15 British Royal Marines seized by Iran

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

We could discuss the situation with Iran. Learn what they are after. We need them badly in Iraq - and we don't even talk to them.

Hehe...did it ever occur to you that they don't need us?

You do understand the value of communication between two parties with conflicting interests?

Do you understand what "conflicting interest" means?

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

You mean like China and Russia's recent votes in the Security council against Iran? Stuff like that?

yup...stuff like that...which was the first time both China and Russia advocated anything against Iran...so it's a start...if memory serves me right, they blocked sanctions and such in the past...

I'm curious...what do you think should be done...?

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

I'm curious...what do you think should be done...?

Done about what?

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

Done about what?

um...how about dealing with Iran "in a time like this"...?

did you read through this thread at all...are you with us...? what's up ffg, your normally on top of things...

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

um...how about dealing with Iran "in a time like this"...?

I wouldn't deal with Iran in a time like this. Their interests are opposed to my own and they have nothing I want. That said, I certainly wouldn't be belligerent towards them -- I have no reason to do so.

did you read through this thread at all...are you with us...? what's up ffg, your normally on top of things...

There are many issues mentioned in this thread. I simply didn't know which one you were referring to.

DCGARDEN

John McCain was asked about this yesterday and said that # 1 - What Iran has just done is considered an act of war and # 2) he was asked what he'd do if he were President and the captured were Americans and he said he would open up dialogue with Iran and tell them that if they don't hand them over he would any and all means available to him, including the military.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...did it ever occur to you that they don't need us?



Do you understand what "conflicting interest" means?

They need lots from us.. Your cute little answer doesn't change that fact that you even know that. For example, they want us to leave Iraq. The list of things they'd like us to do or stop doing is very very large.

It goes the same the other way. We want them to stop their nuclear program. We want them to discourage those that oppose the new Iraqi government.

Conflicting interest - you know - I want the window open because I am hot - you want it closed because the wind blows your papers around. I can open the window and you can close it - then I open it and you close it and tension builds. An alternative would be for us to discuss the issue and look for a solution that works for both - like perhaps rearranging the office to protect you from the wind - while still cooling the office.

George Bush is a damn fool to think we could not resolve many issues through negotiation.. Probably, just like you, he chooses not to see this very simple and very obvious fact - because it conflicts with some other of his secret agenda.

thankyougrandma

Sad story for the soldiers and their families, but let's face it, Americans and Brits troops shouldn't even be there, if Iraq war continues, this kind of event will happen again... and again... and it will get worse... and that's probably what they all want...

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

They need lots from us.. Your cute little answer doesn't change that fact that you even know that. For example, they want us to leave Iraq. The list of things they'd like us to do or stop doing is very very large.

It goes the same the other way. We want them to stop their nuclear program. We want them to discourage those that oppose the new Iraqi government.

They do want us to leave Iraq. But we're not going to do that because of Iran. Our being in Iraq, for better or worse, should have absolutely nothing to with Iran. And to negotiate our presence in Iraq based on Iranian concerns is the height of idiocy. We'll simply end up trading one problem for another. Furthermore, American aims in Iraq stand directly opposed to Iranian aims in Iraq. A near-complete conflict of interests exists.

Similarly, we do want them to stop their nuclear program. Are they going to stop it? Of course not. Should they stop it? Most definitely not. So what would possibly be accomplished through "negotiation" on that topic?

Conflicting interest - you know - I want the window open because I am hot - you want it closed because the wind blows your papers around. I can open the window and you can close it - then I open it and you close it and tension builds. An alternative would be for us to discuss the issue and look for a solution that works for both - like perhaps rearranging the office to protect you from the wind - while still cooling the office.

That's not a conflicting interest. Wanting things cool and not wanting things breezy are not mutually exclusive. Getting an air conditioner would solve our problems quite easily.

If you want conflicting interest, try this one:

Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say she's hot. And let's say I'm a jackass, as you called me in the high-brow private message you just sent me. And I'm kind of a slimy dirtbag too, and I want to sleep with your daughter. You, being a good father, don't want this to happen. Now we have a conflicting interest. I'm not going to stop being a slimy dirtbag, and you're not going to stop being a caring father. No amount of "communication" is going to result in a "compromise", because there is no compromise possible. One of us will get our way, the other will not.

George Bush is a damn fool to think we could not resolve many issues through negotiation.. Probably, just like you, he chooses not to see this very simple and very obvious fact - because it conflicts with some other of his secret agenda.

Hehe..."secret agenda"? As far as Iran goes, I don't think George Bush has a "secret agenda". Now, he is a damn fool. But not wanting to "negotiate" with Iran isn't foolish. A negotiation implies honesty and common interest. There is little common interest between American and Iran, and neither side can really lay claim to the "honest" title.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

They do want us to leave Iraq. But we're not going to do that because of Iran. Our being in Iraq, for better or worse, should have absolutely nothing to with Iran. And to negotiate our presence in Iraq based on Iranian concerns is the height of idiocy. We'll simply end up trading one problem for another. Furthermore, American aims in Iraq stand directly opposed to Iranian aims in Iraq. A near-complete conflict of interests exists.

Similarly, we do want them to stop their nuclear program. Are they going to stop it? Of course not. Should they stop it? Most definitely not. So what would possibly be accomplished through "negotiation" on that topic?



That's not a conflicting interest. Wanting things cool and not wanting things breezy are not mutually exclusive. Getting an air conditioner would solve our problems quite easily.

If you want conflicting interest, try this one:

Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say she's hot. And let's say I'm a jackass, as you called me in the high-brow private message you just sent me. And I'm kind of a slimy dirtbag too, and I want to sleep with your daughter. You, being a good father, don't want this to happen. Now we have a conflicting interest. I'm not going to stop being a slimy dirtbag, and you're not going to stop being a caring father. No amount of "communication" is going to result in a "compromise", because there is no compromise possible. One of us will get our way, the other will not.



Hehe..."secret agenda"? As far as Iran goes, I don't think George Bush has a "secret agenda". Now, he is a damn fool. But not wanting to "negotiate" with Iran isn't foolish. A negotiation implies honesty and common interest. There is little common interest between American and Iran, and neither side can really lay claim to the "honest" title.

If you believe you are so wise, that you know all you need to know about Iran and their desires without talking with them, then either you are wrong, or I am not worthy of your attention.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

If you want conflicting interest, try this one:

Let's say you have a daughter. Let's say she's hot. And let's say I'm a jackass, as you called me in the high-brow private message you just sent me. And I'm kind of a slimy dirtbag too, and I want to sleep with your daughter. You, being a good father, don't want this to happen. Now we have a conflicting interest. I'm not going to stop being a slimy dirtbag, and you're not going to stop being a caring father. No amount of "communication" is going to result in a "compromise", because there is no compromise possible. One of us will get our way, the other will not.

No conflict is above negotiation. In this hypothetical I don't know what makes you a jackass. It may be ignorance which can be cured through learning which I can encourage. If you are indeed incurable and ultimately a danger to my daughter - then this is something I will depend upon my daughter to handle. If it is something I see, but she is blind because of your charm.. well, then, because I have always communicated very well with my daughter.. I will help clear her vision. A trust has been built between her and I from years of honesty and communication. If I have a concern, no matter how wrong she may think it is - she will try to understand from my point of view - this resulting from a lifetime of communication and comprimise.

I fear nothing for my daughter from a jackass.. She is well equipped.

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

If you believe you are so wise, that you know all you need to know about Iran and their desires without talking with them, then either you are wrong, or I am not worthy of your attention.

Huh? You've also spoken of Iran's "desires". Have you talked directly with them?

Iran's leadership has already told us of their desires many times. They do so through the media. They do so through the UN. Most importantly, they do so through their actions on the international and domestic stages.

You seem to support "negotiation" for its own sake. But a true negotiation requires all sorts of things that simply do not exist on either the Iranian side, the American side, or both. And because of that, your negotiation will only mask problems, exacerbate them, or simply delay the inevitable.

One needn't "negotiate" to prevent a war. One need only realize that their own grievances don't justify murder. Both sides in this conflict would be wise to learn that, as would a person like you who likes to use the words "by whatever means possible".

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

No conflict is above negotiation.

No conflict is above reason. Absent reason, you cannot negotiate the conflict between 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. A negotiation, absent reason, is pointless.

In this hypothetical I don't know what makes you a jackass.

Having gone out of your way to call me a jackass in a PM, I think you probably already have an idea on that, don't you?

It may be ignorance which can be cured through learning which I can encourage. If you are indeed incurable and ultimately a danger to my daughter - then this is something I will depend upon my daughter to handle. If it is something I see, but she is blind because of your charm.. well, then, because I have always communicated very well with my daughter.. I will help clear her vision. A trust has been built between her and I from years of honesty and communication. If I have a concern, no matter how wrong she may think it is - she will try to understand from my point of view - this resulting from a lifetime of communication and comprimise.

I fear nothing for my daughter from a jackass.. She is well equipped.

Good. Then you get your way. We haven't "negotiated". I've simply lost.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

That's not a conflicting interest. Wanting things cool and not wanting things breezy are not mutually exclusive. Getting an air conditioner would solve our problems quite easily..

No, it was quite clearly a coflict and easy enough for you to understand

One man wanted window open
the other wanted window closed

If they were like you and Mr. Bush toward Iran. that is all we would know. and of course it would never be resolved

after just a tiny little communication - they learned more - they learned why each wanted different things - and it turned out that the issue was easily resolved.

You George and Iran are just running behind each other opening and closing windows.

and you don't even relize how ridiculous you look

and sadly, many are suffering

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

No conflict is above reason. Absent reason, you cannot negotiate the conflict between 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. A negotiation, absent reason, is pointless.



Having gone out of your way to call me a jackass in a PM, I think you probably already have an idea on that, don't you?



Good. Then you get your way. We haven't "negotiated". I've simply lost.

silly man trying to reason with only knowing his side.

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

No, it was quite clearly a coflict and easy enough for you to understand

One man wanted window open
the other wanted window closed

"I want the window open because I am hot - you want it closed because the wind blows your papers around"

If you want to "negotiate" with Iran or anyone else while ignoring operative facts, have some fun with that.

If they were like you and Mr. Bush toward Iran. that is all we would know. and of course it would never be resolved

after just a tiny little communication - they learned more - they learned why each wanted different things - and it turned out that the issue was easily resolved.

You George and Iran are just running behind each other opening and closing windows.

and you don't even relize how ridiculous you look

and sadly, many are suffering

I'm curious. Since you want to group me in the "George and Iran": tell me what window I'm opening or closing?

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

silly man trying to reason with only knowing his side.

Tell me, in the context of Iran, what part of their side don't I know?

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Tell me, in the context of Iran, what part of their side don't I know?

Their subjective side, which is different than the way it appears objectively. Now granted, they may not be willing to share their subjective side due to other issues. And this is where there is validity is opening the lines of communication. Or communicating, on numerous levels, a willingness to make progress, etc.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Their subjective side, which is different than the way it appears objectively. Now granted, they may not be willing to share their subjective side due to other issues. And this is where there is validity is opening the lines of communication. Or communicating, on numerous levels, a willingness to make progress, etc.

I fail to see why their "subjective side" is not linked to the objective reality of the situation. Would a psychiatrist refuse to look at the objective manifestations of a patient's subjective perceptions as a pathway to understanding? I certainly hope not.

I simply see this "communication" as a pointless endeavor in the context we're discussing. We can share our "subjective sides" forever, yet that exchange will not change the fundamental fact that our interests stand opposed and are contradictory. If someone, including Iran, can show me how our interests are aligned, then my position would be different. But short of that, there are others I'd rather focus my communication efforts on.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I fail to see why their "subjective side" is not linked to the objective reality of the situation. Would a psychiatrist refuse to look at the objective manifestations of a patient's subjective perceptions as a pathway to understanding? I certainly hope not.

I simply see this "communication" as a pointless endeavor in the context we're discussing. We can share our "subjective sides" forever, yet that exchange will not change the fundamental fact that our interests stand opposed and are contradictory. If someone, including Iran, can show me how our interests are aligned, then my position would be different. But short of that, there are others I'd rather focus my communication efforts on.

I agree, the "subjective side" is linked to the objective reality. And yet, a != b. I was answering the question as to what side you/we are not seeing. I believe you've mentioned before that they are withholding information or their true position, and if that's the case, it can't hurt to make steps towards improved relations. Communication in this context may very well be pointless. I'm not big on creating self-fulfilling prophecies, however. It's my impression that you can fathom room for improvement on both "sides". If improvements are voluntarily made on both sides, through time, I see that as productive. I see taking steps in that direction as productive. What I'm seeing is many possibilites, and my concern is when egos and posturing get in the way and conceive of limits where they really don't exist, on all levels.