Iran 1, United States 0

[wtmusic]

"White House Calls Iranian Letter a Ploy

Officials say the missive, apparently the first between the nations' leaders since 1979, fails to address U.S. concerns over nuclear program."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran9may09,0,3215039.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Why, when a hostile foreign entity makes an initial attempt at dialogue, is it summarily and publicly dismissed as a "ploy"? The letter contains the usual anti-Israel rhetoric--in full force. But in light of the fact that thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake: don't the unspoken, internationally recognized rules of plain old courtesy dictate that a diplomatic response is warranted? Is it necessary for other nations to not only submit their weapons but their dignity to engage in any discourse with our pathetic "leaders"?

We truly can't see the forest for the trees. By demanding complete submission of a proud culture we are going backwards, and to not only our own detriment, but that of Israel.

[AndyA]

1. Bush is an immature, spoiled baby. You play by his rules, or he takes

his toys and goes home. You agree with him and support him, or you are supporting terrorists and you hate America.

I can't think of anyone in recent history who has done more harm to humanity and the United States of America than George Bush. An opportunity to open up a dialogue with Iran was presented to him, and he craps on it. Nice move, George, you putz.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. three reasons

first, it is "philosophical" - ergo, Bush is incapable of understanding it. And Condi, who is about as shallow as the Pacific Ocean is wet, is way beyond her ability to comprehend it for what it is.

second, it is too long. - ergo Bush REALLY is incapable of understanding it. And Condi, who has the attention span of a sales flyer for Gucci pumps, is bored by page 2.

third, it talks about Bush's mistakes. Can't have that as a way to open discussions, now can we?

I am ever more convinced that the administration is a collection of the insane.

[wtmusic]

4. Yep, way too long

probably 5-6 times as long as "My Pet Goat"...does anyone really think * made it past the first page?

[LionInWinter]

7. He doesn't want a dialog.

He wants a casus belli.

[anarch]

9. but he'll make do without one, if need be

Or just claim that it was a divine mandate of some kind.

[LondonReign2]

13. Ding! Ding! We have a winner

Bush doesn't dialogue, fer dog's sake! That would just slow down his invasion timetable, just like the inspectors did in Iraq.

[Dora]

2. I listened to a wretched minute of NPR this morning.

Condoleeza Rice referred to the letter as a "diversionary tactic" and that it would not have any effect or influence on current talks with the UN.

"Diversionary tactic." NO SHIT!!!

If my beautiful and culturally intact country (Iran) was on the borderline of having the holy bejeezus bombed out of it by the American bully on the block I would damn well try speaking up and doing whatever it was I could to open a dialogue to stop the bombs from falling. And if speaking up is a "diversionary tactic," then I’ll be diversionarily tacticing until the goddamn bombs start falling!

There is nothing our administration wants more right now than to bomb the living daylights out of Iran. Their response to this letter proves it.

We have lost our country. We have to take it back.

I am not a bully. :cry:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Not exactly.

Having read it through, it's fairly clear that the letter from Ahmadinejad was a rhetorical device, nothing more. It contains no practical suggestions. It was intended to influence popular opinion, not to lead to productive negotiations.

I think that dialogue with Iran is the only possible way to stop it aquiring nuclear weapons, but my understanding is that America is deliberately leaving establishing it to Britain, France and Germany (I think on "two many cooks" principles, but I may be wrong). This letter, however, makes me less optimistic about it leading anywhere.

[wtmusic]

6. Rule #1 in negotiation:

Never pee on someone's initial offering, unless you truly aren't interested in negotiating anything.

From a cultural perspective, calling it a "rhetorical device" and suggesting it was only intended to influence popular opinion seems overly cynical and typically American (probably because that's the only reason the Bush administration would send a letter like this).

Is it possible it was a genuine attempt to open a direct dialog? Why not give it the benefit of the doubt?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Because the balance of probabilities is firmly against it.

It is, of course, possible that Ahmadinejad genuinely wanted to enter into negotiations to find a peaceful solution to the problem that he wants nuclear weapons and most of First World don't want him to have them, and that he simply didn't have a clue about politics, but I think it's *vanishingly* unlikely.

This isn't an offering, it's a challenge, and I think that refusing to rise to it was probably the least worst option (although I'd have been tempted to take it at face value, and announce how glad I was that Ahmadinejad had finally seen the error of his ways and realised that oppression and discrimination were wrong).

Even if there were non-trivial doubt, I wouldn't be inclined to give it to him - he's an incredibly nasty piece of work.

Incidentally, while I am in general cynical, in this case I don't think I'm being especially so, and I'm certainly not being unduly so. Also, I'm English, not American.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I think the score is 0-0.

I read the letter this morning and found it a rather poor excuse for a diplomatic overture.

You're right, Bush may not want to talk. However, even if we had a competent occupant of the White House right now, he should want to talk about Iran's nuclear program and how the Iranians will guarnatee that they will not use nuclear technology to build a bomb. Ahmedinejad seems to want to talk to Bush about life, the universe and everything. There are few people besides Bush who would be less interested in such a discussion or whose views would be less interesting.

[wtmusic]

10. possibly

although this approach is typical in Muslim culture. We can either ignore that fact (only play by our rules) and move a step closer to war, or respond to it--privately--and see where it leads us.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. What you say about Muslim culture is true

Or at least it is true of Arab culture.

Unfortunately, the letter was addressed to somebody whom few would expect to know or appreciate that.
And we should expect most people to know and appreciate (although not necessarily approve of) Bush. Ahmadinejad simply should have sent a short one-page note saying, "Let's talk about issues of nuclear proliferation and where Iran fits into that."

Besides, Bush probably didn't read beyond the first page. Maybe that's good.

If I had to write a letter to Bush and wanted something from him, the less said in it the better. It would be very difficult to say very much and not have my contempt of the man show. I think Ahmadinijad's comtempt shows in this letter.