As AH said, we're perfectly willing to talk if they concede at the beginning what we would like the results of the negotiations to be.

Yep, all options are on the table.

Except, you know, talking. That's just too damn risky. Sets a dangerous precedent.

Idiots.

AHawk is too funny.

Is there any reason why the following should not be substituted as conditions for talks by the Iranians?

"If America is willing to give up it's nuclear program, submit to inspections, and hold democratic elections, we're ready to talk at any time."

We need the enemies see...

'Cuz without enemies see, we wouldn't be able to cantalope the propaganda.

See?

Now THIS is the Corner I know:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmYyYmYwZTY3ZTU3ZGYxNWFjZmQwZTc4NjAxMzA2Yzk=

The first time I heard the "on/off the table" code-phrase, I got its true meaning as used.

"All options should be on the table" typically means "do what we say if you don't want us to nuke ya till ya glow!"

It's reminiscent of the first time I heard "proactive", when I thought, "Lord, we'll be hearing that BS word tossed about for years to come..."

Well, of course, when they say "nothing" should be off the table they mean nothing military.

When people want talks to succeed, they talk. When they want talks to fail, the put preconditions on talking. This has been true for centuries.

Bush is notorious for following the advice of the last person he hears and for having no tolerance for contrary opinion. Can you image his fear of actually having to listen to a Syrian or Iranian point of view? It would be devastating to his fragile worldview and huge ego.

anandine: As AH said, we're perfectly willing to talk if they concede at the beginning what we would like the results of the negotiations to be.

Perfect response to this driveling idiot who is AH.

If all options are on the table how about trying the one called negotiation. And I hope the option of limiting AH's preneanderthal ravings to at least the third or fourh comment is on the table.

Can you image his fear of actually having to listen to a Syrian or Iranian point of view? It would be devastating to his fragile worldview and huge ego.

Not to mention bewildering. If you think Bush found the Sunni/Shia divide confusing, now he's counting on the Cardassians in Iran to rise up and overthrow the government.

If only they were all the same religion like good Christian folk.

Look, folks, as I (and many others) have pointed out before, American Hawk and Al are just parodies. No need to work up a full head of steam over their comments.

I realize their "opinions" are pretty close to the genuine opinions of some of our wingnut friends, but let's save the bile for those folks when they decide to grace us with their sulfurous presence.

None of this, of course, addresses the real reason for the 'put your program on pause, then talk' approach. If you want to stall your opponents, and keep them from actually inconveniencing you, sit down at a table and natter pleasantries (or insults) at them while continuing your program.

The notion is to use the talks as a carrot, an incentive to suspend (not stop permanently) a nuclear program. The same principle applies in truce talks; there's usually an incentive to use them to buy time while preparing to fight more but from a more advantageous position.

There are plenty of arguments on each side of this issue, but ignoring the rationale for a "don't develop nukes while we talk" position doesn't improve this debate.

bigcat on February 28, 2007 at 2:55 PM:

Perfect response to this driveling idiot who is AH.

If you look at Hawksie's postings as an odd and irritating form of performance art, it's not as grating...Although some people would rather hear his mime act, I'm sure.

"When people want talks to succeed, they talk. When they want talks to fail, the put preconditions on talking. This has been true for centuries."

Centuries? Try "millenia" or "since the inception of human communication".

Ok Alek I get it about Ah but maybe it's just a release for me to rail at the performance art that G_crush so eloquently alluded to. I know real people that spout that company line day after day as if they drank the neocon koolaid at night and woke up the next morning part owners of Halliburton. And you know what it pisses me off.

So what we do just let it go or fight it?

The "British" way of talking (with open eyes, hard heart, and a willingness to lie, cheat and dissemble its way through the whole revolting process as and when necessary) enabled Great Britain to control most of the globe for a couple of hundred years. Not bad going.

So what we do just let it go or fight it?

Pick your battles. Don't respond to a parody troll like AH or Al as if they were real. It only creates the impression that you're taking them seriously. (I know it's hard to tell sometimes.) Since they're doing "performance art," respond with performance art.

Certainly you fight. But you're not going to win anything unless you're fighting a real opponent.

A-Hawk is an a-hole. Iran doesn't need to give up its nuclear program. In fact, the U.S., as a member of the NPT, encourages Iran to have a nuclear program. However, the NPT does not encourage a nuclear weapons program.

Of course, there's not a shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

So tell us A-Hawk - where's your evidence? The uranium enrichment facilities? No. Those are needed to enrich uranium to use in a nuclear reactor. Centrifuges? Those are needed as well.

Fact is, why are we crying about Iran opening up for inspections under the NPT when we the United States don't live up to our side of the NPT bargain?

A-Hole? Explain, please.

Please explain why democratic elections are a good thing, too.

Democratic elections in Lebanon brought Hizbollah to the parliament. Good work.

Democratic elections in Palestine brought Hamas. Nice.

Democratic elections in Egypt gave the Muslim Brotherhood a majority in parliament. Excellent.

So tell me, Bush-licker, why do you think Iran will be any different when looking at the examples above?

Haven't you folks heard yet? The "we refuse to talk with Iran" stance of the GWB admin is no longer operative.

Looks like mole's with me. I say we fight this nonsense on every front including parody trolls. They're not smart enough to be doing performance art. Crafty,cunning maybe. But I think it's more like monkeys with machine guns. Once they've got em in there hands its tough to get em to let go. Just think Imelda Marcos, Shoes Shoes Shoes!

Sigh.... Of course the parody trolls are smart enough to be doing performance art. Hell, one of the most prolific trolls here a while ago was subsequently outed as a perfectly serious liberal commenter on another blog. He simply liked to go to other blogs and stir shit up, much as Al and Hawk do. All those folks have to do is write really stupid posts and then sit back and giggle at the outrage that results.

When you "fight this nonsense on every front," you're giving them precisely what they crave -- attention and the knowledge that they are having an effect on you.

Oh, I like it when people take on the parody trolls. It's great fun. It gives me ammo for the red-neck guy at work who, among many, many other things has said that he'd never vote for Obama because "he's a jig". (This is a fellow teacher.)

Our dear little fact-challenged McAristotle wrote: "What difference does negotiation make?"

Gee, I dunno, dear. Why don't we take a look at the thousands of examples of successful negotiations throughout history?

"As Iran said, its uranium enrichment is a train with no brakes."

I rather doubt, dear, that "Iran" said any such thing.

"They can always send any offer through an intermediary."

Why yes, they can, dear, and that is something that Iran has tried in the past, only to be rejected by the Bush administration. In any case, "sending an offer through an intermediary" is always just the first step of a negotiation, not a negotiation itself.

"Negotiation tends to include the obligation that you don't drop bombs while you are still negotiating .. so it does take options off the table."

No, dear, it doesn't, which is why nobody (well, other than a few useful idiots) is pretending that it does. The Bush administration could easily lob a few bombs while negotiating and it could just as easily lob them if the talks break down. Nothing is removed from the table.

"The reason for not forgiving Iran for storming an embassy"

You mean, a "reason" that nobody in any position of responsibility or authority is citing? That "reason?" Free clue, dear: there's a reason nobody in a position of authority or responsibility is citing this "reason."

"is to make sure that no one else does it as a prelude to negotiations. If not, everyone would do it all the time."

I think I'll just let this bit of idiocy stand without further comment from me.

"- No one's trying to change Iraq, there aren't the troops."

Did you, perchance, mean Iran, dear?

"Any war would cripple it so whoever is in charge isn't a nuclear power."

And who would be fighting that war, dear heart? And with what army?

"Try and keep up with the news."

LOL.... Oh, the irony....

I'm with Gandolf and PaulB on ignoring trolls. The trolls won't be stopped and those who delight in answering them won't either. My solution is to ignore both the trolls and those who answer them as well.

Troll fights are unfortunate mainly in that they detract from the discussion at hand, often veering off into hate-filled and vulgar posts that say more about the individual posting than the discussion at hand. But I can only surmise that the reason some folks post is that indeed they are hate-filled and need to strike out and without being found out. I suspect many, if not all, wouldn't dare say the ugly things they do outside their secluded computer space.

I never answer a troll nor take up for one who does. And I have become adept at scrolling through their rabid postings.

Too bad -- but it seems the nature of the beast.

Negotiation tends to include the obligation that you don't drop bombs while you are still negotiating .. so it does take options off the table.

Let me guess -- you spent HS history class in the alley getting stoned, right?

Funny you should say that, Buford. It was just a couple days ago that Iran's President said the US should disarm its nuclear capability as a gesture of good faith. Touche.

All options are on the table meant invading Iran, as Bush meant it. It actually means, in reality, the right of Iran to continue its nuclear program on the table, whether for peaceful purposes or no. OOPS. Bushism again, biting him in the arse.

Speaking of which, does anyone actually believe Bush is serious about talking with Iran & Syria? Condi's statement said something to the effect that we would talk with any ME country who shares the US VISION of what the ME should be. That is doublespeak for, "Do it our way or no way"

Negotiation tends to include the obligation that you don't drop bombs while you are still negotiating

It can, though it frequently does not; its clearly not a necessary feature of negotiations, otherwise, negotiations for, say, cease-fire agreements would be either impossible or redundant.

What I fucking *love* is that the same Democrats who say we should "leave all options on the table" regarding Iran overlap a lot with the people who say we should take impeachment *off* the table.

Someone here doesn't understand basic human behavior and negotiating principles. I'd suggest it just might be the people who keep getting rolled like a bunch of fucking punks, but maybe that'd be "uncivil" of me...

"I'm with Gandolf and PaulB on ignoring trolls."

Don't give me too much credit, by the way; I'm frequently guilty of the sin of responding. The one mistake I can safely say that I don't make, though, is taking them seriously or assuming that they can be reasoned with.

"Hell, one of the most prolific trolls here a while ago was subsequently outed as a perfectly serious liberal commenter on another blog."

Paul B,

Which troll of WM was that?

A good number of reasons are being given for the Bush Administration backing off its Iran War plans. But one word stands out, a word the White House knows and understands:

Impeachment

Bush is notorious for following the advice of the last person he hears and for having no tolerance for contrary opinion. Can you image his fear of actually having to listen to a Syrian or Iranian point of view? It would be devastating to his fragile worldview and huge ego.
Posted by: Mike on February 28, 2007 at 2:47 PM

It would be something like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?", but the dinner just ain't going to happen...not in the cards. I think we will never have a diplomatic breakthrough because the White House wouldn't have the patience to endure the formalities of having dinner and the chit-chat with interpreters, etc, that would be the end result of us "making nice". I doubt if Kim Jong-il would ever get invited to the White House, but it would be tough to snub Ahmadinejad for long given all that oil that's involved...

"Paul B, Which troll of WM was that?"

Frank J, who infested the blog through much of 2005.

I should add that there was some speculation that American Hawk was just another of dear little Frank's identities, based on style and time of appearance, but I have no idea whether this is correct.

McA wrote: "I'm assuming the Boston Herald is a reliable source. You should keep up with the news."

LOL... Oh, I do, dear, I do, although I freely confess that that particular bit of posturing on the part of Ahmadinejad slipped past me. Of course, Ahmadinejad isn't exactly in control of Iran, nor its nuclear program, so my comment still applies. That you regard that bit of bluster as somehow indicative of, well, anything, says more about you than it does about Ahmadinejad.

"Air force, not army and probably Israel."

Yes, dear, I've seen that article, as well as the articles that talk about our own plans for air strikes. I've also seen the articles that point out that a) our intelligence on Iran sucks, b) that we can't be sure of getting everything, c) that Iran has hardened its facilities, rendering them quite difficult to take out, particularly for Israel, which lacks our capacity, and so on.

And, of course, I've seen the articles that talk about the consequences to our military trapped in Iraq should such air strikes take place.

So I repeat: who would be fighting that war, dear heart? And with what army?

"Frank J, who infested the blog through much of 2005."

Crap ... my memory let me down. It wasn't "Frank J," it was DougJ. My apologies.

Typical DougJ comment: "Blair seems to be one of the few European leaders who isn't so blinded by anti-American hatred that he is able to see the virture in bringing democracy to the middle east. No wonder the left hates him so much."

Sound like anyone we know?

"Iranian leader says nuke program like train without breaks
By Associated Press
Sunday, February 25, 2007 - Updated: 02:18 PM EST"

I'm not even going to check this as I've seen this misuse before and seen it written here also.

B.R.A.K.E.S... I believe.

Just so you remember.

I know the English language is difficult, but not that hard. Christ, I did 8 years of Latin with all its irregulars. And there is a reason we have different spellings for the same sound; so we can differentiate meaning with precision at least some of the time.

If people would read with attention well written and edited literature once and again..!?

All options are on the table. If Iran is willing to give up it's nuclear program, submit to inspections, and hold democratic elections, we're ready to talk at any time.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

And:

All options are on the table if you (the USA) stop meddling in our part of the world, stop overtly supporting Israel to the detriment of peace in the Middle East, stop trying to undermine our legitimately elected government, stop disenfranchising honest US voters, and stop targeting us for "preemptive war"; then we'll talk. Oh, and it would be nice if the US, or at least Israel, would nuclearly disarm, too.

Except the Iranians haven't been saying that.

Funny old AH. Can only see one side of any argument. I think that is one definition of lack of intellect.

"I know the English language is difficult, but not that hard."

Actually, while I believe that English is not McAristotle's first language, the error in that case belongs to The Boston Herald. Their headline contains that error and McA simply copied and pasted, error and all. The story, by the way, is not from the Herald; it's from the AP.

Why aren't all options on the table vis-a-vis Pakistan?

McAnustotle: They can always send any offer through an intermediary.

They did. Rice ignored it.

Negotiation tends to include the obligation that you don't drop bombs while you are still negotiating .. so it does take options off the table.

No, since you can break off negotiations at any moment. Nice try, but your logic, as usual, fails the test of reason.

The reason for not forgiving Iran for storming an embassy - is to make sure that no one else does it as a prelude to negotiations. If not, everyone would do it all the time.

Probably why Iranians refuse to forgive the US for supporting the Shah of Iran who tortured and murdered his own people, while also denying them a free society and for supporting Saddam when he gassed them, invaded their country, and killed their citizens.

Love the double-standard, McAnus. Iran has to forgive the US for its support of and assistance with atrocities against tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians, but the US doesn't have to forgive Iran for a relatively minor incident by comparison, involving a handful of American citizens.

No one's trying to change Iraq, there aren't the troops.

Uh, yes, Bush is. He says so each and every day. So is Cheney. So is the GOP's congressional delegation.

You are such a bad liar.

Try and keep up with the news.

Follow your own advice.