The newly appointed Secretary of State..Dr. Rice..has been on a bit of a meet and greet session abroad. In London Dr. Rice was questioned on Iran.. link

Also in that article Rice was quoted as saying...

For debate...

Do you agree with Dr. Rice..is Iran "one of the most important barriers to the Israel-Palestinian peace process." .... why or why not?

Currently Iran is in negotiation with EU nation's to suspend her nuclear activities..but this is not what or why Rice or the Bush admin as a whole has singled Iran out for. Does the EU and the US have the same goals in regards to Iran? And who do you feel shares the people of Iran's desires more?

Also there is an article by Friedman titled An American in Europe and in it he says..


Is Iran the ultimate red state? Can America capitalize on this and should she? Also do you then feel that any diplomatic resolution that will be effective in Iran can succeed without the US at the forefront..or does the Iranian situation need America's focus in order to be a complete success?

I believe that when Iraq has 2 years of relative democracy under its belt, Iran will be the first state to fall to the forces of freedom.

Bush's resolve, and his strategic view of this region, is setting the forces in motion that will be impossible to stop once enough momentum is achieved.

The United States and Bush in particular are ESSENTIAL in this effort. The EU lacks the poliitical will and is infested with a cynicism that makes true reform impossible and the liberals within the US share that cynical view with respect to the prospects of freedom and democracy within the middle east.

Do you agree with Dr. Rice..is Iran "one of the most important barriers to the Israel-Palestinian peace process." .... why or why not?
No. I think it is one of the easiest excuses for Israel to demonise wider Islam (NB never think that Iran is part of the Arab world - they're Persians, and they won't thank you for thinking of them as anything else) as an excuse for dragging it's feet on the Middle East peace process.

"See America? Those mean old Muslims mean to get hold of nukes against all the recognised non-proliferation protocols. Therefore we cannot compromise. Even though we ourselves got our own nuclear weapons against all the recognised ...." etc.

On the contrary, I think that the USA's seemingly indulgent position on Israel is one of the most important barriers to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (not to mention one of the most important sources of hostility to America the world over). More importantly, most of the Islamic world seems to think the same way.

Currently Iran is in negotiation with EU nation's to suspend her nuclear activities..but this is not what or why Rice or the Bush admin as a whole has singled Iran out for. Does the EU and the US have the same goals in regards to Iran? And who do you feel shares the people of Iran's desires more?

I think that the EU and USA have exactly the same goal - a non-nuclear, peaceful and democratic Iran. The difference is that the EU member states are not (at present) prepared to countenance anything other than peaceful diplomacy as the means of achieving that. America - while not pursuing very much of a different line from Europe in overt actions - is rhetorically more threatening than diplomatic and has noticeably refused to rule out the use of force under currently conceivable circumstances.

I can't speak for the Iranian people as a whole, any more than a few anecdotal reports from a few Iranian students can, but I guess it boils down to a three-stage question.

1. Do you believe that democratic and civil rights reforms can come about in Iran over an acceptably short timescale and at an acceptable cost in lives without violent external intervention? If yes, use diplomacy as the EU proposes. If no, send in the troops
2. Do you believe that violent external intervention can bring about democratic and civil rights reforms in Iran over an acceptably short timescale and at an acceptable cost in lives? If yes, side with USA. If no, side with EU
If you answered Yes to both 1 & 23. Would you prefer Iranian civil and democratic reforms were acheived through largely peaceful change or through external invasion, occupation, and forced revolution?

Is Iran the ultimate red state?
I have no idea what this means
Can America capitalize on this and should she?
Yes, and no or at least not yet. If the patient can be cured without amputation, try that first. American sabre-rattling is one of the main reasons the Iranians want nuclear capability - take away the reason, and you mitigate the result. Softly softly catchee monkey, and all that.
(Please, nobody tell me "that won't work any more post-9-11"; so far America hasn't tried a diplomatic approach post-9-11, so you have no more idea whether it will or won't work than the Europeans do. All you can say is that the softly softly approach didn't really work on the specifics of Wahabist terrorism, as distinct from the Shia branch of Islam practiced by the Iranians, before 9-11.)

Also do you then feel that any diplomatic resolution that will be effective in Iran can succeed without the US at the forefront..or does the Iranian situation need America's focus in order to be a complete success?
That's the $64,000 question - it remains to be seen. I think it can succeed if America is supportive of it, even if they are not at the forefront. So I'd say US focus is essential, but leadership is not at this stage.
I think that's sort of the position that Dr Rice ended up taking, with the requisite amount of rattling sabres to keep domestic hawks happy.
However, I don't think it can work if sabre-rattling is the only noise the mullahs hear coming from America, as I think that will only goad them into further entrenchment of their repression, and further pursuance of their nuclear goals.

How can you qualify anything in regards to Israel and Iran's relationship as being "easy" and how can you excuse Iran and her absolute defiance to the ME peace process? Please give but ONE example of Iran doing anything that could be considered a step forward in making peace with Israel.

Also why do you think America needs Israel's guidance to what aggressors in the ME intend to do?...America knows what threatens her.

And if the fear was of the "Muslim World" (as if there is there is such a world) getting ahold of nukes then explain Pakistan and America's very warm relations with her? Such a stark and religiously defined line has not been drawn. America does not oppose the Iranian government because of their faith...that is a really flawed accusation. I think Iran's little slaughter of Americans in Beirut or Iran's total and utter disregard to America's diplomatic rights in that region..or even their support to Iraq during the first Gulf war... might be a tad bit more of an influence to America's relations with Iran than this religiously motivated exclusion you believe exists.

And indulgence? That is an interesting way to classify America and Israel's relationship..they are allies after all..you do tend to consider your ally's needs in foreign affairs especially when it contrasts that of your enemies. You yourself pointed out that much of the ME resents this relationship and we have seen the horrible cost it has afforded the US. I hardly consider it one of luxury or as you say...indulgence. None the less to claim such hatred is all rooted in America's own actions is in itself a bit of a lenient view. People in the ME feel the way they do about the US, about Israel and about their special shared relationship for many reasons...some valid and some not.
The ME's troubles are far more their own responsibility through their own culture, nationalistic views, religion, state controlled media and government.

You honestly believe that most of the ME ...especially those nations we consider to be enemies of the US..are not fighting back?




I don't agree...again. I feel some nations in Europe do not have the goal of bringing about regime change in Iran and that is exactly what I feel America does feel is necessary in Iran.
I also do not believe that the US will have to achieve this through a military invasion.


It was from one of the articles I linked to..it is in regards to the US election. You should read it


No worries I won't tell you that but I will tell you that America does try and even *gasp* succeeds at diplomacy even in the post 9-11 world. Sudan..which happens to have a little Islamist connection herself is an example. North Korea is another..and also happens to be the highest ranked threat amongst the American people. I think it is very unfair of you to claim or classify America has somehow the "troubled child" of the diplomatic world. That somehow diplomacy is such a refined art that the roughneck Americans just can't seem to grasp it...that it is something the Europeans and the Europeans alone excel in. Well where was France's gift at diplomacy in Ivory Coast?
Diplomacy is one of America's greatest powers in the world.

Do you agree with Dr. Rice..is Iran "one of the most important barriers to the Israel-Palestinian peace process." .... why or why not?

To some degree I can see Rice's point, but I disagree with her analysis and I'm not really surprised by it.

America hates Iran, and always has since the Iranian revolution, so its no great surprise to hear Iran being blamed for the toruble in the middle east by the other great backer of regional terrorism, the USA.

As far as I am concerned, there are two sides to the problem in the middle east and both sides employ terrorism and the threat of nuclear engagement as a means to an end.
That the Islamic side is technologically inferior to the Christian/ Xionist side does not mean that they alone are the terrorists because they are forced to operate in secret and strike at weaker targets. Both the Israeli's and the Americans have employed terrorism and guerilla warfare tactics to further their political aims of acheiving statehood in the past, and both still use terror, fear and death as political tools. For Rice/America to call out Iran on sponsoring terrorism in the middle east whilst the USA is sponsering Israel's state run terrorist campaign, is hypocrisy.


Currently Iran is in negotiation with EU nation's to suspend her nuclear activities..but this is not what or why Rice or the Bush admin as a whole has singled Iran out for. Does the EU and the US have the same goals in regards to Iran?

No they don't. Both parties are working to establish regional influence in a very important strategic region for purely selfish geopolitical reasons.


And who do you feel shares the people of Iran's desires more?

Neither, but both the US and the EU like to portray themselves as caring about regional 'freedom', 'democracy' and so on and so forth.


Is Iran the ultimate red state? Can America capitalize on this and should she? Also do you then feel that any diplomatic resolution that will be effective in Iran can succeed without the US at the forefront..or does the Iranian situation need America's focus in order to be a complete success?

Ah... actually I think its the other way around. Iran needs the USA like a fish needs a bicycle (as I think the saying once went) Its the USA that needs Iran in this context, for without a stable and pro western Iran, then the fledging Iraqi state, and perhaps even the rest of the middle east is unstable.

The US troops cannot remain in Iraq for ever, and sooner or later they will have to let the Iraqi's run their own country. Once that happens, then Iraq, and especially the Shi'a, will be vulnerable to Iranian influence and the USA knows this.

Once upon a time America supported Saddam Hussein for just this very reason.



I see as usual that European = French. What a surprise.

In fact the Bush administration is diplomatically inept. The simple fact that America has had to fall back on its military power, depsite is political and economi strenth illustrates this.

There have been plenty of brilliant American diplomats in the past.

Its just that none of them are currently in power.

In the Middle East, I would consider two countries that would want to see the peace process fail : Syria and Iran. They have both supported terrorism in Lebanon and Palestine.

Syria is currently very isolated politically. I don't think Bashar Al'Assad will risk facing the wrath of the US and the EU together. Both Chirac and Bush made it clear that they want Syria out of Lebanon ASAP... so Syria has enough problems to deal with for the moment!

Iran represents a potential threat for the whole region because they have (or pretend to) the nuclear capability. The Iranians are currently trying to wear out the patience of the EU and US through diplomatic talks in order to earn time for themselves. Sometimes they comply, sometimes they don't... What is clear is that no solution is coming for anyone and time is certainly being wasted.

This uncertainty is creating a threat to the peace process... a threat to all of Iran's neighbors, really.



Condoleeza Rice made it clear in her speech in Paris today that freedom can't be imposed on people and countries. This surely shows that Washington is trying to soften its point to make it acceptable to its European counterparts, in order to rally their sympathy and support. At this point, this is just an intention.



I honestly can't answer this question. There are good and bad sides to the US and EU viewpoints. And both policies cause harm to the Iranians in the end, either by not interferring enough or by interferring too much. A better balance has to be found.



What I remember from my History courses is that there's always another battle somewhere, another tyrant to throw out, another country to invade, pros and cons, friends and enemies... That's the nature of the game.

America's policy sounds like a soft dream that promises freedom to all and the end of inequities... and eventually the end of all wars. Well, it is nothing but a dream. Results will come out of this of course; but they won't be global.

You're missing the point here. We "indulge" Israel's right to exist, Iran "indulges" Hezbollah by giving them refuge and legitimacy, and Europe "Indulges" Palestinian terrorists' right to blow up jews in pizza places because they are "oppressed" by state-sponsored terror. (as opposed to Arafat-sponsored terror against Palestinians, which was pseudo-state sponsored terror, I guess) And as Horyok notes, Syria and its proxy Lebanon play along. I just read this and thought it was relevant. One big happy terrorist family.
Syria, Hezbollah, Iran train together

Do you agree with Dr. Rice..is Iran "one of the most important barriers to the Israel-Palestinian peace process." .... why or why not?
As long as Iran supports Hezbollah, they are certainly an obstacle to peace. Similarly, just today Hamas announced that they are not "bound" by the Sharon-Abbas cease-fire. As if terrorists ever were bound by diplomacy? This is nothing by a pipe dream. To be fair, a 100% military solution is also a pipe dream, but the US is indeed pursuing this war on many fronts, from diplomatic to legal to financial to military.

[quote=bucket,Feb 8 2005, 08:21 PM]
How can you qualify anything in regards to Israel and Iran's relationship as being "easy" and how can you excuse Iran and her absolute defiance to the ME peace process? Please give but ONE example of Iran doing anything that could be considered a step forward in making peace with Israel.
[/quote]
Why do I need to do that? So now anyone who isn't actively working to establish peace with Israel is a wild-eyed terrorist sympathiser on the side of Satan and should prepare themselves for the possibility of armed American intervention?? I guess that means Iceland and Guatemala ought to instigate nuclear programmes too, because they aren't obviously making peace with Israel. I guess that's the logical endpoint of saying things like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".

Of course - that's an overly simplistic interpretation to make a point (which, incidentally, is what I was doing last time around).

[quote]Also why do you think America needs Israel's guidance to what aggressors in the ME intend to do?...America knows what threatens her. [/quote]
What are Iran doing just at the moment that is a direct threat to America? Or are we infact talking about America's interests? If we are, can we please (and I include Dr Rice in that "we") start saying so, and stop pretending that it's all about freedom and democracy.

[quote]And if the fear was of the "Muslim World" (as if there is there is such a world) getting ahold of nukes then explain Pakistan and America's very warm relations with her? Such a stark and religiously defined line has not been drawn. America does not oppose the Iranian government because of their faith...that is a really flawed accusation. [/quote]
Well, firstly, my imaginary quote wasn't supposed to characterise American thinking, but was supposed to satiriseIsraeli thinking. I can't really blame them for having a siege mentality, but nobody outside Israel should take anything they say or do about Iran or Palestine at face value without a pinch of salt, just as nobody should fully trust the Iranians or Palestinians.

It is true that Iran funds Palestinian terror in Israel, at least in part. That's very naughty - agreed.

But here's a fun fact - Americans funded Irish terror in Britain, at least in part. Britain was America's ally during that time - a closer ally than Israel ever has been or likely ever will be - yet American government was content to see Irish terrorism as a fight for freedom (despite taking place in a democracy) and permit IRA fundraising as legitimate charity.

Now, how am I supposed to feel about that? My head would tell me there is no reason to hate America - they are merely permitting some of their citizens the right to be stupid and venal. But my gut says, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Which is right? Should international policy be determined by the balance of what we know and can prove, or should we set out to prove what we "know" in our gut?

Heads can be wrong sometimes, just as guts can. But when heads are wrong, you can usually see why they were wrong and act accordingly. If you think with your guts ALL the time, you'll keep making the same mistakes over & over. How can you ever improve your reasoning if you're never really aware what it is?

Surely the key to situations like the Arab-Israeli situation, Iran, (and everything else in international diplomacy) is first to consciously admit to ourselves that we have gut feelings for some nations and against certain others, and then check our reasoning to make sure we are thinking with our brains and not our guts at every stage?

But taking your last point at face value, I agree it is a flawed accusation. America does not oppose Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons because it is Muslim. Neither does it oppose Iran because of non-proliferation treaties, because it tacitly supported Israel's acquistion of nukes, and was (at best) neutrally non-committal when Pakistan acquired them. And if religion is not the reason - as you clearly illlustrate; and the treaties are not the reason (if they were you'd have condemned Pakistan & Israel as strongly as you condemn Iran; stronger, because they actually broke the treaty and obtained real live nukes rather than attempting to do so); and the human rights records are not the reason (if they were you wouldn't touch Pakistan or Egypt with a ten foot pole and you CERTAINLY wouldn't extradite your prisoners to their authorities to take advantage of their less than enlightened views on the use of torture in interrogation) then what reason do we have left?

The only one I can see is that America decides who her enemies are first and then finds evidence to rationalise it. That's ok - it's what everyone else does too. but there's nothing noble or uplifting about it. All I really want is for America to admit to itself that it's position on Iran is not entirely noble or based on freedom and liberation and adjust the public rhetoric to include a little more humility.

[quote]I think Iran's little slaughter of Americans in Beirut or Iran's total and utter disregard to America's diplomatic rights in that region..or even their support to Iraq during the first Gulf war... might be a tad bit more of an influence to America's relations with Iran than this religiously motivated exclusion you believe exists. [/quote]
Iran's slaughter of Americans in Beirut? - certainly reprehensible and definitely a reason to have a grudge. So let's say so, instead of couching America's urge for revenge (what else would you describe it as?) as a wish to spread freedom and democracy or to protect the Arab-Israeli peace process?
As for Iran's disregard for America's diplomatic rights in the region - I can't argue with you because I don't know specifically to what you refer.
And as for Iran's support for Iraq in "the first Gulf War" - you do know that most modern historians refer to the Iran-Iraq War as the first Gulf War - you know, the one where America armed and supported Saddam's Iraq to invade Iranian land and gas Iranian soldiers and civilians?
Though I assume that you're talking about the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. Again, I'm not aware of any help that Iran gave to Iraq during that time and I'd be interested to see any supporting evidence you can provide.

[quote]And indulgence? That is an interesting way to classify America and Israel's relationship..they are allies after all..you do tend to consider your ally's needs in foreign affairs especially when it contrasts that of your enemies. You yourself pointed out that much of the ME resents this relationship and we have seen the horrible cost it has afforded the US. I hardly consider it one of luxury or as you say...indulgence. None the less to claim such hatred is all rooted in America's own actions is in itself a bit of a lenient view. People in the ME feel the way they do about the US, about Israel and about their special shared relationship for many reasons...some valid and some not. [/quote]
And America and Europe do exactly the same thing.
I can see why America want to be bullish over Iran, and why "Europe" (which has 25 different policies, no just one) tends to be more cautious. I am happy to criticise the most dove-ish of EU states on the matter - the French publicly pander to the Palestinian agenda for their own domestic political and national interest reasons and then try to justify it using abstract nouns. Guilty as charged.
But doesn't America pander to the Israeli agenda for much the same reasons? I don't think that the French position is much less valid than the American one - both sides of the Arba-Israeli situation have valid complaints, and both have taken egregious and abhorrent steps in their name.
But you don't seem to want to admit that some of these reasons are valid and some are not - it seems that you think America and the Israelis can do no wrong, and Iran and the Palestinians can do no right. That simply does not ring true.

[quote] The ME's troubles are far more their own responsibility through their own culture, nationalistic views, religion, state controlled media and government.
You honestly believe that most of the ME ...especially those nations we consider to be enemies of the US..are not fighting back? [/quote]
I cannot fault your first point, since it applies to every nation on the planet. On the second point - are these nations enemies of the US because they are fighting back, or are they fighting back because the US has decided to treat them as if they are enemies?
I'm not trying to suggest the US is entirely responsible for the way every single country behaves toward them, any more than I am personally responsible for the way everyone behaves towards me as individuals. But if the majority of people of a certain kind complain that I am rude or arrogant (or smelly), I have to ask myself (at least once) whether that is their problem or is their something in the way I behave towards a certain kind of person that might give them an impression I do not want them to have, don't I?
I have simply not seen America ask itself probing questions about it's own motivations for its actions in the Middle East ever, not just post 9-11. I haven't seen many Europeans (or Arabs) doing that either, it's true. But then, we aren't the global superpower, are we?

[quote]I don't agree...again. I feel some nations in Europe do not have the goal of bringing about regime change in Iran and that is exactly what I feel America does feel is necessary in Iran. [/quote]
moif has made my point for me here - France is not Europe. And besides, if the current Iranian regime initiates gold standard democracy, peace and human rights, does it matter if the people elected under that new paradise are different individuals from the ones there now? How about if they just stop developing nukes, and the mullahs step into the background and let secular politicians run the country day-to-day, which is the certainly what Britain (no more or less representative of the new 25-member EU that France, much to French chagrin) is trying to do. The Americans have an expression for this kind of idea, I believe - "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck"

[quote]I also do not believe that the US will have to achieve this through a military invasion. [/quote]
I hope you're right.

[quote][quote]Is Iran the ultimate red state?
I have no idea what this means[/quote]
It was from one of the articles I linked to..it is in regards to the US election. You should read it [/quote]
Ah - ok I will

[quote][quote]Please, nobody tell me "that won't work any more post-9-11"; so far America hasn't tried a diplomatic approach post-9-11, so you have no more idea whether it will or won't work than the Europeans do. All you can say is that the softly softly approach didn't really work on the specifics of Wahabist terrorism, as distinct from the Shia branch of Islam practiced by the Iranians, before 9-11.
[/quote]
No worries I won't tell you that but I will tell you that America does try and even *gasp* succeeds at diplomacy even in the post 9-11 world. Sudan..which happens to have a little Islamist connection herself is an example. North Korea is another..and also happens to be the highest ranked threat amongst the American people. I think it is very unfair of you to claim or classify America has somehow the "troubled child" of the diplomatic world. That somehow diplomacy is such a refined art that the roughneck Americans just can't seem to grasp it...that it is something the Europeans and the Europeans alone excel in. Well where was France's gift at diplomacy in Ivory Coast?
Diplomacy is one of America's greatest powers in the world.
[quote][/quote]
*Ahem* I said "so you have no more idea whether it will work or won't than the Europeans do.

Leaving aside your assumption, repeated here, that France is the only EU nation that matters, I have never claimed that Europe has more of a clue than America does. Or that America is bad at diplomacy.

The point here is America hasn't really tried to reopen diplomatic relations with Iran - perhaps for understandable reasons, given your mutual antipathy when it comes to Embassies. You can't be bad (or good) at something that you are not doing at all, after all. Europe has reopened relations, where they were severed (e.g. Britain), and leveraged them where they were not (e.g Germany). And that diplomacy, while it hasn't achieved very much yet, has at least convinced Jack Straw & Tony Blair (and the Germans and others) that there is more merit in diplomacy that sabre-rattling for now.

Of course, my whole line of argument could be moot. For all either of us know, the US and EU could be engaged in a long international game of "good cop - bad cop". And if that works, and avoids another war nobody really wants or can really afford, who are we to criticise?

*whew* I need to go lie down now.

Hmm... I wonder if Bucket's impression about "EU = France" is due to the fact that France's diplomacy is very effective and efficient? Or is it because the EU's diplomacy is still a dwarf at the moment?

European posters, haven't you noticed how easily the EU's unity shatters every time foreign policy is involved? I guess it's just too much of a difficult challenge for our national governments to agree on what to do outside of Europe, when they can hardly agree with what to do on the inside!

European Unity ???

Well, sure, but then, foreign policy is still retained by national governments and national governments generally have different agends. Should the EU even have a coherent foreign policy? Why not just co-ordinate on economic / free trade issues instead?



I think the EU and US do not want Iran to have nuclear capability. We all have the same broad interest in the Middle East (for it not to be a warzone), albeit different views on how our interests are best met.
Whilst it would be nice if the Iranian government became democratic, neither Europe or America has the capability to make it so. Therefore sharing the aims of the Iranian people is a moot point - at the end of the day, Iran is not a viable target for regime change and the Iranian government know it.

Diplomacy may be slow, but it may also work. Otherwise the options seem to be a military strike on nuclear facilities, with a high probablity that Israel is involved. As a final option, it is better than Iran having nuclear weapons, but it is very far from what the US, EU or Israeli government would like to happen. The Iranian government also knows that losing it's nuclear capabilities to a US sponsored attack would make it look weak domestically. They would prefer not to appear that way to the Iranian populace.

Moif...
America hates Iran, and always has since the Iranian revolution, so its no great surprise to hear Iran being blamed for the trouble in the middle east by the other great backer of regional terrorism, the USA.
As far as I am concerned, there are two sides to the problem in the middle east and both sides employ terrorism and the threat of nuclear engagement as a means to an end.
That the Islamic side is technologically inferior to the Christian/ Zionist side does not mean that they alone are the terrorists because they are forced to operate in secret and strike at weaker targets. Both the Israeli's and the Americans have employed terrorism and guerilla warfare tactics to further their political aims of achieving statehood in the past, and both still use terror, fear and death as political tools. For Rice/America to call out Iran on sponsoring terrorism in the middle east whilst the USA is sponsoring Israel's state run terrorist campaign, is hypocrisy.

Why do you not feel it is relevant to inform us that Iran hates America? And exactly how do you excuse Iran of not also being a backer for regional terrorism? Must I remind you of history?...America is certainly not the one to have shown her strength or even ability to claim the ME empire..that would be Iran.
You claim the Islamic world as a whole is united against the Christian/Jewish world (why do you choose to give equal standing and meaning to christian and zionist?) I must disagree. Again I don't see this as a religious war...true Iran urges and pays for her army of Jihadists..but they are merely a tool.
Also since apparently others wish to bring Syria and Lebanon into the debate..Lebanon is nearly an equally divided nation on religion it's president is a Christian.and it is written in the constitution of Lebanon that the legislation must be equally divided amongst Christians and Muslims.
Syria is entertaining her own little illegal occupation and also flaunts, ignores and defies UN resolution 1559..funny we never hear much complaining on the international stage about Syria's own disregard for UN resolutions much like we do about Israel's. Do you consider that hypocritical? I just don't see anywhere near the same level or starkness of hypocrisy..the US is in fact actively pursuing to gain peace in the region..she has been one of the most constant parties in searching for an end to this conflict..where is Iran? What has Iran done to absolve her for her sins? I just can not fathom how you can even compare America and Iran's actions in the ME as being interchangeable.
This is hardly tandem politics.

Ah... actually I think its the other way around. Iran needs the USA like a fish needs a bicycle (as I think the saying once went) Its the USA that needs Iran in this context, for without a stable and pro western Iran, then the fledging Iraqi state, and perhaps even the rest of the middle east is unstable.

Actually my question was geared to the Iranian people..somehow I just don't think they are in agreement with their government for their future and somehow I don't think the government of Iran reflects the interests of the Iranian people. Of course Iran does not want America in the picture because America wants for Iranian people what the Iranian gov will never offer them. These are not two things that can coexist. So do the Iranian people need America to be successful? Yes I feel they do..because Iran will only be a success when we can truly have the people of Iran answer this.

I see as usual that European = French. What a surprise.
And whose fault is this? Certainly not mine. EU is the one claiming that a show of a strong common foreign policy is of the utmost importance. When France speaks or acts on the international stage are you now claiming that she does not have full EU support? The EU wishes to claim common foreign policy and then demands independent pursual of it. It is all very confusing.

There have been plenty of brilliant American diplomats in the past.

Its just that none of them are currently in power.
Whatever. just because we got this moron Mr. Bush over here does not mean he is somehow a plague and has infected every state institution in America. This comment was just for show..as it has no truth behind it. James Baker went over to Europe and achieved what many thought was impossible..the forgiveness of Iraqi debt. Perhaps this will become my mantra for this thread..but diplomacy is one of America's greatest powers in the world...it is a silly thing to do to underestimate this. I am sure Iran knows this.



Horyok.....
Syria is currently very isolated politically. I don't think Bashar Al'Assad will risk facing the wrath of the US and the EU together. Both Chirac and Bush made it clear that they want Syria out of Lebanon ASAP... so Syria has enough problems to deal with for the moment!
Very true and I was proud that Chirac finally voiced this as strongly as he did but it comes too late.
I still have a hard time viewing US and French policy on Lebanon and Syria as the same or wishing to acheive that same goal/outcome. Take for example the Paris loan to Lebabnon in 2002 of over 4billion..it was a major controversey..mostly because it is such bad business..there is absolutely no guarantee or even indication that Lebanon would ever be able to repay this loan...so what was the motive behind the loan? And where have we seen such loans before? This loan was ultimately full fledged economic support to the "puppet regime" (oh how I love being able to throw that little title over to a Arab nation's involvement) in Lebanon which is no different than supporting Syria's presence in Lebanon. France has bankrolled Syria's little "vacation" in Lebanon. Perhaps I should ask Moif if he still feels America is the sole western supporter of terrorism in the ME.



carlitoswhey.....
You're missing the point here. We "indulge" Israel's right to exist, Iran "indulges" Hezbollah by giving them refuge and legitimacy, and Europe "Indulges" Palestinian terrorists' right to blow up jews in pizza places because they are "oppressed" by state-sponsored terror. (as opposed to Arafat-sponsored terror against Palestinians, which was pseudo-state sponsored terror, I guess) And as Horyok notes, Syria and its proxy Lebanon play along. I just read this and thought it was relevant. One big happy terrorist family.
Syria, Hezbollah, Iran train together
The point to me is..supporting Israel's right to exist is not indulgence...it's their right. I was actually pretty bothered by the use of that word in that context. Also I don't really feel EU nation's as a whole support "Palestinian terrorists' right to blow up jews in pizza places" I think they support their right for political recognition. Yet I would agree that some people in Europe but not Europeans as a whole confuse what is to be considered valid and acceptable political expression...as do some here in the US. Also I don't really feel the support Iran lends Hezbollah and in my opinion the jihadist movement the world over to be indulgence either..it is terrorism.


Julian......

Why do I need to do that? So now anyone who isn't actively working to establish peace with Israel is a wild-eyed terrorist sympathizer on the side of Satan and should prepare themselves for the possibility of armed American intervention?? I guess that means Iceland and Guatemala ought to instigate nuclear programmes too, because they aren't obviously making peace with Israel. I guess that's the logical endpoint of saying things like "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".

Why again do you insist on classifying the Iranian threat as some paranoid delusion? And just a sympathizer..no my accusations are... full fledged supporters of Islamist Jihad. And is there some reason Guatemala or Iceland need to make peace with Israel? Do these two nation's have influence in this region..is this even their region? No. All I can assume form your postings is that you seem to feel the Iranian govt is not involved in making war with Israel..do you have evidence that excuses Iran from it's involvement with Hezbollah? Also it seems that currently with the US in Iraq the Iranian gov is now supporting war against the Americans too.

What are Iran doing just at the moment that is a direct threat to America? Or are we infact talking about America's interests? If we are, can we please (and I include Dr Rice in that "we") start saying so, and stop pretending that it's all about freedom and democracy.

Obviously again you must believe that somehow some nations in the ME are not actively in support and direct involvement with those who are taking up arms against America. Even your own government disagrees with you.
Don't hinder peace, Iran is told

But here's a fun fact - Americans funded Irish terror in Britain, at least in part. Britain was America's ally during that time - a closer ally than Israel ever has been or likely ever will be - yet American government was content to see Irish terrorism as a fight for freedom (despite taking place in a democracy) and permit IRA fundraising as legitimate charity.
Oh the bomb Boston theory.
If you have proof that this support was state funded and directed you might have a point..if not this little "fun fact" has no relevance to the debate. They have uncovered charity networks in America and throughout Europe that help fund terrorism in the ME yet I wouldn't accuse any of these nation's governments as funding or being content about terrorism. I have the same opinion on the KSA's involvement in terror too.

The only one I can see is that America decides who her enemies are first and then finds evidence to rationalize it. That's ok - it's what everyone else does too. but there's nothing noble or uplifting about it. All I really want is for America to admit to itself that it's position on Iran is not entirely noble or based on freedom and liberation and adjust the public rhetoric to include a little more humility.

I don't even get this reasoning. How does the history between these two countries (Us/Iran) not influence how they classify one another? Doesn't America have enough history with Iran that that alone rationalizes the state of their relationship?

Iran's slaughter of Americans in Beirut? - certainly reprehensible and definitely a reason to have a grudge. So let's say so, instead of couching America's urge for revenge (what else would you describe it as?) as a wish to spread freedom and democracy or to protect the Arab-Israeli peace process?
Wait now the Beruit bombing happened AGES ago..how has the desire for revenge not been couched? Just can't see any reason to classify America's approach to Iran as unbridled "revenge" If America was after revenge with Iran for what she did over 20 yrs ago why didn't she do it over 20 yrs ago? Sorry I think the US has shown great restraint and dimplomacy in her dealings with Iran.

As for Iran's disregard for America's diplomatic rights in the region - I can't argue with you because I don't know specifically to what you refer.
The American embassy hostages and the Iran contra scandal where apparently according to your own logic America sought revenge with Iran by completely agreeing to her UNREASONABLE demands.

And as for Iran's support for Iraq in "the first Gulf War" - you do know that most modern historians refer to the Iran-Iraq War as the first Gulf War - you know, the one where America armed and supported Saddam's Iraq to invade Iranian land and gas Iranian soldiers and civilians?
Can we keep the debate focused on Iran?
Iran fought with American arms too...because in fact the US was on Iran's side of this conflict originally. The US was an ally and great friend of Iran's even when we were fully aware of her vast oil supply and her disapproval for Israel. We have been known to overlook such flaws in nation's before (KSA, Kuwait) and not had to arbitrarily claim them enemies out of greed. Perhaps maybe America opposes Iran because the mullahs themselves decided America was an enemy.
I have a fun fact for you..just reciprocating the favor..Israel was also a supplier of arms to Iran in the Iraq-Iran war too.

Though I assume that you're talking about the 1991 liberation of Kuwait. Again, I'm not aware of any help that Iran gave to Iraq during that time and I'd be interested to see any supporting evidence you can provide.

The PLO, Jordan and Yemen gave vocal support to Iraq in this war. I think it is pretty well established that Iran is a supporter the PLO..I like to think of the PLO and all the others..Hezbollah as Iran's "foreign forces".
Yet also at the end of the 1991 Gulf War Iran made a diplomatic outreachs to Iraq or more likely against the US even tho it was a UN action ...
Sept. 12 Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, announces that Islamic "holy war" is justified against US and US troops in Gulf. AC-130H gunships from 16th Special Operations Squadron arrive in Gulf.
Feb. 5 Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offers to mediate between Iraq, US.
Feb. 7US officials say 109 Iraqi fighter aircraft, 23 Iraqi transport aircraft have flown to Iran.
link

But you don't seem to want to admit that some of these reasons are valid and some are not - it seems that you think America and the Israelis can do no wrong, and Iran and the Palestinians can do no right. That simply does not ring true.

First why would I say that if I did not mean it..you calling me a liar?
Secondly I recognize fault with the US and the Israeli policy in the region but then I see the Americans and the Israelis at the table seeking a peaceful solution. I have respect for people like Hanan Ashrawi a great Palestinian leader and one who would if given (and would they ever give her it?) the opportunity bring peace to her people. What I am not seeing is Iran..where is she? If she is not one of the main hinderances and bears only a small amount of fault to this crisis then where exactly does she operate for the positive in this part of our world? I have seen nothing from her that shows she has any interest in achieving peace in the ME...nothing.

Leaving aside your assumption, repeated here, that France is the only EU nation that matters, I have never claimed that Europe has more of a clue than America does. Or that America is bad at diplomacy.

And leaving aside your attempt to classify my example as biased..it is the most recent event a EU nation was involved in on the international stage that involved blowing things up instead of chatting...isn't it?
We are continuously fed this threat that the EU operates as one and has a strong common foreign policy. Are you saying that is not true (personally I think it is rubbish) Are you saying France operates on the world stage as an independent and does not consult or even need to consult the EU in her international dealings..even if she is planning to go blow something up?
Sorry Julian am so tired of reading your post as the quotes error keeps making me lose my place and train of thought. If there is anything you made comment on and wished for me to address please just requote it.

Hmm... I wonder if Bucket's impression about "EU = France" is due to the fact that France's diplomacy is very effective and efficient? Or is it because the EU's diplomacy is still a dwarf at the moment?

European posters, haven't you noticed how easily the EU's unity shatters every time foreign policy is involved? I guess it's just too much of a difficult challenge for our national governments to agree on what to do outside of Europe, when they can hardly agree with what to do on the inside!

How about none of the above. The EU gives the impression...or at least tries to. Again hate to keep repeating myself but the "strong common foreign policy" claim is one they do tend to make a lot. Not that I believe it..I just enjoy taunting you with it
And on the inside? Come on Horyok it was pretty much out there with that whole We Iraq war letter and all.

Bucket

Because we are referring to specific comments made by the American Secretary of State.


I don't, which is why I wrote there are two sides to the problem in the middle east and both sides employ terrorism.


I disagree. History shows, and will always show that ever since the second world war, the USA and UK have long considered it their business to meddle in the Middle East.

Need I point out the total absence of Islamic, Arabic or Persian armies bringing 'regime change' to the western/ northern hemisphere.


I did not make that claim.

However since you've asked a specific question, I shall share my thoughts on the subject. I regard America as a nation run by Christian fundamentalists and Israel as a nation run by Zionist fundamentalists. The fact that not all Americans are Christians does not matter when the American President (and the majority of those about him) is a 'devout' believer who makes no secret of his religious convictions and will often quote God, and/ or God's 'divine purpose' as justification for his actions.

In my opinion, religion is the core philosophy on both sides of the 'war' on terror and both sides use terrorism as a means to an end. That one side, (Iran) is forced by means of its inferior technology to fight a clandestine war does not make the use of military action for political purposes by Israel and the USA (& UK*) any the less terrifying.


Are they? On what basis do you make this claim?


Yes.


Its because, unlike you, I do not believe in the idea that America is working towards 'peace in the region'.

If that were true then America would not be the premier arms supplier in the region. America would not insist on Iraq adopt the Dollar for oil trading, and the American military would not be conducting war in the region.

I do not believe that peace is born of war.


This is an interesting observation. At what point in population percentage would you say that the Iranian people are misrepresented? 10% 50%

How great a proportion of the Iranian people have to disagree with the policies of the Iranian government before that government is no longer reflecting the interests of the Iranian people?

And what of the government of the United States? GW Bush went to war without a popular mandate from the American people. By all accounts, he went to war after winning fewer votes than his opponent in the first election.

By your argument, when GW Bush attacked Iraq, then the US government was acting without representation from the majority of the American public, and yet here you are claiming that Iran's government has no right to act on behalf of the Iranian people.

Odd, that your lamenting Iran's lack of democracy whilst ignoring your own.


Of course it is your fault. You have chosen to generalise in order to make a point. No one else is responsible for your opinions or the way in which you present them.


Yes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


With regards to James Baker.

Baker is an excellent diplomat, of that I have no doubt. But unless you can tell us what he paid for European cooperation, then I'm afraid your claims of American diplomatic supremacy are pale ghosts that cannot withstand the glare of scrutiny.

Without full knowledge of what Baker's (or Rice's) overture's are costing the USA, then you have no idea how good current US diplomacy is.

When your the richest country in the world then you can afford the best help.

But do you really believe that being rich makes you a good diplomat?

How much help do you think Baker would have gotten if he went to Europe with an empty pocket?


* also a nation run by a 'devout' Christian

Bucket



I have never held, nor made this claim.

Kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth.

This is probably the biggest gap between the European "street" and most Americans. We genuinely believe that our military can bring peace. We conquer a nation, vanquish its leader and bring ... elections.

Can you recall any "peace" that hasn't come from war? Certainly not 20th-century Europe. Nor 19th-century America. How about those palestinans and israelis - they had a "peace" born from negotiation (Oslo) rather than a war with one side losing.

Actually it was Bill Clinton and the United States Congress in 1998 that declared "regime change" in Iraq to be our national policy. I suppose you could say that Bill Clinton didn't receive more than 50% of the vote, so this was illegitimate, but I would disagree. This had the support of a vast % of americans' directly elected representatives in Congress.

GW Bush merely implemented our policy in a more effective and immediate way, not to mention putting teeth to UN sanctions. Moreover, the vote to give Bush the specific authority to go to war in Iraq, again by the US Congress, was a landslide. Of course, we can argue how split the people were about the decision, but the fact is that our elected representatives voted for it. And we just re-elected most of them, while voting out a few notable anti-war democrats.

Our democracy is flawed but stumbling along as ever. No need to lament.

carlitoswhey

Since the second world war, how many times has this happened?

Peace comes about by NOT fighting. It is war that interupts peace, not the other way around...

or are you suggesting that war is the natural state of existence?


I'm not lamenting. Rather I am asking Bucket a question and commenting on what I perceive to be a double standard.

Off the top of my head - South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq... Nicaragua?

Don't you think that Assad in Syria is nervous today with his population watching the Iraqi elections saying "why can't we do that?" How about Mubarik? Even the Saudis are having to pay lip service to democracy with a municipal election today.

No, I'm not suggesting that, although given man's history it certainly could be argued. What I am suggesting is that peace without a definitive closure of the open issues may not last. See: Northern Ireland, Israel / Palestine. Without a "winner" and "loser" then everything can just keep simmering under the surface and no real peace. This of course could be argued in the negative, for example the end of WWI and punishing restrictions ultimately leading to the rise of Naziism in Germany.


You perceive it, but you sure haven't proved it. Your opposition to bucket's argument that the Iranian gov't is not "by the people" by pointing to our elections is over-the-top. Mullahs invalidating 300 candidates, imprisoning the press and closing opposition newspapers vs. a mildly-disputed US election (only at the presidential level, not legislative) is not a valid parallel. In my opinion that is.

The topic of debate highlights Iran, US and EU. It is not only from the American viewpoint..hence why it is in the International Debate forum.


Well you only focused and made comments on one particular side. Also I think there is more than two sides and I don't think religion dictates whose side you are on. Do you believe the KSA would side with Iran for nuclear armament because they are Muslim? I also don't think France was on the American side when she chose to throw out 4 billion dollars to help fund Syria's reign in Lebanon.


Well history hardly began in 1945. Also History shows there was once a Persian empire and this piece of history is very much alive in the Persian culture. Take for example the dispute and outrage over the Persian Gulf/ Arabian Gulf terminology.
And wasn't that little bombing in Spain a successful bringing of regime change in the western world by Islamic militants? And weren't the bombings in America meant to also persuade Americans on how they perceive and make demands of their own regime?

How tiring it is always having to hear claims that somehow these nations of the ME are only victims of our meddling when we have nations like Iran who have their own history of meddling.
Iran is in Iraq hoping to influence the regime..she is also in Afghanistan hoping to do much the same. She supports and funds actions in Israel with the goal of complete destruction of Israel.. ..meddles with Syria and Lebanon..blows up people in KSA and Kuwait tries to take over countries like Bahrain...funds terrorism in Turkey.
Iran is without question an aggressor..hardly a victim and she believes herself to be a regional superpower.

Are they what exactly? Do you deny Iran's support of terrorism in the region or not? You just claimed early in the post that you do recognize Iran's links to terrorism in the ME and now here you are again laying doubt to this claim. Very confusing.


Then who is working for peace in the region? And America is not the premier arms supplier to Iran (US has sanctions on Iran).. it is Russia. And if the oil/dollar connection is the driving force for America to wage war (everyone reading this debate should know this is a conspiracy theory) then Russia is the next invasion with all her threats to change currency.




I think carlitoswhey addressed this well.


The debate is not about me. And what is relevant to the debate is not what I have done but what the EU has done. Hasn't the EU chosen to generalize their stance on issues like this in order to make a point? Isn't that why a "strong common foreign policy" or a generalization of foreign policy is so important..so they can make their point more strongly.

As for James Baker I have no idea what your point exactly is..do you somehow feel diplomacy or diplomatic solutions do not involve economic incentives? And are you even claiming that the EU is not employing economic incentives to entice Iran?

carlitoswhey

I'm sorry, but one election does not a democracy make and it certainly takes more than just a week to qualify as a democracy, so I think we can rule out Iraq and Afghanistan for starters. That leaves South Korea, which is in fact only half a nation and three tiny states in Central America with dubious reputations (at best). Give that the second world war ended some six decades ago, thats hardly a recipe for success.

Frankly?

No. I think the rest of the Middle East is probably holding its breath and waiting with curiosity as to what happens next.

I repeat, it takes more than just an election to create a democracy and the project to democratize Iraq is not a success until voting has become established in Iraq.

Do I really have to point out that South Vietnam also held 'successfull' elections under US protection?


First, there is no 'opposition', there was a simple question. Kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth. My question was clearly formulated and was not based on the US elections.

Since you seem to have missed the question, I shall repeat it for you:

At what point in population percentage would you say that the Iranian people are misrepresented?

How great a proportion of the Iranian people have to disagree with the policies of the Iranian government before that government is no longer reflecting the interests of the Iranian people?

If, as Bucket claims, the Iranian government does not represent the people of Iran because they were not elected, then, as the questions clearly ask, just how great a percentage of the people have to have backed the government in an election before they ARE democratically represented?

My reference to the first government of GW Bush is an observation; that since Bucket chooses to lament the unelected government of Iran (fighting a clandestine, but largely defensive position) on the basis of misrepresentation, then she ought also to lament the first government of GW Bush, since that government was elected by a tiny minority of the American public, and yet chose to wage a war half way around the planet when it attacked Iraq.

There is nothing 'over the top' about this. It is an open historical fact that GW Bush was elected by a minority of the total US electorate. Only 54% of those elligable actually voted, and of those, only 47.87% voted for GW Bush. Thus, GW Bush was president only by a legal technicality that did not represent the will of the American people, which puts him in a similar position to the government of Iran, which was put into power by a popular revolution.

Neither government at the time of the attack against Saddam Hussein could claim to democratically represent the people of their nations.

Even today, whilst GW Bush might make the claim he is democratically elected, that is still after the fact of the war in Iraq, and, germane to my question, given that less than 50% of the US population voted for GW Bush, does he really represent the US people, or is his authority based on a legal technicality?


It is not the difference in how these governments came to power that is at question, but at what right do these governments represent the people they claim to be representing.

This is not a question of whether or not the Iranians are worse than the Bush administration. Of course they are, they've been denying human rights and torturing people far far longer than the Bush Administration.

This is a question of why Bucket makes a claim about one side that is equally valid about the other. Especially given the fact that America is the aggressive party in this equation since it is conducting military operations both east and west of Iran, and is now prompting regime change in Iran with no real legal right to do so.

Come on. Anyone could find faults in ANY election that has EVER taken place. What you are denying is that the seeds of democracy have been firmly planted by the US in many areas. All of these games about the date of these events and that they need 2 electionsis contradictory to the actual reality of things in Iraq and Afghanistan where we have won major victories.



I agree that democracy in Iraq still needs some time...but it is still well on its way.

And its funny how you like the one example you have chosen as the primary point of American incompetence while so easily disregarding all the nations the US has had some success in.



*Throws US Constitution at moif.

I guess we could FORCE everyone to vote in elections at threat to their life like they did in pre-war Iraq. Then it could really represent the will of the American people!

The Democratic Republic that was set up by OUR FFs is working fine. You can throw useless numbers out all day...but its the voter who makes the decisions and everyone who has a right to vote should have. Just because it was their CHOICE not to doesnt mean the outcome of an election doesnt represent the will of the American people.

By not voting, those individuals are saying that they are content with whatever decision their peers make in regards to the leader of this country. That's the bottom line because if they objected...they would have cast a ballot.

Of course contrast that with Iran...where they do NOT have a choice. The government makes it for them. So obviously you can see how there isnt really any comparison between the legitmacy between the American electorate and the Iranian electorate(or lack thereof)







The poor Iranian regime. I guess we should let Iran develop nuclear weapons so they can protect themselves from the US Imperialists. We should let Al Queda get one also...because they are going to become extinct soon by the US NeoCons. If the US would just let Iran have whatever WMDs they wanted...the world would be a safer place! [/sarcasm]

bucket

So? You asked a specific question about a specific statement, you were not asking me about the topic at large, but why I did not feel it was relevant to inform us that Iran hates America?

I did not feel it was relevant because I was addressing Condoleeza Rice's attitude and what I perceive as the hypocrisy of her/ the US position.

That Iran hates America does not make the US position any the less hypocritical.


I don't think the KSA has anything to do with this. It is as much a victim of this 'terror war' as any one else.

The world is being held hostage by the religious extremism which can be found at the heart of both sides. Religion is the core problem we are facing here. Were it not for the extreme religious views justifying this war, then this war would not exist.


So? That does not change the fact that the USA and the UK have been meddling in the middle east for the last ten decades and more.


No. The Spanish election was influenced by the way the Conservative government tried to lie about who was responsible for the bombing. THAT was what caused the electorate to turn on the Conservative government. If the Conservatives hadn't clumsily lied, then every indication is that they would have won the election as the polls indicated they would.


Yes. If we accept that premise, but again, so what?

That still does not change the fact that there is a total absence of Islamic, Arabic or Persian armies bringing 'regime change' to the western/ northern hemisphere.

A terrorist group, even with Iranian (or other) state backing, does not make for an Islamic, or Arab, or Persian army.


Where did I make the claim that the Iranians were only victims of our meddling ?

It seems to me you have a fondness for putting words into my mouth.


As do Turkey, Israel and the KSA.

The difference between the US position and the Iranian position, is that the Iranians are fighting for the defence of their nation. They are facing US forces from both east and west, and now it seems, also within their borders.

To put it bluntly. America threatens Iran. Iran is not threatening America.

Even its nuclear program can be justified in the light of the need (and right) of all sovereign states to defend themselves.

The USA has no legal right to attack Iran.


Your confusion is based on your putting words into my mouth since I was not 'laying doubt to that claim'.

My question was on what basis are they a tool?

You appear to be implying that Iran uses its extremists merely as an asset and does not believe in the fundamentalist Islamic view to which it claims.


Everybody is 'working' for peace in the region.

Russia cannot be invaded. It is too strong and far too dangerous. However, that does not mean that the USA is not working towards Russian regime change. The gradual erosion of Russia's strategic satellites clearly demonstrates that Russian hegemony is being targeted and that even Putin himself is become a US target.

Conspiracy theory? Whats that?


No the debate is not about you. But you are still the one equating France with Europe and that is a generalisation that you are responsible for. Just as I am responsible for everything I write.

Also, I don't know why you keep bring up "a strong common foreign policy" with regards to the EU.

That is a catch phrase. A sound byte. It has nothing to do with anything but wishful thinking in Brussels, but at no point in any interpretation does "strong common foreign policy" equal, "French foreign policy".


And finally... James Baker.

Diplomacy is the art of getting what you want in return for as little as possible.

What the USA engages in, is shopping for support.



And no, I am not claiming that the EU is not employing economic incentives to entice Iran.

lederuvdapac

Yes, and any one can put a nice spin on America's foreign policy and claim, 'we did it to spread peace and democracy' but that does not change the fact that since the second world war, the USA does not have a good record for using its military to 'bring democracy' to the oppressed nations of the planet.

What it has is a reputation for going in hard, expending an enourmous amount of ammunition and then leaving.

And, 'major victories'? Please! Vietnam was one long list of 'major victories'.

'Major victories' don't mean anything if by the end of the conflict you've pulled out and the 'democracy' you founded is over run by Communism/corruption/Islamic extremism/what ever.


Within the context of the question (post WW2) Please, by all means, feel free to list these nations...


Not when the electoral college makes that decision for them.

It doesn't matter which way you cut it. That isn't democracy.

And besides, this point your making has nothing to do with the question I asked. Instead of getting so hot under the collar as to my interpretation of your election, why don't you try to answer the question I posed?

At what point in population percentage would you say that the Iranian people are misrepresented?

How great a proportion of the Iranian people have to disagree with the policies of the Iranian government before that government is no longer reflecting the interests of the Iranian people?

Its a simple question.


Yes. But the Iranians make the same claim. Their popular revolution placed the power in the hands of their government.

If you choose to believe otherwise, as I am sure you do, then thats fine, but it doesn't change the validity of the Iranian goverment. Only the will of the people of Iran changes that, and so long as they have not risen up in a second revolution (and show no sign of doing so at this point) then you, and Bucket, are projecting your morality on to the Iranian people and making claims on their behalf on that basis, and that basis alone.


The problem with what your saying, whether in jest or otherwise, is the fundamental mistake in believing you have the right to let Iran develop nuclear weapons.

You (the USA) do not have that right.

Pandora's box cannot be shut again once its been opened.
In this 'Post 11 Sept 2001 world', where might = right, then sooner or later some one is going to use a nuclear weapon.

That is frightening to you, and the rest of the USA, but it is equally frightening to those nations which don't have nuclear weapons at this point and who look upon the USA as an aggressor.

In this instance, Iran.

moif



VIETNAM. !!!! We know Vietnam was a problem. You don't have to shove it down our throats every chance you get. The policy during the conflict was wrong and thats why it was unsuccessful. But what you are doing is using ONE example to define a half century of history.

Why can't you admit that Afghanistan and Iraq being free nations is a GOOD thing? Why is it so hard? Is it so difficult to admit an American victory without pointing out a negative? The past is the past...but in the present we are doing good in the world.



Why should i even bother? Any nation listed would just be disreagrded for some minute flaw anyway.



*throws US History book at moif

The people vote...the electoral college casts their ballot in correspondence with their states' wishes.



"It's a republic. If you can keep it." - Ben Franklin



The point has to with what you are assuming. That since only a percentage of American voters actually vote...the election is invalid. Forcing people to vote isnt democratic so that entire argument is void. When people are free to choose to vote...if they waive that right...then they still must accept the decision of the electorate.



I am not questioning the validity of the Iranian government. In all seriousness i could care less about their validity. Its easy for you to say that the people should rise up if they do not like their government. That it is just that simple. "If the Iraqis wanted democracy they would have risen up"...common argument for iraq...but if the people rose up they were gassed and put into mass graves.

Your argument totally contradicts the situation in Iraq. The iraqis voted 99% for Saddam Hussein in their last pre-war election...i guess they loved him! Yet once liberated...8 million brave souls marched through the streets under threat of death to vote for their future. I wonder why...i wonder why.



I don't care whether it is right for me to interject in regards to Iran's nuclear weapons. I don't care, the American people do not care. What we care about is Iran giving these WMDs to terrorists where it's final destination will be OUR CITIES. If you home was under threat of terrorist attack...i am sure you would want to defend it in the same manner.

I DON'T CARE. You have to understand this for it is essential to the debate. I DO NOT CARE if stopping Iran from making nuclear weapons is "not my right." That's your opinion. But when my home and my family is threatened with nuclear arms... for some reason all that stuff about appeasement goes out the window.

Iran is frightened? They should be because we finally have a leader who will stand up to them and say NO. The EU will have their meetings and fiddle their thumbs while Iran stalls and makes bombs. The US SHOULD be the aggressor becuase that is the only way we can get Iran to back down.