Truth and Reconciliation in America

[domer]

One aspect of the recent discussion about Iraq has been the glaring need for a program of reconciliation there. In addition, sadly, such a movement is long overdue in this country itself.

I have observed that a divided nation is a weak nation going forward, and that we have two "realistic" poles to consider at this juncture in our stance to Iraq: "double down" (win, however indefinitely that is defined) or "withdraw" (and find alternate means to succeed in the conflict with violent, radical Islamists). Between the two, there are no clear objective indicators clinching one view over the other. Thus poised, the decision will be based on projections of our values (and fears, etc.) onto the political landscape to find a resolution "we, the people" are most comfortable with, at least until future events come crashing down to wake us from our dream.

In this process, unfortunately, the "decider" will be a man of the "bring it on" school of statesmanship, a "leader" with a horrendous track record on this very issue. Do we place our faith in him? Do we have a choice? One theme raised by this scenario is the message from the old Sixties' protest song: "And the big fool said to push on." Yet, do we decide this issue -- whether to support the resulting "new" policy -- on personality and track record, or on some evanescent drive for unity in the face of peril?

The truth is America is splintered, for reasons I won't elaborate now but which are palpable and widely known to the popular mind. Every indication points to the fact that WE (forget Iraq) will not be healed and unified in the face of this challenge. What we can expect, then, is a continued course of "victory seekers" digging our hole deeper or "withdrawal artists" compounding our problems by ignoring a threat. In the midst of this tug-of-war, we will be asked, based on little more than "faith," that is, the jiving of our personalities with Bush's "vision," to follow a failed leader to an unknown destiny. And meanwhile, the Democrats will sit back and reap electoral rewards for the 2008 presidential run, a politically sound approach from a cynical perspective, but a cowardly retreat from true leadership.

[BT]

So .........what do you propose as a solution?

[sirs]

Speaking of redress

So Domer, since Js couldn't answer it, what-say-you?  What kind of "talk" to you suggest for the likes of Syria & Iran, 2 countries saturated with Terrorist enterprises and sponsorship, with the current President of Iran on record as looking forward to the abolishment of both Israel and the U.S.  So, where are YOUR talks going to start?  What are the concessions you're putting on the table?

Inquiring minds would love to know

[domer]

Well, I might start out by talking about soccer.

[domer]

As for BT's snide question, he'll have to wait until after the holidays, so I can fully absorb the situation.

[sirs]

Well, I might start out by talking about soccer.

Interesting.  Maybe the weather perhaps.  Ask how humid it gets in the desert.  About what point do we actually start talking about Iraq, and specifically, their involvement, and the concessions you're willing to impart these terrorist sponsored Governments?

Or is this no longer a serious subject to you?  I can't help but notice how impressive you are with the pletora of criticisms aimed at President Incompotent & Secretary of State Folly, but how woefully inadequate you are with actual plans & dialog that ought to be implimented

[domer]

I fulfill my station admirably. Do they?

[sirs]

I fulfill my station admirably. Do they?

I'm still not seeing any substantive follow-up, to the queries posed.  Are you the epitome of "all talk"?

[domer]

I'm the epitome of "don't trifle with me."

[sirs]

I'm the epitome of "don't trifle with me."

Interesting though unfortunately, not surprising.  Simple question(s) posed.  Brass earlier limps forward a response along the lines of "don't get so worked up", then follows by avoiding answering any question.  Domer responds with "don't trifle with me", and also avoids answering any questions posed.  Sounds much like the Democrat Campaigns of the last 3 cycles

I'll just leave Domer's overt inability at dealing with the same criticisms he's aiming at Bush & co, speak for itself

[domer]

Look, Sirs, your campaign of "kill the messenger" is totally inappropriate. I'm presenting things to think about, in a very competent fashion. I am not politician nor praytell a president. They are judged by their (voluntary) stations in life. It is my right, nay duty, to criticize, and I do so in a constructive spirit, regardless of your vicarious thin skin. Live with it.

As to the particulars of talking with Syria and Iran, I would defer to James Baker and Lee Hamilton, who recommended it, and a host of prestigious commentators, who have spoken favorably of it. But I will add my own thoughts: talking is the preferred, favored mode of international relations. That stems from the fundamental human truth that you're not likely to resolve differences when operating in the dark about your opponent's wants, needs and aspirations and without a "bridge of communication" being established upon which future "settlements" (in the metaphorical physical sense, and the literal diplomatic sense) can be based.

We had communications with the Soviet Union during the frigid days of the Cold War, and Nixon, famously, endorsed the principle of "talking things over" in his overture to (and success with) China. The examples abound. Indeed, obverse examples abound.

What the particular strategy would be beyond establishing relationships and channels with presumed hostile governments is a matter I don't have to flesh out. It involves an assiduous process of setting (realistic) goals and a strategy to achieve them, replete with "a list of possible concessions," "a list of possible gains," prioritizing them, compartmentalizing what can't be dealt with now or is legitimately beyond the scope of the talks, and so forth, seemingly ad infinitum, in a process that can be masterful in the hands of a true statesman, like ... you fill in the name. All the while the main objective is to establish and keep civil, respectful, even friendly relations as a good in itself: a platform where matters can be discussed short of just throwing up your hands and saying, "Bring it on."

[BT]

I'm the epitome of "don't trifle with me."

Damn, you're tough. Does that impress the ladies?

[BT]

It involves an assiduous process of setting (realistic) goals and a strategy to achieve them, replete with "a list of possible concessions," "a list of possible gains," prioritizing them, compartmentalizing what can't be dealt with now or is legitimately beyond the scope of the talks, and so forth, seemingly ad infinitum, in a process that can be masterful in the hands of a true statesman, like ... you fill in the name.

My understanding is that the quid pro quo Syria would like in exchange for ceasing to foment unrest in Iraq is unfettered influence in Lebanons internal affairs.

Iran, i assume , wants to become a nuclear power with the US's blessings.

Are those concessions you deem wise? Will they bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

Doesn't matter what Bush will do, we are interested in what you would do, given the chance.

[Plane]

A message of defiance and strength from the president , a frank assessment and accusation of evil om the president are evidence of incompetence and cause splintering.

If only the President had been in agreement with the "other" half of us there would have been no division?

[sirs]

Look, Sirs, your campaign of "kill the messenger" is totally inappropriate.

It might be if there were a message.  Currently there's not even that.  That's what I keep asking for

I'm presenting things to think about, in a very competent fashion. I am not politician nor praytell a president. They are judged by their (voluntary) stations in life. It is my right, nay duty, to criticize, and I do so in a constructive spirit, regardless of your vicarious thin skin.

Yea, life stinks, life isn't fair.  There are many things we can criticize.  But criticising just to criticize misses the whole point of criticising in the 1st place.  It demonsrates a significantly weak position in offering such "criticism" without a shred of suggestion as to what could be done to offset the supposed rationale for the criticism.

As to the particulars of talking with Syria and Iran, I would defer to James Baker and Lee Hamilton, who recommended it, and a host of prestigious commentators, who have spoken favorably of it.

And what is that??  All I'm hearing from anyone, including Baker & Hamilton is that we should talk.  So, once again, TALK ABOUT WHAT?  What are the concessions on the table?  What are we expecting to get 2 Terrorist sponsoring governments to do?  Recomemending talk is mindless, if there's nothing that can be talked about.  And no, soccer doesn't cut it

But I will add my own thoughts:

FINALLY

talking is the preferred, favored mode of international relations. That stems from the fundamental human truth that you're not likely to resolve differences when operating in the dark about your opponent's wants, needs and aspirations and without a "bridge of communication" being established upon which future "settlements" (in the metaphorical physical sense, and the literal diplomatic sense) can be based.

Ok, that said pretty much nothing, outside of the continued "we need to talk" template

We had communications with the Soviet Union during the frigid days of the Cold War, and Nixon, famously, endorsed the principle of "talking things over" in his overture to (and success with) China. The examples abound. Indeed, obverse examples abound.

Still not seeing what is applicable to Iran & Syria yet.  Can we expect anything, anytime soon?

What the particular strategy would be beyond establishing relationships and channels with presumed hostile governments is a matter I don't have to flesh out. It involves an assiduous process of setting (realistic) goals and a strategy to achieve them, replete with "a list of possible concessions," "a list of possible gains," prioritizing them, compartmentalizing what can't be dealt with now or is legitimately beyond the scope of the talks, and so forth, seemingly ad infinitum, in a process that can be masterful in the hands of a true statesman, like ... you fill in the name. All the while the main objective is to establish and keep civil, respectful, even friendly relations as a good in itself.

Spoken like a true Lawyer.  Tons of verbage, and not a concise answer to the question, anywhere to be found.  But at least you'd talk about soccer