BBC is rehashing the NYT op-ed published in last month: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D11FF3A550C718EDDAB0994DE404482 Bush Admin redacted content of that article. I guess Bush doesn't want us to know that our "enemy" once offered an olive branch?
Not only that, but it could have helped stabilize Iraq, cut off funding for Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli groups? That is huge. That would have been great.
their failure to understand even the most basic of concepts of diplomacy means that Hezbollah remains funded, Iraq's neighbors with a vested interest, unique understanding and manpower to help stabilize it are out of that picture, and the whole region is in worse shape.
Well considering the fact that Ahmadinejad's political life is now practically on life support, I'd say the Administration made a good move. They accept the offer and Ahmadinejad lives to go on another looney spree in a year or two.
Oh yeah, I forgot the part where every leader of another country should be trusted 100% at their word and anybody who disagrees with them thinks of things in simple us vs. them terms. It always amazes me these "cease-fire" and "disarmament" threads that pop up and the posters who take these lunatics at their word. I'm sure glad that Russia signed that whole Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler. Now they'll forever be safe and Hitler will just stop at Poland!
It amazes me that people who who think other people simply trust the leaders of these countries and that in finalizing of any deals there would be provisions made for verification. I am always baffeled at how something that is almost always a part of any international agreement is simply ignored by these people.
Not really. Much of funding for HAmas in the Palestinian territories is currently non-existent to humanitarian only from the west. Much of their funding comes from Iran. Iran offered to cut that off. Hezbollah receives a huge percentage of their funding from Iran. That would have been cut off as well. The shiite majority in Iraq has very strong ties to Shi'ite run Iran. If you don't think they could exercise influence to help, and maintain order then I am not sure what you would think would work. That is one reason why the bi-partisan Baker/Hamilton commission mention engaging in diplomacy with them. In addition Iran has some incentive for helping to stabilize Iraq, as an unstable neighbor isn't the ideal. Furthermore their efforts at diplomacy and exercising influence would be done by people who actually are familiar with the situation, and would come from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance.
I can understand Hezbollah gets most of its funding from Iran because they are a Shiite organization. Why do you say Hamas also gets most of its funding from Iran? I think most of the money will come from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and the like. Iraq was also a sponsor. Iran sponsors them as well but I wouldn't think you should characterize them as the major sponsor.
I'm just trying to figure out why you think anything that comes out of this yahoo's mouth can be trusted. It has nothing to do with it being an international agreement. It's that this guy WILL say one thing and do another so why even give in to him in the least bit?
I'm not trusting anything, like I said there will have be verification. If what he promises to do isn't verified the rebel group they want disbanded won't be disbanded, and sanctions won't be lifted. Our own leader will say one thing and do another, but they were willing to give him a shot. I'm sure they would want verification as well. Nothing is lost by trying and demanding verification. If they don't live up to their end of the deal, then we don't follow through with ours and nothing has changed. If they do live up to their end then a lot has been gained. They made the proposal because there are things they want in return. They aren't going to jeopardize those things they want for nothing.
leahy brought up this criminal hypocrisy of this administration when questioning AG yesterday. we say we dont negotiate with syria/iran. yet we 'took their word' on not torturing people we send them to torture? bullsh!t. this administration is not only bankrupting our future financially but making a mess.
your ignorance on foreign policy is telling. first of all ahmedinejad does not control foreign policy of iran. secondly we dont have to trust him. we have to make the deal and move forward. when he violates his end we can null and void our end.
Your lack of respect is telling. You have no idea about me so don't judge from behind your computer screen. I never said anything about him controlling foreign policy. Show me in my post where I said that. We know that anything we agree to will not be followed. If you think anything else, you're naive at best. How would we "null and void" our end of the deal here anyway?
