Debate: So apparently McCain doesn't know Jack ...

[Sqrl]

Final-Fan said:

I think you must not be aware of the context on that Iran remark.  Here it is:  "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."


Iran does not and will not likely ever possess the power to literally destroy the United States as a nation, as the USSR did (and we them, of course). 

Moving on, I think a U.S. Senator would have some idea of the fact that these things don't happen in an eyeblink.  You are the one making the assertion that he operated under a stupid assumption and I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that it was the case and not "well I think he was pandering to the crowd so much he probably forgot his brain".  Anyway, I don't see any PR advantage to Obama with ANY group that would come from proposing what you say he proposed instead of what I believe. 

I don't think that preliminary talks should be considered preconditions for the sake of reasonable discussion because it's such a basic assumption.  They ALWAYS happen (or so I have been given to understand and please correct me if I am mistaken).  So you might as well say "practically all top-level diplomatic negotiations ever have had preconditions" and then what's the point of even mentioning it?  In that context, McCain might as well have accused Obama of planning to speak to the Iranians without opening his mouth and talking.  What? 

Well Iran is a sizeable country but if I'm being honest I truly don't care if Obama does or doesn't know how big Iran is relative to other countries.

In regards to its threat: A middle eastern nation like Iran getting a nuclear weapon certainly qualifies as a major threat in any definition I would classify as reasonable. You are certainly correct that it would not be an existential threat but then wouldn't that be called an existential threat? I say it is a major threat not simply because they could have a nuke within a year or so, and thats pretty major by itself, but because of the destablizing effect the ensuing arms race in the region would have and the resulting potential for not just one but possibly several nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of a terrorist organization(s) as a result of that arms race.  All of this of course ignores the fact that Russia, North Korea, China, etc.. could all easily capitlize on an Iranian distraction to take a stab at a power-play of their own.  Iran is a major threat for several reasons, and believe me I would be thrilled to be wrong about that, but I'm pretty confident I'm not.

I want to make clear again that I think this view of Iran as not being a major threat on Obama's part is what led to the no preconditions comment.  Whether it was a brain fart or if he was ignorant of the magnitude of the Iranian threat is anyone's guess, I don't presume to know.  But I think that comment greatly explains why he made the no preconditions comment.  I make this point because I'm not sure that you know about the full scenario in which all of this initially played out during the primaries.

I have to admit I thought about what you said in regards to the burden of proof and I think this may be a situation where the burden is perhaps not entirely on one side. In addition I feel like I've met any burden that is on me, although perhaps I've not cinvinced you yet =P My burden of proof seems to be showing that Obama made the statement and that the words meant what I've said they do. If I meet those two requirements I think that would logically constitute a substantiation of my position.  The part about pandering to the crowd was something I stated in addition to the rest of the points I've been making as a way to lay the circumstances out and show that it is more plausible than you may be considering. Clearly by itself it would not constitute substantiation of the position and I never intended to imply that it would.

On your last point: I truly think that we should not be setting the definitions of the words but going by the meanings as they were before there even was a debate...that seems to be the logical and proper thing to do.

And as I've shown the definition of a precondition is a condition that must be met for something else to happen, and as a result I think the burden would then be on you to show it means something else. I can find no reason to believe it has some special meaning within the diplomatic community.  To be clear the definition you support seems to be a narrower version of the definition I support with the primary difference being preliminary talks would be included in mine. 

So I think you need to show that within the diplomatic context the word does not mean preliminary talks (ie the additional portion that doesn't agree with your position).  To be clear I say the burden should go to you because I'm currently relying on what I would regard as an authority on definitions and your position (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to rely on the way you've seen the word used, which is decidedly less authoratitive because it does not prove exclusion of preliminary talks from the definition.

I've shown that Obama explicitly stated presidential level talks without preconditions and I feel like I've made at the very least a substantial case that the word means what I say it does. If after you examine this you don't feel that we have made or are likely to make any progress on the issue of the definition then we can simply leave it at an agreement to disagree.