> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:39:23 -0500
> Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, but it's just as likely that the U.S. could be moving in a
>> different direction and could be serious about "engaging"
>> (befriending) Iran.
>>
>
> Is it? When has the US ever done that with a client state that
> escaped its control? You might cite China, I suppose; but
> that was in the context of the cold war, and China was useful
> to play against the USSR.
Yeah. And for China, America was a useful card to play against the USSR. You make it sound like China was some hapless dupe that mighty Washington played like a violin. Believe it or not, countries tend to make nice with other countries when they perceive a common interest.
I would bet that if the US does end up making friends some day with some "moderate" Iranian leader, the same people who now denounce America's hostility to Iran will start denouncing the corrupt bargain between Washington and its craven and oppressive "client" in Teheran. When a country's leadership opposes the US, axiomatically it's standing up for the country's interests, but when the leadership reconciles with the US it's axiomatically betraying its people's interests.
SA
> Against whom would Islamic Iran be
> useful?
>
> This sounds more like hope-n-change wishful thinking than
> anything else, I'm afraid. There appears to be little real
> basis for believing that "the US is moving in a different
> direction."
>
> Au contraire: what seems very clear from the first few months
> of the current administration is that continuity is much more
> in evidence than its opposite. The language is a bit nicer
> (except from the Mad Bomber herself, Hillary Clinton) but the
> practice appears essentially unchanged.
>
> Speaking of Yoshie, I move that she be invited back. Now
> if ever is the time. *chortle, chortle*
>
>