I actually got the idea for the thread from a McCain advertisement at the top of the page, lol.
I personally think it’s a great move on the part of America to trade with nations such as Cuba and Iran. From what I’ve read, the UK has a North Korean embassy, and other countries have been trading with such nations for years.
What is the worst case scenario by trading with such nations? Should we heed the advice of the founding fathers, commerce with all nations, allies with none?
Well, I think the biggest fear is that it’d be legitimizing a rogue state and giving them a platform to have more influence. It’s not that they wouldn’t be decent for free trade, it’s mainly that their policies don’t jive with the U.S.'s
When I was growing up, talking to to both
your friends in the world and your enemies was
called diplomacy. It would be nice to have adults back
in the white house who understand this basic fact.
Kropotkin
The united states will legitimize? Go on a little about this legitimizing that the united states seems to be able to do. Can Italy legitimize? China? The UK? Iran? Speak a bit about this quality that the US apparently has.
There is never a reason not to talk. And don’t kid yourselves - even with countries with which we have no formal diplomacy, we talk.
There are plenty of situations where there should be absolutely no talk, and a rejection of the idea.
When saudi’s have a human rights comission to lecture britain on human rights violations, than there should be no willingness to listen on the hand of britain. Its like hitler preaching to the united states for not being nice enough to jews, its somthing that no one should tolerate.
You are assuming that the stated goal of talking is the only goal. That’s a bit naive.
Those countries are below the U.S., so, no, they can’t legitimize anything.
Well, the talks with britain have britain caving to saudi demands.
So thats the result of the talk, with nothing comparable gained on britain’s side. I’m not sure how the ‘talk’ didn’t just loose points for common law in britain. I said talking was useless and we should be intolerant of it circumstancially, that seems to be one of those times.
If true, and we don’t always have the information we need to know if it’s true (that Britain has gained nothing) then it’s due to the ineptitude of the Brits, and not to the talks themsleves.
But that wasn’t specifically the subject of the OP.
The fact is that the Cuba embargo is a joke - an embarassment to the US and wholly unnecessary. As I am sure you know, it’s been fueled by a (now) dying generation of Cuban expats who were in league with the US Mafia and other imperialist elements - including the US government. It represents a loyalty that has long outlived its usefulness.
Iran has evidently bamboozled the US news media with some tough talk that is merely meant for internal and regional consumption - we somehow see Iran as a threat - just as we saw Vietnam and Iraq as one. Oh - and let’s not forget Grenada.
We just like shooting people.
Yeah, well Iraq was a threat to people around Iraq, I think its fair to say t hat Saddam’s regime was a poor one for the region, basically shattered the region and immersed it in a civil war. Saddam was a threat, just not one to the united states, and he *may have been. Its not a lie that saddam made a mockery of weapons inspections, or claimed to have weapons of mass destruction, when brutal dictatorships start making claims about their weapons of mass destruction, I honestly think, that they’re asking for the holocaust that they get. (Not that iraq will be better off without the troops)
but yeah, they did find labratories that were apparently attempting to create nuclear capabilities, centerfugees, etc. I don’t really know if any of us can know for sure what risk they posed (probably not much t o the states) but those facilities were found, and even though they did have capability, they were looking to create it in some sense. maybe for power, I doubt it.
On top of that, faust. When was the last time heads of state in vietnam were promising heaven/monetary rewards to assassinate the the forign citizens of a sovereign state. Which directly resulted in hotel-floors being blown out in the attempt to kill a author? Brutalizing/torturing people envolved in publication/translation, leaving them to die in the snow, shot in the back w ith a high powered rifle.
When was the last time that vietnamese rose up across the world in a violent protest againt the free-speech in another country critisizing their religious beliefs?
No faust the comparison to iraq and vietnam is not one that makes any sense and its shallow. (whether you disagree with the invasion or not it doesn’t make sense) there are sensical arguements decrying iraq, but thats simply not one of them.
And as to Iran, I can’t even reply to that.
I can be convinced by *some arguements, but these are both pretty shallow Faust.
My point is that at some point it becomes useless to talk to people, they are not going to change their opinions about us mocking their prophet. Muslims are not going to give up and randomly embrace free-speech, huge amounts of first world muslims support sharia law, huge amounts of muslims want those brutal laws in our countries.
At some point talking is no longer an option (a global violent protest against freedom of speech resulting in the bombing of embassies) is probably around the point that we should start noticing that ‘talk’ is only going to get us so far. If talk could do the job, muslim women might have e qual rights.
Don’t get me wrong, talk is alright, it should be the first option and it should be exhausted beyond all shadow of a doubt before moving on.
A question faust: Do you think that through using free-speech we can convince them not to engage in violence over our use of free-speech when it critisizes their religion offensively?
The same applies to women’s equal rights, can we talk them into that easily or at all?
Cyrene, I don’t know who you are arguing with. I only know it’s not me.
Again, you seem to be assuming that diplomacy always has as a goal, the stated goal of its activites. Again, I tell you that this is not my claim, and that you are being naive.
Free speech is not the issue - diplomacy is. No one is talking about “free speech”.
Or is it the voices?
Yeah I guess you’re missing my point, try again.
The point is that when diplomacy fails, again and again and again and again and again and again and again, that theres a time to give it up. Don’t call me naive, there are situations where diplomacy simply doesn’t work, and we all know it. Circumstancially, diplomacy should be abanadoned, when it no longer serves any uses what-so-ever. Theres plenty of times, when that becomes a reality.
Climb down from your high horse and think about what people say before automatically calling them naive.
And yes, free-speech is an issue when trrying to engage in diplomacy with people who *ATTACK you, when you engage in free-speech. How that doesn’t effect diplomacy, with these people who embrace that attitude, is beyond me.
I can’t help but think ideally the most powerful nation in the world should not grow weary of diplomacy, ever. While perhaps talking with other nations might never change them, I don’t see that ceasing talks and putting embargos in place would be better if world peace is the objective.
Are there any historical instances where ending diplomatic relations improved a situation?
I’m not talking about embargo’s.
Theres going to be a limit to people’s tolerance of embassy burning over free-speech. If the united states or any other country is interested in diplomacy, lets start by even mentioning saudi arabai in public discourse, or lets start by say, diplomatically making it very clear, that we won’t tolerate embassy burnings over free-speech.
Theres thousands of issues which are closer to home, where the only diplomacy should be; “You’re walking a very fine line when you act like X, don’t think it’ll go unawnsered forever”
How should britain diplomatically respond to public leaders in Iran publically offering money/a trip to heaven to kill british citizens? How should they respond when hotel floor rooms are being blown out in attempts to kill this ‘author’ that these public officials put a price on?
Tell me the diplomatic response to muslim assassins leaving your citizens to die, in horrible ways, over the offense of writing a book.
Thats an act of war, and if some of you noticed that, you’d realize that theres a lot more than ‘talk’ that needs to be done to discourge these people.[b]
As long as t his is the case, as long as people are unwilling to embrace free-speech, how MUCH TALK, CAN THERE BE? [/b]
maybe suggest they’ll hold back israel a bit if iran condemns those kinds of actions? see how that works. displomacy is a lot of chest-puffing and little discussion.
Cyrene - have you actually read the OP?
truer words were never spoken.
-Imp