|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: Amanpour Has a Source in Tehran... |
 |
|
Hard to evaluate the reliability of this information.
If it is reliable, who is in charge over there and what exactly is going on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Amanpour Has a Source in Tehran... |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Hard to evaluate the reliability of this information.
If it is reliable, who is in charge over there and what exactly is going on?
And as an aside, this source betrays more of the one-side victim syndrome I have come to expect from Iranians and other Middle Easterners by citing Alexander's invasions while failing to mention Cyrus and his predecessors and successors who constantly meddled in Greek affairs. |
That's what I always thought was very bizarre about the American approach to Iran. You've got a Islamic nation trying to figure out democracy on its own terms. You've got a population where the educated movers and shakers are very pro-American and secular leaning. As Persians, they're not beholden to the skinship of their Arab neighbors.
Instead of trying to nurture this, the US always rattles sabers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You seem persuaded that (a) this source speaks for much if not most of Tehranian officialdom; and that (b) Washington is the pure aggressor and Tehran is merely reacting defensively, as any reasonable group of men (cannot say "men and women" in this case, right?) might do.
This fails to account for Hezbollah, for one thing. How about Iraq for another. And what about incidents in Buenos Aires and Western European cities as well?
"The educated movers-and-shakers are proAmerican and secular?" Rushdie, for one, might disagree with that.
Why so willing to see Tehran, uncritically, in such a favorable light and, conversely, Washington in such an unfavorable light?
Finally, "Great Satan" and "natural allies" are unequivocably mixed signals. "Natural allies" do not seize each other's embassies and hold hostage their diplomats -- and this does not begin to address what happened in both capitals, let alone Beirut, in the 1980s. Official Tehran, more than ever, needs to clarify much and put matters to rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't mind Gopher. He missed the parts of history where people let the past lie in the past and forged a future instead of a battle.
The article hits at a number of key points (as they exist NOW, gopher) that are compelling and, frankly, seem right on target.
1. Al Queda is not the friend of Iranians, just as it never was of Iraqis.
2. There is zero rational reason for Iran to invite war.
3. The sabre rattling started here. The effects of tossing out that virulent phrase - did not all sane persons cringe when Bush-the-lying-scum first uttered it? - some years ago. The echos are still being felt and are coloring political events, and will for some time.
4. The article, gopher, clearly addressed the points you tried to cast aspersions at regarding the responder's [edit - oops] understanding of events.
5. The official's responses regarding Hezzbolah seem reasonable given the context. They have the feel of being a clear picture of last summer's and the coming summer's events.
6. The offical stated clearly that the religious leader of Iran wishes to extnd the olive branch. What he says, goes. That's a given. Again, taking the extended branch weakens the political leadership considerably and allows the moderates a greater opportunity to control or shape events.
Demonizing Iran and its leadership will **not** help centrists such as this offical ascend to power in Iran. As the respondent [edit - oops] stated, the correct and wisest political move is to embrace them, end the war rhetoric, and come to an agreement.
Now, if that doesn't happen, whatwould the reasons be? There can be only one: another war of aggression to secure the wanted pipeline and to control the Straight of Hormuz. There is ZERO logical reason for any other response from the Bush administration but to nurture the dialoge offered. Zero.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Again, why so eager to bite into this dangle -- hook, line, and sinker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are *so* irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
An enemy of Israel is an enemy of the U.S.
Hence Iran's treatment by the American government.
It IS that simple.
Though strategic interests regarding oil supply and access also plays a role in flair ups.
This is not rocket science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| "The educated movers-and-shakers are proAmerican and secular?" Rushdie, for one, might disagree with that. |
I'm not talking about the Mullahs. I'm talking about the bankers, the editors of newspapers, the secular people with money and the middle class. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| An enemy of Israel is an enemy of the U.S. |
Certainly conflicts with the "natural allies" claim, no?
We might be natural allies were we to abandon Tel Aviv to those who would drive the Israelis into the sea and redraw the Middle-Eastern map. We might be natural allies if we would recognize Iranian/Shia hegemony in much of the Middle East, any possible Sunni allies' objections notwithstanding.
Seems to me that we just cannot accept those and other, stated or not, conditions.
And Mindmetoo, seems to me that we already reach out, in one way or another, and as best we can, to such sectors within Iran. Bankers and newspaper editors with a secular bent, however, have little or anything to do with policymaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And Mindmetoo, seems to me that we already reach out, in one way or another, and as best we can, to such sectors within Iran. Bankers and newspaper editors with a secular bent, however, have little or anything to do with policymaking. |
But the key is Iran is a democracy. Yes they elected a nut job. You elected a nut job yourself who uses god as an excuse. I see, at times, little difference between the president of Iran and Bush. How many people does Bush torture?
But there's also dissent in Iran, something rather unusual for a middle eastern nation. The bankers, editors, bakers, et al can also undo what they've made. Unlike Kuwait we all worked so hard to free, they don't have a king they can't un-elect.
I'm not saying its perfect. Far from. But if Bush could get the stick out of his ass, and he was really concerned about democracy in the middle east (he's not of course), he would do more to nurture the tender shoots of a home grown Islamic democracy that's really trying to find a path between theocracy and democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| But if Bush could get the stick out of his ass, and he was really concerned about democracy in the middle east (he's not of course), he would do more to nurture the tender shoots of a home grown Islamic democracy that's really trying to find a path between theocracy and democracy. |
I disagree with your position, Mindmetoo. But c'est la vie. There is room for diverse perspectives.
Just want you to clarify that you are not suggesting that Iran's theocracy and its difficulties in finding a path between theocracy and democracy is not W. Bush or, more broadly, America's doing and fault.
Such a position would be absurd, of course. At what point might you hold Iranians accountable for shaping Iranian history...?
Conversely, Mindmetoo, would you be inclined to let America off the hook for struggling (and failing) to find a path between the Cold War and post-Cold War realities because bin Laden, 9/11, and the so-called War on Terror drove them to reelect W. Bush in 2004, among other variables and developments...?
It seems to me that we must always appreciate external forces and their impact on any given individual or nation-state or what-have-you. But, ultimately, we are all primarily and decisively responsible for what we do, do not do, or fail to do -- including Iranians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| "The educated movers-and-shakers are proAmerican and secular?" Rushdie, for one, might disagree with that. |
I'm not talking about the Mullahs. I'm talking about the bankers, the editors of newspapers, the secular people with money and the middle class. |
they dont matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| An enemy of Israel is an enemy of the U.S. |
Certainly conflicts with the "natural allies" claim, no? |
Only if you look at it simplistically, as you are. Since you don't accept the premise of Amanpour's report, there's really no point in you discussing the issue. Thus far, you've given it, and her, zero credibility on this story.
| Quote: |
| We might be natural allies were we to abandon Tel Aviv to those who would drive the Israelis into the sea and redraw the Middle-Eastern map. We might be natural allies if we would recognize Iranian/Shia hegemony in much of the Middle East, any possible Sunni allies' objections notwithstanding. |
If you go with the premise of the story, then "Iran" doesn't want the destruction of Israel, some radicals do. Iran's current government and the US may not be natural allies, but the US and Iran might be.
| Quote: |
| And Mindmetoo, seems to me that we already reach out, in one way or another, and as best we can, to such sectors within Iran. Bankers and newspaper editors with a secular bent, however, have little or anything to do with policymaking. |
Again, you are being simplistic. The article clearly stated the religious leader of Iran is in support of the overture. You are further being simplistic in saying the money doesn't matter. The money ALWAYS matters. This is 101 level stuff. C'mon... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
And Mindmetoo, seems to me that we already reach out, in one way or another, and as best we can, to such sectors within Iran. Bankers and newspaper editors with a secular bent, however, have little or anything to do with policymaking. |
But the key is Iran is a democracy. Yes they elected a nut job. You elected a nut job yourself who uses god as an excuse. I see, at times, little difference between the president of Iran and Bush. How many people does Bush torture? |
Iran's democracy is less than fully representative. The mullahs approve who can become a Presidential candidate in all cases. Ahmedinejad, the President, can do very little if he does not get approval from the Ayatollah.
They 'elect' people in China, too. Nobody makes the mistake of calling China a democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| An enemy of Israel is an enemy of the U.S. |
Certainly conflicts with the "natural allies" claim, no? |
Only if you look at it simplistically, as you are. Since you don't accept the premise of Amanpour's report, there's really no point in you discussing the issue. Thus far, you've given it, and her, zero credibility on this story. |
Do I not accept the premise of her story? She asked him why Iran supported Hezbolah and reported him saying it's because they are the enemy of Iran's enemy, Israel. I simply mentioned another piece of the puzzle, having nothing to do with presidential politics of posturing or with the contradictory idea of 'natural allies', at least once the underlying issue of Israel is considered.
(Her premise being... what? She gives a straightforward account of her interview - in fact therefore sympathetic to the interviewee since she lets his words frame the beginning and the end of the story. Don't look at the headline, reporters rarely write those, look at what she writes, the order, content and questions.)
Amanpour is married to an ex-Clinton administration spokesperson and has a history of critical reporting on the Bush administration. Great! But she let this interviewee off a bit easily.
Amanpour grew up in Iran until age 11 and knows about their history of Iranian AGGRESSION in the Middle East yet makes little attempt to counter the interviewee's characterization of Iran's role as anything but a "natural allay" in the fight against terrorism, though two historic counterexamples were made, so perhaps she did discharge that responsibility.
Amanpour is French Catholic religiously and so her attempt to show an olive branch of peace and reconciliation coming from within the Iranian highest powers is understandable.
But I admire how she pressed him on the 'why now?' question and ended with reference to how - and she presented as an indirect quote without quotation words because in her words, paraphrasing his point: "the United States should welcome Iran's presence and work with Iran to help keep the region stable."
On second thought, her article could be read two ways, as the upshot is that Iran wants to be in Afghanistan or elsewhere thereabouts, to do their part, assume their role, in the Middle East as the other official cited refers to (notice Amanpour put that in the story, the secondary source voicing that position, nice!). That's aggression even if disguised as providing a service. The fact is that Iran is an enemy of Israel and Iran wants a role outside its borders in the Middle East and that the U.S. should work with them on that.
The underlying stumbling block being their inherent opposition on the issue of Israel, a greater Iranian presence in the Middle East being a threat to the security of Israel. Amanpour comes close to implying it's just Hawkish presidential politics which stands in the way of peace and resolution over Iranian-American conflict.
I respect Amanpour as a journalist, but she is invested in the sorts of stories she covers, and it shows itself over time. I know the slant of her stories, and by and large, they're within the bounds of attempts to be balanced, unbiased in a journalistic sense but not so much the sociological sense (the two classic senses of bias). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
