Kim said:
I ran into traffic away from a robber that might have been armed once–he had a bulge in his pocket- but I never knew if it was a real gun.

Or maybe he was just happy to see you?
Sorry, I just couldn’t pass that one up.

And sorry, Shaun, for getting off topic again.

I’ve got to go pull wings off of flies, so this will be my final barf.

Notwithstanding the small handful of folks suffering from Degenerative Comment Thread Disorder (DCTD), the response to my post has been quite illuminating.

The Moderate Voice is an amazing harbor in the blogosphere and I urge you to not forget that.

I am rabidly anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war, yet I have killed brain cells today defending the president’s decision to reverse field and sit down with his enemies. Like where else can that happen?

We all owe Joe G. a big thank-you for his most excellent job as harbor master.

No other explanation really makes sense. And look at Cheney- the man that allowed the CEO’s of the biggest oil companies in America to come secretly to the WH and formulate our energy policy with generous tax breaks for exploration and development, of course.

You list a litany of ‘we want’x.
Iran lists its own wants.

There is no 11th commandment granting the US everything it wants.
The whole purpose of talking is to look for the spaces where the wants of both sides might merge. Or, to look for the spaces where the wants of both sides can be pared to fit together.

I can see no justification for demanding end results before the game begins. All your ‘wants’ re Iran are goals. You have to play the game in any way you can to see how you can get closer to the goals.
Sulking and refusing to play, is not a good approach. You many end up conceding the game.

Maybe you should have been a hostage negotiator, CP. I ran into traffic away from a robber that might have been armed once–he had a bulge in his pocket- but I never knew if it was a real gun. Anyway, I was too mad to give him my money. I was broke, but had just gotten paid in cash from my job as a hotline counselor, and couldn’t afford to lose the money. Somehow that sounds more crazy than logical though!

I answered your question many hours ago:

“I haven’t a clue as to what any of the parties will bring to the table, but the fact that they will be sitting at the same table — in Iraq, no less — is a positive development amidst an otherwise very bad situation.”

It’s okay if you don’t answer my question. I understand why.

We don’t want Iran to get their hands on southern Iraq, we don’t want the Syrians to have a puppet quasi gov’t there either, like they do in Lebannon. At this point though the situation heavily favors both nations along those lines. Negotiations are going to be slow and painful, but if it helps in any way to bring some stability to the region it will eventually work in our favor.

Yes, Iraq is presumably a sovereign nation and can request all they want but we, as a sovereign nation, are under no obligation to do what they want. It’s only when we see a benefit of doing something that we ought to do it.

at the risk of wearing out my already thin welcome around here, what we want from Iran is for them to stop aiding those who are killing Americans and we want them to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons. I’m all for talking if there was any chance that talking would help us accomplish those goals. how does getting nicer ink on paper help us get Iran to stop killing Americans?

Shaun’s never answered the question, so I’ll pose it to you pro-talkers. Who among you thinks Iran will end its support for the insurgency (i.e., killing Americans. those of you who don’t want Iran to stop don’t have to answer)? And if they are, what are you willing to offer them in these talks as payback (i.e., appeasement)?

Let’s back up. This meeting was requested by Iraq, and we are still saying that Iraq is a sovereign nation, one which we are trying to strengthen. Disregarding Iraq’s request would be tantamount to an announcement that Iraq is only our puppet. Not a good posture globally.

Getting into a sweat about the results before the chairs have been put around the table seems excessive. Results will be small, I would predict, and narrowly framed. At his point, any results at all, even a better looking brand of ink on the paper, would be an imprevement on the situation as it is.

Tensions are so high right now, that one positive is that while they are talking, at least, no one will put his finger on the red button to inaugurate a new war. Everyone needs a cooling off period, the US, Iran, Syria, Israel, the Palestinians, Hezbollay -everyone. Talking among some major players might just give us 5 minutes to cool overheated brows.

Neither.

I talked my way out of an armed robbery once…well, I did give them the 8 bucks in my pocket though…

I don’t know which country’s crazies are killing more Americans… and to an extent I don’t think it is the critical factor. What bothers me are the countries whose leadership are supporting the people who are killing Americans. It sure seems that Iran’s government is actively involved. I can’t say the same for the other countries you cite.

I think it a mistake that we are only now turning our attention to Iran. Like any festering sore, the longer you leave it unattended, the worse the damage, the harder it is to kill the infection when you finally get around to treating it, and the more difficult it is for your immune system to deal with new problems.

And while I likewise think it a mistake to have given Musharaff so much rope, is your suggestion that we’re incapable of or that we’re not going after Al Qaeda because of what is happening in Iraq or Iran unsupported by anything other than the occasional disgruntled bureaucrat? And if our dealings with Musharaff are an example of the blind eye/big picture, I’d sure love someone to explain to me just what we were supposed to get as a result of giving Musharaff so much rope and whether they still think the trade off worthwhile (btw, one advantage of not talking is that you don’t give yourself the opportunity to fall for empty promises because you’re so set on getting something out of the talking).

And while I agree it’s never a bad idea to have alternative sources of energy, preferably in stable countries, I disagree that the invasion of Iraq was over oil. I know the Bush haters (shaun?) who think everything Bush does is about oil will disagree.

And Shaun, if you bothered to read what I’ve written, both here and elsewhere, you’d know that I’m not objecting to talks with Iran because we have the option of blowing to smithereens (a good rock group by the way) people we don’t like. We have disputes with lots of countries and I, to the best of my recollection, haven’t called for bombing any of them (yet). I’m objecting to talking to Iran because I don’t see us gaining what we need to gain from talking to Iran. Thus, my (repeated and unanswered) question to you to detail what you think we’re going to gain from talking with Iran.

And why would you give my rants more credit if I have/had military experience? McCain had military experience and if I was looking for someone to tell me how to get shot down, he’d be among the first I’d look to. But his experience, as does Kerry running swiftboats into Cambodia, doesn’t make him worth listening to on all things military… any more than it would make me worth listening to.

Rudi: I really only know how to deal with logical arguments; snark is a whole different story. My enemy is evolving I guess; maybe I need to declare a Global War on Snark? And of course, I have to be right 100% of the time, you only have to make people laugh once…

How’m I doing?