EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


So? What does this have to do with Iran? You accuse others of always bringing up Israel-don;'t do it yourself, specially if it is even less relevant.

And who compared Iranian behaviour in the '80s to US behavior? Of course the US wast attacked on its soil between 1941 and 2001. I needed to find an example a country which had been, and which responded with restraint.

[Imran Siddiqui]

imagine the lots of fun if your screenname was "John Kerry", with your Reagan avatar

Well Kucinich with a Reagan avatar is funny enough as it is .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I know Israel's security dangers are real. And I know the Israelis have very valid reasons to be afraid. And even if the reasons are valid, their policies aren't any less real.


I can understand that I won't endear the Israelis with my attitude (what's even more fun is that I don't endear the Pro-Palestinians either, because I'm in the middle and I consider both sides to suck utterly).

But I can't imagine that I contribute to the Israeli paranoia. Unless the Israelis confuse my criticism of their policies with antisemitism, or with some dream of the Arabs crushing Israel, or something.

Not you personally. Many Israelis beleive that if they were to withdraw from the territories, and make a deal with Arafat, and things were to go badly for Israel as a result (i wont spell out the scenario - thats been done before) that Europe, out of whatever motivation, would do nothing to support them, and would in fact villify them if in the course of a new war they were to cause civilian Pal casualties again. They also beleive that an EU peacekeeping force would look the other way at terrorist acts, but prevent Israeli acts against terrorists. This belief is a barrier to several possible options that might lead towards peace. You may call this belief paranoia - it is a result of the kind of things you have indulged in yourself, such as the equating of Israel and Syria.

BTW, if Assad is so sane, why doesnt he stop supporting Hamas? Have you forgotten about them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


And who compared Iranian behaviour in the '80s to US behavior? Of course the US wast attacked on its soil between 1941 and 2001. I needed to find an example a country which had been, and which responded with restraint.

Yes, Iran compared to the US-becuase this is an issue of the US and Iran, or the US and Syria-Israel not included.

As for restraint-Egypt was attacked by Israel in 1967, and they did not use chemical weapons against Israeli forces even thought they had used them in yemen. Russia did not use conventional retraint, but it sure as hell used nuclear retraint in chechnya-does it get a prize for that? NO.

The UK was restrained vs Argentina at the Falkands....

I really fail to see then how you can criticize Iran for suing Chemical weapons vs Iraq when Iraq had used them first against them. And what that even has to do with Nukes. The US used retraint with regards to chemical weapons all throught WW2 (we could always have used them in the pacific), yet we used nukes as fast as we could.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


If Iran lost the war, it could face counter-revolutionary pressures.

There are many potential sources of "counter-revolutionary" (ie progressive) pressure on Iran. Most notably democracy in its neighbors. Thats why I dont trust them with nukes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There are many potential sources of "counter-revolutionary" (ie progressive) pressure on Iran. Most notably democracy in its neighbors. Thats why I dont trust them with nukes.

What, it's going to nuke itself? hardly likely.

Plus, democratic presures are building in Iran becuase of its own system, a mix of theocracy but then a real democratically elected legislature and demographic explosion, much more than the mess in Iraq, the realities of Turkey, the situation in Afghanistan or the mess in Pakistan.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Look at how Sharon has acted since taking power. He has been pragmatic throughout (if more violent than you would be) Right now he is desperately trying to wrestle the Likud part to pragmatism. The constant villificantion of Sharon, for negligence, leads to fundamental misunderstanding of Israeli politics.

I agree with you. Despite coming to power with an ideological agenda (Sharon was a sincere expansionist before the experience of power), he has avoided many ideological traps.
I can't stand the guy and his methods, but I acknowledge his pragmatism. I actually support the unilateral removal of Gaza, despite many in France (including my party) opposing it vociferously. And that's out of pragmatism as well: the fewer the colonies, the higher the chances of peace.

I was making a point toward Sava's cartoonish worldview. It is rare to see clear-cut occurences of good and evil in this world. And definitely not in the Israel / Palestine conflict.

Besides, if being negligent during a massacre makes one unfit for office, I hope you felt the same way about M. Mitterand after Rwanda.

Before Rwanda.
We exported heaps of weapons to Rwanda, despite knowing Habyarimana was giving them to the civilian Hutus, and indoctrinated them for genocide.
I don't know if Mitterrand himself was made aware of what was in the making. But whomever dismissed the information and let the preparations of genocide continue, that person should never hold office anymore IMO.

2. Wrt Baby Assad - Does he fill shame or regret for the DELIBERATE actions of his father and predecessor in Hama, where far more arab muslims were slaughtered than in Sabra and Shatilia.

I don't know. Actually, I'm pretty sure Assad will come up with quite a few monstosities as he ages, and as he becomes more protective of his power. IMO, the main reasons why he doesn't have as much blood on his hands as Sharon is because he is younger, and because he rules in times of peace. Not because he is inherently less "evil". Again, it was a comment opposing the simplistic and cartoonish "good vs evil" view that was held by Sava, but that I see held very, very often in American cutlure.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



What, it's going to nuke itself? hardly likely.

no they would use their nukes to pressure a democratic Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Again, it was a comment opposing the simplistic and cartoonish "good vs evil" view that was held by Sava, but that I see held very, very often in American cutlure.

and there arent Euroopeans who have cartoonish views of international politics, esp the US and Israel. Just they prefer terms like Cowboy, fascist, vs justice, oppressed rather than good vs evil. A cultural difference to be sure, but not one that makes Euro views less cartoonish.

Of course I recognize that many Euro views are not cartoonish. Many American views are not as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


no they would use their nukes to pressure a democratic Iraq.

First, right now a democratic Iran looks more promising than a democratic Iraq. 2, Turkey is already democratic- I don't see Itan caring much. 3. What presure? Stop being a democracy or we nuke you? Sorry, that doesn;t work. A threat has to be realistic to work- if the US gives a democratic Iraq nuclear protection, problem solved. And even if not, what the hell can Iran do? Lets say Iraq refuses to bow down...What? Iran nukes them? And become a total world outlaw? Open itself up to invasion and regime change?

Again, scenerios have to be rational-the notion of Iran "presuring Iraq" with nukes is utterly absurd.

Having brought Israel up already, or this weird scenerio-why hasn;t the US or Israle used their nukes to presure Syria into behaving? Answer, it does not work that way.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I really fail to see then how you can criticize Iran for suing Chemical weapons vs Iraq when Iraq had used them first against them. And what that even has to do with Nukes. The US used retraint with regards to chemical weapons all throught WW2 (we could always have used them in the pacific), yet we used nukes as fast as we could.

Are you expecting a 6 year global conventional war with tens of millions of casualties to take place again?? If not the above is irrelevant. Of course some folks would simply like to say the US has no standing to meddle with others nuclear programs because of Hiroshima. If you wish to, fine. NO conceivable US govt is going to accept a nuclear risk because of that. Nor would any other govt of any other country that had power to avoid such risk. The US will act in its interests, and will not engage in handwringing when it does so. So it only gets to the weighing the risks involved in Iranian nukes, vs the costs of elminating them. Im not convinced that the diplomatic costs to the US would exceed those to Israel after Osirak. As for the risks, I do see a risk of anonymous terrorism. Its happening now? Where do you think the operational HQ for AQ is now, directing the attacks in KSA and Turkey, the flow money and jihadis into Iraq? I think its Iran, but I know you wont accept that. And what was the source of the chemicals for the bomb in Jordan? was it Syria? Pretty good job of keeping it anonymous, since even now people are denying Syria would do any such thing.

The same people who are NOW denying that a nuke can be delivered anonymously will be denying that country X had anything to do with it, the morning after a US city is nuked. Of course I may be hoping theyre listened too, since their may be people pushing for us to nuke back - which could be disastrous.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Not you personally. Many Israelis beleive that if they were to withdraw from the territories, and make a deal with Arafat, and things were to go badly for Israel as a result (i wont spell out the scenario - thats been done before) that Europe, out of whatever motivation, would do nothing to support them, and would in fact villify them if in the course of a new war they were to cause civilian Pal casualties again.

This is very possible. It will mostly be a question of PR. There was a time where the Isralis were described as the nice guys. If, during the peace period, Israel works on its PR, it could be seen as the good side again. Heck, Rabin was loved over here, and Peres is still considered a great guy to this day; so it shows it's possible to seduce us.

They also beleive that an EU peacekeeping force would look the other way at terrorist acts, but prevent Israeli acts against terrorists. This belief is a barrier to several possible options that might lead towards peace. You may call this belief paranoia - it is a result of the kind of things you have indulged in yourself, such as the equating of Israel and Syria.

1. I equated the potential rationality of the Israeli and the Syrian leadership wrt the use of nuclear weapons. I am not comparing the countries in general, they are vastly different.

2. This belief (that the EU would look the other way in case of terrorist acts) is false IMHO, or depends of your definition of "looking the other way"*.
Most EU countries want peace above all, and consider that peace can only be achieved with two legitimate and peace-seeking entities. This is why many countries, including mine, have (had?) the false belief that Arafat was the key to peace: he was respected by his population, he was ready to talk, he looked representative. The question of a talking partner is extremely important to European views on the issue, but it was answered simplistically: Arafat is the one to talk with.

As a result, the Europeans have an extremely negative view of fundamentalist Palestinian terrorism. I often hear opinions that they're in the same boat as Israeli hawks, only furthering the cause of war. True, we tend to loathe them less than Israeli hawks, because we give them excuses ("they're poor", "they're humiliated" and crap like that). I personally oppose this form of tolerance.

But you should not forget that whatever the sympathies we have for the Palestinian plight, we do see terrorism as a major obstacle to peace. And any EU force will fight terrorism, although probably with different means than Sharon and his ilk. Because terrorism goes directly against our aims in the region.

BTW, if Assad is so sane, why doesnt he stop supporting Hamas? Have you forgotten about them?

I don't know why he supports Hamas, but I can see plenty of reasons why an Arabic thug would support terrorist groups. He may expect the radical Muslims to take over the Palestinian State once Arafat dies. He may give a cookie to some religious groups pressuring him. He may want a bargaining chip with Israel. And I'm sure there are plenty of other possible, "sane" reasons.


*If the Israelis fear that a EU force won't bulldoze homes, send in the helicopters and fire rockets on the militants' cars, then they are perfectly right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


First, right now a democratic Iran looks more promising than a democratic Iraq. 2, Turkey is already democratic- I don't see Itan caring much.


LOTM - Iraq is mainly Shia, there are close ties between the Najaf Hamza and Qom, etc. Theres also simply a tippping point. BTW, Im not sure they dont care, its just that Turkey is too well established for them to do much - well other than support people who blow themselves up in Istanbul.

3. What presure? Stop being a democracy or we nuke you? Sorry, that doesn;t work.

l -No, more like we want you to give more power to person X, change law Y, etc. Subversion, dominance, etc. With the threat of conventional war - with nukes in the background, one more factor in the balance. To be used only if conventional war breaks out.

A threat has to be realistic to work- if the US gives a democratic Iraq nuclear protection, problem solved.


l - Hardly. extending nuclear protection is not simple, it involves risks.

And even if not, what the hell can Iran do? Lets say Iraq refuses to bow down...What? Iran nukes them? And become a total world outlaw? Open itself up to invasion and regime change?

Again, scenerios have to be rational-the notion of Iran "presuring Iraq" with nukes is utterly absurd.

Having brought Israel up already, or this weird scenerio-why hasn;t the US or Israle used their nukes to presure Syria into behaving? Answer, it does not work that way.

Err, I think Israels possession of nukes probably has effected Syrian behavior.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor



*If the Israelis fear that a EU force won't bulldoze homes, send in the helicopters and fire rockets on the militants' cars, then they are perfectly right.

So what would an EU force do about the smuggling of weapons through tunnels into Gaza. Would they send their troops to destroy the tunnels, but not use copters when theyre troops are hit?? and refrain from bulldozing the buildings that there troops are fired at from. No, I dont think so. Based on what happened in Bosnia, and elsewhere, and their sympathy to the Pals - they would simply NOT try to destroy the tunnels. They would look the other way. And oh, yes, the EU, in its concern about terrorism, would pass a resolution condemning both sides. And France might restrict what can be worn in its schools. But stop the smuggling of weapons for use against Israel, no.

Theyd be useless. Which is why DOVISH israelis are generally more interested in having a sane Palestinian like Dahlan, or the Egyptians, or some combo thereof take over security in Gaza, with all the problems with folks like that, than invite in the Euros.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
As a result, the Europeans have an extremely negative view of fundamentalist Palestinian terrorism. I often hear opinions that they're in the same boat as Israeli hawks, only furthering the cause of war.

you think that EQUATING terrorists who deliberately murder women and children, with Israelis whose political views differ from yours is taking a NEGATIVE view of terrorists? Youre just not getting it.