Iran playing games

[Ecthy]

That's what you get when you're isolated and that's why you don't isolate yourself.

And that's why you don't mess with America.

[/right wing assertion]

[Sirotnikov]

So, let me see if I get it straight.

Kidnapping Iranians who are obviously in breach of their borders and international law, and are illegally present on Iraqi soil, is wrong.

Also, this justifies the Iranians again going out of their borders (again breaching international law), and kindapping British soldiers who are really in Iraqi waters.

So, we have one border breach by the Iranians (where they are caught redhanded) justifying another border breach, where they lie about it and kidnap foreign soldiers.



Yes, obviously the US is at fault here. The Iranians were always justified to do what they do.

[Gibsie]

I think MOBIUS' point is that the actions of both Iran and the US are wrong in kidnapping people, the actions of the latter leading to the actions of the former... and it's Britain who gets screwed over as a result.

You just have to learn to read through his anti-US rhetoric

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I think MOBIUS' point is that the actions of both Iran and the US are wrong in kidnapping people, the actions of the latter leading to the actions of the former... and it's Britain who gets screwed over as a result.

You just have to learn to read through his anti-US rhetoric

I think Tony is just getting his kicks out of being Dubya's bottom boy.

[Sirotnikov]

I think MOBIUS' point is that the actions of both Iran and the US are wrong in kidnapping people, the actions of the latter leading to the actions of the former... and it's Britain who gets screwed over as a result.

How is it kidnapping if the Iranian folks really were trespassing?

While the brits were captured from beyond the border?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How is it kidnapping if the Iranian folks really were trespassing?

While the brits were captured from beyond the border?

Lawl, you really believe the US had any clue what it was doing when it detained those Iranians? It was just yet another moron military bigwig with masturbatory ideas about showing those darn tooting eye-ranians.

[Sirotnikov]

Lawl, you really believe the US had any clue what it was doing when it detained those Iranians? It was just yet another moron military bigwig with masturbatory ideas about showing those darn tooting eye-ranians.

LAWL

Yes, it was arresting tresspassers, and possible instigators of anti-coalition violence, and intelligence assets.

You condescending attitude is annoying btw.
I remembered you as more than that.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
LAWL

Yes, it was arresting tresspassers, and possible instigators of anti-coalition violence, and intelligence assets.

You condescending attitude is annoying btw.
I remembered you as more than that.

Lawl rawks.

The attitude is born out of four years of continuous and unmitigated failure and incompetence by the US in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of dead people. Didn't mean to aim it at you.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How is it kidnapping if the Iranian folks really were trespassing?

Kidnapping, arrest, whatever you want to call it, if you want to argue semantics go argue with a brick wall.

[Ecthy]

His point is that the one thing is legal and OK whilst the other is not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Lawl, you really believe the US had any clue what it was doing when it detained those Iranians?

Sure, why not.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

lotm, the basic point Murray was making is that the border is pretty damn ambiguous, and the British MoD doesn't help their case by asserting where it definitely is. It's just a pointless escalation.

AFAICT there is NO ambiguity about the defacto border (Any more than there is ambiguity about the route of the "green line"), and that is what the MoD map was about.

Incidentally, bringing up the alcohol allegation is uncalled for given that the very Wiki article you cited said that the was exonerated of the charge (I suppose Chris Hitchens is persona non-grata now?). And objecting to the Uzbeks' brutal treatment of its detainees, including boiling them alive, is supposed to be a credibility problem?

Hitchens is not persona non grata, nor did I say that Murray is. I would not however invoke Hitchens as an authority, beyond the ability of his words to convince, nor cite his credentials based on a job from which he had been fired. esp if his assertions were directed against his former employer.

She was constrained not by lack of power or inclination, but by the existence on the Pal side of a govt dominated by a party that continues to reject the Oslo accords and the existence of Israel, and that refuses to renounce violence.

You mean the very same gov't that Bush asked for (through the devolution of poiwer to a newly elected legislature) as a predicate for continuing down the "roadmap" towards Pal statehood? And now he wants Fatah to reverse course, reconsolidate power, potentially pulling off a coup...

We asked for devolution to the cabinet, because at the time the Pal presidency was an obstacle to peace and a supporter of terrorism. The situation is now reversed. The "coup" would be the holding of a new election, in technical violation of the Pal basic law (maybe - IIUC Fatah disputes that) What you seem to be missing is that the driving issue here is the Pal govt relationship to the peace process, more than the technicalities of the historically relatively recent Pal basic law, one that was hardly honored before 2002 anyway.

However Olmert has invited the arab states of the region to a peace conference. If they are truely serious about peace, let them talk to Israel face to face, and not through an American interlocutor.

Are you seriously trying to portray the refusal to talk as a one-sided affair?

Yes, in essence. I think the Olmert position relating to talking to the Pal govt is reasonable.

After the utter disaster in Lebanon, it's true that Olmert has been more willing to compromise. And so have the Pals and Saudis for other reasons. See the recent renewal of the 2002 Arab League proposal; and note that Olmert rejected any resolution to the right of return issue - even a symbolic one - out of hand (something that Barak at least considered). But the point is that Burh or Rice have rarely shown any desire to pressure the more intransigent actors on all sides to make hard choices.

Well, I thought you were talking about direct Pal-Israeli talks, not the Arab League proposal. Barak did offer a symbolic return, but that was part of an essentially final proposal - it was not the Israeli starting position. The AL proposal of an unlimited right of return is hardly a realistic offer either - it is only a starting position. To which its natural that Olmert offers a starting position, not his final position. If the AL wants to negotiate the gap between the two positions, the thing to do is to enter talks with Israel, which Olmert is open to.

And no, you cant pocket concessions that were made as part of an offer your side earlier rejected. That is, indeed, one of the arguements made AGAINST talking when conditions are not ripe, and was one of the things the Israeli right warned against in 2000. The only way to prove them wrong is to show that making a generous offer that is rejected does not bind future negotiations.

And so I dont see the current Israeli govt as an intransigent actor. If it were to be replaced by a Likud led govt, under Bibi, esp in the unlikely eventuality that Bibi could form a coalition just of rightist and religious parties excluding Kadima, then Israel might well have an intransigent govt, and Rices willingness to pressure them would be tested. That is not currently the case however.

[lord of the mark]

Oh, and Olmert has never been intransigent. However prior to the Lebanon war, he, along with most of the Israeli public, thought that given the difficulties of making a deal with the Pals, unilateral withdrawls would be a superior strategy. Postwar, the Israeli public is soured on unilateral withdrawls, and so the emphasis has shifted to negotiations.

[lord of the mark]

yup, one-sided intransigence

"Agree with me, THEN we talk"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/845088.html

"Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that Israel must first accept the Arab peace initiative before it would agree to any direct talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Olmert has called for a summit with the Saudis in order to discuss the peace process, following an Arab League decision to re-launch a 2002 peace initiative that calls for an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries and a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem.

A Saudi source told The Associated Press that Israel must accept the proposal "before any meeting is considered."


The source's comments, given on condition of anonymity, were the first Saudi response to the prime minister's offer.

Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have expressed reservations regarding several of the proposal's clauses, specifically the clause regarding the refugee issue, although have said the initiative contains many positive elements."

Well maybe KSA is less intransigent in the rumored secret talks.








If this is willingness to negotiate, than Bush is willing to talk to the Iranians, since he would also be willing to talk to them if they agreed completely with his demands.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Ecthy
His point is that the one thing is legal and OK whilst the other is not.

And how on Earth does that change the fact that the British sailors/ marines got screwed over asa result of the Iran/ US interplay in Iraq (which was the original point being countered)? It doesn't, pretty damn obviously.

Sailors gonna be released according to Iran's prez, I'll believe it when I see it though!