Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - IS IRAN ITCHING FOR A FIGHT?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

IS IRAN ITCHING FOR A FIGHT?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

some waygug-in

Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:32 am Post subject:

Hmm. Scary. So...is this article relevant? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm Washington 'snubbed Iran offer' Iran gives millions of dollars to support the Hezbollah movement Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion. Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility. But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said. The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities. In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members. But as soon as it got to the White House, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself Lawrence Wilkerson

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:49 am Post subject:

some waygugin: That's called blackmail. Buy a vowel and get a clue. And you must be one of those liberals who believes you can negotiate with extremists in good faith. Clinton tried that with the DPRK and Serbia and look where that got us. By the way, I hear D-ick Cheney is also responsible for the first Gulf War. Oh, the length he will go to.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

That's called blackmail. Buy a vowel and get a clue.

And you must be one of those liberals who believes you can negotiate with extremists in good faith. Clinton tried that with the DPRK and Serbia and look where that got us.

I think what Steve means is that this is a homo-sapiens problem.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:06 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Does that include airstrikes?

Nowhere Man: you strike me as purely a scrapper on this board, at least with respect to me and my views.

I will spell it out for the umpteenth time:

(a) I do not believe that W. Bush is fit to serve as president; for this reason I voted against him twice (one cannot restate this position or reconfirm this premise enough when discussing politics and current events with people who share your extremist leftist views);

(b) I never supported and still do not support the Iraqi War because, in order of importance to me: (1) it was an unwise, too-risky use and extension of American power and prestige when it was not necessary to do so; and (2) according to international principles dating from the birth of the modern era, the administration never sufficiently established a creditable casus belli. [Rather than bicker with me over (1) and (2), I suggest you accept (b) and move on]; and

(c) I do not support an Iranian war at this place and time for the exact same reasons, in the exact same order I articulated them, I list above. This includes any and all military action, based on the present situation.

Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:19 am; edited 2 times in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:11 am Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

...I'm wondering if by "Paris" you mean the French Government...?

Good question. We often use capital cities, not just "Washington" or "Moscow," either to refer to governments.

So yes, I used "Paris" to refer to the French government. I also use "Tehran" to refer to the Iranian government, to cite another example.

Standard practice.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject:

endo wrote:

Quick question:

Why did the British help set up Sunni regimes around the Persian Gulf (i.e. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq) when the majority populations in that region are Shia?

I guess I can understand the Shia frustrations. I know the Brits including Lawrence of Arabia were connected with the House of Saud (Sunnis) and helped that family gain control of not only Saudi Arabia, but Jordan and Syria and Iraq.

What strategic plans did they have in carving up the Gulf States like they did? Why were they pro-Sunni?

This is incorrect.

The brits were not connected to the house of saud. The saudi family has no connection to Jordan, Syria, and Iraq.

After World War I, the saud family defeated the hashemites, which supported the Brits in World War I. The brits felt guilty, so they gave one brother Iraq, another Transjordan. Syria had no relevance to this because it was a French territory.

Secondly, Sunnis have ruled that part of the world for centuries. The only Arab countries with Shia majorities are Bahrain and Iraq.

some waygug-in

Joined: 25 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:04 am Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

some waygugin:

That's called blackmail. Buy a vowel and get a clue.

And you must be one of those liberals who believes you can negotiate with extremists in good faith. Clinton tried that with the DPRK and Serbia and look where that got us.

By the way, I hear D-ick Cheney is also responsible for the first Gulf War. Oh, the length he will go to. Rolling Eyes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion.

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.
Confused

You're right, I have no clue, but I do think it was worth a shot. Better than what's going on now anyway.

Confused

You seem a bit stressed. Perhaps a bit of laughing yoga is just what you need?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-oJhBxn6o&mode=related&search=

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:46 am Post subject:

some waygug-in wrote:

You're right, I have no clue, but I do think it was worth a shot.

Waygug-in: Mcgarrett is right: it is blackmail.

And that is exactly how Terhran treated Washington the last time Washington attempted to negotiate with Tehran. Blackmail through potentially unlimited hostage-taking.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

Who exactly would Washington negotiate with in Tehran, anyway? The unimportant Zionist-obsessed guy who is not the Supreme Leader but who would bypass the United States government in order to send Chavez-like emotional appeals direct to "the American people?"

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Waygug-in: Mcgarrett is right: it is blackmail.

WHISTLE!

One-sided statement. 5 minutes in the penalty box.

alffy

Joined: 25 Apr 2006

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:47 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

some waygug-in wrote:

You're right, I have no clue, but I do think it was worth a shot.

I disagree it was "blackmail." There is no real threat in the offer as presented by the BBC, the only apparent threat was to continue supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and perhaps the implicit threat of not helping to "stablilze" Iraq.

Now, whether the offers were sincere is another question. The fact the letter came unsigned may be good or bad, here. If it was sent surreptitiously by the Ayatollas inorder to deescalate a situation they felt uncomfortable with, but were reluctant to go public on, that would be good. If it was left unsigned so as to afford complete deniability and therefore was intended as a purely obfuscating mechanism, that would be bad.

I would much prefer to have seen an open, forthright attempt by the Iranins to come to a compromise. But, given the recent history and animosity between the two sides this may have been the most open they were able to be at the time (whomever "they" is in this context as we don't know, as Gopher pointed out).

I don't have a problem with the US not pursuing such an openly tenuous offer. What I do have a problem with is this:

Quote:

But Vice-President...Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said...
One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled...

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

This goes back to my question to Steve earlier: what is meant by "evil?" It clearly is intended and used by this Administration as more than a rhetorical device. It seems to be a deviding line between "us" and "them," or perhaps "civilized" and "uncivilized." Whatever its definition, it seems to weigh heavily in determining the course of our international policy. And it seems to lend itself to the task of making blunt, arbitrary decisions, despite the advice of those whose job it is to offer advice on foreign policy.

It is very likely this offer was specious, but did it not at least warrent some legitimate, rational discussion prior to being dismissed?

ADDENDUM: I realize the source of the "We don't talk to evil" quote was a staunch critic of the Bush Administration's Iraq war policy, even while he served in the Administration, and therefore may be heavily biased. I believe, though, his criticism was due to the handling of the intelligence and the overall attitude and approach to the war, which may make his referrence here more appropiate and knowledgable.

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You state this very well and I believe are bang on. It also should cast light on the very "Christian fanatical" nature of the Bush team. How so easily they categorize nations/people's/governments into old worn out notions of "good" and "evil". I am just a freaked / concerned about a nuclear weapon being in their hands as anyone else's.

Foreign policy should not begin or even continue, with stark categorization of others. It should be an opening of the door to the world and not just a peep hole.

DD

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject:

alffy wrote:

I disagree it was "blackmail." There is no real threat in the offer...

Perhaps not.

But what happened in the 1980s with the hostages was nothing less than blackmail in the classic sense of the concept. So Tehran does indeed have a history of cynically blackmailing the United States government.

And this "linkage" offer -- if we need to call it something other than "blackmail" -- still strikes me as unreasonable. For one thing, the UN has already and long since spoken on the issue an armed Hezbollah presents. Why has Tehran not complied?

Also, is Tehran implicitly admitting that it has contributed to and/or kept Iraqi affairs in this state in order to set up this negotiating position?

alffy wrote:

What I do have a problem with is this...

Understood. I agree that much that comes out of this Administration, rhetorically, is irresponsible and unprofessional.

However, are you certain that BBC fairly represented the Administration's motives, views, and actions vis-a-vis this alleged Iranian offer? Is there not clear evidence that many if not most journalists research and write from an a priori agenda to oppose and/or undermine the Administration -- if not the entire United States government?

We take bias and hostility into account when dealing with certain descriptions treating "the Orient" just as we take bias and hostility into account when dealing with Cold War-era accounts, particularly between the 1950s and 1980s, treating the Soviet Union.

Why do we not take bias and hostility into account when dealing with post-Watergate era accounts treating the United States government?

alffy

Joined: 25 Apr 2006

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

alffy wrote:

I disagree it was "blackmail." There is no real threat in the offer...

alffy wrote:

What I do have a problem with is this...

Understood.

However, are you certain that BBC fairly represented the Administration's motives, views, and actions?

Gopher, once again we are in agreement...

The Tehran hostage crisis was undoubtedly blackmail in that there was a clear and present threat (although, admittedly, I can't remember the demands off the top of my head).

I don't know if this offer was sincere, as it seems a bit specious to me.

And I have admitted in my post, "as presented by the BBC." Although, I believe this organization is one of the more reliable of the British media (yes, I realize some think it has lost a touch of this in recent years, but I still feel they are fairly legitimate).

I must admit I can not verify this was indeed the Administration's stance, but the evidence has been accumulating over the last few years that the Vice President's office has a very strong influence on this Administration's foreign policy. It has also become evident that the philosophy of this Administration (quite possibly dictated by the VP) has been one of confrontation with those it considers "evil." Just what is meant by that I would like to know.

As a general rule, though, I am a strong supporter of dialog and diplomacy. IF the story is accurate as presented, then I am considerably disappointed by the process the Administration has taken in dealing with this situation and growing threat.

It seems the Administration has determined the only course of action with Iran is one of confrontation. By this I mean not necesarily the use of force, but rather, the implicit, if not explicit, threat of force. It almost seems to be a stance in which the offer of diplomacy without backing of the threat of force is considered one of weakness.

Perhaps Iran requires the threat of force to negotiate in good faith, but we may never know, as the primary avenue of interaction is one of brinkmanship. My concern is that this may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, much as I believe Iraq ended.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:

alffy wrote:

And I have admitted in my post, "as presented by the BBC." Although, I believe this organization is one of the more reliable of the British media (yes, I realize some think it has lost a touch of this in recent years, but I still feel they are fairly legitimate).

No question that BBC, The Economist, and The Guardian rank among the most reliable English-language news sources. Same goes for the the New York Times, Washington Post, and, indeed, one or two others that I cannot presently recall.

I do not propose an either accept/or reject choice with respect to their information. Just increased consciousness.

alffy wrote:

...the evidence has been accumulating over the last few years that the Vice President's office has a very strong influence on this Administration's foreign policy.

I agree that this seems to be the case. I also find it inappropriate and would change it. Of all the officials we have seen in Washington since Jan. 2001, Cheney is the one I find most problematic, if not more corrupt than is usual in Washington and, indeed, dangerous. Perhaps the Vice-President is behind much of this.

However, we really lack direct evidence on this, and much comes from what appears to be, at least at times, hysterical, accusatory speculation or, at best: gossip and rumor.

I suggest giving the new Congress and new SecDef time. If not, I am sure Wangja can tell us how many days yet remain...

alffy

Joined: 25 Apr 2006

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

alffy wrote:

What I do have a problem with is this...

I'm sorry, I missed the second part of your post...I am a few drinks into my dinner, at the moment, and am not fully cognizant of the world around me.

Anyway, you raise a valid point: bias in analysis is always present. As such, I recognize my own bias in this situation: I am opposed to the international policies of this Administration, particularly regarding nations with which we have conflict or disagreement. Maybe I am reluctant to give ANY Administration the benefit of the doubt due to my inherent distrust of politicians (I rarely, if ever, vote for the same person two elections in a row).

I also realize that there is a strong bias against this Administration from the press, especially the British press. As such, I am a bit less confident of any published information detremental to this Administration- not because I think they are ideologically opposed, as many would assert-yes, Steve, I am thinking about you- but because I believe the press (as a whole) feels they failed to do their job in the lead up to war (and they are correct). You may have noted my earlier concern regarding a Commentary by The Gaurdian in which there appeared to be a LOT of speculation on motive, but very little in the way of legitimate references to real actions or statements.

But on the whole, I believe my concerns are rather valid (as we all do). This Administration has demonstrated consistent disregard of political realities while pursuing a course of ideological purity (okay, maybe not entirely true, but it makes a nice sentence). For the most part, though, they have apparently chosen a course of action and then worked diligently to structure perceptions around their conceptions of the situation. I find this both disingenuous and highly troubling.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13 Next
Page 12 of 13

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe