fate

Not so. We have never supported a nuclear, terrorist-supporting, wipe-Israel-off-the-map Islamic regime before

Sure you have. (If by We you mean the USA)
Pakistan.Who were responsible for North Korea getting nuclear technology...And who, through their intelligence agency, supported the Talibani Afghans even while the US was battling them. And where many terrorists have been radicalized and trained.
And Saudi Arabia and Qatar (through private citizens) have been the source of most of the funding for Al Queda and now for ISIS.
Iran is a more complex and layered society than the caricature you present. And the demographics that Freeman alludes to is the fact that it is an incredibly young nation. Born of the Internet age, the majority of its populace in urban areas is likely to grow away from the most conservative aspect of Shia fundamentalism. All by itself.
If the US can somehow manage not to alienate this young group of Iranians there is every likelihood that relations can be fine. Of course much of the US is obtuse about how Iranians view the US. I'll bet few know the history of the Shah for instance. All they know is a caricature of Iran as part of an Evil Axis....
Israel may be a sticking point, but then perhaps the US should consider whether or not Israels neighbors might be right about some of Israels behaviours towards Palestinians and produce a more even handed policy towards that problem. And Israel could help here, if it decided to actually try and live with a Palestinian state as a neighbor, rather than rextracting everything they can from the territories.


ray

The thing we’ve got to remember is that we think of the Middle East in terms of borders that are real and hard. And we think of it in terms of dictators and democrats. What's really happening in that part of the world is a sectarian war between the Shias and the Sunnis.

All a result of the age of European Colonialism and the Sykes Piquot agreement that drew up the arbitrary borders. We pay for the mistakes of our ancestors. (Well, of the British and French ancestors)
The fetish for made up national borders rather than for letting the indigent populace settle on their agreed borders and governments continues unto today. How many of you got upset about the return of the Crimea to Russia? Or the return of South Ossetia to Russia? Those borders were just as hostorically arbitrary and ethnically false.
On the other hand the colonial attitude to the "uncivilized arabs" also doomed the kurds and other minorities all for the convenience of having a power in control that the national governments of Europe and the US could effectively deal with .... (and by deal with I mean control)
The US still echos that attitude in behaviors today, when it props up dictators because its convenient economically or strategically. You can't preach democracy and freedom, whilst helping perpetuate totalitarian regimes and have credibility with young people . Thats one of the dilemas in Iran. Although many young Iranians admire much about the West, they also recognize the collonial attitude towards controlling their nation and see the attempts to ban access to nuclear energy as nothing ,more than extension of that collonial attitude.
None of that helps settle on what to do about ISIS and Syria. Today there probably are no good answers. The invasion of Iraq let a genie out of a bottle and it isn't possible for the US to get it back in the bottle. The best outsiders can do is perhaps limit the damage. Support a new Kurdish state, with Turkeys invovlement. Stop ISIS Sunnis from invading historically Shia territory if air power alone can accomplish this.
Stop supporting military dictatorships with any support. (see egypt)
And most importantly get FIFA to move the World Cup from Qatar to England. (This is vital!)

Sassenach wrote:

1. Yes, we've been "in bed" with bad people. However, Iran has no upside at the moment. Mao was never so directly involved with killing Americans WHILE we were proposing to do business with him. Plus, the Cold War was a vastly different scale than the Middle East.

Vietnam ended in what, 1973 ? Nixon's famous visit to China took place in 1972, and the groundwork for that must have been happening for a while beforehand.

No doubt. However, Nixon had a certain personal desperation. (I want to say Vietnam ended in '74, but you might be right--and it's moot). He was psychologically driven and more than a little "off." I think he was looking either for some kind of atonement (Watergate, among other things) or some "legacy."

In any event, Vietnam was a war we chose. I suspect the Soviets had more direct dealing with the Vietnamese than the Chinese did--at least they did by that time.

Vietnam War ended in 1975

rickyp wrote:fate

Not so. We have never supported a nuclear, terrorist-supporting, wipe-Israel-off-the-map Islamic regime before

Sure you have. (If by We you mean the USA)
Pakistan.Who were responsible for North Korea getting nuclear technology...And who, through their intelligence agency, supported the Talibani Afghans even while the US was battling them. And where many terrorists have been radicalized and trained.

I'm talking about "government." Has Pakistan consistently threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Iran is a more complex and layered society than the caricature you present.

It's GOVERNMENT is not. See the trend?

Israel may be a sticking point, but then perhaps the US should consider whether or not Israels neighbors might be right about some of Israels behaviours towards Palestinians and produce a more even handed policy towards that problem. And Israel could help here, if it decided to actually try and live with a Palestinian state as a neighbor, rather than rextracting everything they can from the territories.

I knew your true colors would fly.

bbauska wrote:Vietnam War ended in 1975

Thank you.

Well, I guess it depends how you define the war ending. We withdrew our troops in 1973; South Vietnam was conquered in 1975.

fate

I'm talking about "government." Has Pakistan consistently threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Neither did Iran's government.

Meridor agreed with interviewer Teymoor Nabili's suggestion that the supposed remarks were never actually made; Iranian leaders, Meridor said,
come basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn't say "we'll wipe it out," you are right, but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed.
Hostile words, to be sure, but not the menacing threat endlessly reported in corporate U.S. media in recent years. (Iran, Israel and "wiped off the map" occur together more than 8,500 times in the Nexis news database in the last seven years.)

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/now ... f-the-map/

But as a source of committed terrorists who do want to wipe Israel off the map? Pakistan is perhaps the world leader...

Fundamentalist madrasses are tolerated by the Pakistani government. It is these madrassess that are largely responsible for the radicalization of Muslim youth who travel to these religious schoold from all over the Muslim world. There are 8000 religious schools, with an estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million students. These schools are run with money from the Saudi or Kuwaiti governments, various departments of the Pakistani government and local wealthy people, who give big donations from their corruptly obtained money. And it is these madrasses that end up supplying recriuits to terror organizations.

Officially Pakistan is an enemy of Israel. Right on the Paklistani passport it denies Pakistani citizens the right to travel to Israel. Anyone who does so is arested and charged upon return to Pakistan.
Now, Pakistan also possesses nuclear weapons, so they actually do have the ability to wipe israel off the map...

Surprisingly, this didn't stop arms sales to Pakistan from Israel...
http://www.dawn.com/news/1017515

rickyp wrote:fate

I'm talking about "government." Has Pakistan consistently threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Neither did Iran's government.

Meridor agreed with interviewer Teymoor Nabili's suggestion that the supposed remarks were never actually made; Iranian leaders, Meridor said,
come basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn't say "we'll wipe it out," you are right, but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed.
Hostile words, to be sure, but not the menacing threat endlessly reported in corporate U.S. media in recent years. (Iran, Israel and "wiped off the map" occur together more than 8,500 times in the Nexis news database in the last seven years.)

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/now ... f-the-map/

That is about as dishonest a post as you've ever made--and that's no small feat.

Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[136] an organization committed to the destruction of Israel by Jihad[137] According to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran."[138][139]

Iran has also supplied another enemy of Israel, the militant organization Hezbollah with substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid while persuading Hezbollah to take an action against Israel.[140][141][142] Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration"[143] According to reports released in February 2010, Hezbollah received $400 million from Iran.[141]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... _Hezbollah

The nuclear program of Iran with its potential to develop nuclear weapons, together with the anti-Israel rhetoric of the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his desire for "the regime occupying Jerusalem" to "vanish from the pages of time," has led many Israelis to fear an eventual attack from Iran.[144][145]

In a May 2012 speech to a defense gathering in Tehran, Iran's Military Chief of Staff declared: “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel.” [146]

In August 2012, Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, who heads Iran's Passive Defense Organization, said ahead of Al-Quds Day that Israel must be destroyed, saying, "[Al-Quds Day] is a reflection of the fact that no other way exists apart from resolve and strength to completely eliminate the aggressive nature and to destroy Israel."[30][105][106]

In August 2012, a senior cleric and Tehran's provisional Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, speaking about Qods Day, called for the annihilation of the "Zionist regime," emphasizing that the spread of the "Islamic Awakening" in the Middle East "heralds annihilation of the Zionist regime."[104]

On 21 September, at a military parade in Iran to mark the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War, and in which a new air defense system was unveiled, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the Iranian air force chief, said that should a conflict between Iran and Israel break out, Israel would "manage the beginning of the war, but the response and end would be in our hands, in which case the Zionist entity would cease to exist. The number of missiles launched would be more than the Zionists could imagine.[147]

On 22 September, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, said that eventually a war with Israel would break out, during which Iran would eradicate Israel, which he referred to as a "cancerous tumor."[107]

On 23 September, Hajizadeh threatened to attack Israel and trigger World War III, saying that "it is possible that we will make a pre-emptive attack" which would "turn into World War III." In the same statement, Hajizadeh threatened to attack American bases in the Middle East as well. Hajizadeh said that as a result of this attack, Israel would "sustain heavy damage and that will be a prelude to its obliteration."[148] On the same day, Deputy Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Brigadier General Hossein Salami said that while Iran isn't concerned by Israeli "threats" to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, such an attack would be "a historic opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to wipe them off the world's geographic history."[149]

On 2 October 2012, Hojjat al-Eslam Ali Shirazi, the representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the Iranian Qods Force, alleged that Iran required only "24 hours and an excuse" in order to eradicate Israel. Shirazi alleged that Israel was "close to annihilation," and allegedly sought to attack Iran out of desperation.[150]

Just disgraceful--your post.

Nixon's trip to China took place in Feb 72. It was announced in Jul 71, and planned shortly beforehand. Watergate was not until Jun 72, so that would be some pre-emptive atonement!

Also, the PRC was backing North Vietnam through to the early 70s, albeit at a reduced capacity after 1968 (Prague) - but the Chinese also began backing the Khmer Rouge which was a split.from the Vietnamese People's Army as well as a local insurgency, as a counter to.the Vietnamese. We all know how that ended.

Nixon in China was a superb bit of realpolitik. China and the USSR had fallen out, and both China and the US wanted to counter Soviet power. I don't think it was simlly some 'odd' thing Nixon did (Kissinger was heavily involved for a start).

fate

That is about as dishonest a post

Its a direct quote of Dan Meridor. Are you sayingn he's a liar?

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor acknowledged on Al Jazeera English (4/14/12) that Iranian leaders have never called for Israel to be "wiped" off the map

The link, which you obviously never bothered to go to, provides video of the interview with Meridor....
Call me a liar, you call him a liar...

As for Irans support of Hmas.

You should try and stay current...

Iran cuts Hamas funding over Syria – Daily Telegraph

Iran has cut up to £15 million a month in funding for Hamas as punishment for the movement’s backing for the uprising in Syria, the Palestinian Islamist group’s leaders have admitted.
By Robert Tait, Gaza City 31 May 2013
The two former close allies have also ceased military cooperation, effectively ending a warm relationship that saw Tehran provide weapons, technical know-how and military training to Hamas fighters.
The rupture has been caused by Hamas’s refusal to toe the Iranian line by supporting President Bashar al-Assad, whose Alawite regime is religiously loosely related to the Shia Islam practiced by Iran’s ruling theocracy.
Hamas – which runs the Gaza Strip – has sided with its Sunni co-religionists trying to unseat Mr Assad, in common with other mainly Sunni countries like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Its very hard to do black and white, especially in the Middle East, the way you like or seem to need to, to understand the world...

rickyp wrote:fate

That is about as dishonest a post

Its a direct quote of Dan Meridor. Are you sayingn (sic) he's a liar?

No, I'm saying you are dishonest. If I wanted to call Mr. Meridor a liar, I would.

The issue is not the wording Iran uses. You are engaging in semantic games. Whether those precise words are used or not, their aims have been plainly stated in other terms. That's why I say you are being dishonest because you are avoiding the issue.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor acknowledged on Al Jazeera English (4/14/12) that Iranian leaders have never called for Israel to be "wiped" off the map

The link, which you obviously never bothered to go to, provides video of the interview with Meridor....
Call me a liar, you call him a liar...

No. The fact that you are posting dishonestly is what makes you a liar.

As for Irans (sic) support of Hmas.(sic)

You should try and stay current...

Iran cuts Hamas funding over Syria – Daily Telegraph

Iran has cut up to £15 million a month in funding for Hamas as punishment for the movement’s backing for the uprising in Syria, the Palestinian Islamist group’s leaders have admitted.
By Robert Tait, Gaza City 31 May 2013
The two former close allies have also ceased military cooperation, effectively ending a warm relationship that saw Tehran provide weapons, technical know-how and military training to Hamas fighters.
The rupture has been caused by Hamas’s refusal to toe the Iranian line by supporting President Bashar al-Assad, whose Alawite regime is religiously loosely related to the Shia Islam practiced by Iran’s ruling theocracy.
Hamas – which runs the Gaza Strip – has sided with its Sunni co-religionists trying to unseat Mr Assad, in common with other mainly Sunni countries like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

So, let's see . . . Iran "cut" support. What does that indicate?

1. They were funding Hamas.
2. They "cut" it. That's a REDUCTION, not an elimination. It's also not permanent (see below).

What does it not demonstrate?

1. That they STOPPED funding Hamas.
2. That they stopped funding other terror organizations.

Oh, and speaking of "keeping current":

Facing increasing pressure from Egypt and deteriorating economic conditions in Gaza, Hamas has been flirting with the notion of re-entering the Iranian camp. Now, Al-Monitor is reporting that Iranian monetary aid has officially resumed to Hamas, but at a lower level than that it provided before ties between the two broke.

The report also cited a source close to Hamas' political leadership who says Iran is planning to receive Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Qatar was mediating discussions between Iran and Hamas in an effort to restore ties, after a two-year hiatus.

But, that's all a sideshow. Until Iran is not a designated sponsor of terror, engaged in trying to kill Americans, loudly denouncing us as "The Great Satan," we're not going to work with them.

Its very hard to do black and white, especially in the Middle East, the way you like or seem to need to, to understand the world...

I understand the world just fine, thanks. You, on the other hand, can't see past the nearest maple leaf.

State Department:

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Country Designation Date
Cuba March 1, 1982
Iran January 19, 1984
Sudan August 12, 1993
Syria December 29, 1979

Yes, peace-loving Iran:

July 31, 2012 4:58 PM
STATE DEPARTMENT — The United States says Iran remains the world's biggest state-sponsor of terrorism. The annual U.S. report on global terrorism expresses concern about increasing attacks in Nigeria and Pakistan.

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin said the international community is increasingly alert to Iranian threats and is working to disrupt them.

"We are deeply concerned about Iran's activities on its own through the IRGC Quds Force, and also together with Hezbollah as they pursue destabilizing activities around the globe," said Benjamin.

Why not have a nice cup?

"Those borders were just as historically arbitrary false and ethnically false". Sure there is justified resentment about colonialism but how could borders have been draw to create a stable Middle East? Trying to cater to ethnic group rights does not create stable societies. The Middle East is not unstable because of what Western Countries have done , it is unstable because the level of economic development is not sufficient to support democracies. So, you have a choice between repressive autocracies or democracies where there is a lack of legitimacy because anyone not part of the majority religion or ethnic group sees the government as not being legitimate. Economic development that creates a middle-class eventually forces the ruling elites to give up some of their political power; it also tends to make people see themselves as being individuals first rather than being defined by their religion or ethnic group. This atomization of the people allows the government to represent everyone, as the government is not seen favoring a particular religious or ethnic group, so the government is seen as being legitimate. Without that legitimacy, you need an autocrat who controls the military and that keep ethnic and religious fractures in line. Here is an article discussing some of the studies between economic development and democracy.http://democracy.livingreviews.org/inde ... -2009-4/13
We have talked about dividing Iraq into three but that may not be feasible because the resulting three countries may be too weak to survive on their own. You can see that none of the three groups is going to see a government of Iraq by one of the other two groups as being legitimate.
The West deserves its share of blame for colonialism and for intervening in the Middle East for its own benefit, but the underlying political problems in the Middle East cannot be blamed on France, Great Britain, and the US indefinitely.

Splitting Iraq into three isn't going to be any kind of easy solution. The Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south would be faced by the prospect of the new Somalia right on their doorstep. It's a recipe for continued strife and sectarian war.

freeman

Trying to cater to ethnic group rights does not create stable societies. The Middle East is not unstable because of what Western Countries have done , it is unstable because the level of economic development is not sufficient to support democracies.

Ignoring ethnic groups rights or even subjagating them is worse.
Enforcing artifical borders based on a colonial powers agreement, and expecting true national entities to develop was crazy. But then that wasn't the intent fo Sykes-Picot or of any of the interventions in the Middle East since WWI. Its been about maintaining extractive relationships with the economies.

When a small group of elite gain most of the economic advantage from a country's economy , you have a clear sign that the development of the country has been stunted or stopped in order to ensure the elite maintain their position.
By selctively supporting monarchs or despots and helping prop them up, western nations have supported extractive regimes that ensure that modern economies can't grow.
Although its true that liberal democracies tend to create an ever widening circle of liberty as a middle class develops .... often its the stability of a totalitarian that is ensuring that a genuine middle class can't develop.
(Fareed Zakkaria wrote a book on Illiberal Democracy and the Dictators HAndbook is a pretty good guide to how good government that ensures the wealth of a nation is not extracted by either foreigners or a small elite, is the sureset way to a stable democracy.)

Sassenach wrote:Splitting Iraq into three isn't going to be any kind of easy solution. The Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south would be faced by the prospect of the new Somalia right on their doorstep. It's a recipe for continued strife and sectarian war.

Not to mention that the Kurds to the North would have a difficult relationship with Turkey just to their North, and a Shia state in the South would be pushed more into the Iranian sphere whether they like it or not.