ways; my Stepfather remains a broken man since Vietnam. I've heard the horror stories, believe me. I do lack the first hand experience, gratefully so, and I'll thank you for not attacking me on that front. I do not in any way discount the hardships of war, but neither can I discount the hardships of ongoing suffering with no hope of change. That was Saddam's Iraq. His sons would have been no better. That is North Korea.

Iran is playing with Nuclear fire, and I cannot discount that, either. While I agree with you completely their people are poised for change; they need help. I don't advocate Iraq-like missions everywhere... not at all.

I advocate strikes on the Tyrants themselves. These are the people who rule by fear, by making their atrocities well known. These are the people who should live in fear of reprisal. Not from a ragtag militias of brave souls storming the gates with Kalashnikovs, who are easily mowed down like grass. But from the finest Special Forces (ideally international) mankind has to offer and with weapons systems capable of getting the job done.

Ask Kaddafi if Dictators can be intimidated. Sanctions against these countries only hurt the poor. They should be used only as a warning of impending doom to the Tyrants themselves. Every totalitarian leader should know the only way to stay out of the gun sights is by taking steps to grant freedom and power to the people.

This has, in actuality, been true for centuries. The difference today is people are stuck in yesterday's world while their oppressors use 21st century technology to hold them down. Something, or someone has to level the playing field or they will live generation after generation with no hope at all. The days of Kings fearing rebellion from within are over. Their technological advantages are just too great. The bravest of the brave still continue the struggle, but without help from outside it is mostly without hope. What else would convince a man to strap a bomb to his chest?

Maryam Rajavi claims 120,000 Iranians have already paid the ultimate price, attempting to secure freedom for Iran. Whatever the real number may be, I am sure it is horrifying. It is high time their murderers live in the fear they impose on the victims of their oppression. Only a credible threat can accomplish this... and there is only one way to add credibility to said threat.

I've stated many times that Iraq was only a good start... and a near useless one if it ends there. If the work continues; it shouldn't be too far down the road where other would be Saddam's choose not to be… based solely on the threat alone... because the threat will be credible. Too many years of too many empty threats convinced these monsters that the superior powers that be only cry wolf. If this perception can be changed, and make no mistake; it could... than the tyrants of tomorrow will have no choice but to recognize that they too are accountable for their actions. And Allah help those who don't.

This is what I envision, what I feel is almost mandatory if the right of self determination is to dominate the future. Technology is bringing the endgame between totalitarian rule and that of popular sovereignty ever closer. In this way, yes, I guess I am guilty of seeing things a bit black and white. Necessarily so, imo.

While you struggle with my seeming inability to see the horror in the micro; I struggle with your seeming inability to recognize the macro. <shrugs>


No worries, Nimh. I view any and all discussion with you a privilege. Were I made King of the world tomorrow, I would immediately call on you to keep me in check (I'm quite serious). (oh, and Friedman, not Krugman)

Occom Bill - with respect, you can't be more royalist than the king:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6328801.stm

in all our raving and ranting against all the dictators of the world , perhaps we might stop for a minute ... and remember that many of these dictators were often considered useful allies by western governments - and they still are .
of course , western businesses are usually only too pleased to trade with them ... after all : "business is business" , isn't it ?

i'll cite just one example - i'm sure you can all find plenty more on your own .
Rumania's dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu , (remember him ?
) , was at one time welcomed by resident nixon .
the canadian AEC (atomic energy commission) praised him as a valuable customer !

look around , there are plenty more dictators being recognized by western governments and welcome as business partners .
it's really not that simple to get rid - or even ignore - the dictators .
(what would walmart do without doing business with the chinese "dictators" ? walmart might never have been able to amount to much without dealing with "dictators" .
remember when walmart stores flew the american flag at just about every bin and displayed the slogan "proudly made in america ! " - or did it say 'united states ' ? can't remember) .
so which "dictator" are the western nations going to tackle next ?
perhaps there is another manuel noriega hiding somewhere - he should be easy to find and to dispose of .
hbg

Too right, HBG. And this is the crazy part, when rank apologists like O'Bill [and he's hardly the only one] can't see anything save for what is viewed thru rose colored glasses. While his motives seem grand they are seriously debased by his unrelenting support for a government that has been responsible for the deaths and torture of millions of innocents the world over.

His naivete in thinking that the government of the US does what it does for altruistic purposes is really beyond the pale. They're like a policeman who, after having laid waste to a neighbourhood, having killed many innocent men, women and children, then loudly proclaims that he has rid the area of a dangerous drug dealer. And to top the hypocrisy off, that very drug dealer was in the employ of that policeman, beating up, torturing and offing people the policeman didn't like.

HBG, that is precisely the problem… the "Our son of a bitch" syndrome.
Iraq Vs. Iran… Iraq= Our son of a bitch.
Russia Vs. Germany… Russia= Our son of a bitch.
Afghanistan Vs. Russia… Afghanistan= Our son of a bitch.

King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud Vs. Saudi Arabia… King Abdullah= Our son of a bitch.
Pervez Musharraf Vs. Pakistan… Musharraf= Our son of a bitch.

Saddam Hussein used to be our son of a bitch, until he went off the reservation and attacked our other son of a bitch. By the time we decided to finish him off; consensus was impossible, partly because he was, by then, France's son of a bitch.

Opposition to Iran is tough now partly because it's France's son of a bitch. Clearly, "The West" doesn't always share sons of bitches.

It isn't enough to share business interests with our allies for political harmony. The hatred of Saudis is in my opinion just. After all, our son of a bitch is standing on their necks. Pitifully, in the last several decades we've increased our dependence on son's of bitches, rather than taking steps to put ourselves in a better bargaining position. Anyone awake in 1980 knew this dependency was no good for the United States, every time they went to the gas pump.

So what do we do? Reposition ourselves to assert more control over our sons of bitches, that's what. What kind of feelings should we expect this to generate in the victims of our sons of bitches? Do peaceful treaties and strategic agreements with these same sons of bitches show any sign of producing different results in the future? SHOULD THEY?

The world's most powerful killing machine belongs to the United States, hands down. However, this isn't the only thing that makes it the world's only superpower. Our current economic superiority is every bit as compelling. Wouldn't we be better off if we used both for the common good of our fellow man? If we had endeavored to benefit the Saudis rather than prop up the son of a bitch standing on their necks; would 15 of 19 September 11th hijackers have been Saudi's?

Clearly, our business model is corrupt. The very way in which we distinguish friend from foe is corrupt. For as long as we continue to ignore this, the victims of our sons of bitches will continue to be justified in their hatred of us. Now if Bush settles for a replacement son of a bitch for Saddam; nothing will have changed accept that the world's most powerful son of a bitch will have once again proven they are sons of bitches. I believe this is our common fear and quite a reasonable fear at that.

But what happens if the United States succeeds? Set aside for a moment the notion that that's impossible and consider it. What happens if the cesspool of suffering that was Iraq, and is Iraq; evolves into a genuine popular sovereignty? What would happen if the United States assisted the National Council of Resistance of Iran into being legitimately elected by the people of Iran? I believe in my heart the majority of Iraqis and Iranians would have this be so. Probably, a tremendous majority. Only the brainwashed would ever willingly vote to oppress themselves. This will occur and it will certainly complicate the equation, but I refuse to believe there is a group of humans anywhere incapable of learning the benefits of self-determination. It most certainly will not happen over night, and it most certainly will be painful, but that doesn't make the cause any less worthwhile.

As hopelessness gave way to hope, the Patrick Henry's, George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's of every destitute land of human suffering would emerge… and if given sufficient assistance, would be victorious. Give a man, who is willing to fight to the death for his cause, an opportunity to fight for his own well being, and fight he will. It is said when Patrick Henry finished his speech with "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" was met with an array of "To arms! To arms!". There can be no doubt the inhabitants of Muslim lands can and have been compelled to action… in the bravest of possible ways. Pity the foolish oppressor who wouldn't fear these most driven of men. Or don't; he isn't worthy.

Wouldn't such a turn of events benefit the Iraqis and Iranians every bit as much as it would benefit the United States and the greater world at large? Does anyone really believe the more harshly oppressed Saudis wouldn't find the courage to demand the same? At the end of the day; is self determination not the natural right of every human being? What would happen to the perception of the United States if, after all this time, we finally started behaving and acting on the principles we hold so dear?

Iraq many well prove to be just another step, in a long line of steps, in the wrong direction. Conversely; it may well prove to be the second step (Afghanistan) in a direction that is finally fitting of the principles we collectively hold so dear. The prosecution is currently doing a far better job of presenting its case, but the jury is still out. Meanwhile, every man woman and child on this planet has a vested interest in seeing Bush's vision in Iraq come true. It matters little how ill conceived or poorly implemented his plan or lack thereof has been; success would benefit us all. And its high time people get over the blame game and work to achieve that which is in the mutual best interest of us all. Think about it.

JTT, if you ever bothered to read what I write, or had the capability of comprehending it, it doesn't show. Just because I disagree with your politics (let alone the outlandishly idiotic exaggerations you rely on), is no reason to assume I am any less aware of the heinous mistakes of my country's past. I do, in fact, reference them regularly. I am not the polar opposite of your hyper-anti-Americanism.

"heinous MISTAKES"; now that says it all, Bill. I have, no doubt, not read all your postings but "I do ... reference them regularly".

Where?

And let us do get one thing straight. I am NOT anti-American. I am anti-American imperialism and anti-American rank stupidity that shows little to no respect for the other peoples of the world.

The post before the one you quoted for starters...

Your extreme focus leads me to believe otherwise.

Let me go give it a read, Bill.

SuperBowl ads you [the generic you] may have missed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpb9coMN9Hw&eurl=

So true. Why oh why oh why do these folks even listen to these idiots?

This Vanity Fair piece brings to light some interesting things.

Bush administration delays rollout of intel showing Iran's help to Iraqi militias http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Iran_intel_delayed_0209.html

You should be ashamed of yourself. You rant on and on about Iran, but Iran is just one of literally dozens of nations in which women are consistently mistreated. Female infanticide and childhood female genital mutilation are common in many African and Asian nations. You want it invade 'em all, Bubba, or just the ones with significant petroleum reserves?

He wants to invade them all.

And anyone who doesn't, supports the continued subjugation of women.

Cycloptichorn

Don't forget Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan--there are any number of nations with whom we are willing to do business, so long as they are prepared to do business, and do it on our terms.

The Sudan is a nation in which not only are women consistently abused, they are abused by both Muslims and Christians. The Sudan is a nation which had previously harbored Osama bin Laden, and which continues to harbor Muslim terrorists. The Sudan is a nation in which Muslim militias have abused and murdered not only the Christians in the south, but the Animists in Darfur. Far more people have died from the brutality in the Sudan than died in Iraq under Hussein, and far, far more than have died in Iran since their revolution.

So why isn't the cavalry riding off to liberate the Sudan? Oh yeah, no oil . . .