UPDATE:Iran's Khamenei Rules Out Restoring Ties with U.S.

[Alistar7]

UPDATE

Iran's Khamenei Rules Out Restoring Ties with U.S.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has flatly rejected restoring relations with arch-foe the United States arguing it would be tantamount to "surrender," newspapers reported on Tuesday



Last week, a majority of the Iranian parliament called for restoration of relations with the United States. Opinion polls show more than 70% of Iranians favor restoring ties cut by the United States in 1980 after Iranian students seized U.S. Embassy hostages.

Looks like all the doomsday prophets were right, Iran is next, then NK, what else did you claim would happen???? LMAO..

Bush is horrible at diplomacy, first he makes a deal with NK, now he is going to normalize relations with Iran? He has Yemen, Jordan, and Pakistan arresting terrorsists, Israel, Palestine, and Syria all working towards a real peace, whats next for this idiot?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Last week, a majority of the Iranian parliament called for restoration of relations with the United States. Opinion polls show more than 70% of Iranians favor restoring ties cut by the United States in 1980 after Iranian students seized U.S. Embassy hostages.

Looks like all the doomsday prophets were right, Iran is next, then NK, what else did you claim would happen???? LMAO..

Whe the president comes on TV to announce a war on terror - reels off a lists of countries and then invades 2 on the list one after the other - what did you suppose some people were going to think?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

INVADES?


There was UN approval for Afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember, let me refresh your mind. The US is THE ONLY COUNTRY that ever asks for UN approval for war.

People can "think" what they want, reality is not going to change their minds.....

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Last week, a majority of the Iranian parliament called for restoration of relations with the United States. Opinion polls show more than 70% of Iranians favor restoring ties cut by the United States in 1980 after Iranian students seized U.S. Embassy hostages.

Looks like all the doomsday prophets were right, Iran is next, then NK, what else did you claim would happen???? LMAO..

Whe the president comes on TV to announce a war on terror - reels off a lists of countries and then invades 2 on the list one after the other - what did you suppose some people were going to think?

Cheers,

Andy

I've always had the highest respect for the british. You're making me question that respect.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
INVADES?


There was UN approval for Afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember, let me refresh your mind. The US is THE ONLY COUNTRY that ever asks for UN approval for war.

People can "think" what they want, reality is not going to change their minds.....

You know my meaning so there's no reason to get all dramatic or sarcastic. You "took out" 2 of the countries regimes on your list - so is it surprising people thought you might make your way further down it? Not particularly.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

what some people thought was this, he was a fool who would cause more problems than good, who would destabilize international diplomacy, epsecially with those countires he listed.

What HAPPENED is the exact opposite, I guess some people's ASSumptions were wrong. I question why they made such assumptions in the firt place.

 

[Fencer128]

I've always had the highest respect for the british. You're making me question that respect.

Let me say this one more time. You have been in conflict with two countries on a list of countries described as "the axis of evil". Is it any wonder that some thought that you might be going for them all? The amusing thing here is that I didn't think that - if anything I thought N.K. might get you that frustrated - but not the whole list. BUT - I can see how if you judge by action and not words you may think that Iran/Syria/etc was next.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
what some people thought was this, he was a fool who would cause more problems than good, who would destabilize international diplomacy, epsecially with those countires he listed.

What HAPPENED is the exact opposite, I guess some people's ASSumptions were wrong. I question why they made such assumptions in the firt place.

That doesn't compare to the point you were gloating over in your first post; Some would argue that international diplomacy has been somewhat adversely affected.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
INVADES?


There was UN approval for Afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember, let me refresh your mind. The US is THE ONLY COUNTRY that ever asks for UN approval for war.

People can "think" what they want, reality is not going to change their minds.....

Afghanistan was not invaded and was justified IMO, Iraq was not. As for Iran, the democratic "wing" of the Iranian gov. can make all the diplomatic overtures that it wants, and the majority of Iranians have been in favor of democratic reform for a long time. The point is, the real power in Tehran are the ayatollahs and their army. Unless they acquiesce to the demands of the majority (unlikely in any theocracy), there will never be any real change. I give Bush some credit for getting Pakistan et al on the anti-terrorism bandwagon, but I give more credit to the likes of Musharraf for seizing a diplomatic opportunity when he saw it. Remember, he's a dictator who came to power in a coup, I would like to see the US seriously comment on that in light of his help. As for Israel and Palestine, the quartet went to great pains to come up with the seven page Road Map, Isreal has already made over 100 revisions under 15 subcategories (on a seven page document!). Bush maybe trying to do the right thing, but people are remembered by their achievements, not their intentions. Don't get me wrong, I don't want him to fail. If he succeeds, the world will be a much better place, its just that reality makes it highly unlikely.

 

[Alistar7]

"Though U.S. diplomats meet with representatives of Iran's elected government, the talks have the explicit approval of Islamic clerics, who hold decision-making power over foreign policy.'

that was in the article, as were comments by one of the Ayatollah's closet advisors and former president of Iran. IMHO the real force is internal, with our recent actions only quickening the inevitable change even the Iranian Republic foresaw years ago.

Fencer, yes there was some glaoting, for good reason. In at least one of those instances there was substantial histroical precedent to draw a legitimate comparision and observation on for anyone with a factual based knowledge of US policy and history.

It just sems there are far too many just waiting to jump on the anti-US bandwagon. The actions of the main countries that opposed only inflamed the situation and muddled the facts. I have read probably hundreds of articles in the US media about our former involvement with Saddam, we went through this in 1991 as well. I have yet to see one French, German, Russian, forget chineese, lol, media outlet reporting the modern arms that found their way from their countries to Iraq. Why don't they highlight their financial deals with Iraq when they were presenting their case for opposition? Their role as the MAJOR suppliers of conventional and WMD to the region?

I think every person has a right and a duty almost to try to weed out the BS and understand a situation fully. The actions of most people suggest they have preconcieved ideas and jump on anything they feel supports their position. They question Bush when he claims Iraq has WMD, yet they never question those that opposed when ALL parties knowingly sold Iraq such weapons, and the ones agreeing with them on "UN disarmament" did so illegally until almost the war began.

France TODAY is still supplying Mirage parts to Iran for the 20 fighters Saddam tried to hide there in 1991 (they kept them, lmao) , making sure Iran has 20 jets capable of delivering a nuclear load.

We had to hear about how the US was negating diplomacy and taking steps that would start a world war, nope, thats was the EU, twice.
We had to hear about how the US was planning on carving up the ME, nope that was the EU post ww1.
We had to hear about how Bush would use the same reasoning and steps with every nation he mentioned and how it would all backfire in his face, reality, Germany, Russia, China, and France have all kissed out butts since then, NK started their nuclear program because of "aggresive US pre-emptive policy", read, the only way we can get them to the table right now to beg for more aid which of course they gave as usual, Iran is looking to re-establish democratic ties, and Israel, Syira, and Palestine are all working towards peace still. Seems to me his international policies have been nothing short of extremelly succesfull, however unlikely it would have seemed.
We had to hear the US was planning on colonizing Iraq or some other type of imperial rule, wrong again, that was the EU too.
If someone was not aware of the Iraq situation one would have thought they were merely listing their past historical mistakes, not trying to redefine Amercian agenda.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"Though U.S. diplomats meet with representatives of Iran's elected government, the talks have the explicit approval of Islamic clerics, who hold decision-making power over foreign policy.'

that was in the article, as were comments by one of the Ayatollah's closet advisors and former president of Iran. IMHO the real force is internal, with our recent actions only quickening the inevitable change even the Iranian Republic foresaw years ago.

Fencer, yes there was some glaoting, for good reason. In at least one of those instances there was substantial histroical precedent to draw a legitimate comparision and observation on for anyone with a factual based knowledge of US policy and history.

It just sems there are far too many just waiting to jump on the anti-US bandwagon. The actions of the main countries that opposed only inflamed the situation and muddled the facts. I have read probably hundreds of articles in the US media about our former involvement with Saddam, we went through this in 1991 as well. I have yet to see one French, German, Russian, forget chineese, lol, media outlet reporting the modern arms that found their way from their countries to Iraq. Why don't they highlight their financial deals with Iraq when they were presenting their case for opposition? Their role as the MAJOR suppliers of conventional and WMD to the region?

I think every person has a right and a duty almost to try to weed out the BS and understand a situation fully. The actions of most people suggest they have preconcieved ideas and jump on anything they feel supports their position. They question Bush when he claims Iraq has WMD, yet they never question those that opposed when ALL parties knowingly sold Iraq such weapons, and the ones agreeing with them on "disarming" did so illegally until almost the war began.

France TODAY is still supplying Mirage parts to Iranfor the 20 fighters Saddam tried to hide there in 1991 (they keph them, lmao) , making sure Iran has 20 jets capable of delivering a nuclear load.

We had to hear about how the US was negating diplomacy and taking steps that would start a world war, nope, thats was the EU, twice.
We had to hear about how the US was planning on carving up the ME, nope that wass the EU post ww1.
We had to hear about how Bush would use the same reasoning and steps with every nation he mentioned and how it would all backfire in his face, reality, Germany, Russia, China, and France have all kissed out butts since then, NK started their nuclear program because of "aggresive US pre-emptive policy", read, the only way we can get them to the table right now to beg for more aid which of course they gave as usual, Iran is looking to re-establish democratic ties, and Israel, Syira, and Palestine are all working towards peace still. Seems to me his international policies have been nothing short of extremelly succesfull, however unlikely it would have seemed.

I understand your frustration at the fact that people often prefer their beliefs to fact. I also condemn the sale of weapons to any illegitimate or corrupt power (by that I mean one in which their is oppression or expanisionist policy behind it). As a side note - it is difficult to pigeon hole Iran in that regard - as although the theocracy wields power - they are also a republic and one could argue have the right to self defense, but I digress...

That was a cheap shot about the EU (my inference of your words) being responsible for WW1 and WW2. WW2 was partially brought about by the allies refusing to remove the crippling war reparations put on the German people. Such hardship made nationalism more viable. Maybe I'm wrong, but given the US involvement in WW1 I would guess that they too wanted such reparations? Besides which, that happened over 60 years ago. Much has changed in that time. The same goes for your reference to the european. (mainly british) I believe, meddling in the middle east.

You mention analogies - could you tell them as off hand nothing too similar to the present situation springs too mind (maybe I don't know enough US history).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

France and Britian carved up the ME after ww1, alot of the anguish still there today is over these "new" lines, many which disrupted and separated cultural and racial groups, ie the Kurds, who were promised a state as Israel was and are now scattered with no country of their own and as a group cause major tension between and within many Arabic countries.

"WW2 was partially brought about by the allies refusing to remove the crippling war reparations put on the German people. Such hardship made nationalism more viable."

Next thing you will be suggesting is that our own depression somehow motivated us to engage in ww2...

Punishment (reparations) and the burden it places on your society for your role in causing a major world war is the WORST possible reason to engage in another, unless victory is assured. Those are still willfull actions and not to be blamed on those who did not have the power to make those decisions. This is going to be a perfect example of what you asked about as a precedent...

NK has done this to us many times before. They will use possible aggressive tactics and talk to get us to the table, and then back down in exchange for aid. They spend 1/3 of their $$$$ on the military while their children starve to death. Do you think if reparations were dropped against Germany ww2 would have been averted? Would Hitler have been happy being contained? Would he have been as easily "bought" by humanitarian aid? Remember he had tremendous support unlike Kim, he was at least able to turn the economy around and provide a better life for his people originally. Of course without the war it would have fallen apart anyway, he rebuilt the economy through military production which would have subsided as soon as control over their sovereignty was established, he had to start a war to keep it going.

I have no problem with Iran maintaing whatever force is needed to protect their sovereignty either, however claiming your nuclear work is for energy only, and out of need, when you have the worlds 2nd largest natural gas reserves and enough Oil to make Dubya blow his load is obviously deceptive. Their definite ties to terrorism are also a major factor in not allowing them to have nuclear capability. You can check but you will not find many nations that feel that would be a good idea to allow Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons.

Yet France has no problem selling reactors and delivery systems to these type of countries. I did quite a bit of research leading up to and during this conflict, I had naively assumed my Govt. was responsible for the MAJORITY of the weapons there, especially WMD. I was wrong, the ME has been armed with WMD PRIMARILY by EU countries, who are also their major conventional suppliers along with Russian and Asian nations (china).
Why are they arming countries like this? Is this part of Chirac's plan to create a
multi-lateral "force" in oppostion to US foreign policy? Hell, I just found out how
anti-semitic they were recently, Israel should be glad their existence was not based on french approval...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
"Though U.S. diplomats meet with representatives of Iran's elected government, the talks have the explicit approval of Islamic clerics, who hold decision-making power over foreign policy.'

that was in the article, as were comments by one of the Ayatollah's closet advisors and former president of Iran. IMHO the real force is internal, with our recent actions only quickening the inevitable change even the Iranian Republic foresaw years ago.

Fencer, yes there was some glaoting, for good reason. In at least one of those instances there was substantial histroical precedent to draw a legitimate comparision and observation on for anyone with a factual based knowledge of US policy and history.

It just sems there are far too many just waiting to jump on the anti-US bandwagon. The actions of the main countries that opposed only inflamed the situation and muddled the facts. I have read probably hundreds of articles in the US media about our former involvement with Saddam, we went through this in 1991 as well. I have yet to see one French, German, Russian, forget chineese, lol, media outlet reporting the modern arms that found their way from their countries to Iraq. Why don't they highlight their financial deals with Iraq when they were presenting their case for opposition? Their role as the MAJOR suppliers of conventional and WMD to the region?

I think every person has a right and a duty almost to try to weed out the BS and understand a situation fully. The actions of most people suggest they have preconcieved ideas and jump on anything they feel supports their position. They question Bush when he claims Iraq has WMD, yet they never question those that opposed when ALL parties knowingly sold Iraq such weapons, and the ones agreeing with them on "disarming" did so illegally until almost the war began.

France TODAY is still supplying Mirage parts to Iranfor the 20 fighters Saddam tried to hide there in 1991 (they keph them, lmao) , making sure Iran has 20 jets capable of delivering a nuclear load.

We had to hear about how the US was negating diplomacy and taking steps that would start a world war, nope, thats was the EU, twice.
We had to hear about how the US was planning on carving up the ME, nope that wass the EU post ww1.
We had to hear about how Bush would use the same reasoning and steps with every nation he mentioned and how it would all backfire in his face, reality, Germany, Russia, China, and France have all kissed out butts since then, NK started their nuclear program because of "aggresive US pre-emptive policy", read, the only way we can get them to the table right now to beg for more aid which of course they gave as usual, Iran is looking to re-establish democratic ties, and Israel, Syira, and Palestine are all working towards peace still. Seems to me his international policies have been nothing short of extremelly succesfull, however unlikely it would have seemed.

I understand your frustration at the fact that people often prefer their beliefs to fact. I also condemn the sale of weapons to any illegitimate or corrupt power (by that I mean one in which their is oppression or expanisionist policy behind it). As a side note - it is difficult to pigeon hole Iran in that regard - as although the theocracy wields power - they are also a republic and one could argue have the right to self defense, but I digress...

That was a cheap shot about the EU (my inference of your words) being responsible for WW1 and WW2. WW2 was partially brought about by the allies refusing to remove the crippling war reparations put on the German people. Such hardship made nationalism more viable. Maybe I'm wrong, but given the US involvement in WW1 I would guess that they too wanted such reparations? Besides which, that happened over 60 years ago. Much has changed in that time. The same goes for your reference to the european. (mainly british) I believe, meddling in the middle east.

You mention analogies - could you tell them as off hand nothing too similar to the present situation springs too mind (maybe I don't know enough US history).

Cheers,

Andy

The US was not a world power until after WWII. After WWI the US distanced itself from Europe and returned to it's isolationist and neutral past. Only with the sinking of an american passenger ship without removal of passengers (a violation of the rules of war at the time) and the desire of our executive branch was US involvement brought to bear in WWII in the european theater. Our involvement in any reperations requirements on post WWI germany is laughable. Even the attempt to suggest that america had any involvement in those discussions is an example of bias. WWI and WWII (European theater) were absolutely and completely the result of european actions.

The reality of the world is that nearly all the instability in the world is the result of former European colonialism. Nearly every single former British colonial sub-state is in turmoil. The Israel/Palestinian problem is the direct result of British failure to impliment UN resolutions. The conflict between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all the result of British borders drawn without regard to ethnic concentrations and the British doctorine of divide and conquer. Nearly all of africa, SE asia and the middle east can all be tied to actions and decisions made during the colonial period.

America is responsible for the Western Hemisphere and any destabilization as a result of the cold war.

 

[Alistar7]

I agree with almost all of that except this...

"The US was not a world power until after WWII"

We were after ww1, without question.


"The reality of the world is that nearly all the instability in the world is the result of former European colonialism."

It seems they feel we cannot resist the urge to follow their mistakes, is this the cause for all their hysterical ramblings about American imperialism?

 

[Fencer128]

The US was not a world power until after WWII. After WWI the US distanced itself from Europe and returned to it's isolationist and neutral past. Only with the sinking of an american passenger ship without removal of passengers (a violation of the rules of war at the time) and the desire of our executive branch was US involvement brought to bear in WWII in the european theater. Our involvement in any reperations requirements on post WWI germany is laughable. Even the attempt to suggest that america had any involvement in those discussions is an example of bias. WWI and WWII (European theater) were absolutely and completely the result of european actions.

The reality of the world is that nearly all the instability in the world is the result of former European colonialism. Nearly every single former British colonial sub-state is in turmoil. The Israel/Palestinian problem is the direct result of British failure to impliment UN resolutions. The conflict between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all the result of British borders drawn without regard to ethnic concentrations and the British doctorine of divide and conquer. Nearly all of africa, SE asia and the middle east can all be tied to actions and decisions made during the colonial period.

America is responsible for the Western Hemisphere and any destabilization as a result of the cold war.

With regard to your statement in bold.

This is what I said:

"Maybe I'm wrong, but given the US involvement in WW1 I would guess that they too wanted such reparations?"

As it turns out I was wrong - the US didn't demand reparations from Germany, just the repayment of war debt from the allies (who in turn demanded reparations from Germany/Russia).

Tell me, how does my statement show outright "bias" now? Also, I have never hid from the mistakes of colonial Britain - as you would know if you've read many of my posts.

With regard to my original comment (which is by now somewhat lost). The example of europe starting 2 world wars is still a cheap shot. We're discussing events around now and they happened anywhere from ~65 to ~90 years ago!

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

NK has done this to us many times before. They will use possible aggressive tactics and talk to get us to the table, and then back down in exchange for aid. They spend 1/3 of their $$$$ on the military while their children starve to death. Do you think if reparations were dropped against Germany ww2 would have been averted? Would Hitler have been happy being contained? Would he have been as easily "bought" by humanitarian aid? Remember he had tremendous support unlike Kim, he was at least able to turn the economy around and provide a better life for his people originally. Of course without the war it would have fallen apart anyway, he rebuilt the economy through military production which would have subsided as soon as control over their sovereignty was established, he had to start a war to keep it going.

In at least one of those instances there was substantial histroical precedent to draw a legitimate comparision and observation on for anyone with a factual based knowledge of US policy and history.

Sorry, I'm a little lost , I thought the precedent somehow related to:

Bush is horrible at diplomacy, first he makes a deal with NK, now he is going to normalize relations with Iran? He has Yemen, Jordan, and Pakistan arresting terrorsists, Israel, Palestine, and Syria all working towards a real peace, whats next for this idiot?

In which case I don't see the link.

This comment:

As a side note - it is difficult to pigeon hole Iran in that regard - as although the theocracy wields power - they are also a republic and one could argue have the right to self defense

was actually made in realtion to this:

"France TODAY is still supplying Mirage parts to Iranfor the 20 fighters Saddam tried to hide there in 1991 (they keph them, lmao) , making sure Iran has 20 jets capable of delivering a nuclear load."

Rather than nuclear reactors.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
With regard to your statement in bold.

This is what I said:

"Maybe I'm wrong, but given the US involvement in WW1 I would guess that they too wanted such reparations?"

As it turns out I was wrong - the US didn't demand reparations from Germany, just the repayment of war debt from the allies (who in turn demanded reparations from Germany/Russia).

Tell me, how does my statement show outright "bias" now? Also, I have never hid from the mistakes of colonial Britain - as you would know if you've read many of my posts.

With regard to my original comment (which is by now somewhat lost). The example of europe starting 2 world wars is still a cheap shot. We're discussing events around now and they happened anywhere from ~65 to ~90 years ago!

Andy

The bias is in assuming that the US had any involvement in the destabilization that occured after WWI. This is what I see as a common thread that everything no matter how unrelated is always the fault of the USA or that we share some of the blame. The US is a very isolationist nation and is a player on the international stage only because we must be although that has begun to change over the last 50 years.

You are right this is off topic for the thread but I can feel my panties bunching when someone blames WWI reparations on the US.

 

[Fencer128]

The bias is in assuming that the US had any involvement in the destabilization that occured after WWI. This is what I see as a common thread that everything no matter how unrelated is always the fault of the USA or that we share some of the blame. The US is a very isolationist nation and is a player on the international stage only because we must be although that has begun to change over the last 50 years.

You are right this is off topic for the thread but I can feel my panties bunching when someone blames WWI reparations on the US.

I only assumed it because the US was in the war, on the winning side and reparations were made (as I believed) to the allies. No other reason.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

NK has done this to us many times before. They will use possible aggressive tactics and talk to get us to the table, and then back down in exchange for aid. They spend 1/3 of their $$$$ on the military while their children starve to death. Do you think if reparations were dropped against Germany ww2 would have been averted? Would Hitler have been happy being contained? Would he have been as easily "bought" by humanitarian aid? Remember he had tremendous support unlike Kim, he was at least able to turn the economy around and provide a better life for his people originally. Of course without the war it would have fallen apart anyway, he rebuilt the economy through military production which would have subsided as soon as control over their sovereignty was established, he had to start a war to keep it going.

In at least one of those instances there was substantial histroical precedent to draw a legitimate comparision and observation on for anyone with a factual based knowledge of US policy and history.

Sorry, I'm a little lost , I thought the precedent somehow related to:

Bush is horrible at diplomacy, first he makes a deal with NK, now he is going to normalize relations with Iran? He has Yemen, Jordan, and Pakistan arresting terrorsists, Israel, Palestine, and Syria all working towards a real peace, whats next for this idiot?

In which case I don't see the link.

This comment:

As a side note - it is difficult to pigeon hole Iran in that regard - as although the theocracy wields power - they are also a republic and one could argue have the right to self defense

was actually made in realtion to this:

"France TODAY is still supplying Mirage parts to Iranfor the 20 fighters Saddam tried to hide there in 1991 (they keph them, lmao) , making sure Iran has 20 jets capable of delivering a nuclear load."

Rather than nuclear reactors.

Cheers,

Andy

Reactors were sold as well, this is only part of the continued pattern, even self signed UN sanctions couldn't stop the flow of arms to Iraq, the sweet oil deals didn't hurt. France did have a 75 yr history in Iraqi oil, it's not as if they totally sold out to Saddam, probably more necessity than choice.

Andy, events that happened in the past that are still affecting issues today are relevant. The Kurdish problem was an issue BEFORE WW1, which is why they were promised a state at the end of the war by Britian and France. They have handled their "screwing" far better than most of the Arab world including genocidal attacks by their own leaders among other atrocities inflicted on them in various Arab nations, but their plight played a MAJOR role in the northern front in this conflict, with some of our longest standing allies no less.

Besides the valuable insight history can provide, it is often necessary knowledge to uderstand all the forces at hand in a current situation. Should we forget Israel's initial abridgement of Palestinian settlements because it was so long ago? Does keeping that in mind give you a better understanding of the current conflict?

 

[Fencer128]

Reactors were sold as well, this is only part of the continued pattern, even self signed UN sanctions couldn't stop the flow of arms to Iraq, the sweet oil deals didn't hurt. France did have a 75 yr history in Iraqi oil, it's not as if they totally sold out to Saddam, probably more necessity than choice.

Andy, events that happened in the past that are still affecting issues today are relevant. The Kurdish problem was an issue BEFORE WW1, which is why they were promised a state at the end of the war by Britian and France. They have handled their "screwing" far better than most of the Arab world including genocidal attacks by their own leaders among other atrocities inflicted on them in various Arab nations, but their plight played a MAJOR role in the northern front in this conflict, with some of our longest standing allies no less.

Besides the valuable insight history can provide, it is often necessary knowledge to understand all the forces at hand in a current situation. Should we forget Israel's initial abridgement of Palestinian settlements because it was so long ago? Does keeping that in mind give you a better understanding of the current conflict?

I understand that history is important (it could save us from the same mistake twice - in theory anyway!) - but to be more specific with my reasoning. The fact that Europe engaged in WW1 and WW2 didn't really have a baring on the US's/UK's war with Iraq. The UK's foreign policy no longer particularly effects the status of the Palestinian/Israeli conflct (in say the way the US's could). What I'm saying is that the Europe you mention in your examples is not the same Europe there is now.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

France is currently a Pro-Palestinian nation, but then again they were the ones who carved up the middle east and PROMISED the Kurds a state, just like Palestine.....

The Kurdish situation is the perfect example really. There are other hostilities in the region that are due to what happened after ww1, but those deal primarily with each other as opposed to international enemies. You have the Kurdish population spread out in 4-5 Arab countries, all have historically since ww1 been a thorn in every nations side and often been the targets of attacks from their own countries. Sadam himself would not have been so powerfull had there been a Kurdish state as promised, and the problems they fce in the region will not end with Saddam falling. Hopefully the area they have been ruling will be able to hold all the ones who will want to return to a free properous Kurdish controlled area, the nations they would be leaving would be nothing less than pleased.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
France is currently a Pro-Palestinian nation, but then again they were the ones who carved up the middle east and PROMISED the Kurds a state, just like Palestine.....

The Kurdish situation is the perfect example really. There are other hostilities in the region that are due to what happened after ww1, but those deal primarily with each other as opposed to international enemies. You have the Kurdish population spread out in 4-5 Arab countries, all have historically since ww1 been a thorn in every nations side and often been the targets of attacks from their own countries. Sadam himself would not have been so powerfull had there been a Kurdish state as promised, and the problems they fce in the region will not end with Saddam falling. Hopefully the area they have been ruling will be able to hold all the ones who will want to return to a free properous Kurdish controlled area, the nations they would be leaving would be nothing less than pleased.

Whilst I agree that the Kurds have a right to live somewhere - the history I can recall on making up new states worries me somewhat. As you've rightly pointed out - there are many examples of "artificial" states that cause nothing but suffereing for their inhabitants and neighbours. If this is done in Iraq, with it's already diverse religious (read potential problems) population - might there not be a chance that civil war could ensue? Maybe spill over?

IMHO it's too dangerous to start carving up land again. Give them freedom and rights - but let them try to be Iraqi's (or Turks). What else can be done.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
France is currently a Pro-Palestinian nation, but then again they were the ones who carved up the middle east and PROMISED the Kurds a state, just like Palestine.....

The Kurdish situation is the perfect example really. There are other hostilities in the region that are due to what happened after ww1, but those deal primarily with each other as opposed to international enemies. You have the Kurdish population spread out in 4-5 Arab countries, all have historically since ww1 been a thorn in every nations side and often been the targets of attacks from their own countries. Sadam himself would not have been so powerfull had there been a Kurdish state as promised, and the problems they fce in the region will not end with Saddam falling. Hopefully the area they have been ruling will be able to hold all the ones who will want to return to a free properous Kurdish controlled area, the nations they would be leaving would be nothing less than pleased.

Whilst I agree that the Kurds have a right to live somewhere - the history I can recall on making up new states worries me somewhat. As you've rightly pointed out - there are many examples of "artificial" states that cause nothing but suffereing for their inhabitants and neighbours. If this is done in Iraq, with it's already diverse religious (read potential problems) population - might there not be a chance that civil war could ensue? Maybe spill over?

IMHO it's too dangerous to start carving up land again. Give them freedom and rights - but let them try to be Iraqi's (or Turks). What else can be done.

Cheers,

Andy

I agree with both of you. A7 has a point. The Kurdish controlled area in Nothern Iraq has prospered and has utilized a democratic system quite succesfully. Whether they will be able to maintain their autonomy in a united and free Iraq is to be seen. Andys got a point too though, carving up and creating nations is just too dangerous. Israel is the prime example. If anyone gets displaced in the process, you are going to have a different version of Pal/Israeli conflict. I think maintianing the status quo, an autonomous area within Iraq, is probably the most viable option for the Kurds to remain independant at this time.

 

[Alistar7]

In this instance though there was the chance to give the Kurds their promised state. they had been living autonomously mostly the last 12 years and have developed a thriving democracy. The failry equal division of oil in Iraq would ensure both countries still had more than adequate resources to flourish financially and would lessen the likelyhood of one state having too much control in that market. The creation of Kurdistan, 100 years late, would be a big welcome mat for all the Kurds currently being considered a burden by their current "homelands".

Once again, this is where the remembrance and application of history is critical. As appealing and right as this might be, you cannot do this due to what has happened before. The Arab world would not abide by any new lines being drawn by the west in the region AGAIN. Of course we are counting on keeping the Shia and Sunni coexisting peacefully within Iraq, so the Kurds are really our least concern at this moment.

You suggest those actions are ancient history, the claims by the Arab world that our intentions were to redefine the geographical borders of their nations suggest they feel differently and remember very well. Why else do you think this claim was even made?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
In this instance though there was the chance to give the Kurds their promised state. they had been living autonomously mostly the last 12 years and have developed a thriving democracy. The failry equal division of oil in Iraq would ensure both countries still had more than adequate resources to flourish financially and would lessen the likelyhood of one state having too much control in that market. The creation of Kurdistan, 100 years late, would be a big welcome mat for all the Kurds currently being considered a burden by their current "homelands".

Once again, this is where the remembrance and application of history is critical. As appealing and right as this might be, you cannot do this due to what has happened before. The Arab world would not abide by any new lines being drawn by the west in the region AGAIN. Of course we are counting on keeping the Shia and Sunni coexisting peacefully within Iraq, so the Kurds are really our least concern at this moment.

If I get you right - you're preaching to the converted.

You suggest those actions are ancient history, the claims by the Arab world that our intentions were to redefine the geographical borders of their nations suggest they feel differently and remember very well. Why else do you think this claim was even made?

I realise that people remember - but... (going back to the original point before we lose it completely!) - the europe that caused these problems is not a europe that bears anything but a passing resemblence to the europe of today.

Cheers,

Andy