Comments on: More Moscow Insanity

By: Kenneth Almquist

Kenneth Almquist — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:46:42 +0000

I don’t quite follow the logic here. We want Iran to purchase fuel for its nuclear reactors rather than enriching the fuel itself because the technology used to produce reactor fuel is similar to that used to produce radioactive material for use in nuclear weapons. If Russia, in response to Western pressure, refuses to sell nuclear reactor fuel to Iran, the message to Iran would be that Iran had better develop the capacity to produce its own reactor fuel if it wants a reliable source. How is that helpful to the United States?

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:07:52 +0000

Mikef- Well, what I meant was that they don’t want to see America succeed in Iraq, because that would threaten their regimes. Iran knows we have been interested in regime change since the “Axis of Evil” speech. They were helping us with the Taliban before thatm though. If you read the rest of my post, I do recommend talking with both of them, no matter what we think we can get out of it, if for no other reason, than to look like we want to be more cooperative with the other powers in the region. For some reason, there is a school of thought that likens negotiating to appeasement. That is what I was disagreeing with.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:51:09 +0000

Guys, let’s get serious. Clinton had sex with an intern, and destroyed our country’s morality. President Bush has had to fight the war on secular humanist blowjobbery and the war on terror at the same time. It’s not easy to do when the liberal media wants to destroy Western civilization.

In summary: it’s the Clenis’ fault; Bush is an angel of the Lord. Amen. QED.

By: Krous

Krous — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:31:25 +0000

Andrew Quinn

America acts in its own self interest or it dies. You must be some kind of John Wayne movie fool. Our enemies do not watch John Wayne movies. They don’t need to, get it?

By: Gray62

Gray62 — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:32:09 +0000

“Someone was quoted on TMV to the effect that nations don’t have friends, they have interests.”

I think this is a quote of Talleyrand, but I couldn’t confirm it.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:02:01 +0000

Whats good for the US is not going to be in Iran’s or Syria’s best interests

That’s not true. Both the US and Iran supported the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran nearly went to war with Afghanistan in 1998 after several of its diplomats were murdered. Likewise, they were openly hostile to Saddam Hussein after a vicious 8 year war and were undoubtedly happy to see him gone. Al Qaeda is run by Sunnis who think Shiites are heretics marking them as enemies of Iran as well as the United States. Most importantly, Iran and Syria certainly don’t want to see a civil war at their doorstep, particularly if the Kurdish region secedes, which would potentially inspire their own Kurds to rise up.

Our interests and Iran’s have a great deal of overlap, which is why the ISG wants the Bush administration to open a dialogue with them.

By: jjc

jjc — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:13:59 +0000

The trouble is that Putin wants Russia to be a â€œplayerâ€? again on the world stage.

“The world state” is another concept we’ve pretty much lost track of. But most of the world leaders are affected by ideas of themselves as well as their nations on the world stage.

American exceptionalists disdain “the world stage” and “national interests.” We have reaped a nasty harvest from six years of this disdain.

By: jjc

jjc — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:08:44 +0000

Someone was quoted on TMV to the effect that nations don’t have friends, they have interests. The USA abandoned that kind of thinking under Bush.

At this point we have to assume that Iran isn’t interested in having its people incinerated in a nuclear war, and start from there.

By: grognard

grognard — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:00:06 +0000

The trouble is that Putin wants Russia to be a â€œplayerâ€? again on the world stage. He remembers the good old days when Russia was a force to be reckoned with and respected, not a bit player on the sidelines. Putin has a few things he can leverage for this. First Russia has the energy that China and Europe needs, obviously energy is the big issue for industrial nations. Secondly Russia produces military equipment that although no longer not top of the line is still serviceable and above all relatively cheap. Third they can capitalize on the uneasiness that nations like China have with US domination. China will eventually challenge the US position in the Pacific and they would want an ally in Russia if for no other reason than to keep the border peaceful. Fourth, they have the nuclear expertise, something they can use or not use depending on how Russia is treated, or what they can get from the West as far as concessions. I am not sure how to respond to this, Putin has his own agenda but we might be able to flatter him by including him in on more international issues, to see if we get anything in return with Iran. If that does work we can go back to confrontation, considering the past history of nations that border Russia we have many opportunities to make life uncomfortable for Russia. The bottom line is that this guy is dangerous, and not content with Russia remaining as a second rate power regardless of the economic reality.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:59:55 +0000

Whats good for the US is not going to be in Iran’s or Syria’s best interests, but it can’t be in their best interest to have a base for al queda in Iraq, either. Why can’t we exploit that to our advantage using diplomacy? Even if we produce no tangible results, it adds to our image as a nation that consults regional powers, rather than our image as an imperialist occupier.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:45:54 +0000

Diplomacy hasn’t accomplished anything yet

The U.S. certainly hasn’t made any attempts at diplomacy for the last 6 years. Bush has openly stated he won’t speak to the Iranians or the Syrians because it would be seen as weakness. He put Iran into the Axis of Evil and has been openly supportive of “regime change” ever since. At the same time we’ve had major conservative leaders and media figures publicly discuss using tactical nuclear weapons on Iranian targets, allowing the Israeli air force to take out Iranian sites or funding Iranian violent opposition groups. They cannot help but consider this a real threat.

They’ve already seen how we deal with an enemy that has nukes, versus one that doesn’t. Our own position has made obtaining nuclear weapons appear to be an issue of national security and its no surprise that a polemicist like Ahmedinejad can appeal to both national pride and national security by pushing forward on this front while we’re bogged down in Iraq.

Diplomacy is about convincing your rivals that their better interests are the same as your own, regardless of their feelings for you personally. We’ve given Iran no good reasons to abandon nuclear development and plenty of good ones to pursue it.

By: Gray62

Gray62 — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:32:20 +0000

Ok, to come back to topic:
Does anyone here have any reasonable idea what to do against the Iranian development of nuclear weapons? To me, it looks as though the west has no good options. Diplomacy hasn’t accomplished anything yet – will this change with the next US amabassador to the UN? Threatening and saber-rattling doesn’t seem to really impress Teheran. The Iranians know damn well that the US is tied in Iraq and weak Nato in Afghanistan and the Balcans. Europeans could try and talk Russia out of the deal, but who knows if Iran won’t get the needed material through inofficial channels?

It’s an urgent situation, sure, but what can be done?

By: Gray62

Gray62 — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:09:02 +0000

“The problems with American prestige all started with Jimmy and his boneheaded attempt to help the Shah when he was stricken with terminal cancer.”

Hehehe! Yeah, really, the problem in Iran was the Shah’s health…

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:58:39 +0000

Hey if its not Clinton’s fault, can it be Jimmy Carter’s? There’s always a long line of politicians and pundits waiting for their turn to blame diminished American influence in the world on his four years in office. And he doesn’t have nearly the popularity that Bill Clinton still has—much easier target. Maybe we could unite traditional Conservatives, hawkish Democrats, Zionists and the neocons in the one thing they all agree on. The problems with American prestige all started with Jimmy and his boneheaded attempt to help the Shah when he was stricken with terminal cancer.

By: Gray62

Gray62 — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:54:43 +0000

“Maybe you should fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers and more on debating ideas and opinions.”
I’m debating enough here, providing both honest, well considered opinions and facts, thank you. And “fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers”? Sounds like I ain’t do anything else except attacking bloggers. In fact, I criticised MvdG and you. Michael immediately took ‘the wind out of the sails’ of my main argument by using more left-wing sources in making his points. Smart tactics. Hmm, would be nice if you considered using a broader part of the spectrum, too.

However, I apologize for mentioning your age. Even though I think some of your position are a bit immature, there are a lot of other bloggers who spread the same opinions, so I really shouldn’t have picked on you. Sorry.

By: Mikkel

Mikkel — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:46:09 +0000

Andrew as a general rule if you just ignore people that aren’t trying to discuss things they’ll give up and go away. It’s one thing to be like Gray who’s actually trying to say something but unproductively (although to be fair it’s probably because he’s relatively new. I’ve noticed some other commenters start off in the same vein but eventually they stop and just argue the topics) and another to waste your energy responding to someone that doesn’t even say anything.

By: Andrew Quinn

Andrew Quinn — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:40:17 +0000

Thank you, Unsyndicated (for good reason) for your informed, insightful, and intellectually advanced contribution to American discourse.

Seriously, man. Your extremely well-thought out comment is very much appreciated by all.

By: Unsyndicated

Unsyndicated — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:36:40 +0000

America stands up for what’s right, not what’s popular.

Bwaahahhaaha.

Bwaahahaahhaa.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:32:19 +0000

YAWN. This is why some people like me skip comments. I’m off to LA. See ya. You’d think that if someone writes a post the focus would be on the issue they raise, rather than constantly going on the attack which is a device people intentionally and often even unintentionally use to discredit someone. The focus on this site is so much better when people discuss ideas rather than get into the tiresome subject of what is moderate, what is centrist, who is really a moderate, etc etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…I have to stop because I’m going to driv in traffic and just talking about this puts me to sleep. HONESTLY. The quality of discussion is so much better when we all talk about the news topics and ideas. Then there’s actually a chance someone may change their mind, the reader or the writer. There is none when it degnerates into “he’s not a moderate because he linked to that site on the right…or that site on the left…”

By: Andrew Quinn

Andrew Quinn — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:30:23 +0000

About the blogroll – I am a moderate in terms of views but not in terms of links, because most of the liberal blogs (where I agree with some points) focus on anti-war and Bush-bashing these days.

In any case, I wish you’d look at my ideas – not to whom I give credit links or to whom I link – and decide based on that. Actually, why judge at all?

The site is The Moderate Voice, not How Moderate Do YOU Think We Are? On here and on your blog, you’ve accused both of the site’s right-leaning bloggers as immoderate. Maybe you should fixate less on personal attacks against the bloggers and more on debating ideas and opinions.