one, from TPM Cafe:
http://matthewyglesias.tpmcafe.com/node/29756#comment
The comment, if the person has their facts straight,
sounds like a good point.
--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- authfriend wrote:
> >
> > There may be more interesting stuff in the comments to
> > the blog posts, but you typically have to wade through
> > a fair amount of inanity to find the nuggets.
>
> I only looked at the responses to Juan Cole's
> "Informed Comment" blog. These were interesting:
>
> Ran Talbott said...
<snip>
> I propose that the U.S. simply stake out a position along these
lines (with some suitable
> polishing of language): "Even though we don't trust you, we'll
respect your NPT rights as
> long as you stick to the inspection regimen. But if (and ONLY if)
you cheat, we'll destroy
> your nuclear capability without further warning".
>
> Period. Done. No haggling about meeting venues, the shape of the
negotiating table, or
> what to do about all the other problems (real or imagined) we have
with each other. Just
> get this single, life-and-death issue settled, and deal with the
rest later.
That's certainly thinking outside the box!
> Matthias said...
<snip>
> No matter how much mistrust may be there, there is someone reaching
> out to address and discuss the issues beyond saber rattling and oil
> business deals. Even anyone opposed to religious rhetoric can see
> that.
It seems to me this was a win-win tactic for
Ahmadinejad, albeit possibly only in the short
term. The letter sounds to me as though he wrote
it not to try to get Bush to talk to him but to
ensure that Bush would *not* talk to him, which
he could then use as propaganda.
But if Bush had surprised him, he'd have accomplished
a diplomatic coup.
I don't think for a minute that he was really
"reaching out," in other words, but if Bush had been
smart enough to take the letter as if he had been,
and reached *back*, that would have been fine with
Ahmadinejad.
<snip>
> drlemur said...
>
> Two points I haven't seen raised elsewhere:
Both good points. I'd be interested to know the
answer to his question about oil prices; and I
can't imagine China isn't eventually going to
lower the boom on us.
> 1. Given that the saber rattling is driving up the price of oil,
aren't the Iranians (and other
> producers) actually making out like bandits because of the
uncertainty? If they are fairly
> confident that the US cannot attack, there doesn't seem to be much
reason they'd want to
> resolve the "crisis." Just wondering.
>
> 2. At some point doesn't our economic dependency on the Chinese
central bank start to
> affect geopolitical decisions? China is pretty consistently against
violations of national
> sovereignity (being invaded repeatedly for a few centuries will do
that to you). If they
> simply hinted they would stop buying american dollars (financing
our current account
> deficit) if the US attacked Iran, wouldn't that be potentially
catastrophic for the US
> economy? It'd be bad for China, too, but it seems like they can
call the shots if they'd like
> to.
>
> Maybe I don't know anything about the macroeconomic relationship
between the US &
> China, but at some point it seems like the administration's
domestic stupidity is going to
> have foreign policy consequences.
>
> > Anyway, of the bunch, I thought Kaplan's essay was by
> > far the most thoughtful.
>
> Yeah, I think so, too. I thought most of the others were
throwaways, written to meet a
> deadline and fill up some space.
>
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
