I seem to remember that they wanted to work with the international community first. Not that bombs were off the table, but I think they wanted inspections, sanctions, etc first and use military action as a last resort.
I'm not as clear on the why, but I think regional stability, Syria's close ties to Iran, and the potential of an attack becoming a flashpoint for a wider conflict were some of the reasons.
I find that surprising. That Syria had a nuclear reactor was not publicly known at the time, we heard about the airstrike, and only then did it come out that the smouldering ruins were a nuclear site (that was under construction still? I don't remember).
Not provoking a wider conflict makes sense, but doesn't fit with that administration, especially when it comes to Iran. I mean, obviously Iran was not attacked in the end but there were months there where it was pretty damn close to war. I guess I find it surprising that Bush, of all people, could be both reasonable and disagree with Israel at the same time!
I seem to remember that they wanted to work with the international community first. Not that bombs were off the table, but I think they wanted inspections, sanctions, etc first and use military action as a last resort.
I'm not as clear on the why, but I think regional stability, Syria's close ties to Iran, and the potential of an attack becoming a flashpoint for a wider conflict were some of the reasons.
I find that surprising. That Syria had a nuclear reactor was not publicly known at the time, we heard about the airstrike, and only then did it come out that the smouldering ruins were a nuclear site (that was under construction still? I don't remember).
Not provoking a wider conflict makes sense, but doesn't fit with that administration, especially when it comes to Iran. I mean, obviously Iran was not attacked in the end but there were months there where it was pretty damn close to war. I guess I find it surprising that Bush, of all people, could be both reasonable and disagree with Israel at the same time!
There is a general perception that after the disaster that was 2005 as a whole and the 2006 midterms, Bush stopped listening to Cheney and started listening more to other, slightly less awful people. Like Gates and Rice.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the Turkish election results around here.
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the Turkish election results around here.
Me too, a bit. I actually posted a warning that we'd be hearing lots of shit about it, but that turned out not to be the case.
I find recent interest in Turkey to be a bit strange, honestly. It has its problems to be sure, but really rather few compared to the rest of the region. The attention doesn't come from big media outlets either, its more diffuse. It feels almost like pressure is being put on Erdogan and the AKP quite specifically, though maybe I'm jumping at ghosts here.
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the Turkish election results around here.
Me too, a bit. I actually posted a warning that we'd be hearing lots of shit about it, but that turned out not to be the case.
I find recent interest in Turkey to be a bit strange, honestly. It has its problems to be sure, but really rather few compared to the rest of the region. The attention doesn't come from big media outlets either, its more diffuse. It feels almost like pressure is being put on Erdogan and the AKP quite specifically, though maybe I'm jumping at ghosts here.
Afghanistan is going to the polls against shortly. Karzai can't run for a 3rd term, so there will shortly be a new president.
I was reading over BBC's coverage, and they mention security "challenges" or "issues" with fraud in the election. In none of the articles did they mention the all pervasive corruption in the 2009 presidential elections. Over 1 million ballots were thrown out, there were thousands of complaints of voter intimidation, violence was common. Karzai, not surprisingly, won, but the corruption was so rampant and obvious he agreed to a run-off vote. Mr Abdullah, his main opponent, withdrew, claiming the whole thing was still completely unfair.
So lets keep such things in mind when headlines come up talking about democracy in Afghanistan.
US refuses visa to Iranian member of their UN team based off possible connection to the Iran Hostage Crisis. Iran pissed.
Yeah. Things were going so swimmingly. Internal Iranian politics you think? The hardliners throw this in front of American eyes, know how the Americans will react and wait for this to scupper improved relations?
Doubt we will and probably should not, considering the civil war seems to be between two groups of assholes. The only good people seem to be in the innocent bystander group.
Is such a move by the US legal? Is it a dick move? Is there precedent?
I don't like Iran's choice (it seems to have been made to piss off the US), but the US having a veto option over your UN team seems shitty. I get that there are some leaders who do such horrible things that the US has a right to not let them in (Gaddifi, for example, if he were still alive), but I don't think his actions cross that line.
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
We denied Arafat a visa to speak, but I think this is the first time we've denied a visa to an ambassador.
Obama has no choice, politically, but I'd like to know if 1.) he was actually involved or 2.) if we've let bigger d bags in.
Iran just held a military parade. Some of the stuff on display is kinda funny, they look like toys:
It looks funny, but considering that their military is figuring out ways of responding to a US attack, it's probably not useless. A small, highly mobile rocket launcher is a lot harder to hit from the air than a massive launch system. And you can probably build two dozen of those things for the price.
Iran's strategy is a Zerg rush.
And in terms of the Iran UN team, Iranian leaders having hostage crisis ties pissing off the U.S. has been a thing in US/Iran relations for awhile. The embassy attack was one of the highest profile events in the revolution, and many of the Iranians involved rose to political prominence because of their involvement. It's kind of the equivalent of post-1776 UK refusing to deal with anyone involved in the American Revolution.
Remember the coup in Egypt? Remember how over 1000 people were gunned down in the streets when the protested this coup, with thousands more being arrested? Remember who the US (rather weakly) said it would put on hold arms shipments to its former close ally?
Well, don't worry.
The US has given the go-ahead for the delivery of 10 Apache helicopters to Egypt that the Obama administration had withheld since the military-led overthrow of Mohamed Morsi last year.
So, semi-serious question: How many heads would explode in disbelief if reconciliation meant that Hamas was done with trying to wipe Israel off the map?
I mean, as I understand the situation, Israel was dealing with Fatah for an attempt for peace with Palestine, only Fatah has decided to rejoin with Hamas, who has been since Israel's founding been very clear that it doesn't believe Israel has any right right to exist.
I mean, unless Fatah/Hamas is completely oblivious as to how this will be taken (which I very much doubt) either Fatah has given up on peace for the time, or Hamas is done with trying to get rid of Israel.
So, semi-serious question: How many heads would explode in disbelief if reconciliation meant that Hamas was done with trying to wipe Israel off the map?
I mean, as I understand the situation, Israel was dealing with Fatah for an attempt for peace with Palestine, only Fatah has decided to rejoin with Hamas, who has been since Israel's founding been very clear that it doesn't believe Israel has any right right to exist.
I mean, unless Fatah/Hamas is completely oblivious as to how this will be taken (which I very much doubt) either Fatah has given up on peace for the time, or Hamas is done with trying to get rid of Israel.
A few things:
-To me, it certainly doesn't look like Israel wants peace with Palestine. If there was peace they'd presumably have to give land back, or at least stop stealing more land. That would be politically very difficult in Israel right now.
-Hamas wasn't around when Israel was founded, they came about in response to Israel and the general clusterfuck that was Palestianian nationalist/resistance groups.
-There is lots of negotiation going on here. Hamas not recognizing Israel is a bargaining position. Israel demands they drop it, Hamas says no. Its really one of the few things they can concede to except all dying. This makes it valuable to hold out on, they'll want to get something from Israel in return before they change this policy. Fatah definately knows that Israel would stop the negotiations once Hamas became involved. But so what? The talks were going nowhere anyway, and haven't for years. The best Abbas can hope for (in my opinion) is to extract more money and weapons out of Israel and the US in order to keep his own forces in line. A great deal of the "aid" that goes to Fatah is training for their security services, which are less than pleasant people. Back to bargaining, Israel has all the cards. They have the land, the military, the money and the powerful friends. The status quo, which involves them actively taking more land, is great for them. Why should they give up anything to a weaker party? They pulled out of Gaza because of sustained violence, not because of some desire for peace. Nothing in Israel's actions suggests they actually want peace.
+8
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
It's a depressing state of affairs all around.
....really, we could just rename the thread that, and it'd be correct 99.9% of the time.
The idea that this development will scupper peace talks is built on the premise that there actually are peace talks.
Israel has no desire for peace because peace requires compromise and why should a side with absolute and total supremacy compromise on anything?
edit: Peace "talks" are a useful, perhaps essential tool in Israeli PR but the actual resolution of those talks is pointless from an Israeli point of view. What would they stand to gain?
I also came here to mention the 500+ Morsi supporters/Brotherhood members/people who were on the streets with them being sentenced to death. Disgusting.
Remember that in the chaos after Morsi was overthrown, over 1000 Brotherhood supporters were gunned down. All this blood, it will need to be paid for, eventually.
I want to say this won't actually happen, that they'll be granted an amnesty or have their sentences changed to something less than death. On the other hand, the government/military has shown it is completely willing to kill these people, and maybe it wants to set an example? They'd meet a lot of foreign complaints if they started to carry these out.
A second trial started at the same time for over 600 people.
I don't normally do full article dumps, but this one also lists some generalities that I wanted to include, so here:
The Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, Mohammed Badie, and 682 other supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi have gone on trial in Egypt.
They face charges relating to an attack on a police station in the central city of Minya last August.
Most of the defendants are being tried in absentia and officials said Mr Badie was not in court for security reasons.
The mass trial in Minya comes a day after the same court sentenced 528 other Morsi supporters to death.
There has been widespread condemnation of the sentences, which were delivered on only the second session of the trial.
The UN said the trial had contravened international law.
There were also protests in Minya by students at the local university and by a crowd in the Abu Hilal district which called for the end of military rule.
'Unprecedented'
The BBC's Orla Guerin, who is outside the Minya Criminal Court, says only 62 people were present at the trial on Tuesday and that it was adjourned after a few hours.
The defendants - including Mr Badie, the Brotherhood's general guide, and Saad al-Katani, chairman of its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) - are facing various charges in connection with an attack on a police station in Minya in mid-August, in which no-one was reported killed.
The attack took place in the immediate aftermath of an operation by security forces to break up two sit-ins in the capital, Cairo, that left almost 1,000 people dead. The sit-ins were set up by supporters of Mr Morsi's after he was overthrown by the military the previous month.
Defence lawyers boycotted Tuesday's proceedings, but the judge, Saed Youssef, nevertheless continued without them, our correspondent says.
He is believed to have heard evidence from witnesses, and even questioned some of the defendants despite their legal representatives not being present, she adds. One local lawyer with 20 years' experience described the actions of the judge as unprecedented.
The defence teams have demanded that the judge step down because he presided over the trial of the 528 people sentenced to death on Monday in connection with an attack on a different police station in Minya.
The preceding trial, in which the vast majority of defendants were also tried in absentia, is reported to have lasted under an hour on Saturday.
The prosecution did not put forward evidence implicating any individual defendant, even though it had compiled significant evidence, and the court prevented defence lawyers from presenting their case or calling witnesses, according to Human Right Watch.
A second session was held on Monday solely to announce the verdict.
...
The state-run al-Ahram newspaper reported that the Minya Criminal Court would issue its final verdict on 28 April after Egypt's grand mufti, who under the law must ratify each death sentence before it can be carried out, had passed judgement.
The defendants may then appeal. Legal experts said a higher court would most probably order a retrial or reduce their sentences.
The 1,200 defendants in the two cases in Minya are among more than 16,000 Egyptians arrested over the past eight months, according to figures recently provided by senior interior ministry officials. They include about 3,000 top or mid-level Brotherhood members.
Well, they're at it again. Though most of the last batch of death sentences have been commuted to life in prison. I guess in the trial that lasted a few hours some mistakes were made the first time. Of this second batch of death sentances, most of the accused are not even in custody and are tried in absentia.
A judge at a mass trial in Egypt has recommended the death penalty for 683 people - including Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Badie.
The defendants faced charges over an attack on a police station in Minya in 2013 in which a policeman was killed.
However, the judge also commuted to life terms 492 death sentences out of 529 passed in March in a separate case.
Also on Monday, a court banned a youth group that helped ignite the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
The decision passed in Cairo to outlaw the April 6 pro-democracy movement was based on a complaint that accused the group of "tarnishing the image" of Egypt and colluding with foreign parties.
The trials took just hours each and the court prevented defence lawyers from presenting their case, according to Human Right Watch.
At least 1,000 opponents of the military-installed regime have been sentenced since December. As well as the death sentences, the jail terms passed range from six months to life.
One would think it would be easier to negotiate with one entity, and not two.
Considering that Israel expects the side it's dealing with to become responsible for anything that happens out of Palestine, this is ludicrous. So, Fatah is responsible for security, and if missiles come out of Palestine it means they're not in control. But they're not allowed to work together with the missile lobbers in chief, in control of half the country, to make this happen.
On the one hand Turkey is a very important ally and America wants to keep them on side. On the other hand so far as I can tell, the only reason Erdogan is seeking extradition is that he's got his panties in a bunch because some people don't like him and they have started recording some of the blatantly terrible shit he does.
I don't know how Obama is going to handle this one. If it weren't for long term-strategic and tactical considerations, if it were me I would tell him to go pound sand. But Turkey is an important ally.
On the one hand Turkey is a very important ally and America wants to keep them on side. On the other hand so far as I can tell, the only reason Erdogan is seeking extradition is that he's got his panties in a bunch because some people don't like him and they have started recording some of the blatantly terrible shit he does.
I don't know how Obama is going to handle this one. If it weren't for long term-strategic and tactical considerations, if it were me I would tell him to go pound sand. But Turkey is an important ally.
Huh. Well that is an interesting move.
I get the impression the US doesn't easily or quickly extradite anyone and even if it does end up doing so it would be very public. He has the money to drag this out as long as he can.
On the one hand Turkey is a very important ally and America wants to keep them on side. On the other hand so far as I can tell, the only reason Erdogan is seeking extradition is that he's got his panties in a bunch because some people don't like him and they have started recording some of the blatantly terrible shit he does.
I don't know how Obama is going to handle this one. If it weren't for long term-strategic and tactical considerations, if it were me I would tell him to go pound sand. But Turkey is an important ally.
Won't happen. Gulen is rich and powerful and has political supporters all over the world. He's really got an empire all to himself. It would be difficult to extradite him even if there were credible claims of him breaking important laws, and instead it is just accusations. The accusations are accurate of course, but why should the US care that a guy in the US is working against an unpopular Turkish politician?
Not sure if this is the right thread, but here it goes.
Kerry seems to have mentioned that Israel can either have 2 state, or apartheid state, as solutions to the current Israel/Palestine conflict.
And now people are blowing their heads about him having dared to say what almost every already knew.
He did not, however, mention the third solution, genocide.
Yeah, this is the thread for bitching about Israel. Apartheid is still very much a dirty word when it comes to Israel, it is difficult for a US politician to say.
In other news, the Iraqi election starts today. While violence from the civil war in 2007/08 never went away, over the past two years it has been steadily increasing again. This past year has been a blood bath, with shootings, bombings, kidnappings and disappearances occurring literally every day. Most of the violence is between Sunni and Shia groups, though there is plenty of in-fighting amongst Sunnis as well, largely due to spillover from Syria.
The election is in all probability going to be a shit show. Corruption and fraud aside, we'll be lucky if we escape without several massacres today.
Yeah, this is the thread for bitching about Israel. Apartheid is still very much a dirty word when it comes to Israel, it is difficult for a US politician to say.
It's also about US politics, and US media, which have their own threads, but this was the first one i noticed.
Anyway, what do people think will/should happen next?
Me, i kinda hope Kerry stands by that statement.
Though i think he already released a statement where he says he should not have used the A word.
We don't have a catchall US politics threat, other than this one the Obama thread would be the best place since he's a cabinet member. But that thread has an awful tendency to fly wildly off topic and get banned from existing, so you made the right choice. And Kerry is doing a fairly deft job of walking back the statement for domestic reasons without actually walking it back. "I shouldn't have used the word, even though former Israeli PMs/foreign ministers have..."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We don't have a catchall US politics threat, other than this one the Obama thread would be the best place since he's a cabinet member. But that thread has an awful tendency to fly wildly off topic and get banned from existing, so you made the right choice. And Kerry is doing a fairly deft job of walking back the statement for domestic reasons without actually walking it back. "I shouldn't have used the word, even though former Israeli PMs/foreign ministers have..."
ie - tamping down the PR damage while making it clear to anyone with half a brain he meant exactly what he said
Posts
I find that surprising. That Syria had a nuclear reactor was not publicly known at the time, we heard about the airstrike, and only then did it come out that the smouldering ruins were a nuclear site (that was under construction still? I don't remember).
Not provoking a wider conflict makes sense, but doesn't fit with that administration, especially when it comes to Iran. I mean, obviously Iran was not attacked in the end but there were months there where it was pretty damn close to war. I guess I find it surprising that Bush, of all people, could be both reasonable and disagree with Israel at the same time!
There is a general perception that after the disaster that was 2005 as a whole and the 2006 midterms, Bush stopped listening to Cheney and started listening more to other, slightly less awful people. Like Gates and Rice.
Me too, a bit. I actually posted a warning that we'd be hearing lots of shit about it, but that turned out not to be the case.
I find recent interest in Turkey to be a bit strange, honestly. It has its problems to be sure, but really rather few compared to the rest of the region. The attention doesn't come from big media outlets either, its more diffuse. It feels almost like pressure is being put on Erdogan and the AKP quite specifically, though maybe I'm jumping at ghosts here.
this reminds heres a good video by vice of the Turkish elections.
Even John McCain is less distasteful than that inflated turdblossom.
Have there been any more Turkey/Syria developments?
I was reading over BBC's coverage, and they mention security "challenges" or "issues" with fraud in the election. In none of the articles did they mention the all pervasive corruption in the 2009 presidential elections. Over 1 million ballots were thrown out, there were thousands of complaints of voter intimidation, violence was common. Karzai, not surprisingly, won, but the corruption was so rampant and obvious he agreed to a run-off vote. Mr Abdullah, his main opponent, withdrew, claiming the whole thing was still completely unfair.
So lets keep such things in mind when headlines come up talking about democracy in Afghanistan.
US refuses visa to Iranian member of their UN team based off possible connection to the Iran Hostage Crisis. Iran pissed.
Yeah. Things were going so swimmingly. Internal Iranian politics you think? The hardliners throw this in front of American eyes, know how the Americans will react and wait for this to scupper improved relations?
Now we can take away a Russian port.
Doubt we will and probably should not, considering the civil war seems to be between two groups of assholes. The only good people seem to be in the innocent bystander group.
I don't like Iran's choice (it seems to have been made to piss off the US), but the US having a veto option over your UN team seems shitty. I get that there are some leaders who do such horrible things that the US has a right to not let them in (Gaddifi, for example, if he were still alive), but I don't think his actions cross that line.
Obama has no choice, politically, but I'd like to know if 1.) he was actually involved or 2.) if we've let bigger d bags in.
It looks funny, but considering that their military is figuring out ways of responding to a US attack, it's probably not useless. A small, highly mobile rocket launcher is a lot harder to hit from the air than a massive launch system. And you can probably build two dozen of those things for the price.
Iran's strategy is a Zerg rush.
And in terms of the Iran UN team, Iranian leaders having hostage crisis ties pissing off the U.S. has been a thing in US/Iran relations for awhile. The embassy attack was one of the highest profile events in the revolution, and many of the Iranians involved rose to political prominence because of their involvement. It's kind of the equivalent of post-1776 UK refusing to deal with anyone involved in the American Revolution.
Well, don't worry. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/us-deliver-apache-helicopters-egypt
They did this a few years ago too and it didn't amount to anything, but if they pull it off that would be a HUGE shift in regional politics.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27128902
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27142594
One would think it would be easier to negotiate with one entity, and not two.
Divide and conquer...
It's a lot harder to delay indefinitely if the other side is not infighting.
Which is clearly the policy of a government interested in war and in winning, not one interested in negotiation and peace.
I mean, as I understand the situation, Israel was dealing with Fatah for an attempt for peace with Palestine, only Fatah has decided to rejoin with Hamas, who has been since Israel's founding been very clear that it doesn't believe Israel has any right right to exist.
I mean, unless Fatah/Hamas is completely oblivious as to how this will be taken (which I very much doubt) either Fatah has given up on peace for the time, or Hamas is done with trying to get rid of Israel.
I thought it had been clear that this was their actual goal for more than a decade.
A few things:
-To me, it certainly doesn't look like Israel wants peace with Palestine. If there was peace they'd presumably have to give land back, or at least stop stealing more land. That would be politically very difficult in Israel right now.
-Hamas wasn't around when Israel was founded, they came about in response to Israel and the general clusterfuck that was Palestianian nationalist/resistance groups.
-There is lots of negotiation going on here. Hamas not recognizing Israel is a bargaining position. Israel demands they drop it, Hamas says no. Its really one of the few things they can concede to except all dying. This makes it valuable to hold out on, they'll want to get something from Israel in return before they change this policy. Fatah definately knows that Israel would stop the negotiations once Hamas became involved. But so what? The talks were going nowhere anyway, and haven't for years. The best Abbas can hope for (in my opinion) is to extract more money and weapons out of Israel and the US in order to keep his own forces in line. A great deal of the "aid" that goes to Fatah is training for their security services, which are less than pleasant people. Back to bargaining, Israel has all the cards. They have the land, the military, the money and the powerful friends. The status quo, which involves them actively taking more land, is great for them. Why should they give up anything to a weaker party? They pulled out of Gaza because of sustained violence, not because of some desire for peace. Nothing in Israel's actions suggests they actually want peace.
....really, we could just rename the thread that, and it'd be correct 99.9% of the time.
Israel has no desire for peace because peace requires compromise and why should a side with absolute and total supremacy compromise on anything?
edit: Peace "talks" are a useful, perhaps essential tool in Israeli PR but the actual resolution of those talks is pointless from an Israeli point of view. What would they stand to gain?
A second trial started at the same time for over 600 people.
Well, they're at it again. Though most of the last batch of death sentences have been commuted to life in prison. I guess in the trial that lasted a few hours some mistakes were made the first time. Of this second batch of death sentances, most of the accused are not even in custody and are tried in absentia. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27186339
Considering that Israel expects the side it's dealing with to become responsible for anything that happens out of Palestine, this is ludicrous. So, Fatah is responsible for security, and if missiles come out of Palestine it means they're not in control. But they're not allowed to work together with the missile lobbers in chief, in control of half the country, to make this happen.
Figure it out, Abbas, no big deal.
On the one hand Turkey is a very important ally and America wants to keep them on side. On the other hand so far as I can tell, the only reason Erdogan is seeking extradition is that he's got his panties in a bunch because some people don't like him and they have started recording some of the blatantly terrible shit he does.
I don't know how Obama is going to handle this one. If it weren't for long term-strategic and tactical considerations, if it were me I would tell him to go pound sand. But Turkey is an important ally.
Huh. Well that is an interesting move.
I get the impression the US doesn't easily or quickly extradite anyone and even if it does end up doing so it would be very public. He has the money to drag this out as long as he can.
Sort of like Kim Dot Com in NZ.
On the other hand, it could just be a message
Won't happen. Gulen is rich and powerful and has political supporters all over the world. He's really got an empire all to himself. It would be difficult to extradite him even if there were credible claims of him breaking important laws, and instead it is just accusations. The accusations are accurate of course, but why should the US care that a guy in the US is working against an unpopular Turkish politician?
Gulen's movement has been accused of working very closely with the CIA as well, which of course may or may not be true but I've heard it a few times.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/01/islamic_group_is_cia_front_ex-.html#more
Turkey is a NATO ally regardless of who is in the top job at the moment.
Kerry seems to have mentioned that Israel can either have 2 state, or apartheid state, as solutions to the current Israel/Palestine conflict.
And now people are blowing their heads about him having dared to say what almost every already knew.
He did not, however, mention the third solution, genocide.
The election is in all probability going to be a shit show. Corruption and fraud aside, we'll be lucky if we escape without several massacres today.
It's also about US politics, and US media, which have their own threads, but this was the first one i noticed.
Anyway, what do people think will/should happen next?
Me, i kinda hope Kerry stands by that statement.
Though i think he already released a statement where he says he should not have used the A word.
ie - tamping down the PR damage while making it clear to anyone with half a brain he meant exactly what he said
Bro, would Nazi Germany even be allowing British rock bands to perform in their territory to begin with.