posted
In the interest of arguing for more perspective than the general habit of nabbing every last little bit of news gossip when the agencies see fit to place one out there, I will go over some of what I've learned over the last few years regarding Iran, how the US dealings with Iran have contributed to the worsening state of that nation's government, and I will define what I meant in a post that no longer exists (because the thread was deleted) about "cowboy diplomacy" in terms of dealing with Iran. My whole point in this is not to paint Iran as some innocent victim of the West or the United States, my point is to provide a bit more perspective as to how things have gotten so bad to the point where an otherwise minor diplomatic issue has escalated to the point where Britain is demanding UN Security Council action to get the soldiers back.
First off, let's go back to 2001, because it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the events of 9/11 have impacted pretty much every aspect of diplomacy between the middle east and everywhere else since that time. The United States has officially had no diplomatic presence in or with Iran since well before 2001, but that doesn't mean that no diplomatic communication took place. In fact, Switzerland has played a key role over the years to mitigate communications and documents between the US and Iran, through the Swiss embassy in Iran and the Iranian embassy in Switzerland. The UK and Iran have had diplomatic relations on an official basis. After 9/11 and during the invasion of Afghanistan to attack al Qaeda and depose the Taliban, we (the US) leveraged some support from Iran in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda regime, mostly in the form of some aid to Afghanis and general moral support for deposing the former regime. What Iran had to gain from doing this was two-fold: they were helping to castrate a competitor who was a neighbor, putting them in a better light to the Afghani people, and it was an act that was an opening to re-establishing direct relations with the United States, which would mean a huge boost for the Iranian economy and more political validity on the world stage.
For the United States this served to help garner support from the Afghani people against the Taliban and al Qaeda forces. Iran gave support to the coalition forces' campaign through the end of December of 2001. At this time Khatamit was president of Iran, and his more moderate government was moving in a direction to garner more political and economic strength, including more indirect relations with the United States. This relationship soured after the 2002 Presidential State of the Union address, where Bush included Iran in his Axis of Evil statements. The communications via the Swiss all but dried up, and outspoken support of ousting the Taliban began to stop.
In 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq began, Iran sent an agenda to the US through the Swiss counterpart that described a process by which it could resolve a lot of the diplomatic issues between Iran and the US, and open channels for a real diplomatic relationship between the two. Some individuals, like Flynt Leverett (a former official in the NSC, CIA, and State Dept., later a fellow at the Brookings Institute and New America Foundation), are of the optimistic opinion that the offer was even more inclusive (googlers, start your search engines!). Since I am not in government and never saw the document itself, I remain skeptical that it could have solved every issue. Still, it wasn't a classified document and it did exist (the government never denied it when asked). Furthermore, the US government completely ignored it as an option. This was when our battle operations of the initial invasion were going well, with the administration's policy (especially since the 'Axis of Evil' statements) toward Iran being diplomatic opposition.
Cowboy diplomacy. The United States had just brought its case for WMD before the UN Security Council, the council decided to not attack, and the US formed its own coalition anyway to invade Iraq itself. And they were winning. Not dissimilar was the first Gulf War, when the US and its coalition forces went into Kuwait and parts of Iraq when diplomatic relations were slow and not showing immediate progress. To Iran, who now twice offered the hand of diplomacy to have it rebuffed, it isn't difficult to see this as a sign. Both of their neighbors were now occupied by US coalition forces, and the president still persisted in his doctrine of the Axis of Evil that included Iran.
To say that these relations and the actual invasion of Iraq didn't affect the outcome of the 2005 elections in Iran, which had Ahmadinejad and his party gain power, displays either a great deal of ignorance to the political climate of the region or a complete disregard for the ways in which the previous administration's attempts at diplomatic relations were met with insult and ignored. Under Ahmadinejad, or as I like to jokingly refer to him as "Ahmacrazyguy" or "Ahmadinejihad," Iran's nuclear program saw new life and an outspoken support against the Israeli government meant Iran was standing against what was arguably an oppressive American regime.
Just a quick note for many reading this: it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Bush administration is not very popular around the world, and that America's popularity in general has suffered greatly for it. The thing to note here, however, is that it isn't America in general that those people who are angry at America are actually angry for. It's the Bush administration. Despite Iran's diplomatic situation with America, there is still a reasonable tourist market from the West, including America. Iran does not turn away American passports and American tourists are welcomed the same as people from any other nation. The only difference is that there are no flights allowed to or from America, so there are always connection flights for the American tourist wishing to enter Iran. The point is that most Iranians, like most people from other nations not happy with America, direct most of their ire at the Bush administration. I mention this because America isn't known for doing the same: when the French government openly chided America's invasion of Iraq, there was (and still is, to a degree) a noticable anger directed at the French as a whole, as a pretty glaring example. There were comments made regarding Iran in the thread that was deleted that could have proven another example. Freedom fries is tantamount to cowboy diplomacy, and its effects are seen (and, in some cases like Iran, showcased) around the world.
Back in 2004, British troops were captured and accused of trespassing in Iranian waters. After a brief diplomatic scuffle and a similar dispute over the location of the soldiers, the troops were released. That was under Khatamit's administration, though, and it is obvious that Ahmadinejad thinks the matter should be handled differently. The January increase in US naval forces in the Persian Gulf, the highest showing of force since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is probably not a small contributor to the stress behind the situation. Bush's increase in rhetoric blaming Iran for the insurgent attacks in Iraq, rightly or wrongly, is easy fodder for Iranian media to make a case that Iran is next on the chopping block (whether true or not). As far as Iranian media is concerned, the United States took Iranian diplomats hostage for 9 days and suffered no repecussions. Saudi Arabia made statements denouncing the Iraqi occupation, and the US shrugged off the statements as one of the minor disagreements it must make in diplomacy. Arguments for and against each instance aside, this behavior looks like nothing less than cowboy diplomacy.
I'm pointing those things out not to blame America for the abduction of the sailors, but to paint a picture of the national mindset within Iran regarding the military presence in both Iraq and the Persian Gulf, not to mention Afghanistan to the east, by American and coalition forces. Iran also claims several instances where their airspace was infringed upon, each to only a small degree and under normal circumstances well within buffer zones, but in games of semantics they provide ample ammunition in the battle of information dissemination. Unfortunately, this is where I believe Britain made its misstep in securing the release of the sailors instead of engaging the Iranian government in an escalating rhetoric battle that can go nowhere but poorly. The British government decided to release a map showing the coordinates, including a border in an area that has been in dispute for over 25 years. Craig Murray, former diplomat and officer in the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Britain, has stated that the border the British government released to the public is not a valid border, based on such a version not being present in the diplomatic realm previously, and the 25-year history of disputes regarding the Shatt al Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq. Indeed, the only response I have received thus far regarding that claim has been a character attack on Craig Murray, without a shred of evidence (a simple dated map would suffice) to the contrary. I was aware of the disputed nature of the waterway, and even argued as much on the thread that was deleted, both before and after the British released the map. Since it would be preposterous to assume that Blair or the British military are taking a stance of objectivity when demanding the return of their countrymen, the onus is to provide the most applicable and relevant data, even if it does not reflect well on one of the parties involved. All documentation on that region of the Persian Gulf that can be found in the public domain label that area as disputed, with no clear and present borders. Even if those borders drawn are guidelines by which the British military operates, and I could believe such a thing without problem (the military tends to be pragmatic and mindful of such details), they are by no means a legal demarcation line by which to claim precedence to demand the soldiers back. This is by far the largest mistake Britain has made in this fiasco and hopefully it isn't one that will cost the lives of those soldiers.
This isn't to discount Iran's obvious duplicity. There wasn't any need to do so in the now-deleted thread, in which all but two other voices besides myself were a litany of the evils of Iran. Iran has changed the location of their disputed coordinates. At least one letter released by Iran that was purported to be from one of the prisoners has been said to read like Farsi translated to broken English. The televised confessions have been met with more than enough skepticism. The problem is that it does more harm than good to react to questionable behavior with equally questionable behavior, and that is exactly what Britain and Iran have engaged in, with possibly different amounts. This is not a game of who can do the least amount of wrong, though. It is about both needing to do enough right things to achieve a resolution.
The whole of Iran are not a culture or neo-Nazi Jew-haters. Iran has the largest Jewish population in the region outside of Israel, and most of that population is dedicated to living in Iran because it is their home. Ahmadenijad, however, is scum and can easily be considered anti-semitic. That even the Supreme Leader in Iran has chided the man in the past should be enough to show that he doesn't even speak totally for even the most radical in Iran. I can agree that the Iranian news media is definitely jingoistic and is a mouthpiece for the government, but that their media are more blatant about it does not mean that theirs is the only outlet that engages in it. There is not always something wrong with being nationalistic, but being nationalistic to a fault is dangerous and Iran surely engages in it, especially under Ahmadinejad's administration. However, I made comments pointing out that not all of Iran is extremist and that there is a reasonable possibility that the sailors actually were in Iranian waters (both coordinates are closer to Iranian mainland than Iraqi mainland), and I get accused of being just shy of a traitor, an America-basher, and being pro-Iranian. The objections consisted of recursively citing the after-the-fact map produced on the subject. There is plenty of jingoism to go around, and Iran is not the sole culpable party in this case.
Currently, Iran has provided an opening that could allow for a resolution of this situation. My biggest hope is that this does not lead to more sabre rattling from the Bush administration regarding Iran. The lives of these soldiers is not worth more political maneuvering than has already taken place during this crisis. One person made an observation that this may already be an attempt for Iran to manipulate Britain into accepting Iran's desired borders for the waterway, which is not above something the Ahmadinejad administration would do.
[ April 04, 2007, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
When I saw that headline I was more optimistic than when I finished it, but mostly because the information is not very different than the variations that have been floating around over the internet, radio, and television. What this may mean is that both sides have begun to move their maneuvering out of the public eye, which is probably the most positive sign of all. I sincerely trust the diplomats on both sides to handle the situation better than the leaders of both nations have so far.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't there a long thread about the Iran thing where you were discussing this? I can't seem to find it now. Did it get modded away? That seems out of character.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hey Jutsa, could you do me the favor of elaborating on what you said in the other thread, and give me a physical description of the differences in facial characteristics between the half dozen different ethnicities I listed in the now defunct thread?
I now know that not being able to personally distinguish between them makes me racist, thanks for informing me about that, I didn't know I was before. Now I'm wondering how you non-racists view the world.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Jim-me deleted it.
Hey Jutsa, could you do me the favor of elaborating on what you said in the other thread, and give me a physical description of the differences in facial characteristics between the half dozen different ethnicities I listed in the now defunct thread?
I now know that not being able to personally distinguish between them makes me racist, thanks for informing me about that, I didn't know I was before. Now I'm wondering how you non-racists view the world.
i didn't say it made you racist, I said your comment sounded racist. Remember, you are the one who responded that "they all look the same" in your opinion.
The main distinguishing factor is that the vast majority of ethnicities in Iran are not stritly of semitic origin, and share more in common with nations to the east and north of them, ethnically speaking. The common confusion of the people in Iran and the rest of the Middle East comes from the Islamic presence in the country that has existed for hundreds of years. However, Iran is still has buildings and artifacts that go back to (Christian) biblical times, and interestingly Iran contains some of the only mosques in the world that have both images of humans depicted within them (that remain because of their historicity and a general mixture of Zoroastrian culture with the religious observance). Iran does indeed have a large mix of ethnicities, and also still has some cultural spill-over from its neighboring Kurdish, Turkish, and Pashtu cultures in its adjacent countries. However, the vast majority of the population shares more ethnic markers with mediterranean people than it does semitic.
I would go into more detail, but I'd rather that be its own thread due to the absolute depth of the information about all of the convergent cultures.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. As I've described elsewhere (in general and in specific), I disagree in general with thread deletion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you please take the pettiness elsewhere? MrSquicky, they are discussing it here. Please let it stay over there. I don't want this thread locked because of this bickering.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
While I find the background information fascinating, I really do, my original point was specifically facial characteristics. Why? Because I personally can't tell them all apart just by looking at them. There's no reason I should be able to, and thus, generally, many of the different ethnicities all look the same to me. It doesn't make me racist, it just means I'm not from the area.
I said Arab, in the other thread, because generally when someone thinks about a Middle East terrorist, their first thought is "Arab" and not "Pastu" or "Chaldean." And generally, I don't think the average non-Middle Easterner can tell the difference just by looking at couple DOZEN different ethnicities, specifically which one someone might be. Thus I used Arab as a catch-all phrase to describe someone from the area. Because it wouldn't be just Arabs, or just Persians, it would be defined by nation, which would cover dozens of ethnicities.
And I doubt, other than you, that looking at a picture of someone, an average person is going to be able to tell you their ethnicity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Lyrhawn, it would depend on who it's a picture of. A lot of people from the Middle East look caucasian to me. Recently, on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, a few comedians from the 'Axis of Evil Comedy Tour' were interviewed. Look it up on Google, or maybe just look for the comedians. They even have a routine based on exactly what you're asking. It's funny, you should check it out.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Implying poor form is in-character for Jim-Me.
Did I do this, for generalized poor form? I thought I was making a specific accusation, that it is in his character to delete threads. He did it now and he has done it in the past. If you agree that this is poor form and it is something that he does, how is it a cheap shot for me to point this out?
---
In a likely vain attempt to forestall the accusations and attacks, let me say that I don't actually have a vendetta against Jim-Me. I have a serious problem with people deleting threads. I think that if someone shows such little regard for the thoughts and efforts of others, this should be noted on publicly on the forum so that they get raked over the coals a little bit, other posters get the message that this sort of behavior is not acceptable (in most cases - there are exceptions), and so that other people are made aware that this person has such little regard for their thoughts and will possibly delete threads that they start.
I do this in every case where I see it happen. This is not a personal thing. I think it is especially important in a case like this because I think I may be one of the only more core posters who will do this to Jim-Me here. (Of course, maybe I am wrong and other people will come forward.)
---
I've got to wonder though, Rakeesh. You said you have a problem with this, but your immediate action when seeing me call him on it was to rise to his defense. Where does that come from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've got to wonder though, Rakeesh. You said you have a problem with this, but your immediate action when seeing me call him on it was to rise to his defense. Where does that come from?
I read it differently. The way you said it, with "poor form" and "not out of character" tied together in a sentence like that led me to think you were speaking generally, that poor form was in character for Jim-Me. If you say that was not your intent, however, then I'll take you at your word and withdraw my cheap-shot remark with apologies.
However, even after thinking about it for a little while (since your response to me, in fact), I don't really think my interpretation was very unusual. I think many people, reading a statement that, "Well, that was in poor form, but not out of character for John Doe," would think that you were saying that poor form behavior was, in general, something to be expected from John.
A question of semantics and misinterpretations, I suppose.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think many people, reading a statement that, "Well, that was in poor form, but not out of character for John Doe," would think that you were saying that poor form behavior was, in general, something to be expected from John.
You'll forgive me, but I don't agree. I think my meaning was pretty clear, especially based on my history of posting here. I think it takes a biased eye to see what you saw.
How would you have expressed what I tried to say?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading your 12:43am EST post, I note that you do clarify that he has deleted threads in the past. Thinking back, I have no memories one way or another of Jim-Me deleting threads. Given that, I didn't associate the 'out of character' remark with that specific behavior, but rather with Jim-Me in general.
Also, please note that until your 12:43 post, I didn't know that Jim-Me had deleted posts in the past (I'm assuming he has, since you're saying so), and so your initial post in this thread stood entirely on its own.
I can picture myself saying what you said using almost those same words, to be honest, if a thread I'd been participating in had been deleted, but I probably would have specified that I was talking about specific behavior both regarding the 'poor form' and 'OOC' bits. But that's hindsight for you.
Edit: And I can also see myself being misunderstood for it.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I thought I was making a specific accusation, that it is in his character to delete threads. He did it now and he has done it in the past.
I'm really tempted to say "show me the threads I deleted in the past..."
The worst part is that the comments by Ahmadinejad are an illustration of how this whole mess was mishandled. His comments are not just meant to inflame the UK government, they are going to be heard by people in the rest of the Middle East as a gesture that is in a politically, even if not morally or ethically, superior position. This does not help the current forces in Iraq. This does not help the peace process in Israel. This does not help in improving relations with Syria. It has the potential to cause more of a rift in each of those cases.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'm torn between being ecstatic that I don't have to hear any more pedantry from Justa, and being bummed out that I don't get to hear any more wit from Noemon.
Poetic justice, thou art a harsh master!
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Now I'm torn between being ecstatic that I don't have to hear any more pedantry from Justa, and being bummed out that I don't get to hear any more wit from Noemon.
Poetic justice, thou art a harsh master!
Why must you engage in this? How is this not a double-standard?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This link was posted in another thread here, with a brief comment regarding Ahmadinejad's jokes to the sailors that they got a "mandatory vacation" and Ahmadinejad's behaving magnamimously over the issue.
quote:From the article: "While insisting on our rights, these 15 sailors have been pardoned and we offer their freedom to the British people," Mr Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran.
"After the news conference they can go to the airport and go back home," Mr Ahmadinejad said.
An official said later that the crew would be released to the British embassy in Tehran.
However, the hardline president - who had postponed the much-awaited press conference from Tuesday - lashed out at Britain over its handling of the 13-day crisis and decorated a Revolutionary Guards commander who had seized the Britons in the northern Gulf.
This will be more interesting once the soldiers are safely back in British territory, mostly to see whether the British government asks them to make public statements regarding the incident or not. The reason I believe it will get more interesting is because I am wondering how Britain will react to one particular part of Ahmadenijad's goading:
quote:From the article: "The Blair Government chose the path of media hype and sent the issue to the UN Security Council," Mr Ahmadinejad said. "The British people can ask its government what the British soldiers are doing in Iraq or in Iranian waters."
A version fast and loose with the details, absolutely, but it is comments like this that are intentionally meant to make Britain look worse in the international community. Setting an even more dangerous precedent, however, is this information from the article regarding related events:
quote:From the article: The developments coincided with the release in Baghdad of an Iranian diplomat kidnapped in February. Iran had blamed US forces for the abduction.
Iranian state media also said five Iranian officials captured by US forces in Iraq in January and accused of seeking to stir trouble were expected to receive their first visit by an Iranian diplomat.
Asked if the Iranians should be freed to favour a possible release of the Britons, the US President, George Bush, insisted there should be no "quid pro quos".
This is just going to make the American detainment of those Iranians without any evidence connecting them to wrongdoing look even worse, further weakening confidence in the US coalition's behavior in Iraq.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, after speaking with Jim-Me about this, he says he's only ever deleted one other thread, ever, that was only up for a few minutes at most. For a very specific, reasonable reason too, I think, but of course that's subjective.
Is that the incident you're thinking of?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I don't recall the exact thread that I was thinking of. It was a long time ago (long enough that it was probably TAK who deleted it), but he was on my mental list of people who delete threads and I was not all that surprised that he deleted this one.
edit: I'm not actually able to source what thread he deleted that made me think this though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please stop trolling this thread with your personal dispute.
...or you'll delete it?
No, I just really don't want their personal problems with each other getting in the way. I actually enjoyed Lyrhawn's tangent, which is why I changed the subject line of the thread to allow for more breadth. But it seems to continually get mired in the personal dispute between Rakeesh and MrSquicky, with occasional tag-ins from others.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You'll forgive me, but I don't agree. I think my meaning was pretty clear, especially based on my history of posting here. I think it takes a biased eye to see what you saw.
No, it doesn't. I read it the way Rakeesh did, and didn't even see your way as a possibility until you explained.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may be the only one, but I'm really grateful to Justa for his OP. As someone who is relatively poorly informed about Iranian politics and recent history, I appreciate his attempt to fight ignorance, even if I may not agree with all of his points. I don't think going into detail about a very relevant issue is "pedantry"; I think that sort of thoughtful analysis backed up by an understanding of the complexities of the situation is exactly the sort of thing that we SHOULD see in any political thread. If you disagree with what he's saying, instead of making snide remarks about his writing style, why not actually engage him in conversation (as Lyrhawn is doing)?
And Squicky, Jim-Me and Rakeesh, some of us actually are interested in the subject of the OP. Could you guys please kindly take your dispute to its own thread?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
On the prisoner issue, Blair made some public statements earlier that regarded the Iranian public and the future desire for diplomatic answers to disputes in a very positive light. I was very impressed with both the words Blair chose and how he chose to present them. That was cool. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh come now, anyone and everyone on Hatrack should know by now that they can't always control the direction a thread takes.
I don't think the British government will make them make public statements, but I suspect we'll see or hear something from them in the near future on the nature of their captivity.
I don't see the problem with referring this issue to the Security Council though. The United Nations is there specifically to be a conduit for diplomatic relations between countries, for conflict resolution. Britain decided to use that resource, and that makes them the international bad guy? That's just crap.
I am curious as to the holding of those Iranians by the US. I'm wondering what it is we think they did, but I don't really expect I'll ever find out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't think the British government will make them make public statements, but I suspect we'll see or hear something from them in the near future on the nature of their captivity.
Actually, the British government made some pretty nice statements that were not inflammatory or accusatory or even the slightest bit contentous. I was impressed and happy.
quote:I don't see the problem with referring this issue to the Security Council though. The United Nations is there specifically to be a conduit for diplomatic relations between countries, for conflict resolution. Britain decided to use that resource, and that makes them the international bad guy? That's just crap.
I think you misunderstand. The comment about the Security Council was made because Britain not only asked the UN to speak out against holding the prisoners, which the general UN assembly did, but because the Security Council takes things a step farther than the general assembly. The contention was that Britain didn't simply take it to the governing relations body, it took the issue directly to the only committee who could give the overall go-ahead for physical action against detaining the prisoners. Just so you know, while the general UN assembly stated that the matter should be resolved and the prisoners returned, the Security Council refused to back Britain over the issue specifically because of the implications behind such support.
quote:I am curious as to the holding of those Iranians by the US. I'm wondering what it is we think they did, but I don't really expect I'll ever find out.
The allegation is that they were somehow helping the insurgency, but no specific accusation nor any evidence has been presented. That is what has the Iranian government most angry about the situation.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I may be the only one, but I'm really grateful to Justa for his OP. As someone who is relatively poorly informed about Iranian politics and recent history, I appreciate his attempt to fight ignorance, even if I may not agree with all of his points. I don't think going into detail about a very relevant issue is "pedantry"; I think that sort of thoughtful analysis backed up by an understanding of the complexities of the situation is exactly the sort of thing that we SHOULD see in any political thread. If you disagree with what he's saying, instead of making snide remarks about his writing style, why not actually engage him in conversation (as Lyrhawn is doing)?
And Squicky, Jim-Me and Rakeesh, some of us actually are interested in the subject of the OP. Could you guys please kindly take your dispute to its own thread?
That's what's so sneaky about Justa's "OP"s. He makes it sound like he's informed and everyone who disagrees is ignorant, but he's just taking the Iranian version of events and running with it. I'd be cool with that if Iranian news outlets were uncensored and not running interference for the government.
You want to learn about Iranian politics, you can start a thread about it and we can discuss the merits and demerits of the one person that has been running the country since 1989 and the three people that will most likely be running for the Presidency when Ahmadinejhad leaves.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Blair in general is overflowing with class. I really like the guy, and I'm sad he won't be in office for much longer.
And I blame Bush for bringing about his downfall.
I still don't see the big deal about the Security Council thing. Britain wanted action taken and they wanted it taken fast. The GA is a deliberative body with zero power to give orders and have them stick. If you want action taken you go to the SC. Britain acted within the realm of the world governing body, and it may not have worked, but they still followed the framework, they didn't go it alone, they didn't unilaterally threaten Iran. They resolved the situation peacefully and diplomatically through diplomatic channels.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the trouble with running to the Security Council to choose a side is that a nation could turn around and then use that as a justification to go to war, and it would cause similar problems to how the US justified and continues to justify the war in Iraq. The Security Council as a whole probably would not want to risk that again, and most certainly a few member nations of the Security Council do not want to risk it. That is why it seemed like more of a big deal to Iran.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: That's what's so sneaky about Justa's "OP"s. He makes it sound like he's informed and everyone who disagrees is ignorant, but he's just taking the Iranian version of events and running with it. I'd be cool with that if Iranian news outlets were uncensored and not running interference for the government.
I'd be cool if news agencies who claim to give "worldwide" coverage of events didn't do it from only one perspective all the time, but neither the US nor Iran can seem to manage that. So, in the interest of offering a perspective that is not showcased in American media, I am offering information that has coloured a different view of American / Iranian relations over the years. However, unlike your accusation, I didn't use only Iranian sources. Craig Murray is a British source. Flynt Leverett is an American source. The former tends to weigh in on human rights abuses and challenges them where he hears of them. The latter is someone who publishes for numerous American think-tanks on American / Iranian relations. So, your attempt to snipe at me for pumping the Iranian media only falls a little short when the two more fairly detailed points I mentioned are from non-Iranian sources.
quote:You want to learn about Iranian politics, you can start a thread about it and we can discuss the merits and demerits of the one person that has been running the country since 1989 and the three people that will most likely be running for the Presidency when Ahmadinejhad leaves.
You want to talk about the Ayatollah or possible rivals for Ahmadenijad here, I would be pleased. After all, I want to hear others weigh in on things like that. So, are you challenging or are you asking to share?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone really, really wants to go to war, they'll do it whether or not they have an okay from the Security Council.
What is the point of having the Security Council even there for then? I think the SC was right when it tried to force Saddam to open up to inspectors, it got them back into the country. We're the ones who violated the spirit of the resolution passed by not giving the inspectors adequate time to look around for WMDs that 4 years later and with a couple hundred thousand troops we couldn't manage to find either.
The fault ends up lying with the guy who committed himself to war without cause, not the party who felt they were wronged and went through proper diplomatic channels to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
I think the problem you have is with implied legitimacy. That the UK would get the SC on their side and go to war with Iran and it would be perceived as a legitimate war because the SC notarized it, more or less. I think looking at it that way, if that is in fact how you view it, devalues the SC. They aren't there just to say who can and can't go to war with someone else. They are there for conflict resolution, and when that doesn't work, they are there to build a consensus and punish or force changes in behavior in those who buck the world consensus.
If the UK had ended up wanting to go to war with Iran over this, not getting approval from the SC would not have stopped them. Do you think the Falkland's War would have been averted if the SC had not passed a resolution calling for the removal of Argentine troops from the islands?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If someone really, really wants to go to war, they'll do it whether or not they have an okay from the Security Council.
I agree.
quote:What is the point of having the Security Council even there for then? I think the SC was right when it tried to force Saddam to open up to inspectors, it got them back into the country. We're the ones who violated the spirit of the resolution passed by not giving the inspectors adequate time to look around for WMDs that 4 years later and with a couple hundred thousand troops we couldn't manage to find either.
Well, without shifting to a debate over the legality of the Iraq War, the main gist as far as I am aware is that the Security Council originally made requirements of Hussein's government with the implication of consequences. Currently the US has an arguable position to say that the US carried out those consequences, and that the only objection at this point was that it was a premature execution. I don't totally agree with that, but at least that take has merit (as opposed to "they were evil, so we took them out"), and is why it's difficult to say the US broke any international law.
quote:The fault ends up lying with the guy who committed himself to war without cause, not the party who felt they were wronged and went through proper diplomatic channels to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
Well, yeah, but "fault" is rarely able to be accurately placed in such large-scale problems like this until there is hindsight. The Security Council is supposed to exist to help avoid situations like this that will require hindsight to sort out more fully.
quote:I think the problem you have is with implied legitimacy. That the UK would get the SC on their side and go to war with Iran and it would be perceived as a legitimate war because the SC notarized it, more or less. I think looking at it that way, if that is in fact how you view it, devalues the SC. They aren't there just to say who can and can't go to war with someone else. They are there for conflict resolution, and when that doesn't work, they are there to build a consensus and punish or force changes in behavior in those who buck the world consensus.
It isn't how I looked at it, it is why Ahmadenijad made the comments he did lambasting Britain for going to the Security Council. My opinion is that Britain was just over-reacting.
quote:If the UK had ended up wanting to go to war with Iran over this, not getting approval from the SC would not have stopped them. Do you think the Falkland's War would have been averted if the SC had not passed a resolution calling for the removal of Argentine troops from the islands?
I don't know. I would actually say that what happened then was not too different than the first Gulf War over the Kuwaiti fields.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't how I looked at it, it is why Ahmadenijad made the comments he did lambasting Britain for going to the Security Council. My opinion is that Britain was just over-reacting.
More than a dozen of their soldiers were illegally taken prisoner, I'd say they were somewhat reserved.
I think the first Gulf War was about more than just Kuwaiti oil fields.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't how I looked at it, it is why Ahmadenijad made the comments he did lambasting Britain for going to the Security Council. My opinion is that Britain was just over-reacting.
More than a dozen of their soldiers were illegally taken prisoner, I'd say they were somewhat reserved.
I think the first Gulf War was about more than just Kuwaiti oil fields.
I don't disagree about that, necessarily.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first Gulf War. I understand Lyrhawn's opinion about the severity of Britain's response, because it is a reasonable thing to say. Britain did perform any show of force, and from what I gather that is what Lyrhawn would have viewed as an overreaction. Our disagreement is that I can at least partially agree with the view that going to the Security Council is a sideways implication of force, while Lyrhawn is of the opinion that it was more just another level of bureaucratic politics. There are equal amounts of supporting evidence for each, and in all reality Britain had no perceived intention of actually threatening anyway. That isn't how Tony Blair operates, at least as far as both Lyrhawn's and my opinion seem to be. Perhaps I have a completely incorrect take of the meaning behind Lyrhawn's posts on the matter so far, but that's the impression I got and we really only disagree about the severity, not the intention or the goal.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
No, I just really don't want their personal problems with each other getting in the way. I actually enjoyed Lyrhawn's tangent, which is why I changed the subject line of the thread to allow for more breadth. But it seems to continually get mired in the personal dispute between Rakeesh and MrSquicky, with occasional tag-ins from others.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
