European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear the Iranian regime is no threat to Israel. Hopefully you will pass this information over to the Israeli's, that will wipe one problem off our radar screen, and we can stop discussing this.

by wchurchill on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 05:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Iranians might very well pose a threat to Israel's interests. In a long-term strategic sort of way. Not in a "they're gonna nuke 'em tomorrow" sort of way.

Nuance. Remember that? It's sort of important in international relations.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 05:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Much of the arguments for containing Iran are in relation to the possibility of Iran developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. Whether Ahmadinedjad threatens Israel's existence through tough talk is only symptomatic and not a reason in itself to take military action, but it tells a story of the nature of the regime. The history and nature of the theocratic regime in Iran is much longer and started long before Ahmadinedjad became President, but took an even nastier turn when he came to power.

Still, I have to admit that the need for some people to defend this guy rather puzzles me. The truth is important, yes, but this statement is just one of many statements that are hateful and aggressive something which the Iranian regime have had a long history in advocating. The question is whether all these statements are then victims of misinterpretation?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:22:28 PM EST

The truth is important so long as it doesn't get in the way of the right people being blown up?

This is not being sold as "symptomatic" of anything. This is being sold as proof that this guy is a mini-Hitler who needs to be dealt with.

I'm almost puzzled by some people's need to demonise Iran.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Colman, Juan Cole tries to score pilkkunussija points by getting all technical about translating from Farsi to English, and you get all excited about "truth" "blowing people up" "Hitler" and "demonisation"?

You disappoint me. </snark>

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry. I'll try to avoid reality based arguments from now on.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You'll get ahead in life a lot faster that way.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 04:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm almost puzzled by some people's need to demonise Iran.

That might be if people are generally in favour of that kind of system or if they join hands against a greater enemy.

Ahamadinedjad might have the psyche of Hitler, but he is in no way in the same position to do as much harm as Hitler did during his absolutist rule. Still, Ahmadinedjad has a background from the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary guard, some of the most ideologically indoctrinated units in Iran, and have, through being the President of the nation, the greatest possibility of projecting his hateful agenda to the Iranian masses.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends on what "masses" (none / 0)

you're talking about. Most Iranians under 30 think of them only as the brutish thugs who are propping up the corrupt elites. The big thing that Ahmadinejad has going for him is that he's seen as standing up to the rest of the world, who, let's face it, have done nothing for Iranians since the Shah was disposed.

by Matt in NYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 09:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Depends on what "masses" (none / 0)

No, but is it the world communities responsibility to stand up for the Iranian people and not their own government?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 09:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Depends on what "masses" (none / 0)

I think we can criticize Ahmadinejad while not accepting his use as a strawman by US bellicism.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 04:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Depends on what "masses" (none / 0)

yes, I agree, but I can not see much of that criticism these days I am afraid, more explanations in defense of the guy.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat May 13th, 2006 at 11:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As opposed to all the tough talk that threatens Iran, including via the use of nuclear weapons - by a country that has invaded two neighboring countries in the past 5 years and a staggering number of other countries in the past 50 years? (i.e. the tough talk might actually be followed by acts of aggression in that case)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WC just gave the game away in the breakfast...

I don't think Israel is just going to sit by and allow a country that clearly has them in their sights to gain nuclear arms--they will attack if left unsupported by the world community.

So, basically, the US threatens to attack Iran and may end up dropping a couple of nuclear bunker busters just to spare Israel the trouble of having to launch the threats (or the attacks).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 03:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The tough talk from Iran can be traced back all the way to 1979. The revolution was a break with the westernized, and repressive, regime of the Shah. Still, the Iranian theocratic regime has got a greater repressive influence, in my opinion, than the Shah regime. The children are brought up in an atmosphere of hatred and aggression towards everything Western. The women have to veil themselves on the order of the regime because showing their skin might tempt some oversexed men. That kind of system is, in my book, worth opposing no matter what, especially when it comes to them acquiring nuclear weapons.

That said I have to agree that this US administration have got an aggressive agenda as well, but I see no contradiction in opposing the both. Concerning the invasion of Afghanistan it can not be compared to Invasion of Iraq because the United states had been attacked by al-Qaeda first and been attacked a numerous times before. In fact NATO called upon article 5 in its treaty, the only time it has been invoked, after the 9/11 attack, this being the legal basis for the war on the Taliban regime.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You seem to have your negative Iranian stereotypes down pretty well. I'm impressed. I can't even begin to deal with that: it just doesn't sound like the Iran I've heard of from Iranians.

Iran has lots of problems: I can guarantee that the current attitude of the West and the US will make them all worse, not better.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I might have my negative Iranian "stereotypes", but then again there are plenty of negative "stereotypes" to choose from. Just mentioning the Fatwa of death over Salman Rushdie, the assassination campaign on western publishers who "dared" to publish the Satanic verses and the support of Hezbollah actions in Lebanon, hostage taking assassinations and bomb campaigns, yes possibly even the financing of terrorist attacks outside Lebanon.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just like the Shah was a break from the socialist, secular, democratic (can I call this westernised?) regime of Mossadegh. Iranians have a longer memory than Americans, they remember 1953 and not just 1979.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, and we Norwegians could have had a good reason for remembering the occupation of our country by the Danish (about 400 years), the occupation of our country by the Swedes for about 100 years and last but not least the German occupation during WW2, 5 years. I see this more as political rhetoric from the Iranian regime, propping up the hatred within the Iranian masses and reassuring it stays that way.

True, you have to remember history in order to avoid mistakes from the past, but to me it seems as if the regime are using these historical examples to nurture their hatred against all Western.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're seriously comparing Danish and Swedish rule over Norway before 1800 with Nazi occupation?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not comparing, all though 400 years is a lot of occupation time, only doing some simple math.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by a country that has invaded two neighboring countries in the past 5 years

Of course one of those two was with the approval and support of Iran, not to mention just about every other country in the world.

and a staggering number of other countries in the past 50 years?

Staggering number? How many - off the top of my head I can come up with Cambodia, Laos, Grenada and Panama and the first two might not even qualify under some definitions. If I think longer might come up with more but I'm still not sure if that qualifies as a 'staggering number'. Of course if you're counting aggressive interference in other countries internal affairs then it's a different story, but in that case you could just as easily make the argument that Iran has 'invaded' other countries over the past two decades (Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq come to mind).

by MarekNYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about (4.00 / 2)

COUNTRIES BOMBED BY THE UNITED STATES AFTER WORLD WAR II
----------------------------------------------------------------

(Compiled by historian William Blum & quoted in the Sunday Observer 13 Jun 99)

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and then we can list the countries where coups took place with explicit or implict US support.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

silly tendentious list. Korea and China - internationally UN sanctioned - I believe France participated btw, as they did in some of the other instances. Various Latin American countries - sweet god if we're going to include using 'advisors' (including pilots) to a government to help it out in a civil war e.g. El Salvador in the 1980's then you might at least note that now that the USSR is defunct, the French comes in second place. Just the other week weren't the French threatening rebels in Chad with bombardment?

Then again, I've always felt that France's foreign policy is basically Kissingerian only on a smaller scale due to France's lesser power - but if you dislike America for its aggressive foreign policy, you presumably also dislike your own country for the same reason - right?

by MarekNYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh no, here comes a bout of France vs USA ...

Well let me tell you, you guys, there is only one country in the world which currently produces some amazing television series, and only one which produces the right cheese to chomp on while watching them.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That would clearly be American cheese, right? The bright orange slabs of stuff you put on white bread with your baloney?

by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey that cheese is actually ok, but you can't really chomp on it because it's all soft and it slides in your hand.

But you could definitely eat some in front of the television series "H"

by Alex in Toulouse on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 02:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've always felt that France's foreign policy is basically Kissingerian only on a smaller scale due to France's lesser power

And you're spot on.

And 'you did it too' is still not a good excuse... And, as you say, the scale is not quite the same.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And 'you did it too' is still not a good excuse...

True, but there is something that rubs me the wrong way about a French person of all people singling out this aspect of America's post WWII history as if it were something unique because it simply isn't, on the contrary it is standard practice by both global and regional powers.

by MarekNYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's going to rub you the wrong way is when Bush and Ahmadinejad crash the world economy because they're just dickheads.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did I single it out as being unique?

I was talking about who could legitimately be more worried by actual aggression/war/attack by the other between the USa and Iran.

I'm happy to put France in the same category as the USA, i.e. a country that has little to teach others about aggression, and should not feel threatened by Iran, while Iran has every reason to feel threatened today, by the USA, and possibly by France.

Bringing in France, however wicked it was, does not make America look any better in this Iranian flap, I'm afraid - quite the opposite.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, this is the problem. You've got people on the right and on the left in America, and on the right and on the left in France, and because the French right is to the left of the American left, when a blog gets leftist Frenchmen and rightist Americans in the same place, the discussion collapses rapidly...

by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, and for your information, I'm not defending the President of Iran.

I'm attempting to defend the Iranian people. You know, the ones that will actually suffer under sanctions or attack? The ones that currently suffer under the repressive regime that Bush and co. seem intent on propping up? The ones that will suffer under whatever clusterfuck the US or Israel or France or whoever sees fit to visit upon Iran if they attack it?

I'm trying to defend the family of friends of mine. What's your excuse?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't need an excuse for having an opinion as long as it is not detrimental and willingly offending anyone with abusive language. Still, I'd say that everything that smacks of absolutism and authoritarianism awakens my sense of justice.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Detrimental". As in

Asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

was not detrimental or offensive.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Madelain Albright ought to be bright enough to defend her own statements.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She was bright enough not to defend this one.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, how many Iranian deaths do you think it's fair to sacrifice over a nuclear weapon which may or may not exist 5 to 10 years in the future?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:56:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really don't see where you got the idea that I am defending a nuclear attack on Iran from?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I get the idea that you think Iran is a clear and present danger.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well then you are wrong, when it comes to interpreting my comments. I have stated in some of the Iran-articles posted here on ET before that it is way to early to plan military attacks against nuclear facilities at this stage.

The Bush administration seems to avoid bilateral talks with Iran even if the Iranians are willing to do so. That is pointing towards a predestined outcome of the dispute no matter what Iran is willing to do. Still, I regard Iran as a clear and present danger in the Middle-East today, but not a great enough danger to justify a military campaign at this stage.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Bush administration seems to avoid bilateral talks with Iran even if the Iranians are willing to do so. That is pointing towards a predestined outcome of the dispute no matter what Iran is willing to do.

Gee, that sounds like the Bush administration is a clear and present danger in the Middle-East today.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes it is, but i don't see any contradictions there.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why should the U.S. be involved in bilateral talks with Iran? Or with North Korea for that matter? It's patently obvious that both of these countries would rather "talk" with the U.S. than negotiate with the U.N. (or the "E.U. Three") because that way they can keep on blaming all their problems on the evil Americans.

Frankly I can't wait until the isolationist Democrats take office next year...

by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Next year? How is that going to happen exactly?

The US should be involved in bilateral talks with Iran because the US and Iran are the ones who have a problem with each other. Everyone else is just trying to defuse the tension one way or another.

As for North Korea, it was the Bush administration that interrupted the 6-way talks in which both the Clinton administration and N. Korea had been happily involved prior to 2001.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, for the fact that it is the US that is the most powerful nation in the world and because it is the US administration that is the most concerned with the Iranian nuclear development.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before you put all your hopes in "isolationist" Democrats, the sobering fact is that the House voted 397-21 last week for the Iran Freedom Support Act, a bill that Kucinich called a "stepping stone to war" and Ron Paul likened to the Iraq Liberation Act that served as a "whereas" in the war resolution. Santorum is sponsoring an even worse bill in the Senate that takes supervision of the money that would be appropriated away from the State Department and hands it to the WH. Twenty Dems are on as cosponsors. It looks like only Republican Dick Lugar is blocking passage, though the maneuvering has been pretty intense and complex the past few days.

Pointing out these unpleasant facts in diaries at dKos aroused quite a vociferous response from the Democrats-uber-alles crowd there.

by goinsouth (imgoinsouth@gmail.com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 04:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anyhow where have you got the idea that I am defending a military campaign at this stage and on top of that against civilian targets?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about sanctions? Are those Ok? Those kill people too, slowly and painfully.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A sensible way for the world to deal with Iran would be to give nuclear weapons to them, and all their neighbours for free, thus creating a stalemate. A few nations in the West could easily hand out several hundred and not feel the difference.

We could even organise a lottery of sorts for the distribution, so that some countries would stay out of the nuclear loop, and some would have a lot more than others, just to create an imbalance, for the fun of it.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Note to self: when the revolution comes, Alex in Toulouse is not getting the Ministry of External Affairs. Or the Ministry of Defense.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pity there'd be no Ministry of Russian Roulette.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh wait a minute, isn't that already what we're doing?

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alternately we could get the UN and several concerned nations to invest billions of dollars into finding life on Mars (or fabricating elaborate evidence of life), thus making the Catholics look foolish and the Muslims feel better. It would even out the tensions a bit.

by Alex in Toulouse on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, sanctions are one way of trying to talk reason to absolutist regimes. I am quite sure that many of the poorest people in South Africa suffered a lot during the sanctions against the Apartheid regime, but then again was it wrong?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 06:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutist regimes are not particularly hurt by sanctions. The decomposition of civil society just helps the regime.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 06:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that depends on how the sanctions are brought about and I doubt that most people will prop up the regime just because of sanctions being introduced. It might look like helping the regime up front, but in reality I think most Iranians are sensible enough to see through that, don't you agree?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 06:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point is, sanctions lead to a general economic and political deterioration of civil society. This makes people more dependent on the government and less able to organize themselves and resist the government if they are so inclined.

Can you point to examples of authoritarian regimes that have been brought down by external sanctions?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 06:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the Apartheid regime for one. But isn't it the duty of the government to provide for its people and not the outside world? If the people want the government out of office it will do so, when the time is right. It will take time, yes, but the people will see the logic in this. Even so, the whole rational for imposing sanctions is not to bring a government down, but to persuade them to see that it is in their own interest to cooperate with the outside world.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq were not successful because people within the UN system found it opportune to deal with Iraq on an illegal basis. The Saddam regime was surely weakened by the UN sanctions. People dying because of sanctions are not primarily the responsibility of the international community. They can choose whom ever they want to deal with. It is the responsibility of the government to provide for its people.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 06:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People dying because of sanctions are not primarily the responsibility of the international community.

???

so hmmm... if some people were to take your family hostage, in an effort to force you to do something or other that they want you to do, and they injure or kill some of your family in the process, this would be all your fault because you did not knuckle under and do what they wanted? the hostage-takers or blackmailers bear no responsibility? or they would only bear responsibility if they were "criminals," whereas if they were police, or self-appointed vigilantes, they would be inherently blameless?

the macho stance of Western politicians in wuch situations (a threat to their citizens by foreign agents) is usually "no negotiating with hostage takers!" ... yet when this same defiant stance is taken by the ruler of a state subjected to siege warfare -- let us call "sanctions" what they really are -- with a much larger number of hostages involved then we call it criminal irresponsibility? and hostage-taking is suddenly OK?

imho the central question is whether collective punishment is, or is not, legitimate. I vote for "is not," because the notion of collective punishment -- injuring/killing civilians in order to blackmail elites into a given course of action, striking at more vulnerable civilians because elites are so well guarded and inaccessible -- is Chapter One in the strategy manual of terrorists.

enough, already, of this "destroying the village in order to save it."

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They all say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and, in the end, they all do. Ask Michael Collins.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well yer, of course. And if they didn't negotiate with terrorists there would be no State of Israel either.

Actually I am not sure whether I vote No for collective punishment entirely out of conscience, or just because I am a civilian and I don't like being targeted... especially when there seems pathetically little I can do to influence (either of) my government(s).

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well actually the Brits did not negotiate with the "terrorists" before withdrawing. They had an agreement, the Balfour declaration, roaming around and when they found it opportune to call it a day they did.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all I cannot agree with you comparing hostage taking with sanctions. The first is something done in violation of all legal and human rights. The second, sanctions, is a free-willed action done by states agreeing not to deal with a certain entity. In my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges here and the element of force is vital here. If you take someone hostage of course you are more inclined to yield in, but sanctions is an element of free-willed actions from independent states, in fact something which certainly would hurt the initiators as much as the target, the refusal to trade with Iran even if this mean to lay off trading oil for their own consumption.

You using terms as macho make me a bit on the edge. Why do you use this kind of loaded terms in a debate?

As I have said in previous comments there are many ways of imposing sanctions and refraining from doing so means that you are taking another non-military option away from the international community.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions. Claiming they are "unintended" when they are highly likely is a cop-out.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Won't wait till 4am... (4.00 / 2)

Migeru, go to bed!

(Must go myself, one hour later than you...)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, again strictly interpreted no you are not. You are not elected by the Iranian electorate. In the end it is the government that has to take that responsibility.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 07:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, so sanctions actually work when the regime is at least moderately democratic (like Iran is, or Apartheid was relative to the powerful white minority). They are not working too well on Cuba, are they? Or on Zimbabwe.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, rationally speaking, it works better on some countries than others, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try it out before heading for another and more drastic option.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the killer sanctions didn't have a great effect in Iraq either.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 03:13:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't mean to start a wrangling match over this, but I'm not sure the Apartheid regime was brought down by sanctions (which I approved of at the time, btw).

I think changes in SA happened at the end of the Cold War as a result of changes in the (ahem) balance of world power.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 05:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently the FW de Klerk Foundation agrees with you on that.
Wikipedia: International sanctions on Apartheid (my emphasis)

In an analysis of the effect of sanctions on South Africa by the FW de Klerk Foundation, it was argued that they were not a leading contributor to the political reforms leading to the end of Apartheid[8]. The analysis concluded that in many instances sanctions undermined effective reform forces, such as the changing economic and social order within South Africa. Furthermore, it was argued that forces encouraging economic growth and development resulted in a more international and liberal outlook amongst South Africans, and were far more powerful agents of reform than sanctions.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 05:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok if the FW de Klerk foundation say so it must be right. I'd rather want to study that report for my self.

Something tells me that this could be one way of not diminishing the work of FW de Klerk himself.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 08:26:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the ending of the Cold War might be partly responsible for the Apartheid regimes downfall, but it can hardly be given full credit for it. SA, was and still is a country full of resources, and had a flourishing economy before the sanctions. The ending of the Cold War only meant that SA was not deemed as a vital partner in fight against the Soviet Union anymore. The sanctions meant financial/trade starvation of the country.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Fri May 12th, 2006 at 08:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You note that plenty of people are using the (supposed) speech as a reason to attack Iran - true. GJ says that Iranian leaders routinely talk about how Israel has no right to exist, and shouldn't exist - true as far as I can tell, but maybe they're just mistranslations. You see this as war mongering - so I'm just curious how? Is the nature of the Iranian government or its rejection of Israel's right to exist a legitimate causus belli? If somebody comes up with another speech that amounts to roughly the same thing as this one is supposed will it make you any more inclined to support a war on Iran? If not, then what's the point of all this, except to highlight a silly and nasty storm in a virtual teacup.

by MarekNYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:53:21 PM EST

No, it's not a legitimate reason for war. It is being sold as one though. If it's not important, why is it that everytime a discussion of attacking Iran comes up this speech is cited to show that Iran is on the edge of attacking Israel?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 04:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No wiping off maps (4.00 / 3)

Don't you know that as soon as they'll have a nuclear weapon, the Iranians will immediately use it to attack Israel or Europe or both?

Just like Pakistan against India, Israel against Egypt, or the USA against Japan. Oh wait...

(Yes, this particular comment IS knee-jerk anti-Americanism)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh wait...

We should be thankful that France didn't have nukes in 1954 and that Eisenhower rejected France's pleas to use America's nukes against the Vietnamese... (if we're indulging in this brand of knee jerk anti-ism...)

by MarekNYC on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, we can be thankful to Eisenhower, on this occasion, and on others on his watch for similar requests...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm personally very thankful to Eisenhower for welcoming Franco with open arms into the "free world".

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 05:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]