Iran: Obama seems more rational than McCain

Thursday 23rd October, 07:15 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 97 Total Comments Show All

SiouxGirl at 02:48 AM JST - 24th October

We need to get out of the middle east - NOW. We're broke. Flat-busted. McSame and Failin' are war mongers. If they get into office, I'm afraid more war will be what's for supper.
Nessie at 02:53 AM JST - 24th October

Can someone explain to me why sitting down to talks with another country's leaders without preconditions is dangerous?

It lends credibility to leaders who might not deserve it.
Taka313 at 03:33 AM JST - 24th October

Nessie,

Is it the lack of preconditions that lends credibility to a potentially undeserving leader or the meeting itself that may somewhat establish someone as a legitimate head of state?

Taka
SuperLib at 04:42 AM JST - 24th October

SezWho: Why would the Iranians be more afraid of McCain except for his temperamental instability?

Because the Iranian people aren't happy with the way their government has been handling the nuclear situation. They don't like the confrontational approach that their own government has been supporting, and they surely don't like the sanctions that some feel Ahmadinejad has unnecessarily brought on themselves. They've backed themselves into a corner and McCain won't make that any easier.

Talking is good. Bombing is bad.

Last I checked Iran has been bombing Lebanon and Iraq, and giving support to those who bomb Israel, whereas Iran hasn't endured any bombings themselves. How about giving Iran the same lecture? Is it because you're afraid to use such language with them? Are you afraid of doing anything but kissing their rear?
SuperLib at 04:58 AM JST - 24th October

Given that, I think that Iran is would have to ask whether there are any conditions under which the United States will stop contesting Iran's right to this technology. That answer also appears to have been, "No."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the West offered to go in and help build the technology for them. Iran declined. Then Russia offered to build the same technology for them. Iran again declined. The fact is that Iran could have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and could even have some of that paid for by the West. So to tell us that Iran just wants the technology and the West (or as you say, the US) wont' allow them to have it isn't giving a full picture of the situation, in my opinion.
kjunluc2 at 06:26 AM JST - 24th October

I believe firmly that Obama and his wife, deep in their hearts, hate this country. He's Muslim and a quarter Arab. Probably both suffered some discrimination in their younger years. I believe he wants to turn us over the the Arabian nations.

McCain is an extention of G. Bush. I wouldn't vote for either of these two. I'll never vote for anyone who appears on SNL. Buncha cavalier clowns; no dignity; no right to sit in the Oval office.

I was born under Herbert Hoove and have seen only about 5 dignified presidents in my time.
kjunluc2 at 06:38 AM JST - 24th October

Addendum: Forgot to mention Iran. I think that toad and Barack are brothers under the skin. He's the last leader in the ME that I would want to talk logic with.
Helter_Skelter at 07:16 AM JST - 24th October

It lends credibility to leaders who might not deserve it.

Exactly. I see no value in having talks with a fundamentalist Islamic regime that sponsors holocaust-denial meetings and invites neo-Nazi David Duke as a keynote speaker. What a sorry site it would be to see Obama and Ahmadinejad embracing each other on the White House lawn.
SezWho2 at 08:12 AM JST - 24th October

SuperLib,

In regard to why the Iranians would be more afraid of McCain, you are conflating the Iranian government and the Iranian people. For example, the Americans (people) do not like the war in Iraq but the Americans (the members of the government) blithely continue it. I was talking about the Iranian government and I actually think that it was pretty clear that I was talking about governments reacting to governments. If you wish to invoke the sentiments of the Iranian people or some subset of them, then I think you need to explain how the feelings of the people will engender more fear of McCain on the part of the government.

Last I checked Iran was bombing neither Lebanon nor Iraq. It (or some portion of it) is giving support to those who attack Israel. I don't think I have any trouble telling Iran that talking is good and bombing is bad. However, it is not my fundamental concern here what Iran should do. My fundamental concern is what the US should do given that Iran is what it is. You call my attitude arse-kissing. I call yours one of argumentation by denigration.

You've missed the point about technology. Yes, the West and the Russians offered to go in and build the technology for them. I think that if you look back you will see that I covered that in my earlier post when I talked about what we thought we were willing to give and what they thought they needed. If what they need is independence from the West and from Russia and if they have the means to achieve it, then our offer of "giving" them the technology and making them dependent upon us is meaningless.
SuperLib at 09:31 AM JST - 24th October

Because the leaders of Iran are taking a position that's unpopular with their people. With McCain I think we'll see more calls for isolation, sanctions, etc, and I think that in turn will increase the Iranian people's discomfort with their government, and at some point the Iranian government is going to have to account for that.

However, it is not my fundamental concern here what Iran should do.

Then when I speak with you it will no longer be my concern what the West (or, in your eyes, just the US) should do.
Nessie at 05:46 PM JST - 24th October

Is it the lack of preconditions that lends credibility to a potentially undeserving leader or the meeting itself that may somewhat establish someone as a legitimate head of state?

There's no general principle you can apply. In some cases, meeting without preconditions can be productive. In other cases, a country can use meetings as a bad-faith opportunity to make unreasonable demands and then claim the higher moral ground: "Look, we bent over backwards, but our counterpart is being unreasonable." This is particularly true for countries with strong control over the media.

Much of politics is theater. Sometimes you want to give another country some stage time. Other times you don't. Meetings with countries that have legitimate governments legitimate the governments of countries with less legtimate governments.

For example, do you think it would be good idea for Japan to agree to unconditional high-level meetings with the SLORC junta in Myanmar at a time that the junta felt unstable?
WilliB at 03:54 AM JST - 25th October

Ahmedineja joins Hollywood, Hamas, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chaves in endorsing the Obamessiah. No surprise there, really.
SezWho2 at 08:29 AM JST - 25th October

SuperLib,

I think you are correct that the leaders of Iran are taking a position that is unpopular with their people. However, I'm not sure that either one of us know exactly how that position is unpopular. At least I do not.

The Iranian people seem to be concerned that the government's stance is making their lives more difficult. However, do the people actually want to be beholden to the West or to Russian for nuclear technology? Do the people actually want the West or Russia to dictate the terms under which the Iranian people can exploit their own scientific and technical abilities? Would the people actually want their government to comply with a McCain tough-guy act?

I won't say that you are guilty of the following because I can't remember, but I sometimes think that people want to have things both ways in regard to Iran. Quantum theory aside, either the Iranian people wish death to America, wish to remove Israel and Jews from the face of the earth and wish for an opportunity to attack or they don't really want the ability to develop their own technology even for peaceful purposes if it's going to cause hardship. I find these two characterizations of the Iranian people difficult to reconcile but I know there is a lot about Iran that I don't know.

I know a lot more about my own country. And I have certain opinions about what my country should be doing vis-a-vis Iran as it exists today. There are things that I think we should be doing without regard to what Iran is doing. One of these is talk. So when I say that it is better to talk than to make war and you ask me why I am not calling for an end to Iran's support of Hezbollah, that really strikes me as irrelevant.

It actually would be a great relief to me if you would no longer concern yourself with what the West (or with your attempts to mind-read what "the West" is in my eyes) should do or with my opinion of what the West should do. Most of all, however, it would be a great relief if you would no longer concern yourself with your opinion of me on account of my opinion of what the West should do.
coulrophobic at 06:18 PM JST - 25th October

Obama more rational? His religiosity is freakin me out. This guy is delusional.

"I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

Barrack Obama Oct 8 2008

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/
SezWho2 at 07:07 AM JST - 26th October

coulrophobic,

Is that religiosity? Or is that a case of using someone else's language to make a point about the need to do things now instead of waiting for The Great Hereafter?