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

[Final-Fan]

Sqrl said:

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.

I'll let Obama rebut USSR/Iran:  "So John McCain, he said, ‘Oh, Obama doesn’t understand the threat of Iran.’ I understand the threat of Iran. But what I know is that the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power all directed at destroying us, and so I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave, but what I’ve said is that we should not just talk to our friends, we should be willing to engage our enemies as well, that’s what diplomacy is all about.

"So let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, it denies the Holocaust. But this threat has grown, primarily – and this is the irony - the reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran."

Now, I know he's a damned politician and therefore untrustable  but Obama never said that Iran was not a major threat, just not a major threat compared to what you call an existential threat.  As a good citizen, I felt threatened by the Bush administration's repeated and not entirely unsuccessful attempts to circumvent US law up to and including the Constitution, but it doesn't even compare to an armed robber in my house. 

Still, I'm willing to simply agree to disagree at least for now on Obama's understanding of the threat Iran poses. 

"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."  Well, I can agree with that, but I saw it as that we were trying to hammer out as amateurs whether it would be reasonable for Obama to use the word in the way I believe he did.  We're not deciding the rules after the match, we're reviewing the tape to see if the right call was made. 

"your position (you're not 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."  Actually, I don't have to prove it's NOT used your way, I just have to demonstrate that it IS used my way.  The word "lark" has two completely different meanings I can think of off the top of my head and I'm not wrong to use it one way just because the other way also exists.  Still, I'm confident that preliminary talks are not normally referred to as "conditions" of high-level talks even though they technically are. 

If anything, demonstration through quotes is, while tedious, perhaps MORE authoritative of the way that at least the kind of people I'm quoting are using the word.  And Kissinger said of the "very high level" talks he favors:  "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."

Additionally, every single news service I saw talking about Rice's prerequisites for talks with Iran (giving up all nuclear ambition) referred to them as "conditions".  Given the fact that the conditions must be met before talks take place, I certainly hope that we can at least agree that condition=precondition.  I can't say authoritatively that Rice refers to them with the same word but it seems likely that there is a reason all the press use that word.  Then again, I guess the lack of sources using "conditions" to mean "low level talks first" wouldn't be compelling for you.  But I still feel that the previous paragraph ought to be pretty convincing, but I'll obviously leave that to you.  And if it's not convincing at all, then maybe we should consider leaving this debate without conceding.