So Surveyor:
Summing up our differences:
Labels:
We are at a basic consensus though I think you undervalue Zakarias’ point.
Islamofacism:
We agree that the term has some issues. My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy.
The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.
Regarding Gaffes:
Why do these matter? You can find these for any politician. An actual critique of his foreign policy would be valid. Pointing out misspeaks and fuckups by a candidate are just cheap shots. Considering that Afghanistan does speak Arabic (like Iraq) as well as Farsi, Tadzik, eastern Turkic and probably Hebrew (well maybe not), I don’t see that as a relevant error. Its like pointing out that McCain mentioned the border between Afghanistan and Iraq (which does not exist). Geographic errors (or other dumb errors) do not a learning disability make. These are really very silly assertions on your part.
Regarding Kennedy:
Thank you for citing that. However, it seems to directly contradict your conclusion. You state that they would not have planted missiles if Kennedy had not met with them. But:
“The Soviet panelists said the installation of the missiles came about, at least in part, because the Russians were convinced that the United States was preparing an ”imminent” invasion of Cuba. Khrushchev, in the view expressed particularly by Mr. Mikoyan, gambled that the missiles would forestall an invasion without creating a superpower confrontation.”.
That is the sentence immediately before the one you cited.
Lets rephrase that: the USSR was concerned that the US was committed to a goal of active regime change and could not be reasoned with on this point.
The article also goes on to state that strong diplomacy ended the confrontation.
That does not seem to back up your (or really Bolton’s) argument that meeting and confronting and talking is bad. On the contrary, it indicates that taking (or appearing to take) an approach of force can have unwanted consequences (like foreign missiles placed in error). It just seems to indicate you have to work it out and stick your guns.
Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.
Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship. Iran is not a conquering power (like Hitler was). Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.
Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.
Regarding Bolton, I think I responded at face value to his assertion and without focusing overly on the man himself. I stand by what I said. My point was that if you can’t frame your point yourself, please try to find a more respected surrogate. Sometimes extremist voices say things that bear further examination (in fact, they often do). But still, don’t try to quote ethnic research done by David Duke. Credibility matters to a lot of people. This is the whole reason you have issues with Barack. You don’t find him credible. You would make your point better by actually engaging regarding specific issues.
Regarding SF Democrats, JK’s remarks were, ironically, a complaint that the Democrats (she was one when she spoke) had move too far away from Kennedy. As far as whether or not Dems in SF have complained about the US, well thats not really a surprise. Of course some have. JK was referring to the 1984 Dem convention in SF. There are some valid complaints about past US action (eg undermining democracy in Cuba and Iran and Iraq and Chile and Cambodia and Nicaragua) but whining really doesn’t get us anywhere. We are here now. The question that would be better than “should be just be nicer?” is “how can we be smarter?”. Trying to break stalemates seems like a good start.
