(1) USA cuts ties with Iran (The Statesman) (2) US Hawks want Iran Govt. ousted (The Hindu) (3) Lieberman: Iran Needs Regime Change .... (NewsMax) (4) Iran Unlikely Key to Mideast Stability, Bush Re-Election (PNS) Note: This story is officially in the Moot column following today's developments. (5) Iran Counters US Allegations on al-Qaida (Voice of America) I suppose I should begin with some commentary of my own. I mean, we all saw this coming, didn't we? So I suppose the question is where will it go, and how bad will it get? Some quotes from the above articles: And one more article, not quite central to the Iran theme, but I've not the energy at present to make a topic out of it: - Saudis Re-Examine an Islamic Doctrine Cited by Militants (NY Times) - registration required Commentary? While I don't think the Taleban would seriously have delivered Osama bin Laden, and while I don't really believe that the Taleban would have willingly let the US tromp through the countryside in pursuit of Al Qaeda's frontman, two positives would have come out of the situation if the Bush administration had simply coughed up the evidence of Bin Laden's guilt to the ulema: - Due process and matters of procedure; the evidence would have been laid down for the whole world to see, without a doubt, thus crystalizing the American claim of military necessity - Osama bin Laden would not have had the opportunity to finally "confess" to what we already suspected. In the same way I know OJ Simpson is guilty, I knew OBL is guilty. But it was not my own government that finally demonstrated guilt, but OBL's gleeful crowing after the Bush administration failed to make its case to the world. So this time out, I want someone from the Bush administration to come over to my house, smoke a few bowls with me (I'll load), and connect the dots for me. What were these troubling intercepts? How do the people involved connect up? Show me the situation as you perceive it, and if I agree, I can agree. But what I get from the press and the government right now do not convince me that we're following a wise course. In my own home, I have a great deal of difficulty communicating with my partner. However, we do not simply stop speaking to each other, as we have a child to consider and a life to continue to figure out. When there's millions of people at stake (Americans and Iranians alike), I don't see how refusing to talk to the other party is going to help. It seems to me that the Bush administration wants to pull a variation on the "Afghani Routine" and corner Iran into a bad situation: be as difficult as you can be, and then yell, "That's it! I can't work with this bastard!" Of course, I'm reminded, in Hollywood terms, that this is something of the standard. Brian de Palma was and is a notorious director, exceptionally difficult to get along with on the set, according to reports. However, it was Tom Cruise that drove de Palma nuts, and wasn't it Cruise who was in Kubrick's last film? Maybe we should sent the Scientologists to reason with the Iranians. But the bottom line is that I'm worried. Even into my lifetime, withdrawal of diplomatic contacts was a standard precursor to war. Maybe with Bush it's a lack of foresight and therefore an overstatement of the situation, but I can't believe Powell is happy about the situation. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I cant possibly believe USA would be stupid enough to wage war as long as they have no strong regime controlling Shiaa of Iraq (a Saddam , and again dealing with Iran ...what a dejavu) If things would not escalate as this is clearly seen as attacking Islam , things would escalate if the Shiaa of Iraq would rebell , how would they be contained ? A bloodbath ? I agree that diplomatic withdrawal is a bad sign , and that it is ALWAYS stupid unless you fear them to kill you while talking . The US move follows intelligence inputs that Al-Qaida activists hiding in Iran had a hand in the Riyadh bombings, a media report said here today. US Defence Secretary Mr Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of harbouring Al-Qaida activists, a charge Its unbelievable how they seem to milk this cow for the third time already suggesting actions that could lead to a popular uprising to topple the government, This could only work if afterward it is colonized as Iraq , and thats not accepted in Iran , thats a bloodbath as well . But after the 12 May bombings, Washington cancelled a planned meeting with Iranian officials, after intelligence intercepts about the role of Al-Qaida men hiding in the country in the attacks that killed 34 people, including nine suicide bombers. I dont buy the Saudi-bombings as a serious argument for stopping talks for countries such as Iran trying to develop their own biological and chemical weapons. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! here we go again ........."they can trade with Al Qaida" so can any other organization with connects on this planet The decision to cut contacts is a direct fallout of the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia and the belief that Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran played a direct role whats the deal ? A bombing for a country ? Thats not gonna hold Lieberman Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Kayk ? Kamal Kharrazi said his country has been fighting al-Qaida longer than the United States And so was Saddam but hey ........ next thing u know UBL has a NK uniform and chills at pyongyang ....oh wait , they're not a threat to the "you know who" . Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, says the Tehran government has al-Qaida members in custody and has captured more terrorists than any other country in the last 14 months. He said his government would welcome any information U.S. officials have on other terrorists operating in Iran. As if this would matter in any way , as if actual policy against them would have absolutely any value in the consideration of USA .
Titters and smoke Okay, okay, okay. I have to admit that, in another topic, I noted: And if cutting ties with Tehran wasn't enough, Lieberman checks in to the delight or disgust of those seeking something else to drag Jewish conspiracies into .... I'm not going to actually argue the point, A/M, but thank you (without sarcasm) for that moment. What slays me with irony is that, so to speak, the U.S. already has. In addition to recruiting Mullah Omar, bin Laden, and others, the US was giving heaps of money to the Taleban as part of an opium-suppression scheme. As I recall, millions went to Afghanistan as late as summer, 2001. I find it interesting that Americans "won't negotiate with terrorists" (horsepucky! Reagan did!) but they will prop up corrupt regimes that do more damage than the terrorists do. Of course, as American support for the Hussein regime showed, death and chaos are well and fine as long as it's "over there". I always found it ironic that Bush reminded the world that Al Qaeda was the world's problem. Insofar as terrorism goes, Americans are late to the game. And we seem to have mortified a good part of the world with how we go about combatting terrorism. So ... yeah. I have no excuses to offer; there is no excuse for American foreign policy these days. That's the thing that puzzles me. Iran claims to be working against Al Qaeda, yet the Bush administration doesn't seem to care. Like I noted in the topic post, I need more than mere talk of "troubling intercepts". It reminds me of kids talking on the playground. "Yeah? How do you know." Because I know. It's like with the Taleban and evidence of bin Laden's involvement. Most likely, the Taleban either would have refused anyway or else claimed to be unable to retrieve him. But there was always the unacceptable possibility, no matter how slim, that the Taleban might just possibly capitulate in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that option was unacceptable to the Bush administration. More realistically, I think they knew it was bin Laden, but didn't have a case that would stand up to scrutiny. Here we have a simple position by the Iranians: We are doing what we can to combat "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration can't get away with saying, "That's not enough, damn it!" The world would laugh themselves to sleep that night. But the administration certainly can, as we see, stir up nefarious implications and make wildly dangerous policy decisions based on the superstitions revealed by the nefarious implications. It would seem to me that now is the time to talk. Of course, with this administration, it's "Shoot first, talk later, but only if there's anyone left to talk to." And of course, while the litany of captured and surrendered Iraqi officials--There are no weapons of mass destruction--would seem to indicate the value of talking things through before blowing up a bunch of stuff in the name of freedom, we can rest assured that Americans will, generally speaking, see the indication of the lack of profit to be had in talking at all. Somebody's warday post, something about snacks and the start of the Iraqi Bush War, has inspired me. When it looks like an invasion of Iran is an inevitability, I will go to the video store and get one of those big boxes of Hot Tamales or Mike & Ikes, just so that, when the invasion starts, I can say, "Crap! I need to get my Hot Tamales!" Oh, wait ... that's right. I forgot ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) that the first thing I said when I was told the bombing had started in Iraq was, "Well, f--k. Smoke a bowl." Damn the short-term memory loss .... :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"in response to the bombings in saoudi-arabia and.." yeah right. ....All this blablabla bought-and-paid-for election banter is really about: can we stop iran somehow in time before they have their nukes online. This will potentially cast a large shadow over the local economical interests of corporate usa and the geopolitical interests of the israeli..... However, the dust in irak has not settled down completely yet and I can imagine you don't want the responisibillity of having to control even more troublesome territory at the same time. Also my gutfeeling tells me that while the iranian army can be defeated, the iranian people would stir up a lot of trouble in the aftermath. Given the fact that the iraqis were not exactly cheering in the streets to get liberated, even while they were ruled by a brutal dictator and most people glad to get rid of him, my guess would be that the iranian people in the streets would be outraged and give birth to many new al-quaida cells... So, effectively, you would have killed off iran as a local economical competitor for the usa, but at the same time create new terrorists. This begs the question, Is such a war really against terrorism (what the general public is supposed to believe) and such or are the corporate fatcats on the loot again?
How to go about it? Regime change in Iran? Give the good Iranian people a shot at self-determination? Popular uprising? That I can live with. Future leaders picked by Western governments? I don't expect that to meet any more success than the last time. Nonetheless, cutting off diplomatic ties is not a particularly wise move unless, as A/M noted, you think they're going to kill you at the table. But there's always the telephone and internet video conferencing, so .... Hell, send 'em an email. The worst they can do is say "I Love You" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiassa, I can't be sure that OBL is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I still haven't seen any evidence. Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, it's not hard to believe that he would lie about 9/11. Actually, it would be easy to believe since it would follow a pattern. Note: By the way, don't bring up that phony CIA videotape where OBL is confessing. The videotape would have been more convincing if the CIA chose a person that actually looked like OBL. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Petulant paranoia? And you're the first I've heard of that story. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you realize that in this day of digital media, nobody's themselves anymore? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! P.S. Anyone is welcome to prove to me that it really was George W. Bush swooping onto an aircraft carrier. I mean, the administration lied about everything else that day. And I would roll my eyes here, but I think I'm out of my smilie allotment.
Okay, okay, okay ... a better response Prosoothus I was out smoking a cigarette and thinking about the above response. There are a number of factors which compel me to conclude OBL's guilt. - If he's not guilty, he ought to be a little more public about it. I can understand saying, "Yeah, so what if I did? I nailed your ass." I can understand that even if someone didn't actually do it. But this isn't one of those things that someone wants hanging over them if they didn't do it. This isn't like conning your ex-wife out of the house. - The Bush administration never proved its case. Even with the references alleged to OBL which seem to spell his confession, it doesn't make our Afghani action correct. When the case has to be made that far after the fact by the image of OBL rubbing our noses in it, well ... I'm quite sure there's a point to consider in there somewhere. - The WTC strikes are something he is capable of in the sense that he's smart, rich, and seemingly quite angry. I'm sure there is at least one other candidate in the world, but usually the terrorists step up, clear their throat, and say, "That was me". Who's the other terrorist, and why is he keeping his ego in check? Regret? Contemplation? A blatant coward would have slipped up by now. And to frustration: - The left in general is reaching too much these days. We have conservatism caught with its balls in the grinder, and yet opposition to the Bush administration (leftist or otherwise) tends to grasp at straws. The world needs a strong, idealistic, and rational left wing right now, more than it has in a couple decades, at least. - So I've got American news saying, "That's not Saddam Hussein," and lots of people saying, "9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy". I must admit, though, I thought the "Osama didn't do it" faction had put away its pickets. That horse is dead, and it only discredits the larger community of people who hope for something better than petrol and culture wars by the association of opposing the Bush administration. Look, if the "Osama didn't do it and never confessed" movement had anything more, it would still hold sway closer to the generally accessible left. This is a distraction! It drives me nuts. It's like having a discussion about how to feed Ethiopians while one guy in the corner only cares to establish the Rothschild connection so he can blame it on the Jews. (After all, the last I heard, the most credible theory was that if the Ark of the Covenant exists, it's in a village in Ethiopia where the elders won't let anyone see it.) More important here is the structure. OBL was, for the Afghani purposes, a convenient excuse. The Bush administration never tried to avoid military action in Afghanistan because it never intended to. And here we see a similar structure coming about with Iran: Find a problem, don't substantiate, complain, complain, complain. Withdrawal of diplomatic contacts is a huge and critical step along the road to open conflict. I want a reason for it, and I don't want nebulous talk of "troubling intercepts". Lay it out, show me why we've taken this disturbing measure. I'm sure there are backline contacts taking place; is this another attempt by the Bush administration to keep a veil of secrecy over events? Show the world (A) the troubling intercepts and how the situation looks to the Bush administration, and (B) how Iran's allegation that it is working against Al Qaeda is false. Seems to me the one will probably include the other. The Bush administration cannot reasonably expect to milk this cow, beat this horse, or wag this dog (Al Qaeda, 9/11) again without giving the world something more substantial. All conspiracy theories I've seen dealing with 9/11 are basically too angry to be taken seriously; they're reasonable assemblies of incomplete data sets motivated by preexisting personal political motives. Of course, that last can be said of almost any conspiracy theory or political declaration, so .... The problem is that even if the Bush administration has all its cards and just doesn't want to show them, it doesn't justify - the handling of the Taleban in the wake of 9/11 - the USA-PATRIOT Act - the quiet war against Muslims in America - the Iraqi Bush War - the milking of a national tragedy just to start trouble with the Iranians I personally think the people of Iran are almost ready to overthrow the theocracy; public protests saved the life of Hashem Aghajari (see also: Google search: "Hashem Aghajari"); Khatemi, at least, is aware of the mood. (I found a ... well ... it's Time magazine, so ... yeah. But it's an interesting little piece on Iran from last December.) It would be in the United States' best interests to proceed cautiously. The last Iranian uprising for regime change installed Ayatollah Khomeni. And, if Kapuscinski (Shah of Shahs, see also: over-intellectualized review) is to be believed, it was something to see: one million white-clad, unarmed faithful marching into the guns at Qom, a surreal moment when a camera follows a group of children at the on the periphery of the march, actually cleaning up the trash that the protesters drop ... it was something nearly beautiful, but look at what it brought. I'll hush now, but I reserve the right to be extremely disappointed in my President if, as I expect, the latest political moves regarding Iran by the White House only serve to complicate an already-difficult situation. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
