posted
I am glad it was resolved as it was...it allows the Iraqi's to save face, and prevents British deaths. It also was a goo way for Iraq to show the world it is more than just of extremists running the show.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen, if you don't want to engage me in conversation that is fine. This is just not the way to do it. That is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't get that link to work, but I'm going to assume you're talking to me, and since I've only posted once on sake in like three months, I can guess which post it is.
I've engaged you more in conversation than I have any other three Hatrackers put together in the last week. I've had you call me arrogant and ignorant, among other things, to my face. So I'll do you the same courtesy: I think you're smug, arrogant, and condescending. I've tried to engage you in meaningful conversation, and frankly, I think I've been rather even tempered about it the entire way and patient.
I don't know what thread you're referring to when you say "That is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread." Perhaps you mean the deleted thread where you were insulting me, but I could be wrong. I even asked you to tone it down, and you didn't. So I don't feel bad about venting on a separate forum when I've honestly and earnestly tried to engage you in converastion.
If you feel you're owed something else, feel free to vent about it, but I think I've satisfied anything required of me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Listen, if you don't want to engage me in conversation that is fine. This is just not the way to do it. That is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread.
Wow. Linking to a thread on a different forum that has venting about your arrogance in it is impressively narcissistic. I would have just set up the emote to show how sensitive I was, but your way is much more....characteristic.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Listen, if you don't want to engage me in conversation that is fine. This is just not the way to do it. That is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread.
Wow. Linking to a thread on a different forum that has venting about your arrogance in it is impressively narcissistic. I would have just set up the emote to show how sensitive I was, but your way is much more....characteristic.
It has more to do with another thread where I mentioned bad behavior among individuals getting a pass when they relate off-forum. It is Deceitful, and equally as offensive as anything I have said on this forum. They are using a board that has been linked to this forum previously to break the TOS of this forum without posting here. It is intentionally circumventing the TOS to break the rules. Joining that board would not make sense just to trade more insults, and I would assume such behavior is not allowed there as well. Instead, those who are posting such things are standing just over the boundaries where the rules apply and lobbing insults that cannot be returned from here without breaking the TOS. So instead of returning, I am addressing it. I am pointing out that such behavior is rude, inflammatory, abusive, often defamatory, and a double-standard for those who post such material there yet expect better of others who post here. I have never seen such behavior take place on a board before that did not either cause a huge conflagaration or shut one of the boards down eventually, and this is not the first time I have seen such behavior on boards. This can lead to intimidating others away who might have something worthwhile to add to some topics.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've engaged you more in conversation than I have any other three Hatrackers put together in the last week. I've had you call me arrogant and ignorant, among other things, to my face. So I'll do you the same courtesy: I think you're smug, arrogant, and condescending. I've tried to engage you in meaningful conversation, and frankly, I think I've been rather even tempered about it the entire way and patient.
Can you point to an example of my saying that to you? I have stated before that what you said was ignorant, and that was because what you said displayed a lack of knowledge about the point you were making. Maybe you thought I meant otherwise, but since that thread was deleted we cannot go back and examine it.
You did not just say those things about me, though. You also accused me of being an "Iran apologist" there, and I have already pointed out I am using multiple sources and more than one from Western sources. One of them actually worked for the current administration. The things I pointed out are in their published papers that are publicly available, and they are not "anti" anything or apologists for Iran or any other middle eastern nation. They are stating that there have been critical mistakes in dealing with diplomatic problems, and possibly exacerbating the issues. However, you and others have completely disregarded that as a possibility and have instead come up with accusations that are defamatory and abusive. Worse yet, the accusations can be serious and damaging in today's political and diplomatic climate.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't know what thread you're referring to when you say "That is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread." Perhaps you mean the deleted thread where you were insulting me, but I could be wrong. I even asked you to tone it down, and you didn't. So I don't feel bad about venting on a separate forum when I've honestly and earnestly tried to engage you in converastion.
You would be wrong. It was the "Spock did too much LDS at Berkeley" thread. I believe that I have been honestly and earnestly engaging you in conversation as well, and I was under the impression that we were coming to a point where we were beginning to understand each other's viewpoint. If you are still under the impression that I am an "Iran apologist" this is naturally not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you feel you're owed something else, feel free to vent about it, but I think I've satisfied anything required of me.
I don't feel that I am owed anything. An apology would be nice, but ceasing that behavior toward anyone would be better. There appear to be others there who do not engage in it, and despite my opinion of it still being tacit approval I do not hold them responsible for damaging behavior they do not engage in.
Papa Janitor can lock this topic if he feels it has gotten out of hand. I am sure arguments will be made that if I or others did not make posts that others found bad in some fashion, it would not happen. I find this difficult to believe when comments like " I don't know why people tolerate/respond to a lot of the cretins on HR" are made. That implies to me a lot more than just a few others and myself.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
And it's hard, Jutsa, to come up with an example when you mention in the very same paragraph that that thread was deleted, making examples impossible to cite. You did, however, call ME arrogant and ignorant, you did not specifically say it was my words, though I think there's a fairly thin line between the two anyway.
However, I do apologize for what could be viewed as 'going behind your back' by posting what you view as disparaging remarks on another forum. I don't necessarily feel bad about venting about it, and I didn't know you read sake, so it was rude of me.
Frankly, you come off as an Iran apologist. They instigated an international incident by illegally capturing soldiers peforming routine, legal operations outside of Iran's territorial waters, as evidenced by the UK's GPS information. Iran went so far as to accuse them of being in one place, and then when finding out that place wasn't in their water, they changed their mind until they found a place that WAS inside their waters.
The UK's response to this incident was to go through diplomatic channels throughout the entire process, and when Iran initially stonewalled, calling for them to admit they were wrong when they weren't, the UK took it to the UN Security Council, which is a perfectly acceptable and RESPONSIBLE action for a mature nation state to take who wants to settle a dispute amicably and within the purview of the world body.
Your response to that was to fall lockstep with Iran's position of calling that an escalation and an overreaction. Iran screwed up, created an international incident, and the UK handled itself respectfully and reservedly. You've spoken of them negatively, and Iran positively, throughout. Can you not honestly see how someone might come to the honest opinion that you are in fact supporting and apologizing for Iran?
If you don't want to come off that way, I think you've done a poor job of representing your own opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And it's hard, Jutsa, to come up with an example when you mention in the very same paragraph that that thread was deleted, making examples impossible to cite. You did, however, call ME arrogant and ignorant, you did not specifically say it was my words, though I think there's a fairly thin line between the two anyway.
I did not delete the thread. I did specifically say it was your words. I even clarified as such, very similar to the remark I made about the words you used sounding racist. You certainly have no reason to believe me, it is clear, and this is why I dislike deleting threads and relying on memory for what one claims was said.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb]Frankly, you come off as an Iran apologist. They instigated an international incident by illegally capturing soldiers peforming routine, legal operations outside of Iran's territorial waters, as evidenced by the UK's GPS information. Iran went so far as to accuse them of being in one place, and then when finding out that place wasn't in their water, they changed their mind until they found a place that WAS inside their waters.
I said very early on, before Britain produced maps with a border, that those waters were disputed and that there was no clear line. After Britain produced a map with a border, I produced a source that pointed out such a border does not exist. Not you or a single other person provided any evidence in any capacity to dispute this. The only remark on my pointing that data out was a character attack on the individual who made the comment, having nothing to do with even questioning whether this individual would even have such knowledge of those events. This man worked for the British government at one point, and the only viable argument against him were old accusations of something completely unrelated! So, you ignore my information and assert that I am an Iran apologist for using a former British government official and diplomat's data. Here is more information stating that "It is always dangerous to be dogmatic about a boundary unless the line is clearly defined in a treaty that is accepted by both parties." The article goes on to state exactly what I have been claiming from very early on, and this is a BBC article. The truth is that the border lines in that area are not clearly defined and both sides of the argument had no way to state that their border was correct. It has been in dispute for over 25 years!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The UK's response to this incident was to go through diplomatic channels throughout the entire process, and when Iran initially stonewalled, calling for them to admit they were wrong when they weren't, the UK took it to the UN Security Council, which is a perfectly acceptable and RESPONSIBLE action for a mature nation state to take who wants to settle a dispute amicably and within the purview of the world body.
That is a very simplistic and inaccurate view of what happened. The soldiers were captured, both Iran and Britain made claims that the other side was wrong. Both provided data in their argument. The UK went to the UN general assembly and the general assembly stated that they hoped for a peaceful resolution and the soldiers returned, no more. The UK then took the matter to the Security Council and asked them to claim that Iran was behaving illegally, and the Security Council declined. Claims were made that the soldiers' televised appearances were wrong, the more Iran did so the more aggressive Britain's public statements were. Iran stated that they wished the issue to be settled bilaterally, the UK government suspended bilateral talks, stopped issuing visas to Iranian officials to come to Britain, and began appealing to other member nations of NATO and the UN. Blair additionally made more than one comment that Britain would seek to "ratched up pressure" and take more measures regarding Iran. These are all what can be interpreted as aggressive, though not necessarily violent. I agree that Britain was not seeking violence, but their public wording and going to other nations after first agreeing and then suspending bilateral talks was an overreaction to the televised appearance of the soldiers, in my opinion. You are free to disagree, but in the context of what I saw you were taking a different interpretation of severity from the actions.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Your response to that was to fall lockstep with Iran's position of calling that an escalation and an overreaction. Iran screwed up, created an international incident, and the UK handled itself respectfully and reservedly. You've spoken of them negatively, and Iran positively, throughout. Can you not honestly see how someone might come to the honest opinion that you are in fact supporting and apologizing for Iran?
This statement is completely false. I was the first one in that other thread that was deleted to point out the evidence that at least one letter from the British prisoner was falsified. I repeatedly stated that Ahmadenijad and the Ayatollah were extremists and behaved dangerously. Those statements of mine have been completely disregarded, and focus was only on my statements where I was contentious with the "Britain is completely right, Iran is completely wrong" line of thinking. So, what I can honestly see is that as soon as someone comes in whose view of a crisis is not squarely in line with the majority view here, they get labelled as an apologist or a traitor or anti-American. That is what I saw. That is what I still see. That is jingoism.
quote:If you don't want to come off that way, I think you've done a poor job of representing your own opinions.
I think that a number of you have done a poor job of listening to my opinions and have been too eager to accuse me of things that I am not.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that a number of you have done a poor job of listening to my opinions and have been too eager to accuse me of things that I am not.
The thread is gone, but I very well remember how you behaved early in the other thread about this discussion, Jutsa. When challenged, it took like, what, two hours? before you were flinging insults about Fox News, and asserting that people were getting an actual wider view of the situation only from you...and that they would probably never admit it.
You're not fooling anyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Rakeesh, I accused you of behaving like a typical FOX News pundit, and you are still doing so. You are ignoring every bit of information that challenges your predetermined opinion and your only response is to either insult the messenger or attack the character of the person who conveyed the information. You are still doing so, and you are still using the safety of that other board to hurl insults that would break the TOS here. You don't even seem concerned at the risk you take of damaging this forum by your behavior, and you have been completely unapologetic about it.
I challenge you to provide a single fact based argument disputing the facts I have conveyed instead of constantly attacking me or trying to question my sincerity or complaining about insults that you have no problem hurling yourself. If you claim to be so much better, then prove it. You have, to date, not done so.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Even SYRIA knows that Iran screwed up. The only benefit that Iran got from this is that it shelved the attention their nuclear program was getting from the UN.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Even SYRIA knows that Iran screwed up. The only benefit that Iran got from this is that it shelved the attention their nuclear program was getting from the UN.
The UN deadline is not until late in May, so it is unlikely this event will change or affect that date. What do you mean Syria knows that Iran "screwed up" here? That is an awfully vague commentary over what I've already pointed out is not a clear and defined issue.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you heard any noises about Iran's nuclear program during this fiasco? That was one of the benefits they obtained from the illegal capture of these soldiers.
And it's about the only one. War with Iran hasn't been averted; Iran didn't protect anyone with this action; they didn't show their strength. They only thing they showed was that they were willing to flaunt internationally recognized borders. Oh, and that they were terrible at propaganda.
The comment about Syria points to the fact that Syria claims to have assisted with the release of the prisoners.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Have you heard any noises about Iran's nuclear program during this fiasco? That was one of the benefits they obtained from the illegal capture of these soldiers.
I heard much speculation about whether this would affect the nuclear issue. Since the UN remained noncommittal about this particular issue and stated specifically that they are concerned about the nuclear deadline, I would say that despite what you may have seen lacking in the press the UN was still focused on the more important matter. As such, I don't understand what you're implying.
quote:And it's about the only one. War with Iran hasn't been averted; Iran didn't protect anyone with this action; they didn't show their strength. They only thing they showed was that they were willing to flaunt internationally recognized borders. Oh, and that they were terrible at propaganda.
Could you please read my arguments from the beginning of this thread up to now? I have pointed out clearly that there are no clear "internationally recognized borders" in that part of the Gulf. There is no definite border. It never got settled, and it would need to be settled between Iran and Iraq before other nations start claiming they know the demarcation lines. Why do we constantly come back to this when no one has offered a single argument disputing the claims of now more than one reputable source?
quote:The comment about Syria points to the fact that Syria claims to have assisted with the release of the prisoners.
No, Syria claims to have helped facilitate negotiations. So did the Iranian nuclear negotiator Larijani. However, even this article from the BBC seems to be of the opinion that this was most likely ordered by the Ayatollah, since the announcement to release the prisoners came as a surprise to everyone.
You haven't shown me where Syria claimed Iran "screwed up." You pointed out that they wanted to aid in negotiations. So did Turkey. So did Saudi Arabia. All of these nations do not want another war, hence their desire to prevent one. This is hardly stating that Iran "screwed up."
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not doing a blow by blow of all the gibberish you just spewed, I don't have the time, or really the will to do so.
But I just wanted to say:
quote:Originally Posted by: Jutsa You are both arrogant and ignorant. First, Iranians are not Arabic, they are Persian. Second, not a single Iraqi has attacked the US homeland, yet we have been at war in Iraq since 2003.
Just so happens I came by a copy of the thread, which I believe you might have seen as well. Nowhere there do you specify my words and not me as the target. And even if you had, which you didn't, it's a thin line.
Anyway, that's as much as I'm willing to respond to, I'm done rehashing this issue on this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, perhaps you could me so kind as to share the copy of the thread with everyone, otherwise we lose context of what was said compared to what others said. That said, I apologize for my poor wording. I do remember that response, and it was in response to what I felt was a very racist comment. The wording you chose in the post I was responding to sounded very much like you put all of the people in the middle east in the same basket, and you equated Iranians to Arabs, which is something many Iranians take exception to because it is dismissive of much very different cultural and ethnic history. Even within the middle east among Arab nations, there are cultural differences depending on the nation which you refer to.
What I find unacceptable is ignoring the incredibly large host of information I have provided, from Western sources, regarding the arguments I made during the prisoner crisis and regarding relations with Iran in general. All I can state regarding this is that you and a number of others have chosen to toss the baby out with the bathwater due to your prejudice of the post coming from me. I fail to see how this is any better in conduct or attitude than what I have repeatedly been accused of.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if you were an Iranian apologist or not on the deleted thread, Jutsa, or about other labels thrust on you there. I skimmed most of it. But you were tactless on the last page.
I saved the last page of the thread when Jim-me warned he was about to delete it. Then when you posted in this thread (see quote below)"I have stated before that what you [Lyrhawn] said was ignorant...etc" I recalled that you had said he was arrogant and ignorant, not his words. So I emailed Lyhawn my copy of the last page of the deleted thread.
I planned to send you a copy as well, but you have no email addy in your profile so I couldn't. If you email me at my profile address I'll be happy to send it to you, for what it's worth. I won't post the entire page here because it was deleted from the forum.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've engaged you more in conversation than I have any other three Hatrackers put together in the last week. I've had you call me arrogant and ignorant, among other things, to my face. So I'll do you the same courtesy: I think you're smug, arrogant, and condescending. I've tried to engage you in meaningful conversation, and frankly, I think I've been rather even tempered about it the entire way and patient.
Can you point to an example of my saying that to you? I have stated before that what you said was ignorant, and that was because what you said displayed a lack of knowledge about the point you were making. Maybe you thought I meant otherwise, but since that thread was deleted we cannot go back and examine it.
First Rule of the Internet: Networked information cannot be reliably deleted.
BTW, Lyrhawn said he used Arab as a generic for "Middle Easterner" knowing that Iranians are mostly Persians, and on re-reading I see his point. I thought he just misspoke and yet knew that Iranians are Persians not Arabs because he seems well-read, which is why I said on the deleted thread "Lyrhawn, I'm sure you know that Iranians are not Arabs"-- a far more diplomatic way to call attention to a mistake than calling them ignorant and arrogant.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Morbo. Incidentally, how do you save a page off the forum like you did? I've always wondered that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I already apologized for my poor wording and explained what I was thinking when I posted that.
What frustrates me are two things. One is that certain individuals feel it is okay to toss insults from beyond the confines of this forum and feel that they can still call on others with moral superiority here. Their behavior would break the TOS if engaged upon here, so it takes place where the TOS is slightly different and not beholden to the rules here. The second frustrating aspect is that, even within the confines of this thread which would have been absent the poor words by myself and by plenty of others, including accusations that I was a traitor and anti American, not a single person has given any information to dispute the main points of my original posts which began this whole mess in the first place. I pointed out the borders cannot possibly be well defined. I pointed out that sources outside of Iran and the middle east have corroborated this claim. I pointed out how continually duplicitous relations between the nation who is viewed as the largest aggressor in the coalition forces in Iran, the United States, and Iran has contributed to the increasingly escalating environment in the Persian Gulf. No one has given any disputing information, instead content to call me names or attack the character of any sources I name. Nothing you could post from the previous thread can show otherwise. From my recollection the only individual who addressed what I said from the beginning early on with actual arguments against what I was saying instead of against me was Dagonee, and even though we did not come to an agreement of opinion he still did not stoop to attacking me or make ridiculous accusations. Lyrhawn did not, to my knowledge, attack me directly but made broad statements that reflected an ethnocentrist view placing Arabs, Iranians, Muslims, and extremists often in the same rhetorical pot, whether he meant to or not. Regardless of whether you see his point or not, calling all in the middle east Arabs is a comment that is easily viewed as racist.
I appreciate your suggestion of what I could have said, but it also ignores the condition of that thread at the time, which was after I had already been called just short of a traitor and was defending myself rhetorically against a number of different accusations and claims. Others who posted and could have been considered far less bombastic responses were verbally bludgeoned by those individuals taking part in that assault. I see no reason to excuse their behavior while chiding mine from a copy you have saved before it was deleted.
Furthermore, all that continued insult and attempts to turn this thread into a facsimile of the previously deleted thread are only going to result in this one being locked or deleted by the moderator. That resebles to me further attempt to squash dissenting opinion through means other than actually refuting the opinion, and only further bolster my view that with at least certain individuals on this forum representations of some types of opinion are not tolerated no matter how the opinion is presented. I have altered what I am posting to present my opinion, but I continue to be lambasted and with the same tactics by others that are refusing to consider my points based on previous posts.
So far, Lyrhawn is the only one to have addressed what I have said, and even he has not refuted many of the points I made in the original post here. Instead, he has requested I give him a complete breakdown of the different cultures within the middle east, which is simply not going to happen within the span of a single post. There is too much information to convey, and it is at least as large a subject as performing a comparison and contrast of different ethnic and cultural groups in any other region in the world. I am not opposed to trying to answer some specific questions and have tried, but still he and every other post have done little to address the original points I made. I appreciate Lyrhawn's curiosity, but not when insults are going to be launched at me from off on a board I will not join solely to insult others.
So, Morbo, I am trying to avoid the bombastic posting to try to get some real arguments against what I have said because I want to know better why such information is so resisted or ignored. I offered to airmanfour to please provide other information if he feels he is in possession of something I or others may not be aware of. If what I posted was posted by a completely different and unknown username, would there have been more refutation and discussion? If so, I would like to know what it would be. I have heard much commentary similar to what ScottR has stated as if it were common knowledge or a given understanding, but nowhere have I found evidence supporting such views outside of others stating it similarly as common knowledge or a given understanding. Were we discussing a theory or philosophy such arguments would be tautology, so I want to know where the basis for these views lie. There is a definitive Iran is bad, America is good and [/i]the middle east is bad, America is good[/i] prejudice that permeates and blocks logical and reasonable examination of events from taking place, and I want to find out some examples of why this is so. Lyrhawn was beginning to offer me progress in understanding at least his own view, but Rakeesh and Jim-Me and airmanfour seem resigned to not be motivated to engage in discussion. For that reason, I opened up the discussion to others. That is currently being blocked by this current course of argument. I am asking to please move on and let others begin to offer their views, so this sidebar does not continue to replace the discussion I asked for. If it is going to continue, then should I not consider my bridges already burned and never look to seek such understanding again?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very easy. For Firefox, Cntl-S, or "Save Page As" in the File menu and in the right-click context menu. You get a choice, the whole web page (with pictures), HTML only, or text only.
For Explorer I think it's in the File menu also, I don't know about other options.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the UN remained noncommittal about this particular issue
The UN security council called for the release of the prisoners on March 29. That's not 'noncommittal;' that's disapproval. They HAVEN'T been bothering Iran over it's nuclear program.
quote:I have pointed out clearly that there are no clear "internationally recognized borders" in that part of the Gulf.
The US recognizes the border Britain says is there; Britain does; the European Union does. So does Iraq, apparently.
The seizure of these soldiers was illegal. Do you dispute that?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, I'm sorry if you were attacked unjustly or if you think you were. I already said I don't know about the truth of the accusations. I would guess that you are trying hard to be objective and give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt, something most Westerners (including me) are no longer willing to do.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Regardless of whether you see his point or not, calling all in the middle east Arabs is a comment that is easily viewed as racist.
I don't think it's easily done so, I think it's a stretch. Like it or not, most Americans consider "Arab" and "Middle Easterner" (if that's even a term) synonymous. It may be ignorant, but I don't consider it racist. We all should know that Arabs are the largest ethnic group there (I think) and not the only one, but we don't.
Was it also racist to call anyone from the USSR "Russian" even though there were dozens of non-Russian ethnic groups there?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the UN remained noncommittal about this particular issue
The UN security council called for the release of the prisoners on March 29. That's not 'noncommittal;' that's disapproval. They HAVEN'T been bothering Iran over it's nuclear program.
They made two statements that the nuclear deadline was not changed over the last two weeks. The Security Council was noncommittal about picking a side or calling either illegal. They specifically denied Britain's request to state that the seizures were illegal.
quote:
quote:I have pointed out clearly that there are no clear "internationally recognized borders" in that part of the Gulf.
The US recognizes the border Britain says is there; Britain does; the European Union does. So does Iraq, apparently.
The seizure of these soldiers was illegal. Do you dispute that?
They do not recognize those borders. Please read the BBC link I gave, which points out exactly why those borders are not recognized. What America and the European Unions supported were Britain's claims, not the status of the border. Since the Iraqi government has signed no treaty regarding the waterway and since Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in the mid 1980s, what gives you the impression that there are official borders in that region?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Jutsa, I'm sorry if you were attacked unjustly or if you think you were. I already said I don't know about the truth of the accusations. I would guess that you are trying hard to be objective and give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt, something most Westerners (including me) are no longer willing to do.
Can you elaborate as to why? You mention no longer being able to do so, which means I am under the impression that you once were. Is this because of the government in place or something further?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Regardless of whether you see his point or not, calling all in the middle east Arabs is a comment that is easily viewed as racist.
I don't think it's easily done so, I think it's a stretch. Like it or not, most Americans consider "Arab" and "Middle Easterner" (if that's even a term) synonymous. It may be ignorant, but I don't consider it racist. We all should know that Arabs are the largest ethnic group there (I think) and not the only one, but we don't.
They are not the largest ethnic group in Iran. Calling a Syrian 'Egyptian' or a Jordanian a 'Saudi' can be considered an insult in some cases, insensitive in others, ignorant in most.
quote:Was it also racist to call anyone from the USSR "Russian" even though there were dozens of non-Russian ethnic groups there?
I believe that some Chechens, Khazaks, Ukrainians, and others might think so.
[ April 07, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Was Iran's seizure of the soldiers illegal, Justa?
No. It was wrong, in my opinion. The UN Security Council did not call it illegal, it expressed "grave concern" and urged for resolution to the crisis. The actual quote to which you referred earlier was thus: "Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws. Members of the Security Council support calls including by the secretary-general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister for an early resolution of this problem including the release of the 15 U.K. personnel."
So no, I do not think it was illegal. I think that it is and was used as a maneuvering tactic for both sides. For Iran it was an attempt to draw negative attention to the coalition forces and possibly extend their claimed territorial waters. For Britain (after the cature) it provided a basis for what would be considered annoying or provacative behavior by the Iranian government to be considered illegal (again, this was not the first incident or disagreement).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, I'm trying to stay out of this thread. If you could please just leave my name out of your future deliberations Jutsa, I'd appreciate it.
I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop calling my past comment racist. It wasn't. I tried to explain it several times, and by now I think you've just decided just to ignore my explanations.
Using "Arab" as a catchall phrase for those of Middle Eastern decent FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL I WAS PROPOSING was not racist. I think you still fail to see what I was saying originally.
So seriously, please, drop it. I'm not responding on a point by point basis with you, and I'd appreciate it, if knowing that I'm not going to fight back, you'd relent from prodding me, unless you want me to start calling you Aaron Burr. Thank you.
Morbo, thanks! That was easier than I thought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good Lord! According to this great historical summary of Iran/Iraq conflicts over the waterway, the border has been contested for almost 400 years! Isn't anything ever resolved?
Whoever has the biggest guns forces the weaker party to accept their border interpretation: originally the Ottoman Turks, then the British after WWI, and then the Iranians themselves in a 1975 treaty. Then, when power shifts, it becomes disputed again.
But one fact makes me suspect the Iranians of BS over the British: they accused the sailors of being in their waters and gave a location. Then that location upon examination turned out not to be in Iranian water, by their own definition! Whereupon they (with straight faces, presumably) came up other locations in Iranian water. This simple exchange made them lose all credibility in my eyes.
To answer your question, Jutsa, the mullahs ruling Iran have made some horrible policy stands in the past 30 years, including the American embassy takeover, supporting international terror, signing the death warrant of an author, etc. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: They do not recognize those borders. Please read the BBC link I gave, which points out exactly why those borders are not recognized. What America and the European Unions supported were Britain's claims, not the status of the border. Since the Iraqi government has signed no treaty regarding the waterway and since Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in the mid 1980s, what gives you the impression that there are official borders in that region?
I'm confused: numerous treaties have been signed regarding that border, dating back to 1639 and most recently in 1975. And perhaps also after the Iran-Iraq War, I don't know. But how could Saddam tear up a treaty which doesn't exist? Or do you mean the current Iraqi government hasn't signed a treaty?
Also, you say :
quote:So no, I do not think it was illegal. I think that it is and was used as a maneuvering tactic for both sides. For Iran it was an attempt to draw negative attention to the coalition forces and possibly extend their claimed territorial waters.
If the Iranians were trying to extend their territory, they weren't in their territory, and the seizure was illegal ipso facto.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop calling my past comment racist. It wasn't. I tried to explain it several times, and by now I think you've just decided just to ignore my explanations.
I am not doing that, but it is a frustrating feeling that you are experiencing, is it not? Imagine how the continuing ignoring of what I have been saying since the other thread has been.
quote:Using "Arab" as a catchall phrase for those of Middle Eastern decent FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL I WAS PROPOSING was not racist. I think you still fail to see what I was saying originally.
I know what you were saying, but it illustrates an underlying racism that is based on ignorance that much of the West has toward the middle east. If you do not think this way, then that is good. That mentality still exists, and to call it anything other than implicit racism is excusing it. Would you prefer I use a term that means the same but elicits a lesser emotional response like extreme ethnocentrism?
quote:So seriously, please, drop it. I'm not responding on a point by point basis with you, and I'd appreciate it, if knowing that I'm not going to fight back, you'd relent from prodding me, unless you want me to start calling you Aaron Burr. Thank you.
Morbo, thanks! That was easier than I thought.
If you want to drop it that is fine. Just remember that I have apologized for my words. Maybe someday you will apologize for calling me a "d*ck" among other more dangerous things.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Good Lord! According to this great historical summary of Iran/Iraq conflicts over the waterway, the border has been contested for almost 400 years! Isn't anything ever resolved?
Sadly, no. Iran and Iraq have been going at it for longer than current politics are typically mindful of as well. Saddam Hussein threw out the treaty during the Iran / Iraq War, and it has been largely assumed that at least the previously agreed upon borders should be observed, but it has never been settled and the new Iraqi government simply has not been able to field negotiations yet.
quote:Whoever has the biggest guns forces the weaker party to accept their border interpretation: originally the Ottoman Turks, then the British after WWI, and then the Iranians themselves in a 1975 treaty. Then, when power shifts, it becomes disputed again.
I agree with the last sentence, the line of succession you named is slightly off, but not a big deal since I agree with your point.
quote:But one fact makes me suspect the Iranians of BS over the British: they accused the sailors of being in their waters and gave a location. Then that location upon examination turned out not to be in Iranian water, by their own definition! Whereupon they (with straight faces, presumably) came up other locations in Iranian water. This simple exchange made them lose all credibility in my eyes.
This was a mistake by the Iranian government, I agree. However, all of the points given for GPS locations, including the ones given by the British, are all closer to Iranian mainland than they are Iraqi mainland. Britain's Craig Murray, who is a former British diplomat and officer of the government's Maritime Section in the Office of the Commonwealth, was the first to point this out. He does not work for the government now, and has a history of open disagreement with British government policies (usually human rights violations), but his capabilities were never in question during his time in service, only his disagreement. Because of this I equally distrust the British government's drawn boundary, especially how they quickly responded with such a specific boundary when before the boundary was defined by a moving shoreline in 1975, which constantly shifted.
quote:To answer your question, Jutsa, the mullahs ruling Iran have made some horrible policy stands in the past 30 years, including the American embassy takeover, supporting international terror, signing the death warrant of an author, etc. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
You don't see comments like "they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt" a troubling statement to make? Are you speaking of the hardline government in particular?
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: They do not recognize those borders. Please read the BBC link I gave, which points out exactly why those borders are not recognized. What America and the European Unions supported were Britain's claims, not the status of the border. Since the Iraqi government has signed no treaty regarding the waterway and since Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in the mid 1980s, what gives you the impression that there are official borders in that region?
I'm confused: numerous treaties have been signed regarding that border, dating back to 1639 and most recently in 1975. And perhaps also after the Iran-Iraq War, I don't know. But how could Saddam tear up a treaty which doesn't exist? Or do you mean the current Iraqi government hasn't signed a treaty?
Saddam Hussein threw away the treaty a few years after the Iran / Iraq War began, when Iraq was attempting to gain Iranian lands and was making both land and sea grabs for more power. So, the treaty that was signed in 1975 was no longer in effect after the Iran / Iraq War, and both countries never agreed to a boundary after that time. Throughout the 1990s and even before the invasion of Iraq by the US and coalition forces, which overthrew the government and dissolved the Baath party, there was no defined border. The newly installed Iraqi government has yet to have signed an agreement defining the border with Iran in that region.
Does that make more sense? Perhaps my attempt to explain it previously was not clear.
quote:Also, you say :
quote:So no, I do not think it was illegal. I think that it is and was used as a maneuvering tactic for both sides. For Iran it was an attempt to draw negative attention to the coalition forces and possibly extend their claimed territorial waters.
If the Iranians were trying to extend their territory, they weren't in their territory, and the seizure was illegal ipso facto.
These are contended waters. It seemed to me that the Iranian government was trying to argue that their border was further out than the British defined border. Since it is not clear what each side is trying to define as the basis for their border, it is not really clear to assume it was an attempt to grab more territory or whether they wanted it defined according to borders that existed previously in their favor. I don't have the entire list of coordinates from each side defining the border, nor do I have copies of each version of previously defined borders, so I cannot be more precise. The border definitions look more to me as a 'he said / she said' argument using different bases for their dispute on each side. So, ipso facto neither side has a stronger legal basis for defining the border. Britain would be lucky it did not become a legal issue, because unless Iraq decided to back the British defined border in a legal setting (different from media statements, which I do not recall hearing either), Iran would have a stronger legal basis because this is not a diplomatic border with any British territory.
I agree with the BBC article I linked, in that both Britain and Iran should be wary of arguing too heavily on the absolute definition of the border. There is too much troubled history and there are too many undefined parameters to use any border as an established legal precedent to enforce a diplomatic incident. Had Iran taken those prisoners to court, then I would have agreed that their conduct was illegal. I suspect that the Supreme Leader knew this was the case and forced Ahmadenijad to release the prisoners. The detainment of them, however, was more of a diplomatic issue than it was a legal issue, due to the boardings and searches taking place closer to Iranian mainland than Iraqi mainland.
Thank you for your comments and questions, Morbo. I do appreciate it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't necessarily feel bad about venting about it, and I didn't know you read sake, so it was rude of me.
It looks to me like you apologized for getting caught, not for what you said. I guess I will just have to deal with it. Once again, I hope you find those videos helpful where you believe I was not.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: . . . it is not really clear to assume it was an attempt [by Iran] to grab more territory or whether they wanted it defined according to borders that existed previously in their favor. I don't have the entire list of coordinates from each side defining the border, nor do I have copies of each version of previously defined borders, so I cannot be more precise. etc blah blah
Jutsa, you said a possible motive for Iran's actions was to "possibly extend their claimed territorial waters." I didn't make any assumptions--I made a conditional statement
quote:If the Iranians were trying to extend their territory, [then] they weren't in their territory, and [therefore]the seizure was illegal ipso facto.
Then, therefore, and bolds added. The borders, actual co-ordinates, treaties and so forth are irrelevant to that conditional: if they were grabbing territory, obviously they weren't in their territory, by their own definitions, and therefore the seizures were illegal under int'l law.
If the Iranians were within their borders by their definitions, then all the border disputes, treaties etc become issues and it's a far muddier situation.
To clarify my statement about why the mullahs don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, let me quote Tony Blair's statement to the Iranian people after the release of the sailors:
quote: "We bear you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and dignified history.
"The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue. I hope - as I've always hoped - that in the future we are able to do so."
That's a beautiful sentiment that I totally believe in. I felt the same way during US conflicts with Iraq, the USSR, and N. Korea. People are often victims of their own governments.
The ayatollahs and mullahs in charge have proven many times they will flout any int'l law.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
By involving the British, the Iranian 'diplomats' issue gets kicked up the CIA hierarchy to the political masters, who are appropriately sensitive to the continued appearance of a Coalition of the Willing.
Now I'm not saying I buy this, certainly not whole. I can't find the interview where I first heard it. I consume a ridiculous amount of news.
But this theory is interesting because it makes a prediction: If it is true, we can expect to see the Erbil 5 released in the next few weeks.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the Iranians were trying to extend their territory, [then] they weren't in their territory, and [therefore]the seizure was illegal ipso facto.
Then, therefore, and bolds added. The borders, actual co-ordinates, treaties and so forth are irrelevant to that conditional: if they were grabbing territory, obviously they weren't in their territory, by their own definitions, and therefore the seizures were illegal under int'l law.
I am saying there is no evidence either way. Neither Iran nor Britain showed evidence for or against such an assumption. There was absolutely no public discussion of the issue, and no releases of data that would be supportive of an argument one way or the other. Instead, both sides claimed a right to the area in question without any legal support, which was not only unusable for a legal argument but kept it out of legal review by any world court. This is why I am continuing to say that there is no indication of illegal action (by either side).
quote:If the Iranians were within their borders by their definitions, then all the border disputes, treaties etc become issues and it's a far muddier situation.
I believe this is at least the case from the Iranian perspective, though not necessarily from the British perspective.
quote:To clarify my statement about why the mullahs don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, let me quote Tony Blair's statement to the Iranian people after the release of the sailors:
quote: "We bear you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and dignified history.
"The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue. I hope - as I've always hoped - that in the future we are able to do so."
That's a beautiful sentiment that I totally believe in. I felt the same way during US conflicts with Iraq, the USSR, and N. Korea. People are often victims of their own governments.
The ayatollahs and mullahs in charge have proven many times they will flout any int'l law.
I agree that Blair's statement showed a great deal of class and tact. The most recent ayatollah is less inclined to incite world powers at this time, thought I personally suspect it has little to nothing to do with a more moderate stance. Iran is finally reaching a point where their economy is picking up again, and if they can continue on this path they can rebuild their oil infrastructure to more modern specifications and be the world's sole competitor to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is keenly aware of this, especially since it is reported in some circles that Saudi Arabia has peaked in oil production and will soon begin to decline. This is of great significance to the whole world, as OPEC defines the prices we eventually pay for at the pump.
On the Shatt al Arab waterway, this BBC video on the Iran / Iraq War may help to illustrate what I mean. At around the 20 minute mark the video begins to discuss some of the land and waterway grabs where Iran gained ground over Iraq's initial attack. At one point, much of the Shatt al Arab was taken over by Iran, which created difficulty for Iraqi and Kuwaiti tankers to navigate. The video as a whole offers a good deal of information about the war itself and atrocities that were committed, but the short segment between 20 and 25 minutes in displays what we are discussing here regarding territorial waters. It in part displays how the borders are not clear and have not been clear for over 20 years.
I have no love for the ayatollahs, and something Nato said in the thread which was deleted was very poignant to me: acting in aggression at this time is not in the best interests of the people of the nations involved. This is especially true for Iran and Iraq, but also the coalition forces there now. Another war is going to affect everyone, even nations not directly involved in any conflict. Iran's forces are not as dilapidated as Iraq's were, so any military strikes would become extended campaigns that have worse implications than the Iraqi insurgency. Right now Iran is feeling backed into a corner and surrounded, and Ahmadenijad is making matters no better by his constant prodding. Ahmadenijad's administration has the Iranian public convinced America is planning to attack, and that propaganda colors every action taken by the military and civilian population, who already openly dislikes the Bush administration (even while enjoying American culture). Blair's comments regarding the incident with the prisoners was excellent in that it pushed the intent to keep these disputes in the diplomatic realm, and I hope his example is followed even after he is no longer in office. Comments like his go further to eventually undermine the leadership in Iran than military action will, because there is a growing younger generation of Iranians who have grown increasingly tired of having to meter their behavior according to the government's wishes. Blair's comment's afterward fostered and validated that growing change, which is more significant than even he's probably gotten credit for.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
In 1971, Iraq broke diplomatic relations with Iran after claiming sovereignty rights over the islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb in the Persian Gulf, following the withdrawal of the British. Iraq then expropriated the properties of 70,000 Iranians and expelled them from its territory, after complaining to the Arab League and the UN without success.
One of the factors contributing to hostility between the two powers was a dispute over full control of the Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab waterway at the head of the Persian Gulf, an important channel for the oil exports of both countries. In 1975, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had sanctioned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to attack Iraq over the waterway, then under Iraqi control; soon afterward, both nations signed the Algiers Accord, where Iraq made territorial concessions — including the waterway — in exchange for normalized relations…
[end of Iran/Iraq War] With foreign assistance, Iraq financed the purchase of more technologically advanced weapons, and built a more modern, well-trained armed force. After setbacks on the battlefield, it offered to return to the 1975 border. Since Iran was internationally isolated and facing rising public discontent, it agreed to a cease-fire on August 20, 1988…
The war left the borders unchanged. Two years later, as war with the western powers loomed, Saddam recognized Iranian rights over the eastern half of the Shatt al-Arab, a reversion to the status quo ante bellum that he had repudiated a decade earlier.
posted
Morbo: I understand, I am saying those conditions are irrlevant because this wasn't a legal issue. You are refusing to accept that no matter how much context I am giving for my statement.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orlox, you are forgetting to point out the changes after the 2003 invasion. The UN did task the British navy to patrol the region, and the Algiers Accords were the baseline to follow, but those accords were dependent on the shifting coastline and are not clear as to where the border lies (there are at least two demarcation lines based only on that accord). The Iraqi government and the Iranian government have yet to agree on the issue.
However what orlox points out is true, and Iran would have more control over the waterway per the Algiers Accord than they currently have. Current politics influence this, naturally.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this true? Has it been verified or reported elsewhere? If so, this is horrible. If it is true our government is giving support to who we should be using to track down bin Laden. I do not know the credibility of Seymour Hersh on such claims, but would br greatly interested to know more of who and what is taking place, particularly in the current climate.
Also, I don't know if it has been discussed, but the accusations of Iranian supply of insurgents is fizzling into more hot air. This article goes into some aspects of how the guesses about munitions may be contrived. It is no secret that the Iranian government has facilitated meetings between the likes of al Sadr and member's of Khamani's court. How would Sunni insurgents, who have been reported before as planting IEDs and using car bombs, be getting hold of Iranian munitions in the first place, since Iran is a Shia led government? I say Sunni because the attacks take place primarily in Sunni regions and had previously been attributed to Sunni insurgent groups. Could not the money Seymour Hersh is accusing the US government of funneling be paying for these munitions to the Iraqi insurgent groups?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this shows speculation that a deal to trade these 5 Iranians for the British sailors (with a face-saving interval between releases for plausible deniability) was untrue.
quote: U.S. Decides Against Freeing 5 Iranian Agents Administration Resists Tehran's Pressure, State Department Recommendation
By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A12
After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.
At a meeting of the president's foreign policy team Tuesday, the administration decided the five Iranians will remain in custody and go through a periodic six-month review used for the 250 other foreign detainees held in Iraq, U.S. officials said. The next review is not expected until July, officials say.
The five Iranians were seized in January at Iran's liaison office in Irbil, Iraq. The question of what to do with the detainees split the Bush administration.
The five, seized in a Jan. 11 raid by U.S. forces in the Kurdish city of Irbil, are at the center of increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran.
posted
I'd be tempted to release them as a measure of good faith.
Capturing people in Afghanistan and Iraq was diplomatically easy, but Iran can cause problems if they want in order to get their people back. Why not release them before Iran has to start threatening either diplomatic or some other fallout and earn the diplomatic good will that comes with it?
Besides, if they were going to talk, they've already done so. Holding them now is just punitive, and we get more I think out of releasing them than holding them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the theory was stillborn given al Sadr's recent actions. I suppose it might be argued that al Sadr nixed the deal for his own purposes.
But I think any theory which assumes the people in charge know what they are doing should be regarded with suspicion. Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This al Sadr thing is going to reach a boiling point soon. The man controls large pieces of the government, and all his people are leaving soon.
I think things are about to get worse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
emote to show how sensitive I was, but your way is much more....characteristic.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Iran and Iraq have been going at it for longer than current politics are typically mindful of as well. Saddam Hussein threw out the treaty during the Iran / Iraq War, and it has been largely assumed that at least the previously agreed upon borders should be observed, but it has never been settled and the new Iraqi government simply has not been able to field negotiations yet.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
