DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Henny on March 11, 2007, 03:47:01 AM
-
U.S., Iran Trade Barbs in Direct Talks
The Associated Press
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
March 10, 2007
In their first direct talks since the Iraq war began, U.S. and Iranian envoys traded harsh words and blamed each other for the country's crisis Saturday at a one-day international conference that some hoped would help end their 27-year diplomatic freeze.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the conference with an appeal for all participants to help ease his country's plight and prevent the violent conflict here from spilling over into the entire Middle East.
But the conference underscored the wide gulf between American and Iranian views over the nature of the crisis and the ways to end it.
During the talks, U.S. envoy David Satterfield pointed to his briefcase which he said contained documents proving Iran was arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq.
'Your accusations are merely a cover for your failures in Iraq,' Iran's chief envoy Abbas Araghchi shot back, according to an official familiar to the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, only said that American delegates exchanged views with the Iranians 'directly and in the presence of others' during talks, which he described as 'constructive and businesslike.'
But Labid Abbawi, a senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official who attended the meeting, confirmed that an argument broke out between the Iranian and American envoys. He would not elaborate.
Before the talks, U.S. officials said the Baghdad conference would allow all sides to spell out their positions frankly and pave the way for more substantive discussions on resolving the Iraq crisis.
Al-Maliki, a Shiite, appealed for international help to sever networks aiding extremists and warned that Iraq's growing sectarian bloodshed could spill across the Middle East.
Khalilzad also urged nations bordering Iraq _ which include Syria and Iran _ to increase their assistance to al-Maliki's government, saying 'the future of Iraq and the Middle East is the defining issue of our time.'
'(Iraq) needs support in this battle that not only threatens Iraq but will spill over to all countries in the region,' al-Maliki said.
Al-Maliki urged for help in stopping financial support, weapon pipelines and 'religious cover' for the relentless attacks of car bombings, killings and other attacks that have pitted Iraq's Sunnis against majority Shiites.
Underscoring the security crisis, at least two mortar shells exploded near the Foreign Ministry where the talks were held but caused no casualties. A suicide car bomber also killed 20 people in the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City.
The participants at the talks included all of Iraq's neighbors _ Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait _ as well as the U.S., Russia, France, Britain, China, Bahrain, Egypt, the U.N., the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League.
At a news conference after the meeting, Araghchi restated Tehran's demands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, which he insisted had made Iraq a magnet for extremists from across the Muslim world.
'For the sake of peace and stability in Iraq ... we need a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces,' said Araghchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs.
'Violence in Iraq is good for no country in the region,' he said. 'Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region.'
Araghchi said he had no face-to-face, private talks with Khalilzad and that the discussions were 'within the framework of the meeting.' He spoke of 'very good interaction by all the delegations.'
Khalilzad, too, called the meeting a 'first step.'
'The discussions were limited and focused on Iraq and I don't want to speculate after that,' said the Afghan-born Khalilzad, who greeted Araghchi in the Persian language.
He told reporters in a conference call after the session that he took it as a good sign Iran and Syria both pledged support for a stable Iraq, including reconciliation among Iraq's factions.
'I think one has to be cautious about exaggerating the impact of what has happened, but what has happened in my view cannot be dismissed,' Khalilzad said. 'It was a good meeting.'
Nevertheless, the discussions illustrated the deep differences between Tehran and Washington, although each insists that full-scale civil war is in neither country's interest.
'Regarding security, we have channels that we can put to use,' Araghchi told The Associated Press. 'We are ready for any help we can give to Iraq.'
Reza Amiri, a senior official at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, dismissed American claims that Tehran was destabilizing Iraq by arming Shiite militias. The U.S. military has insisted that Iranian weapons, including a new generation of powerful roadside bombs, have killed more than 170 U.S. and coalition troops here since mid-2004.
'They're lying because it is just not true,' Amiri told the AP. 'Iraq's borders with Iran are the most secure of Iraqi borders. The Iraqi government has not even once said Iran is interfering in its affairs.'
But Amiri said Saturday's conference was 'very positive' because 'everyone promised to cooperate with each other and to control the borders.'
The delegates proposed an 'expanded' follow-up meeting, which could include the G-8 nations and others, in Istanbul, Turkey, next month. Iraqi officials, however, say they will urge that the next meeting take place again in Baghdad.
For Iran, opening more direct contacts with Washington could help promote their shared interests in preventing full-scale war between Sunnis and Shiites. Iran has influence among Shiite political parties with ties to militias.
'Security of Iraq is our security and stability in Iraq is a necessity for peace and security in the region,' Araghchi said at the news conference.
The Baghdad talks come as the U.S. administration has toughened its rhetoric on Iran and flexed its muscles at the U.N. over Tehran's disputed nuclear program. The tough talk has been accompanied by the arrival of two U.S. carrier battle groups near the Iranian shores in the Persian Gulf.
Iranians increasingly fear that a U.S. attack is imminent despite American insistence to the contrary.
The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic ties after Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran following the 1979 Islamic revolution. In the late 1990s, U.S. and Iranian envoys were part of an eight-nation group studying Afghanistan's troubles under the Taliban, and both nations took part in meetings to establish an interim Afghan government after the Taliban's fall in 2001.
In 2000, a four-member U.S. congressional delegation met with Iran's parliament speaker, Mehdi Karroubi, and others for informal talks during a worldwide gathering of lawmakers in New York.
Iranian analyst Saeid Leylaz said the Baghdad conference would be a non-starter if it's not followed by a one-on-one dialogue between Washington and Tehran.
'How can you expect us to talk to them about Iraq's security without Iran's security being part of the talks?' said Leylaz.
He said only a 'constructive and strategic dialogue between Tehran and Washington' would resolve the Iraq problem.
'Tehran could help temporarily in Iraq,' said Leylaz, 'but for an everlasting solution, talks should comprise of security guarantees for the whole region,' said Leylaz.
'The Americans must understand the question of security is a matter of life and death for Iran,' he said. And no where is that security as vital for Iran as on its borders with Iraq.
___
Associated Press writers Brian Murphy in Baghdad and Anne Gearan in Washington contributed to the story.
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3610080076233541641230903562873805129871
-
Do we no longer have any skilled negotiators? U.S. envoy David Satterfield doesn't appear to have done well.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/07.03.08.IraqTalks.jpg)
-
Do we no longer have any skilled negotiators? U.S. envoy David Satterfield doesn't appear to have done well.
What could he have given ?
-
Do we no longer have any skilled negotiators? U.S. envoy David Satterfield doesn't appear to have done well.
What could he have given ?
Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah? Our subjugation to Islam? Israel on a platter?
-
Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah? Our subjugation to Islam? Israel on a platter?
Let's see:
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).
We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.
Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"
-
Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah? Our subjugation to Islam? Israel on a platter?
Let's see:
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
No If we accept responsibility for Saddams Husseins decisions we woud then owe more than we could pay , thi makes no more sense than accepting the cst of all the Aiatola Humainis decisions.
We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).
Hasn't this already been offered? This could be given but it is not a big part of the problem.
We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.
No this is a terrible idea and it is the reverse of the truth if that matters , it was WMD that got us interested in smackng Saddam down . Where is our tank you from the Iranians for that?
Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"
No I don't expect that our negotiators are being that dense , are you talking about Iran's?
-
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
And this is proved how again? What units, what American ordinance and lauching platforms would you be referring to?
We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims
Have we not apologized, and this would amount to accomplishing, what again?
We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.
And we could have stopped it, how again??
Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"
I concede my comments were a tad over the top, and not meant to be taken 100% literally. That is ultimately is the goal of Islamofascists that permeate their country and leadership. And its not stupid at all, when one considers that's the real agenda. These token references you cite won't get us a ride in the front of one of their buses, much less slow down their military weapons/explosives shipments into Iraq and Nuclear Bomb production activity.
-
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
And this is proved how again? What units, what American ordinance and lauching platforms would you be referring to?
Well, I wouldn't call them "oil fields" since we only took out some oil platforms in international waters as retaliation for attacks on US shipping. We took out a few ships as well.
-
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
Well, I wouldn't call them "oil fields" since we only took out some oil platforms in international waters as retaliation for attacks on US shipping. We took out a few ships as well.
ahhhhhhhhh, so the implication that the U.S. facilitated and assisted Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, attacking Iranian oil assets in Iran, completely unprovoked, is a tad......disingenuous? hmmmmmmmmmmm
-
No If we accept responsibility for Saddams Husseins decisions we woud then owe more than we could pay , thi makes no more sense than accepting the cst of all the Aiatola Humainis decisions.
Ummm. We attacked them (meaning the United States).
Hasn't this already been offered? This could be given but it is not a big part of the problem.
Not to my knowledge.
No this is a terrible idea and it is the reverse of the truth if that matters , it was WMD that got us interested in smackng Saddam down . Where is our tank you from the Iranians for that?
We knew Iraq used them on Iran, but our policy was that "Iraq could not lose this war." So after the war we brought no international condemnation on Iraq for using chemical weapons on Iran, despite having knowledge of its use (and possibly encouraging it).
No I don't expect that our negotiators are being that dense , are you talking about Iran's?
No, I was referring to Sir's nasty reply.
-
And this is proved how again? What units, what American ordinance and lauching platforms would you be referring to?
So when I say it I have to provide units, ordnance, and launching platforms - but when Ami says it you believe it whole-heartedly? Thanks.
By the way, I never implied that it was unprovoked, but it wasn't exactly US shipping either. It was Kuwaiti oil tankers with US flags raised on them. The fact that we were helping Iraq is well known. See Operation Praying Mantis as but one example.
Have we not apologized, and this would amount to accomplishing, what again?
No, and we have not paid compensation to the Iranian families either. It would likely accomplish a warming of relations, if even slightly. It is how diplomacy is done Sirs. It isn't done by slamming your demands on the table and ordering the other side about with empty threats.
And we could have stopped it, how again??
We could have brought down strong international condemnation on Iraq after they had employed chemical warfare as a tactic. We chose not to, even after the war. We only began condemning them for the production of WMD later, when it was of convenience to us.
I concede my comments were a tad over the top, and not meant to be taken 100% literally.
I realize that.
That is ultimately is the goal of Islamofascists that permeate their country and leadership. And its not stupid at all, when one considers that's the real agenda.
Iran is a sovereign state and your theories on terrorism have no use in diplomacy with a sovereign state.
These token references you cite won't get us a ride in the front of one of their buses, much less slow down their military weapons/explosives shipments into Iraq and Nuclear Bomb production activity.
This is why we've failed so miserably as a member of the international community under President Bush. People have no understanding of diplomacy. The truth is that we don't even know that the Iranian government is onvolved in Iraq (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said so). We certainly don't have the credibility to take a few pieces of shrapnel and strut into Tehran like we own the place.
If you want cooperation from Iran then you need to earn some respect there, because right now you have zero. Both militarily and diplomatically. If you want to battle terrorism down here on Earth in the realms of reality then you need help from the international community to do so.
Otherwise, enjoy contemplating the evils of "Islamofascism" while the rest of the world gives you the one-finger salute.
-
And this is proved how again? What units, what American ordinance and lauching platforms would you be referring to?
I never implied that it was unprovoked, but it wasn't exactly US shipping either. It was Kuwaiti oil tankers with US flags raised on them. The fact that we were helping Iraq is well known. See Operation Praying Mantis as but one example.
Yet your "example" specifically gave me the notion how it was attacks in Iran proper, and unprovoked, simply us helping Iraq. In that scenario you provided, that Ami better clarified, there's absolutely no reason in the world to pay for anything
Have we not apologized, and this would amount to accomplishing, what again?
No, and we have not paid compensation to the Iranian families either. It would likely accomplish a warming of relations, if even slightly.
Agreed.
It is how diplomacy is done Sirs. It isn't done by slamming your demands on the table and ordering the other side about with empty threats.
Oh, you mean like Iran's President? Oh wait, soon that threat won't be empty
We could have brought down strong international condemnation on Iraq after they had employed chemical warfare as a tactic. We chose not to, even after the war. We only began condemning them for the production of WMD later, when it was of convenience to us.
Coulda, shoulda, Iraq was its own monster. I've condemned them from the beginning for their use. I seriously doubt the timing of any condemnation from the U.S. would amount to anything, after its use. But you're free to believe otherwise
Iran is a sovereign state and your theories on terrorism have no use in diplomacy with a sovereign state.
So was Germany in the late 30's. And we see where diplomacy alone got is there
This is why we've failed so miserably as a member of the international community under President Bush. People have no understanding of diplomacy. The truth is that we don't even know that the Iranian government is onvolved in Iraq (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said so). We certainly don't have the credibility to take a few pieces of shrapnel and strut into Tehran like we own the place.
Hey, I'm on record as not supporting any military incursions into Iran with out much better validated intel than we had in Iraq. Point being, the threat of military force must be real, otherwise diplomacy alone will be an absolute waste of time. Especially when you're trying to "talk" to someone like the President of Iran, who's already on record as to looking forward to assisting in the destruction of Israel, and has told the UN (A diplomatic organization, last time I checked), to go pound sand as it relates to stopping their nuclear weapons program
If you want cooperation from Iran then you need to earn some respect there, because right now you have zero.
No, it's the other way around, I'm afraid. Iran neither has nor is to be granted "respect", just because we would like their coopderation. It has to be earned, and currently their actions, and rhetoric coming from their Government, produces precisely zero
-
Yet your "example" specifically gave me the notion how it was attacks in Iran proper, and unprovoked, simply us helping Iraq. In that scenario you provided, that Ami better clarified, there's absolutely no reason in the world to pay for anything
Right...
Regardless, we're not talking about international law Sirs, but diplomacy. We've violated international law numerous times (and are doing it right this minute as a matter of fact), but you need to separate the two in your mind.
Oh, you mean like Iran's President? Oh wait, soon that threat won't be empty
If we don't talk with Iran's leaders we won't understand what is really going on in Tehran. A great deal of the talks will involve assessing the intentions of one's counterparts.
Coulda, shoulda, Iraq was its own monster. I've condemned them from the beginning for their use. I seriously doubt the timing of any condemnation from the U.S. would amount to anything, after its use. But you're free to believe otherwise
"Iraq was its own monster" - where is my eyeroll button?
Again you are failing to see the issue today. This is about making overtures today. It was asked what we could do with Iran in these talks and I offered suggestions. You're hung up on bullshit from the past and don't understand the ramifications on what these efforts could achieve today.
So was Germany in the late 30's. And we see where diplomacy alone got is there
Ah, the Nazi comparisons are coming back again. The failsafe of every side of a debate who no longer has a reasonable argument. Here is a newsflash, Iran is not a fascist state, nor has it annexed any of its neighbors or even territory lost in wars gone by. Iran is not claiming the lands of the ancient Persian Empire or a policy of lebensraum. In fact, we have no real evidence that the Iranian Government has done anything!
So you need to come down to the world of realism for a few minutes and discuss this issue before climbing back into your cave of Arabs and Persians = Nazi fascists.
Point being, the threat of military force must be real, otherwise diplomacy alone will be an absolute waste of time.
What does that mean?
Iran neither has nor is to be granted "respect", just because we would like their coopderation. It has to be earned, and currently their actions, and rhetoric coming from their Government, produces precisely zero
I need that eyeroll button again.
-
By the way, I never implied that it was unprovoked, but it wasn't exactly US shipping either. It was Kuwaiti oil tankers with US flags raised on them.
Ships at sea fly a national flag called an ensign. "US shipping" has always included all ships registered in the US, regardless of the country of origin of their owners. The US protected ships flying the US flag during WWII, even if their owners lived in other countries. Under conventions of international law, the flag flown by a ship determines the source of law to be applied in admiralty cases, regardless of which court has personal jurisdiction over the parties. What changed in the latter half of the twentieth century?
See Operation Praying Mantis as but one example.
Excellent example. That operation was instigated by an Iranian attack on the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, hardly a Kuwaiti tanker.
-
Ami, I understand that it was legal for the Kuwaiti tankers to fly the US flags and place the ships under US jursidiction. As I said earlier, this isn't a technical matter of international law, but a matter of diplomatic overture.
That operation was instigated by an Iranian attack on the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, hardly a Kuwaiti tanker.
You mean it hit an Iranian mine and then we responded with a massive counter strike against the Iranian navy.
-
You mean it hit an Iranian mine and then we responded with a massive counter strike against the Iranian navy.
Yes, we counter-attacked the navy that placed the mine. Placing mines in areas where our shipping is legally allowed to traverse (and regularly does so) is an attack.
Or are IEDs placed where they will kill our troops not attacks on our troops in Iraq? I'm sure that our wounded soldiers - and the families of dead soldiers - will be happy to know they were not actually attacked by the insurgents.
-
Yes, we counter-attacked the navy that placed the mine. Placing mines in areas where our shipping is legally allowed to traverse (and regularly does so) is an attack.
Yes, though the disparity in force suggests that perhaps there was more to it than just a ship hitting a mine.
Or are IEDs placed where they will kill our troops not attacks on our troops in Iraq? I'm sure that our wounded soldiers - and the families of dead soldiers - will be happy to know they were not actually attacked by the insurgents.
I never made that statement and please save the emotionally over-exaggerated hyperbole for someone more willing to fall into that snare.
-
Yes, though the disparity in force suggests that perhaps there was more to it than just a ship hitting a mine.
We're required to meet force with equal force?
So, if an insurgent kills a US soldier in Iraq with a sword while wearing only robes, we're required to strip the armor and firearms from our own troops and equip them with swords and robes?
-
So, if an insurgent kills a US soldier in Iraq with a sword while wearing only robes, we're required to strip the armor and firearms from our own troops and equip them with swords and robes?
Yes. That is quite clearly what I've said.
Also, if we are challenged to a dance-off, we have to let the opposition choose the music first. Plus, we can only kick it old school with some of the Afrika Bambataa or DJ Herc and none of that Adeaze Pasifika lyrical lapse!
-
Yes. That is quite clearly what I've said.
Thank you for clarifying that.
-
Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah? Our subjugation to Islam? Israel on a platter?
Let's see:
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).
We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.
Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"
And NUKE them for taking our Embassy employees hostage. :-) Ok, charge them an enormous amount for this effrontry to diplomatic policy worldwide.
-
We could discuss that Professor. It is a process of give and take.
-
Our lives as a good will sacrafice to Allah? Our subjugation to Islam? Israel on a platter?
Let's see:
The United States could pay for damages done to Iran by US attacks on Iranian oilfields in the Iran-Iraq War.
We could apologize for the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 and pay compensation to the families of the Iranian victims (we only ever compensated the non-Iranian victims).
We could be open and frank about allowing (and even supporting) Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran with absolutely no recriminations.
Or we could be complete dumbasses and talk about stupid things like "Israel on a platter" and "subjugation to Islam"
And NUKE them for taking our Embassy employees hostage. :-) Ok, charge them an enormous amount for this effrontry to diplomatic policy worldwide.
Although that idea has a lot to reccomend it , would simple compensation from Iran to the hostages be accepted as a positive step?
-
Interesting question, Plane. I think the ones who were held hostage might think just simple bribery, er, financial compensation, might not be sufficient, but I am entirely hypothesizing. Personally, if I were one of them, I would want Iranian male genitalia as compensation. However, on a Nations scale, what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient? After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy? I can't remember. What effects did Iran suffer from doing this? Can anyone remember?
-
...However, on a Nations scale, what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient? After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy? I can't remember. What effects did Iran suffer from doing this? Can anyone remember?
None, that I'm aware of. Occasional refererences to a Carrier Battle Group or 2, operating in the gulf, but I think that was pretty much it.
-
Here is an interesting interview with one of the hostage-takers and one of the former hostages: Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3978523.stm)
what type and amount of compensation IS sufficient
Comparisons would not be difficult. States often pay compensation to prisoners who have been held in a miscarriage of justice and then released, many of whom were held far longer than 444 days.
Currently the United States has not paid any of the post 9/11 captives, who have then been released compensation that I've been aware of. Some of them were also held longer than 444 days.
After all, wasn't this act one of the most serious in the arena of international diplomacy
Highly debatable. The act was not, at first, taken by the government of Iran, but by a group of university students. It was later condoned by the Iranian Government and some of the captives were released (for medical reasons and through the craftiness of the Canadian Government). Some of the captives were legitimately held as they were CIA agents who had worked with SAVAK.
What effects did Iran suffer from doing this?
Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran...erm...
I don't know, you have to ask Saint Ron why he responded the way he did.
Perhaps having Hezbollah release three hostages (only to take more shortly thereafter) and then send money to terrorists in Nicaragua was far more important in the grand scheme of foreign policy. It was an odd time.
-
Some of the captives were legitimately held as they were CIA agents who had worked with SAVAK.
Taking control of a foreign nation's embassy is never legitimate.
-
Taking control of a foreign nation's embassy is never legitimate.
I never said it was.
-
I never said it was.
The captives were in an embassy; therefore they were not "legitimately held" as you claimed. Your claim can only be valid if they were captured outside of an embassy, and they were not travelling under diplomatic immunity.
-
The captives were in an embassy; therefore they were not "legitimately held" as you claimed. Your claim can only be valid if they were captured outside of an embassy, and they were not travelling under diplomatic immunity.
Apologies. I'm using realism as opposed to the idealism of international law.
In reality they were working with a state police that had terrorised the people of Iran for years. It was the moral equivalent of aiding the STASI or Cheka, possibly worse. So in that sense I consider it legitimate to have held these CIA agents captive. Though, technically you are correct that they were "protected" by diplomatic immunity and by the extraterritorial boundaries of the embassy.
Regardless, it was hardly "one of the most serious acts" in international diplomatic history.
-
Taking the Embassy employees hostage was clearly against international law.
But on the other hand,many of those embassy staff people were CIA people whose mission was to support counter revoltion. They also were the SAVAK's best buddies. SAVAK was the Shah's secret police.
The CIA was responsible for dethroning Mossadegh (Iran's first and ONLY non-religious elected leader) in the 1950's and replacing him with the unlovely Shah, who may have been Kissinger's friend and Rockefeller's best buddy, but an enemy of Iranian democratic aspirations.
It seems rather like a fair trade at the very least..
-
"It seems rather like a fair trade at the very least.."
Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.
-
Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.
Imagine being slowly cooked to death, having broken bottles shoved into your rectum, being forced to watch your pregnant wife being raped over and over and over again?
You think 444 days as a hostage compares to the horror that was SAVAK? That was only some of what this country helped to inflict on the people of Iran. It was wrong for those students to have taken those hostages and for the Khoemeni Government to have supported the action. That cannot be denied.
Yet, on a scale of wrongdoing it pales in comparison to our complicity in the horrors that were inflicted on the Persian people at the hands of the monarchy.
-
Yet, on a scale of wrongdoing it pales in comparison to our complicity in the horrors that were inflicted on the Persian people at the hands of the monarchy.
And yet, the government that replaced the monarchy continues to emply those same people in the same capacity as before.
SAVAK has been replaced by the SAVAMA, Sazman-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Melli-e Iran, later renamed the Ministry of Intelligence. The latter is also referred to as VEVAK, Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar, though Iranians and the Iranian press never employ this term and use its official name as a Ministry. According to informed observers, the new organization is structurally identical to the old one and retains most of the same people. A few local chiefs have been replaced. The new director of SAVAMA was deputy director of SAVAK: he was an old friend of the late Shah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK)
-
And yet, the government that replaced the monarchy continues to emply those same people in the same capacity as before.
I don't recall claiming to be a supporter of the current government in Iran.
-
But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?
-
But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?
No. For one thing, I never said that two wrongs make a right. I was explaining the reality of the situation and why the people of Iran were so damned upset with us at the time.
In Iran as it stands now, we do not support the oppression of the current regime over the Persian people. That is an issue for them to deal with on their own.
-
Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.
Imagine being slowly cooked to death, having broken bottles shoved into your rectum, being forced to watch your pregnant wife being raped over and over and over again?
You mean basically like what was happening under Saddam's regime, on a daily basis? Government sanctioned, and all. And we needed more.......time for diplomacy to work there too, right?
-
But, by your logic then, it is acceptable for THIS CURRENT government to do the same thing again?
No. For one thing, I never said that two wrongs make a right. I was explaining the reality of the situation and why the people of Iran were so damned upset with us at the time. In Iran as it stands now, we do not support the oppression of the current regime over the Persian people. That is an issue for them to deal with on their own.
Yet you want to have us "reimburse them" for our supposed wrong doings (which Ami has been able to demonstrate was often in retaliation vs provocation, and in international waters), as a show of diplomacy. Pretty much looks like a wash at this point, when you put up "the wrongs" of theirs to those you proclaim we have performed. So, what exactly would we be in need to reimurse them for again? 1 inadvertant shooting down an airliner is all I'm seeing currently, when you put everything on the table, and in context of when and where such events took place.
-
You mean basically like what was happening under Saddam's regime, on a daily basis? Government sanctioned, and all. And we needed more.......time for diplomacy to work there too, right?
Well, unlike Iraq, Iran had their own revolution without an outside invasion force. Their own people led the uprising and overthrew the monarchy that supported the tactics used above. You know, the tactics that the United States supported in Iran?
It likely might have worked out better if we had used diplomacy long before 1979 to force the Shah to leave and allowed the Iranian people to possibly give democratic government a real chance. Unfortunately we stubbornly backed the ruthless thug as we did in many other parts of the world (Suharto, Pinochet, Somoza...).
So yes, diplomacy may well have worked, but the time it could have been succesful had long since passed and the possibility of us having good relations with Iran passed with it. You are comparing apples and oranges, very much like your Arabs = Nazis garbage. You pull things from history, but with no understanding of context.
As a sidenote, Ami brings up an interesting point as to Iran continuing to use a version of SAVAK even today (though under the Islamic Republic motif). The current Iraqi Government uses a great deal of law from Saddam Hussein's regime and will no doubt continue to do so into its next form (whatever it is).
And as much as you loathe Iran Sirs, you have done everything possible to make them the long-term winners in all of this. They have a lot of support from the Kurds (including the current President of Iraq) and a lot of support from the Shi'a population of Iraq (including the current Prime Minister who lived in Iran and Syria while in exile). It isn't just militants like al-Sadr, but a lot of everyday Iraqis that have a great deal of respect for Iran. In many ways people like you and this administration have done everything you can to make Iran a massive power in the Middle East.
They should really thank you and Bush, Wolfowitz, etc.
-
Yet you want to have us "reimburse them" for our supposed wrong doings (which Ami has been able to demonstrate was often in retaliation vs provocation, and in international waters), as a show of diplomacy. Pretty much looks like a wash at this point, when you put up "the wrongs" of theirs to those you proclaim we have performed. So, what exactly would we be in need to reimurse them for again? 1 inadvertant shooting down an airliner is all I'm seeing currently, when you put everything on the table, and in context of when and where such events took place.
Go back and read where I said this is about diplomacy and not international law. *sigh*
I didn't say I "wanted" us to do anything. Someone asked "what can we give them" and I simply provided answers beyond your useless sarcastic reply.
-
I didn't say I "wanted" us to do anything. Someone asked "what can we give them" and I simply provided answers beyond your useless sarcastic reply.
If they're useless and sarcastic as you opine, why respond? If you don't "want" us to do anything, then perhaps your initial instinct is correct, especially given what they have NOT given at any time prior. Similar to your references of how Israel pre-emtively attacked Egypt & company, while acknowledgind how you weren't defending Egypt & Co's actions, which largely triggered Israel's pre-emptive act. Interesting ommissions and innuendo
-
I'll entitle this: "Our Middle East Policy Going Forward," and ask JS to fill in the details based on the sensibilities he has advocated here.
-
If they're useless and sarcastic as you opine, why respond?
Your particular response in this case was useless and sarcastic, or do you disagree?
If you don't "want" us to do anything, then perhaps your initial instinct is correct, especially given what they have NOT given at any time prior.
You mean we've never given anything in diplomatic discussions before?
Similar to your references of how Israel pre-emtively attacked Egypt & company, while acknowledgind how you weren't defending Egypt & Co's actions, which largely triggered Israel's pre-emptive act. Interesting ommissions and innuendo
Israel did pre-emptively strike in 1967! Go ask them and many of those intimately involved will proudly tell you so. It made many people's political and military careers. There are always reasons given for military action - justifications. Some are given before and some during and some after the war. If anything, Iraq has been an excellent example of how a casus belli can be debatably accepted or rejected from different viewpoints.
"Ommissions and innuendo" are simply your way of reading what I post. I'm not going to sit here and write a Tome on Middle Eastern History for you Sirs. Yet, it would behoove you to try and understand it without your red, white, and blue glasses on for just a minute.
-
I'll entitle this: "Our Middle East Policy Going Forward," and ask JS to fill in the details based on the sensibilities he has advocated here.
I'm not sure if this is a token shot at me over our disagreements on Israel, but I'll answer anyway Domer.
To be honest, I don't see anyway that Iran doesn't come out of this as the long-term winner. Well, I don't see any possibility short of a United States backed unfairly tilted Sunni regime. There are simply too many groups that favour Iran, even passively. I'm not saying that Iraq becomes a province of Iran or anything of the sort. But, Iran will have influence in Baghdad and with whatever form the Kurdish region takes.
I think Iran will have more influence than most nations and for them this will mean a serious increase in diplomatic, political, economic, and religious influence. It will be the first time in centuries that the Sunni don't have political authority in that region.
Now, what will that mean for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Jordan? And even Iran and Iraq's long-term?
What do you think? There are numerous possibilities.
-
Interesting armchair quarterbacking. You might not say that if you were one of those hostages.
===========================================================
That is really beside the point.
A number of the Embassy Employees were seriously involved in planning political dirty tricks, assassinations and such. We should not assume for a moment that they were all pencil-pushing visa interviewers or facilitators of carpet merchandising. I imagine that they came to realize why the Iranian students decided to hold them captive.
Observe that they were better treated than nearly any of the current 'guests' at Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib. They were not forced to wear orange clothing, locked in cages, smeared with shit, stripped and forced to form pyramids, led with leashes or threatened with large dogs, hooded for days on end, or treated to hours and hours of bad music, such as heavy metal and Barney the Dinosaur.
The local Cubans in Miami are always comparing Castro to horrid dictators like Somoza, Trujillo, Varela and Pinochet, because he took away their plantations or made their car dealerships, for-profit hospitals, insurance agencies and real estate agencies superfluous.
But the fact is that no one has been driven from their home. It's just that once you leave, you can't have it back.
Castro is far from being truly competent as an administrator, but he is also far down the list of cruel dictators.
Iran is also perhaps bad, but nowhere near as nasty as Saudi Arabia, where Bandar Bush hails from.
-
From my legal training extended to the international realm, where I have little experience, I can nonetheless venture the position, based on the materials produced here, that Israel's 1967 Six-Day War was justified as a matter of international law and especially under the tenets of the just war theory. To argue otherwise is just an attempt to blow smoke up someone's ass to hide the smell of cigarettes. The UN Charter envisages defensive wars. Historically, that doctrine had been embodied in retaliatory strikes, yet wasn't so logically limited. Especially in an age of terror and weapons of mass destruction, preemptive wars had to be considered within the orbit of the defensive war doctrine if tightly tied to the original notion of defense and not aggression. Thus, as I've argued, a strike can be deemed justified if 1) it meets a standard of certainty, 2) will be of a serious character (wherein the notion of proportionality enters), and 3) is imminent, meaning on the brink or having reached a point where the prospects of events intervening or decisions being rescinded have passed the point of no return. Plainly and simply, Israel's Six-Days' War meets these criteria.
-
I forsee a reappearance of a Caliphate in the region.
-
I hate to anticipate a defeat, JS, but I agree that Iran is now and will remain a preeminent force in the Middle East for quite a while to come, and according to present indications, a nuclear-armed one. This won't eclipse but will instead dilute and complicate the mirror- image preeminence of the major Sunni states: Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Eqypt. They will, by present indications, carry on at least a politico-religio-ideological struggle with Iran. At the same time, especially if Iran is nuclear-armed, the region -- with yet indeterminate alliances among the Muslim sects -- will become embroiled in a post-modern Cold War with the West. For America, this very description of the situation mandates a policy strong on diplomacy and cultural exchange -- with the purpose of forging a trans-cultural, supra-religious consensus which all faiths can embrace as natural offshoots of their own thinking.
-
Then again the "america needs to butt out" crowd might be wise in their advocation to sit back and watch Saudi Arabia join the nuclear club and let the divergent sects fight it out.
-
I honestly don't think an isolationist policy ("butting out") is either wise or even possible. With growing globalization, what appears to be an inexorable process, at least economically but by extension far beyond that, disruptions in one part of the world (using oil as a paradigm) can cause serious harm and dislocation elsewhere, and in a hurry. So too, those disposed to be frankly more belligerent, can act more destructively and on a wider platform than at any time before in history. A "hands off" policy seems to me to be an open invitation to discord, trouble, mayhem and catastrophe.
We should engage the world in an enlightened way, providing APPROPRIATE leadership for this new age. And, I believe, the age will ultimately produce either a formal or de facto system of governance beyond the initial post-World War II efforts.
-
Your particular response in this case was useless and sarcastic, or do you disagree?
No more than "Also, if we are challenged to a dance-off, we have to let the opposition choose the music first. Plus, we can only kick it old school with some of the Afrika Bambataa or DJ Herc and none of that Adeaze Pasifika lyrical lapse!"
You mean we've never given anything in diplomatic discussions before?
What's that old saying....never say "never"
Similar to your references of how Israel pre-emtively attacked Egypt & company, while acknowledgind how you weren't defending Egypt & Co's actions, which largely triggered Israel's pre-emptive act. Interesting ommissions and innuendo
Israel did pre-emptively strike in 1967! Go ask them and many of those intimately involved will proudly tell you so.
What are you ranting about, Js? Did I say or even imply that they didn't??
"Ommissions and innuendo" are simply your way of reading what I post.
Well...yea, that's pretty much the fact in all these discussions. When you accurately reference how Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon in 1967, with the apparent ommission of the massing of the armies along the borders of Israel, the closing of the waterway specifically to Israeli shipping, and Nasser's pledges to destroy Israel, you paint a picture of how overtly aggressive Israel is supposed to be considered. When you claim how we need to reimbuse Iran for our attacking Iranian oil platforms and shipping, when deftly ommitting such attacks were largely all in retaliation and in international waters, you appear to be trying to paint a picture of how "wrong" America was during the Iran-Iraq war.
The question then becomes are these ommissions on purpose, in order to paint a picture more towards your version of what is is, or were these ommissions honest negligence. If this were a discussion with Tee, it'd obviously be the former, where as in your case, I'd vote the latter
-
I honestly don't think an isolationist policy ("butting out") is either wise or even possible. With growing globalization, what appears to be an inexorable process, at least economically but by extension far beyond that, disruptions in one part of the world (using oil as a paradigm) can cause serious harm and dislocation elsewhere, and in a hurry.
The power in the middle east comes from oil. Get away from oil and the middle east is not quite as important. Move to ethanol and food available for export is now possibly worth more converted to energy.
Don't change the game, change the rules.
-
Good point, BT. But, we as a nation need to get serious about this by offering serious incentives to move toward energy independence. Do you see this happening?
-
What is stopping you from switching to biodiesel or other alternative energy solution right now?
Does the government need to make it worth your while or is the action on its own merits worth your while?
-
Power in the Middle East comes from oil, obviously, but it also comes from contrarian ideologies (backed by ruthless acts), which have a life independent of economic impact, or merely incidental to it, and are magnified in a media-saturated world greased by the internet.
-
Conflicting ideologies notwithstanding, if we don't need their oil, we don't need to be so up close and personal with them.
-
What is stopping you from switching to biodiesel or other alternative energy solution right now?
Does the government need to make it worth your while or is the action on its own merits worth your while?
Well, if you told me that the Government would pay for insulation for my home and/or a solar energy system, etc. I would be at Lowe's tomorrow morning. As it is, I must put up the money and in the case of solar, the payback is at least a decade. Biodiesel? How might I do this?
-
Biodiesel? How might I do this?
Buy a diesel mercedes and run it on filtered oil from a chinese restaurant.
http://www.biodiesel-kits.com/?gclid=CLG9n4bs9YoCFQVqYAodSWixng
-
The topic as I introduced it and you responded to it was globilization, not oil dependency, which though intersecting sets are nonetheless keenly distinct concepts.
-
What has shrunk the global arena, what has driven globalization, is energy, cheap energy. Timely delivery of goods produced globally is achieved by this cheap energy. Communications, transport, air travel, electronics all in one way or another involve oil.
-
It's a stretch to consider communications and electronics as being oil-infused, at least any more than they are oxygen-infused. You manage at virtually every turn to steer a discussion to the petty or the pedantic or the frankly absurd. And most times you accomplish this by mangling the initial premise, even as you recognize its pertinence, as you did here by morphing "globalization," a broad and general category, into "oil-dependency," a less-inclusive subset.
-
It's a stretch to consider communications and electronics as being oil-infused, at least any more than they are oxygen-infused. You manage at virtually every turn to steer a discussion to the petty or the pedantic or the frankly absurd. And most times you accomplish this by mangling the initial premise, even as you recognize its pertinence, as you did here by morphing "globalization," a broad and general category, into "oil-dependency," a less-inclusive subset.
Guilty as charged minus your color commentary. Stay in your comfort zone. Broad and general. It's safer there.
me i'll continue to poke and prod and explore all the tangents of an issue, not just the one you want the world to see.
-
It's not your industriousness that is notable here but your failure at understanding.
-
What precisely are you claiming i fail to understand. try to be specific, broad and general won't cut it.
-
Isolationism (i.e., butting out) is a strategy that affects the vast sea of international human intercourse, and addressing the oil issue in that context is but a partial, fractional response.
-
Isolationism is the opposing pendulum swing to a constant interventionist policy. Oil is but one piece of the puzzle, i don't believe i claimed otherwise. In the middle east it is a large piece, solving that might lead to a larger peace.
Comprende'?
-
Yes, of course I have. My tentative conclusion is that all other points of intercourse would remain, and they are considerable. I contend that the animus aimed at the US is historically conceived and ideologically driven. Despite a Great Oil Solution, unless you are willing to accept that present US "insinuation" in the Middle East is the causus belli of the terrorists, the problems will persist as well as the need for interface.
-
If we are in the middle east to protect national interests and our national interest in this instance is an unimpeded supply of "cheap" oil and that has been our policy going back to the Carter Doctrine and that along with Israel is what has inflamed the Arab street then yes the great oil solution would be a big part of calming the conflict from the US stand point. Loss of oil revenues might not be such a good thing for countries reliant on petrodollarsand a burgeoning population,leaving Israel as the laser focal point.
The question then becomes with dependence on foreign oil negated does our bargaining position become stronger or weaker with both parties to the primary conflict. Would we be in a better position to extract greater concessions from Tel Aviv? Would we be in a stronger position to protect Israeli soveignty without the fear a distruption in oil supplies would provide?
-
What is stopping you from switching to biodiesel or other alternative energy solution right now?
Does the government need to make it worth your while or is the action on its own merits worth your while?
Well, if you told me that the Government would pay for insulation for my home and/or a solar energy system, etc. I would be at Lowe's tomorrow morning. As it is, I must put up the money and in the case of solar, the payback is at least a decade. Biodiesel? How might I do this?
Go on then , the govrnment is paying as much now as they ever will.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes:
Tax Credits for Consumers
Home Improvements
Cars
Solar Energy Systems
Fuel Cells
Tax Credits for Home Builders
Tax Credits for Appliance Manufacturers
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits
-
It's a stretch to consider communications and electronics as being oil-infused, at least any more than they are oxygen-infused.
Both are heavily reliant on electricity and plastics - in our world, both of those are derived from oil for the most part.
-
What is stopping you from switching to biodiesel or other alternative energy solution right now?
Does the government need to make it worth your while or is the action on its own merits worth your while?
Quoted for mthe link you provided, Plane: "maximum amount of homeowner credit for all improvements combined is $500 during the two year period of the tax credit."
I spit on $500 over two years! Ha!
Well, if you told me that the Government would pay for insulation for my home and/or a solar energy system, etc. I would be at Lowe's tomorrow morning. As it is, I must put up the money and in the case of solar, the payback is at least a decade. Biodiesel? How might I do this?
Go on then , the govrnment is paying as much now as they ever will.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes:
Tax Credits for Consumers
Home Improvements
Cars
Solar Energy Systems
Fuel Cells
Tax Credits for Home Builders
Tax Credits for Appliance Manufacturers
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits