What do you think is going to happen with Iran

Post Reply New Topic

I've read plenty on the subject, and there isn't even the slightest similarity. Wrong political climate.

It's necessary. We need to stay at work on dragging them to the peace table. It's difficult, but we haven't any options.

He isn't evil, though. This is part of the problem. Evil can be negotiated with and controlled by force. Fanaticism is an altogether different viper, and the Jingoistic Party of America isn't equipped to handle it.

Tell that to the ones who tried to talk with Hitler, tool. Their were boneheads that thought that we could talk peace with Hitler and they were proven wrong just like your about to be proven wrong.

The situations aren't even related. Iran isn't even especially nationalistic.

Comparing the power of the Iranian Army to the Wehrmacht is about the biggest compliment you can give them.

Feel free to live in your little fantasy world but I live in the real world. If you want to think you can plead with a country who wants to destroy USA and its allies, more power to you but unlike you, I have the common sense of a sack of hammers to know what we are up against.

I know you do, which is the problem. Iran needs to be taken seriously as a country and a force in regional politics. They're more potent than you realize. As an enemy, they could be more deadly than you have bothered to imagine. We need Iran on our side, or we're screwed.

You're a poser, by the way.

Not going to happen, but keep living in the Land of Oz.

lol

The irony is, while you 2 name call each other, you're doing EXACTLY what both sides of these countries are doing.. ones a poser, the others a tool? Now, whether you or the other are wrong, it doesnt matter, you both personally attacked each other, emotions (feelings) are now high and you're going to defend whatever initial argument you made - being right or wrong no longer matters, you're now both in a state of defensiveness

Sounds like 'America's the devil' and 'Iranians are a bunch of terrorist' < - - labeling by the other side, not seeing the others viewpoint

You have to approach Iran through peace talks. Whoever says war is the answer was born yesterday because war has never solved a damn thing - again - WW1 --> WW2 --> Cold War --> BS < -- I dont see war stopping anything until after it initially started - thats the ONLY time war is appropriate and causing someone to resort to war, well, you're as much a part of the problem as they were. War is murder but it hides behind numbers - you cant arrest everyone. One on one murder is illegal, gang war is illegal, call the gang a 'country' and its legal.

To initially grab Iran to the peace table, you MUST make them agree on something. We have many things we'll agree on, this part is not hard. Building one on one friendships and the best strategies to do that WILL or SHOULD potentially work on a global scale - after all, piss off the leader, piss off the people. Make friends with the leader, make friends with the people. Canada and the U.S. shared common interests and now they are friends. If you are once enemies and now friends, war did not make that happen, common goals and interests did. Canada and U.S. are the best examples of this. European Union is another. (also recognize differences, but similarities firstly)

Iran wants to enter the power market, whether thats the truth or not, who knows for sure, but lets say it is. Now we tell them they cant do that. Think for a moment, how would you feel, right now, if a country came up to yours and said 'you cant do this.' Just imagine that, take a second and do this mental exercise! If you're Canadian, imagine America telling you how to run your drug laws, even if they are working fine. If you are Britain, imagine France coming in and removing all your liquor and replacing it with wine. This is a BIG change for them, potentially, and we cannot change over night.

War is not an answer as you would never solve a problem with someone one on one via murder

Last edited by Corvus on 24 Nov 2006, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's true, though. He's full of s**t. Saying so doesn't get me anywhere, but it's satisfying.

No, I love America and all that we've built. This is why I think that taking potshots at neocons should be made an international sport. They're a freaking cancer, man, a freaking cancer.

Well, negotiate with them as contemporaries, yes. Stick to business.

While i see its satisfying, my point was to reference how you feel to how a nation as a whole feels. You have 2 sides arguing and both stating its satisfying but its hurt both sides in the end. It gets no where (I do it to, but I'm trying to stop it)



And choose the wording carefully. Never approach it as 'I'm right, you're wrong, we just need to find out how to make you see that.' Its better if you get them walking away from the table thinking about your side versus them walking away from the table thinking HARDER to defend THEIR side for next time

I've read a few books on how people learn, how they process information, how they react to phrases, how to make friends, lose them, how to get them thinking about your ideas as THEIR own (key) etc. I see no reason why this cannot be applied on a global scale in any manner.

{{Glitch}}

Last edited by Griff on 24 Nov 2006, 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

All diplomacy is, on one level or another, combatative, even more so when tanks and missiles are not in the discussion. They're going to be suspect of any behavior other than seeking the most efficient means toward satisfying our own interests, and they will be more inclined to cooperate with us to this end if we show a willingness to accept a scenario, clearly beneficial to ourselves, in which they act as a strong partner. People think most clearly when their accountant selves are awakened. In spirit, we are creatures of business. We need to go to the peace table driving bargains.

Neither can I.

Yes, as long as they think the idea is THEIRS when they walk away, we are set. This is not manipulation as its what we want but also takes into account what THEY want. They WILL want what we think they need (democracy, even though I'm libertarian) they just need to think about it themselves rather then us forcibly shove it down their throats



I'm reading these books not to make friends but to apply the concepts where I think people don't. Global relations being one of them. I doubt our leaders took courses on 'how to effectively, efficiently, and most correctly handle others' before taking up leadership, eh? I think we can all agree that people don't listen very well, either

Well, as long as they don't feel they could be inadvertantly cooperating with a hidden agenda.

Most Democrats are lawyers. That's why they're so fond of the peace table. It's their briar patch.

Unless money and power are involved. Then their minds are like beartraps.

No doubt, but the goal of them thinking the 'idea is theirs' is not a result from a 'bad form of manipulation' or from a hidden agenda. Its about them walking away and thinking a new thought. In terms of learning, adaptation is the hardest. They do not know our way of living so they think in terms of theirs (and we tend to do the same (so I try not to)). If we let them think on new terms, then they will come to what we have come to know. They will do it themselves which will give them the feeling that they created this idea (this is NOT an issue, them thinking that). I call it 'blowing someones mind' open.



OK, I know they (lawyers) use manipulation and holes to 'argue' their opponent out. I'm not interested in arguing to another side, I'm interested in a discussion. Lawyers are manipulative scum who defend anything for money - this makes me further question their leadership skills as per:



.

I want to find a deal both sides can live with. Iran is not nazi Germany.