Constructive engagement

Cpt Spaulding · #1 01-14-2005, 01:45 AM

Ok...Name a few other companies that can do the work.....Not very many are there...I do not support this war or administration don't get me wrong. I just think there are far more important issues out there to deal with. This is no worse than Clinton pardoning Mark Rich for the contributions to his library. Dishonesty owns our government no matter who is in office.. Pointing it out is getting old...We need to do something about it...

ACPlayer · #2 01-14-2005, 01:59 AM

Do you like the idea of us getting engaged commercially with Iran? I do, I think it is a positive step and want much more. See title: constructive engagement.

Cant figure out what you mean by this strange post.

Cpt Spaulding · #3 01-14-2005, 02:17 AM

Sorry misread your post, had several things going on when I read it....Maybe I should turn off the TV next time and actually read the post instead of assuming what it says...

I think we should be more worried about Iran's Nuclear program rather than putting up a couple strip malls and a taco bell. Sure it would be a good step in the right direction. I think it is just a premature step at this point.

ACPlayer · #4 01-14-2005, 08:46 AM

It is called a "dance". Give a little, get a little then a little more. Baby steps with the eye on the big picture.

Call them the axis of evil they will do everything they can to defend themselves from the underlying threat of attack. A little smile, a little kiss, a glass of wine, a nice meal and then a nice healthy marriage.

Cpt Spaulding · #5 01-14-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is called a "dance". Give a little, get a little then a little more. Baby steps with the eye on the big picture.

Call them the axis of evil they will do everything they can to defend themselves from the underlying threat of attack. A little smile, a little kiss, a glass of wine, a nice meal and then a nice healthy marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the catch more bees with honey theory. One flaw with that though...The bee might sting you when you least expect it. We have helped people in the past only for them to turn on us. We are forcing way of life on these people and no matter how nicely we dance our system will not take. Think about how you would feel if some country invaded us and tried to install a monarchy. We would not lay down and take it up the ass. I agree these people need help, but we should feed them with a stick for awhile....

ACPlayer · #6 01-15-2005, 01:26 AM

If you read my posts you will see that I am the last person to force our way of life on them, in fact quite the contrary. The neo-con notion (specially as extended by the likes of MMMMMM) call for us to spread democracy by dropping Nukes, taking out leaders etc. I think this is wrong. The way forward is to work towards letting them build their society while having cooperative and constructive relationships with them. In particular I consider the economic embargo of Iran to be wrong (as well as that of Cuba etc). If we trade with them, encourage their investment in us and our companies get to invest in them, the resulting creation of ties brings prosperity to the region (and us) and creates interdependence.

As I have pointed out before, China is a good example. When Nixon went to China it was considered an enemy, communist state. Today, China can no longer be considered an active military enemy (all posturing aside) as the economic stake of the Chinese in maintaining relations is way too high and vice-versa. If we make Iran and Cuba and Islam our enemy then, of course, they will take steps to counter this threat. Just as we would.

Along with active commerce in the country will come the forces that shape the body politic of that country. China, still a highly repressive, regime is now a bit more open and I would hazard a guess will continue to be a more open society. It is not for us to force that change, their people will make that happen in a durable lasting way.

Moving all-in with military forces is not good poker when viewed in the long run. Even MMMMMM recognized that the Iraq strategy mirrored the short term thinking of the tournament player rather than the long term thinking of the cash player.

MMMMMM · #7 01-15-2005, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Moving all-in with military forces is not good poker when viewed in the long run. Even MMMMMM recognized that the Iraq strategy mirrored the short term thinking of the tournament player rather than the long term thinking of the cash player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, we didn't move all-in. Not even close to it.