EU undercuts US sanctions with Syrian tradedeal.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
NO. We could , but we don;t have the right.

Israel did not have the "right" to bomb the OsiraK reactor in 1981. They did it however, and I dont think that today either the US or the UK hold it against them. Indeed, prior to 2001 and the second intifida, Israel, far from being ostracized, was making significant progress diplomatically both within the Arab world and beyond. Apparently the international community simply wont sanction a country very seriously for such an action in such circumstance, even if its a technical violation of international law which none of them can publicly support. If that was true for Israel, how much more true would it be for the United States.

Right now the opposition of NKors neighbors to a US preemptive attack on NKor has less to do with their concern for the fine points of international law, and more to do with their concern for the aftermath of the collapse of North Korea, which they seem to think (perhaps correctly) would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.


I would say that the notion that a power cant preemptively strike when an enemy aquires nuclear weapons, given particularly that said enemy has shown evidence of not being deterrable (Nkor) or of supporting terrorists who could plant an untraceable nuke (Iran) is "law" in the same sense that its illegal to smoke pot in the privacy of your home in the US - its a law that cant very well be changed on paper, for many reasons, but its a law everyone understands to be foolish, and that no one is inclined to enforce. Whether its truely a "law" in that case, I leave to legal philosophers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
so? who gives a flying **** about Iran... and why are you defending Iran? jesus christ, if the Iranian government had the chance, they'd probably cut your head off for being a Westerner. As a liberal (as I generally perceive you), you have often voiced discontent with right-wing, conservative theocratic elements in America... but yet, you're defending Iran like their some innocent state being bullied by EVIL AMERICA.

It's okay to be upset or to criticize America's hypocrisy... but c'mon man, be sensible. In the grand scheme of things... Iran is a bad guy.

3 points:

1. Don't be a drama queen about Iran. NO, they would not cut my head off-the fact the Iranina theorcracy and we have bad relations are based on history, NOT religion-we have had fine relations with the even MORE strict Saudi monarchy than the Clerics in Iran. So give me a break.

2. There is NO grand scheme of things

3. "Bad guys", what is this, the third grade?

[Sava]

So give me a break.

okay

There is NO grand scheme of things

sure there is

"Bad guys", what is this, the third grade?

it's almost that simple... D

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



3 points:

1. Don't be a drama queen about Iran. NO, they would not cut my head off-the fact the Iranina theorcracy and we have bad relations are based on history, NOT religion-we have had fine relations with the even MORE strict Saudi monarchy than the Clerics in Iran. So give me a break.

2. There is NO grand scheme of things

3. "Bad guys", what is this, the third grade?

Im not sure that our history wrt to Iran can be seen apart from Irans internal politics, which largely HAVE been driven by religion. indeed, the hostage taking in 1979 seems to have been a (successful) move by religious hardliners to take power from more (religiously) moderate revolutionaries. Similarly while Irans attempt to gain regional influence can be seen in broader terms of Persian history (and does involve them in alliances with secular states like Syria) their relationship with Hezbollah, for example certainly fits a pattern of policy dictated at least in part by religion.

Im not sure I would call our relationship with KSA fine - id call it problematic, and particularly in the last two and a half years. I would again refer you to Sen Kerrys speech of yesterday.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Israel did not have the "right" to bomb the OsiraK reactor in 1981. They did it however, and I dont think that today either the US or the UK hold it against them. Indeed, prior to 2001 and the second intifida, Israel, far from being ostracized, was making significant progress diplomatically both within the Arab world and beyond. Apparently the international community simply wont sanction a country very seriously for such an action in such circumstance, even if its a technical violation of international law which none of them can publicly support. If that was true for Israel, how much more true would it be for the United States.

VP Bush wanted serious action taken vs. Israel. that fact two conservative anti-Comunist regimes in the US and UK gave a blank check to a conservative anti-communist Israeli regime is NOT a surprise. If it weren;t for the UK, but more realistically the US Israel would be sanctioned. I never said anything about US being asactioned0by definition we can't be (we have a veto), but no one will back us, not even the UK.

Right now the opposition of NKors neighbors to a US preemptive attack on NKor has less to do with their concern for the fine points of international law, and more to do with their concern for the aftermath of the collapse of North Korea, which they seem to think (perhaps correctly) would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

It has to do both with the fears of a collapse of NK and the fact NK can do serious damage to SK, and kill hundreds of thousands-plus it is probalby too latre anyway and NK already has nukes.

I would say that the notion that a power cant preemptively strike when an enemy aquires nuclear weapons, given particularly that said enemy has shown evidence of not being deterrable (Nkor) or of supporting terrorists who could plant an untraceable nuke (Iran) is "law" in the same sense that its illegal to smoke pot in the privacy of your home in the US - its a law that cant very well be changed on paper, for many reasons, but its a law everyone understands to be foolish, and that no one is inclined to enforce. Whether its truely a "law" in that case, I leave to legal philosophers.

The US and the USSR both actively supported terrorist during their own conflict. Why is Iraq having nukes a greater threat to the US than the US having nukes to Iran? The US gave tacit support for Iran's enemies during a long and brutal war, and we are the only ones who have used nukes, and we have never renounced first use, and we have people in the US talking about using small nukes- all which goes far and away beyond what Iran has done with nukes.

And I am sorry, but the whole "passing nukes to terorrist" is a stupid strawman. The idea of it being untraceable is absurd for one, and no one has yet, after more than a whole year, ever given the slightest rational reason why a state would hand nukes to independent actors outside their control. Until you or anyone comes up with a compelling and rational arguement build up on reaosn and not unfoundedn fears and prejudices, I see this line as nothing more than a strawman.

[Sava]

Why is Iraq having nukes a greater threat to the US than the US having nukes to Iran?

because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and America is a stable democracy with checks and balances.

The US gave tacit support for Iran's enemies during a long and brutal war

and I firmly believe Reagan administration officials responsible... and others responsible, should probably be put in jail or something. The US's actions during the Iran/Iraq war were despicable.

But that doesn't change the fact that America is a free society (generally) and a democracy... and Iran is a corrupt, oppressive theocracy. Do you trust Iran with nukes? I sure as hell don't. I don't necessarily trust Bush with nukes... but we're still here so it can't be all bad.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not sure that our history wrt to Iran can be seen apart from Irans internal politics, which largely HAVE been driven by religion. indeed, the hostage taking in 1979 seems to have been a (successful) move by religious hardliners to take power from more (religiously) moderate revolutionaries. Similarly while Irans attempt to gain regional influence can be seen in broader terms of Persian history (and does involve them in alliances with secular states like Syria) their relationship with Hezbollah, for example certainly fits a pattern of policy dictated at least in part by religion.

An action hardliners got to justify due to our continuing relations with the Shah. Moderates were also not as organized in Iran, and the war probalby strenghted the Mullah better. BUt the fact is that religious conservatives were not inherently our enemies, given our position vs communism and the alliences we forged with radical Sunni islamists vs Communism. It was our long-term sponsorship of the Shah that helped things along-I would remind how big a deal was made about Communists being in the lead in the Iranian revolution, when it fact Islamists ended up in control.

As for hizbullah-that was an organization created out of the failures of Israel in its invasion of Lebanon. Had that invasion not occured, or had Israel being better at handling the originally friendly Shi'a there would have been no Hizbullah at all. I would add that being coreligionists as both Shi'as in a mostly Sunni world most liekly help.

Im not sure I would call our relationship with KSA fine - id call it problematic, and particularly in the last two and a half years. I would again refer you to Sen Kerrys speech of yesterday.

Yes, because in the last two years it became obvious that the enemy of our enemy (Conservative islam vs Communism) was not necessarily our friend. At the time the Shi'a Islamists came to power in Iran, we would have had as much in common with them as we did with SA-if it were not for our past with the Shah.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava

But that doesn't change the fact that America is a free society (generally) and a democracy... and Iran is a corrupt, oppressive theocracy. Do you trust Iran with nukes? I sure as hell don't. I don't necessarily trust Bush with nukes... but we're still here so it can't be all bad.

I trust Iran with nukes as much as the Soviet Union, China or Pakistan. And those states have been far less confrontational with their nukes than we have ever been.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


VP Bush wanted serious action taken vs. Israel. that fact two conservative anti-Comunist regimes in the US and UK gave a blank check to a conservative anti-communist Israeli regime is NOT a surprise. If it weren;t for the UK, but more realistically the US Israel would be sanctioned. I never said anything about US being asactioned0by definition we can't be (we have a veto), but no one will back us, not even the UK.

LOTM - if the world other than the US and UK were so upset, why not break relations with Israel? The US couldnt veto that. Yet in the time between the Osirak attack and 2001, Israel was recognized by the states of eastern europe, by the states of the former SU, by Spain, by China, by India, by Jordan, and effectively, by Morocco, and Qatar, and renewed relations with most of black Africa. Obviously no one took the Osirak attack seriusly.

Right now the opposition of NKors neighbors to a US preemptive attack on NKor has less to do with their concern for the fine points of international law, and more to do with their concern for the aftermath of the collapse of North Korea, which they seem to think (perhaps correctly) would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

It has to do both with the fears of a collapse of NK and the fact NK can do serious damage to SK, and kill hundreds of thousands-plus it is probalby too latre anyway and NK already has nukes.

LOTM - er what I said, except im not sure its too late.

The US and the USSR both actively supported terrorist during their own conflict. Why is Iraq having nukes a greater threat to the US than the US having nukes to Iran? The US gave tacit support for Iran's enemies during a long and brutal war, and we are the only ones who have used nukes, and we have never renounced first use, and we have people in the US talking about using small nukes- all which goes far and away beyond what Iran has done with nukes.

LOTM - oh come now, we used nukes in 1945, in a very different context to today. It took 6 years of total war to get to that point. I dont think anyone envisions that today. And if you want to take strategic policy questions out of context to make points, be my guest. The fact is the US has gone to war several times in the last few decades and has never used nukes. Indeed we have gone out of our way to minimize civilian casualties - perhaps for our interests, but that only strengthens the unlikelihood that we would use nukes. Iran, OTOH, when it went to war with Iraq, used everything it had available.

And I am sorry, but the whole "passing nukes to terorrist" is a stupid strawman. The idea of it being untraceable is absurd for one, and no one has yet, after more than a whole year, ever given the slightest rational reason why a state would hand nukes to independent actors outside their control. Until you or anyone comes up with a compelling and rational arguement build up on reaosn and not unfoundedn fears and prejudices, I see this line as nothing more than a strawman.

Presumably theyd attempt to exercise considerable control, as Iran has over Hezbollah. In any case Im not here to argue every aspect of Iranian strategy with you. If you choose to get into an arguement with Save, you deserve what you get, and i will desist from commenting, even when either of your says something absurd.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


I trust Iran with nukes as much as the Soviet Union, China or Pakistan. And those states have been far less confrontational with their nukes than we have ever been.

I don't agree with that assessment. Pakistan and India are close to blows... And the US's use of nuclear weapons as a deterent was driven by ignorance and fear... but cooler heads prevailed, so I can't complain.

and I wouldn't trust the SU with nukes either... if America had the chance, it would have been a good idea to prevent them from getting nukes. Remember a little thing called "the cold war"?

If I had the choice, I probably wouldn't trust anyone with nukes... having said that, it's probably better that less countries have them than more.

[Sava]

btw Gepap... the Soviet Union was more or less led by men who feared death... I don't get that same feeling from Islamic fundamentalists. But in Gepap's world, I guess it's okay for Islamic fundies to have nukes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


An action hardliners got to justify due to our continuing relations with the Shah. Moderates were also not as organized in Iran, and the war probalby strenghted the Mullah better. BUt the fact is that religious conservatives were not inherently our enemies, given our position vs communism and the alliences we forged with radical Sunni islamists vs Communism. It was our long-term sponsorship of the Shah that helped things along-I would remind how big a deal was made about Communists being in the lead in the Iranian revolution, when it fact Islamists ended up in control.

They justified it based on our attempting to find the dying Shah a place to live and get medical care, instead of returning him to face trial at the hands of his enemies. Even Jimmy Carter understood what returning the Shah to Iran would do to US credibility. In any case the hardliners were well on their way to full control before the war with Iraq began. And the moderates, who were JUST as much anti-Shah as the hardliners, were NOT as much anti-US. And given the Ayatollahs predilictions for exporting their revolution (which triggered the Saudis push to export Wahabism, originally a defensive move against Iranian influence)its hard to see how the US could have maintained an alliance with Iran after the hardliners took control.

We supported Islamists in Afghanistan on the understanding that they did NOT intend to export Islamism. And wrt to such Islamists as Ismael Khan, Rahabbani, and Shah Massoud, we were correct. OBL was NOT a significant player during the period when we supported Afghan Islamists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, because in the last two years it became obvious that the enemy of our enemy (Conservative islam vs Communism) was not necessarily our friend. At the time the Shi'a Islamists came to power in Iran, we would have had as much in common with them as we did with SA-if it were not for our past with the Shah.

Taht simply isnt true - KSA was geopolitically conservative, and Iran was not. Bernard Lewis (among others) has written extensively on the Iranian Revolutionarys plans to export revolution throughout the Islamic world (and not just among Shia, either)

Oh, but i forgot, you dont like to read books about politics anymore. Never mind.

[GePap]

LOTM - if the world other than the US and UK were so upset, why not break relations with Israel? The US couldnt veto that. Yet in the time between the Osirak attack and 2001, Israel was recognized by the states of eastern europe, by the states of the former SU, by Spain, by China, by India, by Jordan, and effectively, by Morocco, and Qatar, and renewed relations with most of black Africa. Obviously no one took the Osirak attack seriusly.

Becuase attacking one research reactor would not be enough for anyone to break relations off. Iran is far more advanced, with multiple research reactors and giant Civilian reactor being built. Any strike would be vaslty more involved than the attacks on Iraq, plus risk killing contractors from other countries.

Iran, OTOH, when it went to war with Iraq, used everything it had available.

Yes, as would any state Invaded. The uS has gone to several wars since 1945-none of which threatened regime survival or involved the US defing its own territory. Plus the US had to worry until 1991 about a possible nuclear reaction from another enemy. Iran in its war with Iraq faced no such issues.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
btw Gepap... the Soviet Union was more or less led by men who feared death... I don't get that same feeling from Islamic fundamentalists. But in Gepap's world, I guess it's okay for Islamic fundies to have nukes.

You confuse a bunch of young wippersnappers with Clerics in Iran. I don;t see Iranian clerics blowing themselves up.

To equate AQ types with the iranian theocrats is to be ignorant of the realities of one or both of them.