[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I think Reagan’s real strength was that he was a true believer. He was a Cold Warrior in the most ideological sense of the term. The Soviets respected strength and Reagan went right at them. No more proxy wars, but a clearly stated upping of the ante. And, Reagan was just crazy enough to have the Russians believing that he just might go off the reservation at any time, if sufficiently provoked.

I think that is where the Bush Administration falters. I don’t get the sense that Bush truly believes in much of what he espouses. And I don’t think there is quite the ideological concurrence or cohesiveness within his administration. Clinton suffered from this as well, but it was more based on Bill’s playing the polls and “triangulating” rather than any lack of intelligence.

I believe we engage the Iranians, with an eye to how the largely moderate population as a whole is going to view our approach. Iran has some fairly serious structural weaknesses, including their economy. Obviously, they are not a serious military threat to us. If there were to be a revolution, I don’t think it would be violent, I think it would be more along the lines of what happened in Eastern Europe right before the Wall came down. Countries that present these monolithich fronts invariably suffer from large, unseen cracks that can be exploited. Iran’s population is younger, educated, articulate and pro-US, all of which plays to our advantage, if we take a measured approach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I think Reagan’s real strength was that he was a true believer. He was a Cold Warrior in the most ideological sense of the term. The Soviets respected strength and Reagan went right at them. No more proxy wars, but a clearly stated upping of the ante. And, Reagan was just crazy enough to have the Russians believing that he just might go off the reservation at any time, if sufficiently provoked.

I think that is where the Bush Administration falters. I don’t get the sense that Bush truly believes in much of what he espouses. And I don’t think there is quite the ideological concurrence or cohesiveness within his administration. Clinton suffered from this as well, but it was more based on Bill’s playing the polls and “triangulating” rather than any lack of intelligence.

I believe we engage the Iranians, with an eye to how the largely moderate population as a whole is going to view our approach. Iran has some fairly serious structural weaknesses, including their economy. Obviously, they are not a serious military threat to us. If there were to be a revolution, I don’t think it would be violent, I think it would be more along the lines of what happened in Eastern Europe right before the Wall came down. Countries that present these monolithich fronts invariably suffer from large, unseen cracks that can be exploited. Iran’s population is younger, educated, articulate and pro-US, all of which plays to our advantage, if we take a measured approach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I think Reagan’s real strength was that he was a true believer. He was a Cold Warrior in the most ideological sense of the term. The Soviets respected strength and Reagan went right at them. No more proxy wars, but a clearly stated upping of the ante. And, Reagan was just crazy enough to have the Russians believing that he just might go off the reservation at any time, if sufficiently provoked.

I think that is where the Bush Administration falters. I don’t get the sense that Bush truly believes in much of what he espouses. And I don’t think there is quite the ideological concurrence or cohesiveness within his administration. Clinton suffered from this as well, but it was more based on Bill’s playing the polls and “triangulating” rather than any lack of intelligence.

I believe we engage the Iranians, with an eye to how the largely moderate population as a whole is going to view our approach. Iran has some fairly serious structural weaknesses, including their economy. Obviously, they are not a serious military threat to us. If there were to be a revolution, I don’t think it would be violent, I think it would be more along the lines of what happened in Eastern Europe right before the Wall came down. Countries that present these monolithich fronts invariably suffer from large, unseen cracks that can be exploited. Iran’s population is younger, educated, articulate and pro-US, all of which plays to our advantage, if we take a measured approach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I think Reagan’s real strength was that he was a true believer. He was a Cold Warrior in the most ideological sense of the term. The Soviets respected strength and Reagan went right at them. No more proxy wars, but a clearly stated upping of the ante. And, Reagan was just crazy enough to have the Russians believing that he just might go off the reservation at any time, if sufficiently provoked.

I think that is where the Bush Administration falters. I don’t get the sense that Bush truly believes in much of what he espouses. And I don’t think there is quite the ideological concurrence or cohesiveness within his administration. Clinton suffered from this as well, but it was more based on Bill’s playing the polls and “triangulating” rather than any lack of intelligence.

I believe we engage the Iranians, with an eye to how the largely moderate population as a whole is going to view our approach. Iran has some fairly serious structural weaknesses, including their economy. Obviously, they are not a serious military threat to us. If there were to be a revolution, I don’t think it would be violent, I think it would be more along the lines of what happened in Eastern Europe right before the Wall came down. Countries that present these monolithich fronts invariably suffer from large, unseen cracks that can be exploited. Iran’s population is younger, educated, articulate and pro-US, all of which plays to our advantage, if we take a measured approach.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Regarding the American Revolution: We did not use terrorism, since that would make us terrorists! We were Freedom Fighters! There is a difference, you know.

Geez, did you learn your history at UC Berkeley or something?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Regarding the American Revolution: We did not use terrorism, since that would make us terrorists! We were Freedom Fighters! There is a difference, you know.

Geez, did you learn your history at UC Berkeley or something?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Regarding the American Revolution: We did not use terrorism, since that would make us terrorists! We were Freedom Fighters! There is a difference, you know.

Geez, did you learn your history at UC Berkeley or something?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Regarding the American Revolution: We did not use terrorism, since that would make us terrorists! We were Freedom Fighters! There is a difference, you know.

Geez, did you learn your history at UC Berkeley or something?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Regarding the American Revolution: We did not use terrorism, since that would make us terrorists! We were Freedom Fighters! There is a difference, you know.

Geez, did you learn your history at UC Berkeley or something?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: So we’re clear: I don’t disagree with you. I am all for diplomacy (granted, I am following the von Clausewitz doctrine when I say that) and negotiations.

There are, however, a couple of things that should be brought up inside that discussion.

First, we’re presuming that the people we’re negotiating with are truly willing to negotiate and are not using the negotiations as a means to buy time or waste time.

Second, that the negotiations are part of an openly stated agenda with a clear cut goal.

In the case of Iran, I am for engagement, and largely to show the people of Iran that diplomacy is the preferred tool for handling the nuclearization of Iran and not just dropping bombs. That being said, however, the European approach has not borne fruit and the Iranian response has been arrogant and dismissive. What this says to me is that the Iranians, in the absence of any clear and enforceable threats, are simply buying/wasting time and continuing their nuclear program. So now what?

Do you treat Iran in a more heavy-handed fashion? Or, do you accept that they will go nuke since we’re unwilling to advance to a military solution? I hear what you’re saying about nuance and I do agree. The problem emerges when you’re dealing with a clearly intransigent regime that understands that with the Europeans, there really isn’t any muscle to fall back on should the negotiations stall or fail.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

afx: Here’s what I found regarding NATO involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

UN Security Council passed Resolution 1510 regarding international involvement in Afghanistan and created the ISAF to implement the Resolution.

I don’t think the US just threw the problem to the UN and took off; it appears that the UNSC sought involvement in Afghanistan and used NATO forces as the muscle for the Resolution.

[Author]

Posts