|
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: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: Washington Will Not Talk with Syria, Iran... |
 |
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the Bush administration engage Syria and Iran in efforts to stabilize Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Friday.
The "compensation" required for any such deal might be too high, Rice told the paper in an interview.
Rice said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq, the Post reported.
She also argued that neither Syria nor Iran should need incentives to help achieve stability in Iraq, the Post reported.
"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said... |
Good.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/15/iraq.rice.reut/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good? No, it is silly.
They should at least try and see what can be negoitated. If Syria and Iran make demands or do what Rice fears they will do, then we walk away. Putting no effort into diplomacy is just lazy and useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Silly?
Getting into negotiations that link the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Iran's nuclear program, and Syria's "right" to continue intervening in Lebanese affairs to the Iraqi War would be just plain stupid -- not to mention that you are talking about talking with a govt that currently aims to cast doubt on the Holocaust in order to undermine Israel's supposed moral claims to exist and another that is almost certainly linked to two recent Lebanese assassinations.
They will not negotiate in good faith, Bucheon. Indeed, going back at least as far as the arms-for-hostages scandal, the Iranians have never negotiated in good faith. And what I have seen so far leads me to believe that neither the Iranian nor the Syrian govts believe or admit that they have ever done anything wrong; they continue to blame the United States and Israel for everything. This is no recipe for talks but rather continued lecturing and unreasonable demands that Washington simply unilaterally withdraw from the entire region.
The Administration has my support on this, if Rice is indeed speaking for the President on this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well in regards to the iran hostage bit, they saw a great opportunity to "hood wink" the Reagan administration and they did. Not like they came to us, but vice versa. Can't blame them for taking advantage of it. I'd say that shows they know how to operate better than our gov't does sometimes.
Syria, well, hey, if it brings up Israel, then yeah, forget it. I was thinking more along the lines of, "If you help us in Iraq, we'll unfreeze some of your assests here in the States."
You're jumping to conclusions, just like the Bush administration is.
What's the harm in making sure your assumptions are correct?
I'm not saying make a deal with them, just see how they react. The status quo hinders the US more than it does those two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Putting no effort into diplomacy is just lazy and useless.
|
I agree.
It looks to me like we just got more of 'stay the course' from the administration. Repeat the failed behavior and keep your fingers crossed that the outcome will be different.
Edit: (found the quote I was looking for)
From Asia Times Online 'Democrat Dilemma Over Iran'
"The authority to go to war rests with Ayatollah Ali al-Khamenei, who in May 2003 offered to open up Iran's nuclear plants for inspection, rein in Hezbollah, accept a two-state solution, and cooperate against al-Qaeda. He also issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. The initiative was shot down by US Vice President Dick Cheney and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
I think there IS something to sit down and talk about.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| well in regards to the iran hostage bit, they saw a great opportunity to "hood wink" the Reagan administration and they did. Not like they came to us, but vice versa. Can't blame them for taking advantage of it. I'd say that shows they know how to operate better than our gov't does sometimes. |
I am not sure that you understand that as the Reagan Administration attempted to gain influence and repair relations with Tehran by illegally selling weapons to them (I agree, it was a bizarre situation), hoping that the Iranian govt would reciprocate by freeing American hostages in Beirut and elsewhere in the Middle East (whereever they were holding them), that in fact, once they freed one or more, they went out and kidnapped replacements, thus creating an easily sustainable arms-for-hostages market, and indeed blackmailing Washington to continue the weapons sales indefinitely and effectively circumventing the arms embargo that Washington itself had established. And that is what I mean when I reference Tehran's bad faith negotiations: they never intended to resolve the hostage issue.
Good for them?
It sounds like you are admiring them for "operating better than Washington." And, as I said above, I am not sure that you understand what actually transpired here. I see nothing worthy of praise in Tehran's behavior regarding the arms-for-hostage crisis.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| What's the harm in making sure your assumptions are correct...? |
"What is the harm in wasting one's time when there is precious little to waste?" might be a better question. We once turned over a Soviet-run intelligence net, hoping it might lead to increased trust and talks. Rather than turning this net, they simply found them and killed them. Then they told us to leave.
How do you propose communicating with such people? And what do you really believe such "talks" might produce, regarding anything at all of substance?
Pretend for a moment that I am advising people who advise people on this. How would you persuade us to talk to Tehran and Damascus with something other than calling us "lazy?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I am not sure that you understand that as the Reagan Administration attempted to gain influence and repair relations with Tehran by illegally selling weapons to them (I agree, it was a bizarre situation), hoping that the Iranian govt would reciprocate by freeing American hostages in Beirut and elsewhere in the Middle East (whereever they were holding them), that in fact, once they freed one or more, they went out and kidnapped replacements, thus creating an easily sustainable arms-for-hostages market, and indeed blackmailing Washington to continue the weapons sales indefinitely and effectively circumventing the arms embargo that Washington itself had established. And that is what I mean when I reference Tehran's bad faith negotiations: they never intended to resolve the hostage issue.
Good for them?
It sounds like you are admiring them for "operating better than Washington." And, as I said above, I am not sure that you understand what actually transpired here. I see nothing worthy of praise in Tehran's behavior regarding the arms-for-hostage crisis.
|
Well let's see... There were no ties between the US and Iran, we were giving intelligence to Iraq in its war against Iran, and our reputation with iranians at the time was about as low as it could get. Here they were, presented with an opportunity to hit an enemy of theirs hard, and they did. So yeah, I do admire them in a way. Gopher, hate to say it, but Iran has been outmaneuvering the USA in the Middle East for a couple decades now.
| Quote: |
| How do you propose communicating with such people? And what do you really believe such "talks" might produce, regarding anything at all of substance? |
With Iran, go to them and say, "look, we know you have all those old american weapons and planes. Your boeings are falling to pieces. Your oil infrastructure is ancient. It needs to be modernized. maybe if you help us out a bit, we can ease up sanctions a bit. let inspectors come in, and hey, you know what, we might eliminate those sanctions."
In regards to Syria, as I mentioned before, we could losen the financial barriers we've placed on it, and remove some sanctions as well.
And hey, i'm sure there are experts who could come up with a bunch of carrots to dangle in front of them, and have a step-by-step process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, Bucheon, but I'll separate myself from you entirely on this one. There is nothing admirable about kidnapping and blackmail, no matter how deftly the perperators execute their plan.
Let's put a human face on some of what we are discussing here...
| Quote: |
William Richard "Rich" Higgins (January 15, 1945 � July 6, 1990) was a United States Marine Corps colonel who was captured in 1988 while serving on a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. He was held hostage, tortured and eventually brutally murdered by his captors...
On February 17. 1988, Higgins disappeared while serving as the Chief, Observer Group Lebanon and Senior Military Observer, United States Military Observer Group, United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Higgins was driving on a coastal highway between Tyre and Naquora in southern Lebanon, returning from a meeting with a local leader of the Amal movement, when he was pulled from his vehicle by armed men. He had been captured by a pro-Iranian group suspected to have ties with Hezbollah. During his captivity, he was interrogated and tortured. His official status with the United States government was "hostage", not prisoner of war. As such, the government did not insist on treatment consistent with international law.
A year and a half after his capture, images of his body, hung by the neck, were televised around the world � from a videotape released by his captors. The exact date of Colonel Higgins death is uncertain; though he was declared dead on July 6, 1990. Finally, on December 23, 1991, his body was recovered � dumped on a Beirut street. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Higgins
It is also not unreasonable that many American policymakers consider future negotiations with such people a probable waste of time, particularly given recent events in Lebanon and who was likely behind them and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you might want to learn something from East Asians, I'll just leave it at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Gopher you and I are on opposite sides on this one. If the US doesn't deal with Iran and Syria (either through diplomacy or arms) then there is no chance in hell they can win Iraq.
This is yet another Bush boondoggle. Now, it looks that he is going to send another 25-40,000 troops in the new year.
Vietnam II here we come! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| ...Vietnam II here we come! |
Congratulations on your celebration.
We are not aiming to win in Iraq, Octavius. Just to get out. And in case you have not noticed, Saudi Arabia and Jordan -- not to mention many Iraqis, themselves -- are just as nervous and indeed upset about this as the Syrians and Iranians are already licking their lips.
The questions are How?, What will the aftermath be?, and How might we best enhance regional stability there? Personally, I do not see this happening no matter what we do. And I think the odds are fairly good that we will see one or more nuclear confrontations in the Middle East in our lifetimes. So keep celebrating... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not celebrating, I'm a pain in the butt, im not a madman. I was against this war from the very beginning and like I said all of us on the left said that this was going to happen.
Don't be fooled, Bush is not leaving. Like I said he is going to announce an additional 25-40k (min) troop increase. I also believe that the Bushies are going to confront Sadr in the new year. This confrontation will be the final and humiliating defeat for the US, and it will kill thousands in the process.
As for the Iranians and Syrians licking their lips, they are just using old superpower's techniques against America. See Vietnam and Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Earth to Octavius and Buncheon Bum. The last few years has been spent negotiating with these nations,unlessyou two were asleep then,especially when the US and Europe offered to build Iran several light water nuke reactors, and give them fuel, as well as economic incentives, and Iran turned it down.
What you two need to reaslize is you can't talk forever, it leads to trouble. It's why North Korea now has the bomb, because beuarcrats spent too much time talking and doing nothing.
It's why Iran will go nuclear unless action is taken to stop them. While we yak yak yak our mouths away, they are researching, building, manufacturing.
You have to put your foot down. Talk won't work with everyone. Something you two need to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
all right, then what do you propose?
just ignoring them? that's done wonders.
Where and when has the US offered Iran any of what you just mentioned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, this does not sound like pulling out to me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184965.stm
| Quote: |
US President George W Bush is likely to boost troop levels in Iraq next year, an administration official has said.
Up to 25,000 more troops could be deployed to try to help end the violence, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. |
Although with an administration that says up is down, blue is green, right is wrong, so i guess pullinh out is the same as increasing the number of troops! |
|
| 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
