15 British Royal Marines seized by Iran

Abuskedti

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.

If you would only think about what you were saying ..

How can Iran tell us how our interests are alligned when we don't show them what our interests. Our interests are many and have different priorities. We may be willing to sacrifice something for another - as well they may have priorities. We don't have the slightes idea what drives their decisions. If we worked to better understand each other - it is an absolutely certainty that there are changes that would benefit both sides.

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

If you would only think about what you were saying ..

How can Iran tell us how our interests are alligned when we don't show them what our interests. Our interests are many and have different priorities. We may be willing to sacrifice something for another - as well they may have priorities. We don't have the slightes idea what drives their decisions. If we worked to better understand each other - it is an absolutely certainty that there are changes that would benefit both sides.

I don't disagree with this at all. What I disagree with is the mindset that assumes their interests are unknown just because we don't formally talk with them, assumes that sacrifices are necessary, assumes that we don't have the slightest idea what drives their decisions, and assumes absolute certainty that there are changes that would benefit both sides.

On the one hand you're saying "we don't know" as an excuse to communicate. To additionally justify that, however, you're making wild assumptions that communication and negotiations would leave either or both sides better off. It doesn't add up.

I'm not advocating a position of belligerence. I'm simply advocating a position of indifference until Iran demonstrates that they are worth the effort and attention. Their veiled threats and aggressive actions are no more healthy or constructive than our own, and we should not give into them or treat them with any respect.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I agree, the "subjective side" is linked to the objective reality. And yet, a != b.

If a is the objective reality and b is the subjective perception of that reality, then I agree, a and b are two different things.

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.

I don't believe I said anything about "withholding information". I think Iran's positions are well known and well understood.

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.

I agree! But "communication" is a means, not an end. Communication can lead to wonderful ends, particularly when those ends are the purpose driving the communication. But in order for that to work both sides must share that purpose. I don't see a shared purpose between America and Iran, I see contradictory ones.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

If a is the objective reality and b is the subjective perception of that reality, then I agree, a and b are two different things.

cool

I don't believe I said anything about "withholding information". I think Iran's positions are well known and well understood.

Maybe my perceptions are inaccurate. I had thought you felt they were not being above board, and were being deceitful or withholding their true position/s. If I'm wrong, okay.

I agree! But "communication" is a means, not an end. Communication can lead to wonderful ends, particularly when those ends are the purpose driving the communication. But in order for that to work both sides must share that purpose. I don't see a shared purpose between America and Iran, I see contradictory ones.

Communication starts somewhere. I realize it's a two way street. Seeking out possibilites, keeping an open mind and not operating based on preconceptions, as well as revealing a willingness to progress is important, imo.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

cool

Maybe my perceptions are inaccurate. I had thought you felt they were not being above board, and were being deceitful or withholding their true position/s. If I'm wrong, okay.

When you put it that way, no you're not wrong. I feel that they are dishonest in the sense that Iran will make promises they have no intention of delivering on. That is not a problem unique to Iran, however. Dishonesty simply precludes negotiation.

Communication starts somewhere. I realize it's a two way street. Seeking out possibilites, keeping an open mind and not operating based on preconceptions, as well as revealing a willingness to progress is important, imo.

Sure! I'm not suggesting that America should never consider communication with Iran or not be hopeful that one day Iran could be a partner. I'm simply suggesting that there is little point in communication absent common purpose or common interests. At this point, I feel both Iran and America have demonstrated purposes that contradict each other.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

When you put it that way, no you're not wrong. I feel that they are dishonest in the sense that Iran will make promises they have no intention of delivering on. That is not a problem unique to Iran, however. Dishonesty simply precludes negotiation.

How do you see that dishonesty precludes negotiation? edit: maybe I'm confused with the word "preclude"...are you saying dishonesty repels one from negotiating with the dishonest?

Sure! I'm not suggesting that America should never consider communication with Iran or not be hopeful that one day Iran could be a partner. I'm simply suggesting that there is little point in communication absent common purpose or common interests. At this point, I feel both Iran and America have demonstrated purposes that contradict each other.

Maybe. And still I feel it's always a good idea to do what it takes to make progress on what one can control, which is one's self, whether as an individual, or as a country. For me, that includes thinking pro-actively and looking at potential problems brewing on the horizon and resolving them before we've created some kind of victim or persecution stance that we use to entitle or falsely justify acting in imbalanced ways that reverberate back to us in consequences. To me, these kinds of thought processes happen within me irrespective of the choices and actions of the "other guy".

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

How do you see that dishonesty precludes negotiation?

A negotiation is an interpretation of facts combined with a promise of conduct. It is an exchange wherein two or more parties recognize the reality of a situation and agree to take certain steps in an agreed direction. Both that interpretation and those promises would require honesty in order for a negotiation to be successful. How could you negotiate with me if I simply lied about the facts and refused to deliver on my promises? I suppose you could still refer to that as a "negotiation", but it would be so stripped of practical purpose that I just couldn't.

Maybe. And still I feel it's always a good idea to do what it takes to make progress on what one can control, which is one's self, whether as an individual, or as a country. For me, that includes thinking pro-actively and looking at potential problems brewing on the horizon and resolving them before we've created some kind of victim or persecution stance that we use to entitle or falsely justify acting in imbalanced ways that reverberate back to us in consequences. To me, these kinds of thought processes happen within me irrespective of the choices and actions of the "other guy".

I don't disagree with this either. In the context of American and Iranian conflict, both sides need internal housecleaning before they start interacting with each other.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

A negotiation is an interpretation of facts combined with a promise of conduct. It is an exchange wherein two or more parties recognize the reality of a situation and agree to take certain steps in an agreed direction. Both that interpretation and those promises would require honesty in order for a negotiation to be successful. How could you negotiate with me if I simply lied about the facts and refused to deliver on my promises? I suppose you could still refer to that as a "negotiation", but it would be so stripped of practical purpose that I just couldn't.

yeah, I was a little unclear as to what the word "preclude" means.

I don't disagree with this either. In the context of American and Iranian conflict, both sides need internal housecleaning before they start interacting with each other.

I wonder if you personally had full license to entirely represent the US for say the past 50 years, as you saw fit, would there even be an issue between the US and Iran right now, in your opinion? And this is what it looks to me that many people on this board see: if one operates with integrity and finds ways to work that are not infringing or power-imbalanced, one can live harmoniously in one's environment to a large degree. One doesn't hook all kinds of negative situations into one's experience. Which again brings us back to the internal housekeeping. In any drama evolving between the US and Iran on the horizon, the US is 100% responsible for their role in it. Hence, looking within to make positive and productive changes in the now will change the outcome of whatever scenarios arise in the future.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

yeah, I was a little unclear as to what the word "preclude" means. I wonder if you personally had full license to entirely represent the US for say the past 50 years, as you saw fit, would there even be an issue between the US and Iran right now, in your opinion?

Likely, yes. Culturally I would stand very much opposed to the dominant cultures of faith and control that exist in Iran, and would probably still exist absent a lot of the Western missteps in that region over the past 5 decades. That said, there are undercurrents of change in Iranian culture right now and despite their unfortunate tendencies to often take 2 steps back for every 1 step forward, I think much hope for Iran's future can be found there.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "issue" though. If I had the hypothetical ability to represent the US right now, there would be no belligerency coming from us towards them. Whether or not the reverse would still be true, I don't know.

And this is what it looks to me that many people on this board see: if one operates with integrity and finds ways to work that are not infringing or power-imbalanced, one can live harmoniously in one's environment to a large degree. One doesn't hook all kinds of negative situations into one's experience. Which again brings us back to the internal housekeeping. In any drama evolving between the US and Iran on the horizon, the US is 100% responsible for their role in it. Hence, looking within to make positive and productive changes in the now will change the outcome of whatever scenarios arise in the future.

I agree. The "US is 100% responsible for their role in it", however, is easily misconstrued as "US is 100% responsible for the conflict". That's an insipid mindset that dominates here.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "issue" though. If I had the hypothetical ability to represent the US right now, there would be no belligerency coming from us towards them. Whether or not the reverse would still be true, I don't know.

This is what I am referring to. I see that your mindset, whether you like their lifestyle or not, is more of a live and let live one that at least acknowledges their free will, autonomy, and their own purposes, compared to the way some people on this board think.

I agree. The "US is 100% responsible for their role in it", however, is easily misconstrued as "US is 100% responsible for the conflict". That's an insipid mindset that dominates here.

I'm not sure that mindset dominates here. I definitely see how that mindset bleeds in here, and distorts reality, though.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't disagree with this at all. What I disagree with is the mindset that assumes their interests are unknown just because we don't formally talk with them, assumes that sacrifices are necessary, assumes that we don't have the slightest idea what drives their decisions, and assumes absolute certainty that there are changes that would benefit both sides.

On the one hand you're saying "we don't know" as an excuse to communicate. To additionally justify that, however, you're making wild assumptions that communication and negotiations would leave either or both sides better off. It doesn't add up.

I'm not advocating a position of belligerence. I'm simply advocating a position of indifference until Iran demonstrates that they are worth the effort and attention. Their veiled threats and aggressive actions are no more healthy or constructive than our own, and we should not give into them or treat them with any respect.

first of all you do not begin with the expectation that the other will lie. You start small. If we make some deal - and we live up to our side and Iran does not - then that is a setback. The last thing you do from the is stop talking. If our action is irreversable - then so be it. We inquire as to why and listen carefully as to their explanation. As we continue talks - there will me more we can do for them. Perhaps this time, we ask that they go first this time.

Talks go on forever - lessons are learned - understandings reached - things will imporove. this holds true with all human interactions - If you haven't learned this by now - perhaps you should try it in your life.

LikeAnOcean

What is going to happen if Iran doesn't release the hostages and puts them on trial???

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

first of all you do not begin with the expectation that the other will lie.

You begin with the expectation that the other will tell the truth. Otherwise you don't begin.

You start small. If we make some deal - and we live up to our side and Iran does not - then that is a setback. The last thing you do from the is stop talking. If our action is irreversable - then so be it. We inquire as to why and listen carefully as to their explanation. As we continue talks - there will me more we can do for them. Perhaps this time, we ask that they go first this time.

That is how you deal with children, or with dogs. That is not how you deal with supposedly self-respecting adults, particularly those with a great amount of power. Avoiding judgements and commitments to those judgements is how you get to these kinds of situations, not how you avoid them.

Talks go on forever - lessons are learned - understandings reached - things will imporove. this holds true with all human interactions - If you haven't learned this by now - perhaps you should try it in your life.

That's all great. And if the "lesson learned" is that the other person is a dishonest communicator who has no intention to share a purpose with you, what do you do then Abuskedti? Or is that where the "by any means necessary" part comes in?

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

You begin with the expectation that the other will tell the truth. Otherwise you don't begin.



That is how you deal with children, or with dogs. That is not how you deal with supposedly self-respecting adults, particularly those with a great amount of power. Avoiding judgements and commitments to those judgements is how you get to these kinds of situations, not how you avoid them.



That's all great. And if the "lesson learned" is that the other person is a dishonest communicator who has no intention to share a purpose with you, what do you do then Abuskedti? Or is that where the "by any means necessary" part comes in?

Well, you are actually beginning with a fear the otherside may have no intention of sharing a purpose. I don't believe that is a possibility. If we can offer something Iran wants, they will take. International relations are very complicated - and some decisions will be tough - there are many parties to please. It is very difficult. But its impossible without communicating.

We are all children

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

Well, you are actually beginning with a fear the otherside may have no intention of sharing a purpose.

No. These situations don't exist in a vacuum. I'm not suggesting an assumption that the other side may have no intention of sharing a purpose. I'm suggesting look at their previous words and actions and determining if this is an honest partner.

I don't believe that is a possibility. If we can offer something Iran wants, they will take.

That implies an exchange and a negotiation that, once again, implies honesty and integrity.

International relations are very complicated - and some decisions will be tough - there are many parties to please. It is very difficult. But its impossible without communicating.

International relations need not be complicated. They only become complicated when indifference and autonomy are considered immoral.

We are all children

That's fantastic. Then I guess we shouldn't have very high standards, huh?

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

No. These situations don't exist in a vacuum. I'm not suggesting an assumption that the other side may have no intention of sharing a purpose. I'm suggesting look at their previous words and actions and determining if this is an honest partner.



That implies an exchange and a negotiation that, once again, implies honesty and integrity.



International relations need not be complicated. They only become complicated when indifference and autonomy are considered immoral.



That's fantastic. Then I guess we shouldn't have very high standards, huh?

I suppose if you don't think much of children

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

I suppose if you don't think much of children

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't let one negotiate on my behalf with an armed Islamic nation, if that's what you're asking.

Abuskedti

farfromglorified wrote:

:rolleyes:

I wouldn't let one negotiate on my behalf with an armed Islamic nation, if that's what you're asking.

Can't do much worse... I'd pit mine against any we've sent in quite a while.

Abuskedti

Besides, what's more childish than "I'm not speaking to you until you do what I want"?

baraka

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

~Einstein

Another wise person said, "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." I'll have to look up the author of that one.

I just briefly read through this thread. I understand the problems of 'negotiating' with dishonest parties. Also, I feel going into a negotiation with a pessimistic outlook will only lead to failure. So, I recommend NOT sending ffg on the US's behalf.