Comments on logic for politics: IS IT SENSIBLE TO TALK TO IRAN WITHOUT CONDITIONS?...

What is missing from US policy and has been for at...

2008-09-15T00:03:00.000-07:00

What is missing from US policy and has been for at least the last 8 years is an understanding that it is a chess game and not tic-tac-toe. For every move that is made, some advantages are gained and some slips in positions are lost. We have ended up with so much egg on our face that nobody believes our threats. Every one of our perceived enemies knows now that we are so addicted to their oil that our threats are equivalent to a suicide mission. Want to attack Iran? The next day gas prices would be so high that the economy would collapse and America would come to a grinding halt.

Maybe pre-Iraq just bullying Iran and North Korea would have worked. But now it is not a matter of sensibility. Talking is our only option.

Hasn't Israel been meeting with Syria lately--is t...

2008-05-22T06:23:00.000-07:00

Hasn't Israel been meeting with Syria lately--is that appeasement? Was Bush criticizing them when he spoke in the Knesset?

I suspect that what they fear losing is not the ap...

2008-05-22T05:45:00.000-07:00

I suspect that what they fear losing is not the appearance of self-righteousness, but a carefully cultivated appearance of belligerence and even a degree of recklessness. The (bad) reasoning is that if our "enemies" think we're trigger-happy, they'll be less likely to try anything. I think this is the sort of logic that lies behind, e.g., Hillary's "obliterate" comment.

So, they refuse to talk without conditions because doing so might, heaven forbid, make the US appear reasonable.

The primary belief driving the "no-negotiations wi...

2008-05-21T21:27:00.000-07:00

The primary belief driving the "no-negotiations without concessions" camp seems to be that there is something that will be gained or lost in the simple act of opening negotiations or not. However, would there be any actual difference between waiting for concessions to open negotiations and demanding concessions in the negotiations themselves, after their opening with (presumably) no conditions attached? It does not seem that any actual difference, besides the cosmetic, would exist. The benefits to actually opening talks, including actually attempting to implement non-military solutions, and the lack of corresponding risks seem to make the entire argument one about form rather than substance.

The scope of the operative terms has been left so ...

2008-05-21T17:26:00.000-07:00

The scope of the operative terms has been left so vague as to make the debate meaningless. We need to know more about what we mean by "conditions," and what by "talk." We should note that, because the campaigning takes place publicly, discussions about "talks" with, e.g. Iran constitute a sort of indirect "talk" with Iran, as does, of course, the current administration's policy of announcing "conditions" to be met before "talks" take place. The criticism of this position is that the "conditions" that the Bush administration demands are precisely the sort of "conditions" that usually come out of formalized agreements, produced during or after, and not prior to, "talks."

Also, I fail to see how the mere holding of talks could count as appeasement. By "self-righteousness," I take it, you mean something like "consistency," but if there were no problem with maintaining the current standard of behavior, there would similarly be no reason to hold talks.

Of course given the amount of senseless rhetoric currently aimed at Iran, I see no reason to take any of the talk about talks as good faith efforts toward diplomacy.