What next? Well, we have to give diplomacy a chance. How long do we say that? Do we give them the same amount of time we gave Iraq? Do we give them 10% more time? The question is absurd: we give them no time. Diplomacy has turned into a game of pussy-footing.
At this point in the negotiations process (if you can even call it that), it may be time to call a spade a spade. This move by the Iranians was a harsh slap in the face to European representatives fighting for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. Salvaging the negotiations will be difficult, especially when the Iranians refuse to even show up to the table. Diplomacy has failed, time to move on.
The question of whether or not Iran will play diplomatic ball has been answered, they won't. Now we have to ask "what next?"
What needs to happen is France and Germany should take due offense at Iran's ploy, and lead a strike. Then maybe we could sell Iran weapons and buy their oil, let Europe do all the work, use the death of their young men as a red herring in our politics, and when the dust settles demand that we have a say in the future of Iran.
Does ANYONE trust France and Germany to deal with Iran? Think about it: do you entrust the security of the world to them? I certainly don't trust France with it, given the dispositions of the French people, and Germany's Merckel has yet to prove her mettle (though I see promise there). I would trust a British-led European coalition, but how likely is that to exclude the United States?
Let them play their politics in Europe. It makes me wish they would revitalize their monarchies and go back to an age where Europe was truly the crux of human civilization. How very ball-dropping of them.
8 comments:
Countries are not people. Countries 'don't play ball'. France and Germany should 'take offense' ? Which people in France and Germany are we not going to trust ? The French Africans who recently took to the streets ? The 4 million unemployed in Germany. No. You mean their barely elected governments.
You have been taught, like thousands of others, to be soulless ('use the death of their young men as a red herring in our politics'). By teaching you to be soulless, your government will find it easier to make YOU play ball. Aspire all you like to be a scholar, but try to get a sense of what it means to be a human being.
We can use turns of phrase such as "play ball" to refer to non-human entities. For example, when the Europeans are trying very dilligently to resolve Iran's nuclear crisis without force of arms, and Iran is playing the same silly game Saddam played by not showing up to meetings, agreeing just enough to keep Western politicians happy, and doing whatever they want to do anyway, I think it is fair to say that Iran is not exactly playing ball. However, if your objection is to small, and rather common, use of personification, I suggest you get more comfortable - intimate, even - with rhetorical devices.
Next, I don't trust France because of their conduct during the Iraq situation. If you were forced to choose a country to have stewardship over the situation, would you honestly choose France? Governments aren't governments so they can not represent their nation. Governments are nations, especially in a global security context.
And how am I soulless? The quote you used should demonstrate that I find that aspect of politics to be itself soulless. You seem to want to accuse me of making blind assertions, but I would say that every sentence in your comment is just that.
Now, if you would oblige my large and widespread (haha) readership, please address the retort. I'll spell it out for you:
1. Why can't we speak of Iran playing ball?
2. In what sense do governments not represent nations, and by what justification should be determine a nation's ability to handle global security affairs based on anything other than its government?
3. What do those minority populations you mentioned have anything to do with anything here?
4. What do you mean by soulless? One cannot learn to be soulless. Either there is no soul, which is unlikely, or there is, in which case losing it is not a matter of learning.
5. In what ways is my government, which changes at least every 8 years, involved in some scheme to control me? This would naturally need to span several administrations and be deeply rooted in the vasy bureacracy that is American government. Is this your suggestion?
6. Finally, why say you that I am not a human being? Or do you conflate this with having a soul?
I have follow your blog for many day now. What does the Aspiring Scholar think of Hamas wins in Palestine. It interests me very much to know what is your thought on this.
For one, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Is that what's going to happen this time? We were wrong. Saddam wasn't playing ball. He was honest. Where's your retort for finding NO WEAPONS? How can you still defend it? And as someone who claims to be Christian, you have an easy time putting people's lives on the line. Sorry, but that's not something that a Christian would believe in. I agree with the first anonymous poster.
(Forgot to post this)
Why don't you trust France? They were right to not support us in the Iraq war. Now they're lucky because they don't have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year extending this farce.
Blah, blah, blah, more anonymous nonsense.
Christians say that the greatest form of love is in fact to lay down your life for a friend. Also, I do not want to see people die. But there are certain things for which sacrifices must be made, and the inability to make those sacrifices amounts to a dangerous world.
Is it okay for France not to support the war on terror? It might be for you, but when I look at my 11 year old brother and think of the kind of world I want him to live in - I can't imagine what it will be like when I have children of my own - or think of a terrorist ever harming him, or anyone in my family, or my friends, I do not need to be "convinced" of the imperative of eradicating the breeding grounds for people who would destroy people.
And Hamas seems to be behaving so far. They are, you must admit, an armed Islamic group that has participated in terror operations, and therefore deserve to be treated as thus.
If a nation elects to power an enemy of the United States, it makes it that much easier to call that nation an enemy. Or did this not occur to those of you who think that we are not "respecting" the vote? It's just the opposite: we should take very seriously that the will of Palestine is armed terror, anti-Israel. It makes it very easy to say where they stand.
Eh?
Uh, they're not supporting us in the war on terror because the thing is a farce. There's a lot of fear-mongering and lying going on. Want proof? Iraq had no WMDs but we were told they did. There are illegal wiretaps going on, people being imprisoned indefinitely without access to a lawyer or due process, and the entire administration has gone back on their word in many ways. For instance now our troops are going to be in Iraq through 2008. Meanwhile, Iran is bulding nukes and outright threatening us while North Korea continues its testing and proceeds, albeit more quietly, towards nuclear power themselves. But thanks to President Bush, our troops are caught up in Iraq, our reserves and stretched dangerously thin, and you continue to dodge issues just like they do. Is there any way that you'll ever see the light and change your stance? Remember, we are allowed to be wrong sometimes.
Perhaps Iraq was not the proper place to start, but to label the terroism threat a farce is a bit far-fetched. It is evident that terrorism is on the rise, and I am willing to take any measure to stop it. I suppose that we must look at it in its simplest form: either we protect them (the terrorist) or we protect ourselves.
And, any rational human being will certainly choose the latter. The recent event in Britain clearly shows that the terrorists are willing to utilize any measure to threaten the lives of honest civilians. So, before you comment on terrorism, please take a look at 9/11, and recent event in England.
In the end, it does not help in any argument to obscure the truth, and I get the feeling that the disturbing left has done that again.
The Worldly Philosopher
Post a Comment