Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on July 08, 2019, 09:57:27 am
-
Listening to the various reports, I am led to asking myself a few little questions:
a. who leaked the information;
b. what was the real motivation;
c. since it's nothing new, and already information obvious to the entire world, is there genuine, legitimate journalistic value to publishing the story;
d. is this incident any different in concept to the Wiki one with pop hero Julian Assange;
e. is the Mail running a campaign of its own to undermine the United Kingdom;
f. the fact that at 1.11 euros-to-the-pound at this very moment, as low as I can ever remember it, is anyone left who can think at all, who can still believe that the prospects of a Britain out of Europe strikes the money men as a clever step forward?
Rob
-
Anything that can make Trump look bad becomes a headline. It's been going on for 3 years and will continue unabatedly. Sorry if there's collateral damage over there. Someone probably figured they could kill two birds with one stone.
-
Listening to the various reports, I am led to asking myself a few little questions:
a. who leaked the information;
b. what was the real motivation;
Hi Rob,
These were the first two questions that popped up in my mind as well.
Assuming this is not all fake, mail, and especially diplomatic mail, is supposed to be confidential. So what was the motivation to make it public.
Not that the observations voiced in those mails were new, afterall a couple of books have been released on what is happening in the West-wing of the White House, but they seem to confirm what others have observed as well, with a focus on how it affects the UK (which is a role of the Ambassador).
c. since it's nothing new, and already information obvious to the entire world, is there genuine, legitimate journalistic value to publishing the story;
Hard to say, maybe the anticipated reaction is worthwhile (to somebody) enough to throw some oil on the fire?
d. is this incident any different in concept to the Wiki one with pop hero Julian Assange;
Who's to say this isn't a reaction to Assange's pending extradition?
e. is the Mail running a campaign of its own to undermine the United Kingdom;
f. the fact that at 1.11 euros-to-the-pound at this very moment, as low as I can ever remember it, is anyone left who can think at all, who can still believe that the prospects of a Britain out of Europe strikes the money men as a clever step forward?
It boggles the mind. Mad cow's disease? Russians again, after killing some defected spies and being found out, trying to cripple Western Europe? The USA, trying to weaken potential trading partners? Many possible scenarios.
Time for some real investigative reporting into the leak (do diplomats use unencrypted e-mail?) and the money trail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Rob, I understand your situation, and having now known you for ten years, am very sorry for the crap you're up against. But unlike our European "contributors," all of whom seem sure they're experts on United States politics though they continuously demonstrate the obverse of that belief, I don't claim to understand European or UK politics, so all I can say is: I'm sorry my friend. I hope it all works out satisfactorily in the end.
-
Not that big of a mystery, I'd have thought - who could possibly benefit from replacing an experienced ambassador with someone potentially more conducive to business deals?
What is the significance of these leaks being reported by Isabel Oakeshot, well-known associate of Brexit-bankroller Arron Banks?
-
Rob, I understand your situation, and having now known you for ten years, am very sorry for the crap you're up against. But unlike our European "contributors," all of whom seem sure they're experts on United States politics though they continuously demonstrate the obverse of that belief, I don't claim to understand European or UK politics, so all I can say is: I'm sorry my friend. I hope it all works out satisfactorily in the end.
That's odd - not so long ago you were claiming that I am ignorant of the position of the UK judiciary in our system. Perhaps when you are old enough you will sort out what you believe and what you don't.
-
Anything that can make Trump look bad becomes a headline. It's been going on for 3 years and will continue unabatedly. Sorry if there's collateral damage over there. Someone probably figured they could kill two birds with one stone.
I disagree. This is not going to hurt Trump, the information was already known outside his fan-bubble.
Books like "Fear", by Bob Woodward, or "Unhinged" by Omarosa Manigault-Newman, come to mind.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I disagree. This is not going to hurt Trump, the information was already known outside his fan-bubble.
Books like "Fear", by Bob Woodward, or "Unhinged" by Omarosa Manigault-Newman, come to mind.
Cheers,
Bart
It's become a sport. Trying to make him look bad by releasing confidential information. Plus, the cable new channels need something about him every day to talk about. It sells advertisements. It keeps their ratings up. Over here, everyone will forget by tonight and then move on to another tidbit about him. Americans have grown accustomed to these "secret" reports. I suppose it will fester a little longer over there.
-
It's become a sport. Trying to make him look bad by releasing confidential information. Plus, the cable new channels need something about him every day to talk about. It sells advertisements. It keeps their ratings up. Over here, everyone will forget by tonight and then move on to another tidbit about him. Americans have grown accustomed to these "secret" reports. I suppose it will fester a little longer over there.
Well, he does give them a lot to talk about.
-
It's become a sport. Trying to make him look bad by releasing confidential information. Plus, the cable new channels need something about him every day to talk about. It sells advertisements. It keeps their ratings up. Over here, everyone will forget by tonight and then move on to another tidbit about him. Americans have grown accustomed to these "secret" reports. I suppose it will fester a little longer over there.
But it's not actually about Trump - it's about the leaks themselves. Everyone knows what the ambassador said - that part is old news.
-
But it's not actually about Trump - it's about the leaks themselves. Everyone knows what the ambassador said - that part is old news.
Maybe in Britain because it was your ambassador. But I never heard about this until now.
-
Well, he does give them a lot to talk about.
Yes, he definitely knows how to market his name. It's what he does, in business as well. It's his theory that it's not important what they print about him as long as they print something every day.
-
It's his theory that it's not important what they print about him as long as they print something every day.
Yup. Because, for him, notoriety is more important than veracity.
-
That's odd - not so long ago you were claiming that I am ignorant of the position of the UK judiciary in our system. Perhaps when you are old enough you will sort out what you believe and what you don't.
My estimation of your ignorance goes far beyond the position of the UK judiciary, Jeremy.
-
My estimation of your ignorance goes far beyond the position of the UK judiciary, Jeremy.
Well since your last attempt to demonstrate that ignorance backfired pretty spectacularly, I think I'll just about manage to struggle by, thanks Pop.
-
That's odd - not so long ago you were claiming that I am ignorant of the position of the UK judiciary in our system. Perhaps when you are old enough you will sort out what you believe and what you don't.
Not remotely acceptable. Take a break.
Jeremy
-
Yup. Because, for him, notoriety is more important than veracity.
Of course Biden didn't lie about his voting record or Warren about her ethnic background. What's the expression? How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
-
Listening to the various reports, I am led to asking myself a few little questions:
The question we're asking here in the Washington area is who will Boris Johnson select (surely it must be Boris) to represent the U.K. after Sir Kim is recalled. My vote is for Jacob Rees-Mogg. Competent professional diplomats are so boooring. We could use some comic relief—and, really, Rees-Mogg's views are quite ... ahhh ... novel enough to fit right in with the way things are these days around these parts.
-
Not remotely acceptable. Take a break.
Jeremy
Are you serious???
-
On the OP subject, I think that The Economist magazine sums it up pretty well:
-
On the OP subject, I think that The Economist magazine sums it up pretty well:
The irony being that it's applicable no matter which side of The Atlantic you happen to be on.
-
The irony being that it's applicable no matter which side of The Atlantic you happen to be on.
They are Brits... masters of irony. I am pretty sure the images and the title were not selected randomly.
-
Of course Biden didn't lie about his voting record or Warren about her ethnic background. What's the expression? How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
An astoundingly large and red-channel-saturated herring and poor attempt at mis-direction. When EW's singular mis-step in any way correlates with Trump's thousands of easily-disproved malign statements, I'll pay attention.
How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
And this is acceptable to you?
-
... EW's singular mis-step ...
Singular!? She built a career on it, for years.
-
An astoundingly large and red-channel-saturated herring and poor attempt at mis-direction. When EW's singular mis-step in any way correlates with Trump's thousands of easily-disproved malign statements, I'll pay attention.
And this is acceptable to you?
Of course I don't like the lying. I was just pointing out that all politicians do it. So one must take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Having said that, Trump is actually more visible about how he feels and what he wants to do than a lot of politicians. Others take both sides of most issues so they can adjust to how the wind blows later. Trump usually takes one side and often sticks his foot into it because of that. But at least he's willing to take risky positions and stand by them more than most politicians. Most of the promises he made on the campaign trail, whether you like them or not, he's kept or tried to keep. That's refreshing in a politician.
-
... kill two birds with one stone.
Totally un-PC, according to the lefties. You should say "Feed two birds with one scone."
-
Totally un-PC, according to the lefties. You should say "Feed two birds with one scone."
;D
Yes, certainly, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
-
;D
Yes, certainly, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
But only one way to skin a beaver.
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/skin-beaver-steve-rinella/
-
Not that big of a mystery, I'd have thought - who could possibly benefit from replacing an experienced ambassador with someone potentially more conducive to business deals?
What is the significance of these leaks being reported by Isabel Oakeshot, well-known associate of Brexit-bankroller Arron Banks?
Makes sense, but unless he gets a party into government, I don't see Farage pulling it off, and if he did, would he blow the opportunity of the top job for an ambassadorship, where he could be fired more easily?
-
I just read that the ambassador in question has resigned. This is a bit odd, isn't it? It's his job to report what he sees/thinks to his government, and presumably that's what he did. Unless the leak was his fault, I don't see that he did anything wrong. Quite the contrary, it's his job to report what he sees and thinks.
This article sums up his current position though https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/british-ambassador-u-s-resigns-after-leaked-memos-showed-he-n1028116 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/british-ambassador-u-s-resigns-after-leaked-memos-showed-he-n1028116). I can see that it would be difficult for him to carry on at this point. I presume that the top brass in London UK are looking into the origins of this leak big time. If I were him, I'd be demanding a generous exit package, and I bet his colleagues will be watching closely to see that he gets one. Imagine being in a position like that and not being free to speak your mind to your prime minister, who would ever take the job unless you're just there for the parties?
I enjoy the irony though. Trump has said equally insulting things about others in his own tweets.
-
... If I were him, I'd be demanding a generous exit package..
When you are about to be fired or resign... not the best time to impose your terms. Exit packages are best negotiated at the beginning of the contract, when they want you, not at the (abrupt) end, when nobody does.
-
If I were him, I'd be demanding a generous exit package...
I don't think you get a golden parachute when you work for the government.
-
I just read that the ambassador in question has resigned. This is a bit odd, isn't it? It's his job to report what he sees/thinks to his government, and presumably that's what he did. Unless the leak was his fault, I don't see that he did anything wrong. Quite the contrary, it's his job to report what he sees and thinks.
This article sums up his current position though https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/british-ambassador-u-s-resigns-after-leaked-memos-showed-he-n1028116 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/british-ambassador-u-s-resigns-after-leaked-memos-showed-he-n1028116). I can see that it would be difficult for him to carry on at this point. I presume that the top brass in London UK are looking into the origins of this leak big time. If I were him, I'd be demanding a generous exit package, and I bet his colleagues will be watching closely to see that he gets one. Imagine being in a position like that and not being free to speak your mind to your prime minister, who would ever take the job unless you're just there for the parties?
I enjoy the irony though. Trump has said equally insulting things about others in his own tweets.
American government officials have been fired when administration opponents have leaked confidential information here about things they've done. Administration officials go on a hunt to track done the leakers to no avail. It's part of politics in Britain apparently as well.
-
When you are about to be fired or resign... not the best time to impose your terms. Exit packages are best negotiated at the beginning of the contract, when they want you, not at the (abrupt) end, when nobody does.
I don't believe they can fire him unless they can pin security failure upon him; I would be more interested in looking into the Mail's motivation, than anything else. Were I he, then I think I would offer to resign in order to save the government's face, and do it in exchange for a good, golden egg. Clearly, his value in America has been terminated by treachery.
As for the person or persons who did leak this, as I would with Julian Assange, I'd off with their heads in true patriot manner. Oh, wait; I don't think we can do that anymore. You see how weak and silly those PC people can make your country look?
What makes interesting news in the public sphere is not the same thing as it always being in the public interest that it be published. In my view, it was either a deliberate attempt to disrupt the government for some political purpose or an attempt to proffer an alternative candidate more suited to Mr Trump's desires.
-
It's really unfortunate. You expect your ambassador to tell you exactly what he thinks about the country and the situation he's in. Anything less makes him ineffective. I don't happen to agree with the guy, but I'd rather see him telling it the way he sees it instead of pussyfooting around the situation in order to avoid this kind of retribution because if his reporting.
-
... You expect your ambassador to tell you exactly what he thinks about the country and the situation he's in. Anything less makes him ineffective....
Yes, providing his insight is original. Otherwise, the Foreign Office could have saved a lot of money by sacking the ambassador and simply reading the American MSM instead.
-
Yes, providing his insight is original. Otherwise, the Foreign Office could have saved a lot of money by sacking the ambassador and simply reading the American MSM instead.
I pretty sure the UK would prefer to have their own guy on the ground corroborating the reporting. Otherwise, how would they know whether to believe Fox News or CNN?
-
I pretty sure the UK would prefer to have their own guy on the ground corroborating the reporting. Otherwise, how would they know whether to believe Fox News or CNN?
Apparently, the ambassador watched CNN and MSNBC only.
-
This was an inside job for British political reasons. What reasons could there be?
-
This was an inside job for British political reasons. What reasons could there be?
Boris Johnson, the new prime minister, wouldn't want an anti-American ambassador.
-
Boris Johnson, the new prime minister, wouldn't want an anti-American ambassador.
He's not there yet.
Who says the amb. was anti-American? Are you anti-American if you dislike Trump or observe him for what he appears to be to everyone, apart from a level of Republicans with poor vision? It's as silly as condemning all the Republican party and its policies because of him.
I quite liked Tony Blair at the time but would never have voted for his party; I admired Maggie T. for her strength and sense of reality in seeing that the past was the past and that no country could afford to keep pumping money into obsolete systems. As with the world of photography, some win with new brooms and others are wiped out. That's one Trump has ignored, and it will be not to his personal cost - he's too rich to feel anything - but to that of the efficient parts of the US system he will kill to favour his base voter.
The problem the world now faces with Trump's precedent is that the rôle of ambassador becomes rather obsolete too, leaving the quiet, back-door world of diplomacy that once smoothed out glitches and saved countries from taking public stances from which neither could retreat without losing face, gone, and the era of the bully and the avenging angel remains as the only viable scenario. Not yet, but that's where the Trump initiative is leading us.
And as the recent NK/China/US meets abroad have shown, presidential face-to-face achieves nothing but sound bites. Nothing material has come from any of them. A distanced by degree civil service has powers that politicians cannot have because the power blocks understand (possibly Trump does not) that one election can change everything - and everyone - you deal with to build up trust. As has Iran understood. Why would it now trust any American negotiator?
You see the difficulties when non-professionals take to the stage? Diplomatic ways of doing international political business exist because they usually work better than going to blows.
-
... Who says the amb. was anti-American? Are you anti-American if you dislike Trump...
Disliking is ok. But being anti-Trump = anti-American.
-
Disliking is ok. But being anti-Trump = anti-American.
L'État, c'est moi !
-
...
The problem the world now faces with Trump's precedent is that the rôle of ambassador becomes rather obsolete too, leaving the quiet, back-door world of diplomacy that once smoothed out glitches and saved countries from taking public stances from which neither could retreat without losing face, gone, and the era of the bully and the avenging angel remains as the only viable scenario. Not yet, but that's where the Trump initiative is leading us.
And as the recent NK/China/US meets abroad have shown, presidential face-to-face achieves nothing but sound bites. Nothing material has come from any of them. A distanced by degree civil service has powers that politicians cannot have because the power blocks understand (possibly Trump does not) that one election can change everything - and everyone - you deal with to build up trust. As has Iran understood. Why would it now trust any American negotiator?
You see the difficulties when non-professionals take to the stage? Diplomatic ways of doing international political business exist because they usually work better than going to blows.
Past presidents often accomplished nothing using traditional negotiations. Even when they made deals, the opposite side broke them, like nuclear agreements with North Korea or NATO defense payment promises. Trump can make a stink of things to force situations. At least he tries a new way. His personal meetings with Kim has gotten them to stop setting off nuke explosion, released American prisoners they were holding, and stopped intercontinental missile testing. That's not bad.
As far as Iran, there was no treaty. The Senate never approved the agreement as required by our constitution. And Obama knew he wouldn't get Senate approval so he never submitted it to them for approval. Iran knew that. But Iran rolled the dice anyway and it came up craps. If they negotiate with Trump or any president, they'll knew next time to insist upon Senate approval so it's a formal treaty. Then subsequent president can't cancel them without Senate approval.
-
L'État, c'est moi !
+1
BTW, which culminated, eventually, in the French Revolution.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently, the ambassador watched CNN and MSNBC only.
Rather, the guy was in a position to make his own judgments resulting from his own in-person experience. He was certainly closer to the action than most of the media.
-
Rather, the guy was in a position to make his own judgments resulting from his own in-person experience. He was certainly closer to the action than most of the media.
And what “action” that might be? Handling a cocktail glass with with a food plate at the same time? Reading local newspapers and reporting on it is a daily action, on the other hand.
-
And what “action” that might be? Handling a cocktail glass with with a food plate at the same time? Reading local newspapers and reporting on it is a daily action, on the other hand.
There may be more to it than that https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-secret-world-of-diplomatic-cables/ (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-secret-world-of-diplomatic-cables/), a short column on ambassadorial machinations and where they get their info.
-
Past presidents often accomplished nothing using traditional negotiations. Even when they made deals, the opposite side broke them, like nuclear agreements with North Korea or NATO defense payment promises. Trump can make a stink of things to force situations. At least he tries a new way. His personal meetings with Kim has gotten them to stop setting off nuke explosion, released American prisoners they were holding, and stopped intercontinental missile testing. That's not bad.
As far as Iran, there was no treaty. The Senate never approved the agreement as required by our constitution. And Obama knew he wouldn't get Senate approval so he never submitted it to them for approval. Iran knew that. But Iran rolled the dice anyway and it came up craps. If they negotiate with Trump or any president, they'll knew next time to insist upon Senate approval so it's a formal treaty. Then subsequent president can't cancel them without Senate approval.
From Kim Trump has got 'warm letters', nothing more.
Iran could do the same to please Trump, but they won't of course...
Iran just breached the nuclear limit because of Trump breaking the deal one year earlier. A deal that many countries including the US had worked on for years and that was working well.
Iran was kept under surveillance all the time and they never breached the deal.
But now, one year later, they cannot ignore the sanctions they got to handle, sanctions that are making their economy far worse.
Europe does not dare to keep their (trade) promises to Iran because they know trading with the US is more important.
History shows that Iran 'never' ( centuries) started a war... On the contrary ; they were under attack by Saddams Irak that carried western weapons.
This could happen again.
The USA under Trump has made the Middle East a more dangerous place, by trading enormous amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia ( for what purpose?) and by choosing openly the Israelian site in the conflict with the Palestines. His name will be given to one of the many illegal settlements in occupied territory to show Nethanyahu's gratitude.
-
wow, I read through all three pages hoping to find a pic of an ambassador taking a leak on a photo...but was disappointed.
-
From Kim Trump has got 'warm letters', nothing more.
Iran could do the same to please Trump, but they won't of course...
Iran just breached the nuclear limit because of Trump breaking the deal one year earlier. A deal that many countries including the US had worked on for years and that was working well.
Iran was kept under surveillance all the time and they never breached the deal.
But now, one year later, they cannot ignore the sanctions they got to handle, sanctions that are making their economy far worse.
Europe does not dare to keep their (trade) promises to Iran because they know trading with the US is more important.
History shows that Iran 'never' ( centuries) started a war... On the contrary ; they were under attack by Saddams Irak that carried western weapons.
This could happen again.
The USA under Trump has made the Middle East a more dangerous place, by trading enormous amounts of weapons to Saudi Arabia ( for what purpose?) and by choosing openly the Israelian site in the conflict with the Palestines. His name will be given to one of the many illegal settlements in occupied territory to show Nethanyahu's gratitude.
Pieter, I was going to do a detailed response to this, but it’s too silly to bother taking the time to do that. Just a few points:
1. Who says the nuclear deal was “working well?” Essentially, Europeans who want to continue making a buck by dealing with Iran.
2. Iran was kept under “surveillance” except surveillance wasn’t allowed at their nuclear facilities working on nuclear weapons.
3. Trading with the U.S. is more important than trading with Iran. You’d better believe it, buddy. Never forget that.
4. Iran “never” started a war. That was under earlier “administrations;” not under the Ayatollahs.
5. With Trump in office the Middle East is just as dangerous as it always has been. No more. No less.
What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.
-
What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.
MAD?
-
Pieter, I was going to do a detailed response to this, but it’s too silly to bother taking the time to do that. Just a few points:
1. Who says the nuclear deal was “working well?” Essentially, Europeans who want to continue making a buck by dealing with Iran.
2. Iran was kept under “surveillance” except surveillance wasn’t allowed at their nuclear facilities working on nuclear weapons.
3. Trading with the U.S. is more important than trading with Iran. You’d better believe it, buddy. Never forget that.
4. Iran “never” started a war. That was under earlier “administrations;” not under the Ayatollahs.
5. With Trump in office the Middle East is just as dangerous as it always has been. No more. No less.
What scares the hell out of me is the idea of Iran actually coming close to a nuclear weapon that could be lifted by one of their missiles. At that point Israel faces an existential threat, and they’re going to have to stop it cold. Israel has nukes. If they’re faced with that kind of threat they may have to use one to survive. Then the fat’s in the fire.
Russ, the IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran) reporting confirmed that Iran stuck to the agreement, until the deal was unilaterally ripped-up by the USA. Inspections were not frustrated, and the findings were in line with what was agreed upon.
Now that there is no official agreement anymore, and there have been additional Trading sanctions imposed on anybody who wants to still honor the agreement, why would Iran be the only one to still stick to the (now non-existing limitations)?
Tantrum baby Trump is behaving like a schoolyard bully, only for re-election purposes. Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive. Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive. Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).
Says an armchair “expert” from across the ocean. ;D
-
Says an armchair “expert” from across the ocean. ;D
In this now tiny world, an expert in NY can perhaps know less about domestic affairs than his counterpart in Delhi.
If you doubt that, spare a second to the current "ambassador" mess: leaks can be sent anywhere, not only to newspapers. It all depends on the mischief that has been planned, or even on the state of mind of some altruistic nerd who has no idea what his actions might ignite.
The global village really is, and with every village its idiot.
Rob
-
Russ, the IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran)) reporting confirmed that Iran stuck to the agreement, until the deal was unilaterally ripped-up by the USA. Inspections were not frustrated, and the findings were in line with what was agreed upon.
Now that there is no official agreement anymore, and there have been additional Trading sanctions imposed on anybody who wants to still honor the agreement, why would Iran be the only one to still stick to the (now non-existing limitations)?
Tantrum baby Trump is behaving like a schoolyard bully, only for re-election purposes. Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive. Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).
Cheers,
Bart
Many Americans opposed the original Iran deal. They voted for Trump who won to get rid of it which he did. He keeps his promises. Refreshing for a politician. The end date when Iran can start making nukes ends in a few years. What's the point of having such a limiting "deal". That's why Obama couldn't get the Senate to agree to make it an official treaty as required by law. Meanwhile, the relief of having the sanctions lifted helped them create more havoc there. Iran is on America's terrorist nation list. It has proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere making war on others trying to extend Iran's influence in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they'll wait to see if Trump loses the presidency in 2020 as many Democrat candidates are promising to go back to the agreement. If they do, Iran will get the bomb. Reminder that you guys in Europe really depend on the ME for fuel. Do you want to be beholden to Iran?
-
... In this now tiny world, an expert in NY can perhaps know less about domestic affairs than his counterpart in Delhi...
Which limits outside experts to getting their info from faraway sources. Missing is the deeper understanding of the context and environment that locals have. You can't form your opinion of, say, Trump, by just reading the mostly hostile media. Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power. Saying we are "naive and used" is just plain condescending.
-
Which limits outside experts to getting their info from faraway sources. Missing is the deeper understanding of the context and environment that locals have. You can't form your opinion of, say, Trump, by just reading the mostly hostile media. Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power.
Like the ambassador.
-
Without being here, talking to people, seeing things with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power.
But that is a completely different thing. It is well understood why he was elected.
Apparently, elementary observation and critical thinking take a second place compared to beliefs and sentiments.
Not an uncommon phenomenon, AKA cognitive dissonance.
I won't go as far as labeling it a Stockholm syndrome. After all, I'm merely an armchair expert, and not a psychiatrist.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not familiar with the reporting methodology of the British embassy here, but I presume it is similar to the process used in U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.
The interpretation of events in the host country is typically a collaborative effort. The U.S. State Department posts foreign service staff members known as "political officers" to other countries; one of their principal responsibilities is to collect information and draft "telegrams" (we still rather quaintly call them that, or did at the time I left the government) which are transmitted in the ambassador's name, and which report and interpret political events and government policies in the host country. Other members of the diplomatic mission, such as economic and consular officers, members of trade delegations, etc., also provide information where appropriate, and "public diplomacy officers" may offer advice about how to communicate effectively with non-governmental constituencies.
Career ambassadors (many of whom started out as political officers) probably contribute significantly to this reporting—political ambassadors (those appointed for their financial contributions or other support to the president or party currently occupying the White House) rather less so, I suspect. The extent of the ambassador's direct involvement in this reporting effort is up to the ambassador, of course. When the host government plans a change in policy that affects the United States, or when the United States plans a change in policy that affects the host government, it's the ambassador who is summoned or delivers the message, respectively. This includes situations where one of the governments wants to convey its dissatisfaction with the other; the ambassador's direct involvement makes the point about the importance attached to the démarche.
David Sanger had an interesting piece in the New York Times (https://nyti.ms/32hVS3E) the other day based on sources in several embassies in Washington that describes how the process works—and how it has changed—in the Trump Administration. (I think the link I've provided will function outside North America.)
-
I'm over my limit on free articles from The New York Times. Can you sum up how it has changed?
-
Like the ambassador.
Seriously!?
An ambassador is definitely not a local, even if formally living here. Even low level diplomatic personnel is discouraged from fraternizing with locals, let alone the ambassador. And locals who do interact with diplomatic personnel are generally rather careful what to disclose and how.
-
Russ, the IAEA (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran) reporting confirmed that Iran stuck to the agreement, until the deal was unilaterally ripped-up by the USA. Inspections were not frustrated, and the findings were in line with what was agreed upon.
Now that there is no official agreement anymore, and there have been additional Trading sanctions imposed on anybody who wants to still honor the agreement, why would Iran be the only one to still stick to the (now non-existing limitations)?
Tantrum baby Trump is behaving like a schoolyard bully, only for re-election purposes. Those who think he is guided by what's best for the future of the USA, or even only his own voters, comes across as rather naive. Sorry to be blunt, he only cares about himself. You are being used, and will be discarded as soon as you've outlived your usefulness for him (as many in his inner circle have already found out).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
To believe that the IAEA report deals with the facts on the ground is naivety that goes beyond normal bounds. The IAEA can’t even get into the areas where the real work is going on. And even if “the findings were in line with what was agreed upon,” what was agreed upon would have given Iran a nuke in the near future.
And I agree it would be unrealistic for Iran to stick to the now nonexistent limitations, but when did Iran ever stick to them when they were extant? They talked a good line but there’s no way to know whether or not they were sticking to them or sticking it to us. You can bet it was the latter.
Trump has plenty of flaws, but his policies have restored serious prosperity to the U.S., and, if they’re willing to work at it, to the entire free world. Hillary was giving away our secrets with her unsecured server and selling our Uranium to the Russians. Those are not policies for survival.
One thing you need to remember when you look at United States policies is this: If it hadn’t been for the United States, in order to survive you’d now be either a Nazi or a Russian-controlled serf. If the U.S. fumbles and goes down all of us – actually, as we say in the south, “y’all,” since I’m heading for 90 – will live, as Churchill put it, in a new dark age.
-
I'm over my limit on free articles from The New York Times. Can you sum up how it has changed?
I don't know how to do that without paraphrasing so much of the article and including so many of the quotations that I would arguably be infringing the Times' copyright: it's a reported story, not an opinion piece, and the content is contained in the details provided by the people interviewed by Sanger, in Washington, and another reporter, in London. If you want to read it without purchasing a subscription, you can always access another ten articles per month with a different email address (or create a new address if you don't already have a spare); as far as I know, nothing in the website's terms-of-service prohibits that.
-
Seriously!?
An ambassador is definitely not a local, even if formally living here. Even low level diplomatic personnel is discouraged from fraternizing with locals, let alone the ambassador. And locals who do interact with diplomatic personnel are generally rather careful what to disclose and how.
Yes, seriously. Much of the diplomatic corps' job description centers around obtaining information about the host country and relaying it home. They're good at it. That's what they do. To suggest otherwise is to display ignorance of the gig.
-
Yes, seriously. Much of the diplomatic corps' job description centers around obtaining information about the host country and relaying it home. They're good at it. That's what they do. To suggest otherwise is to display ignorance of the gig.
And you know that how?
As for my “ignorance,” what do I know? I only spent seven years working inside an American embassy, accompanying the ambassador and other diplomatic personnel on their trips and visits.
-
Which limits outside experts to getting their info from faraway sources. Missing is the deeper understanding of the context and environment that locals have. You can't form your opinion of, say, Trump, by just reading the mostly hostile media. Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power. Saying we are "naive and used" is just plain condescending.
Yes, to an extent it also depends on who is on the receiving end of information.
And doing what you advocated above is what an ambassador can do.
(Holding a glass of champers and trying to contend with a canapé at the same time takes learned skills and marks the fake from the real poseur who never drops a crumb nor soils the edge of his glass.)
For some reason not best understood, I feel quite bright this evening. That is dangerous!
:-)
-
Hi Bart,
To believe that the IAEA report deals with the facts on the ground is naivety that goes beyond normal bounds. The IAEA can’t even get into the areas where the real work is going on. And even if “the findings were in line with what was agreed upon,” what was agreed upon would have given Iran a nuke in the near future.
That's what you've been led to believe.
However, the IAEA reported last year (and confirmed it this year), under the JPCOA agreement, that:
“As of today, I can state that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments,” he said in his introductory statement to the Board. “The JCPOA represents a significant gain for verification. It is essential that Iran continues to fully implement those commitments. If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.”
Mr Amano said IAEA inspectors had had access to all the sites and locations which they needed to visit. “The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement,” he added. “Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran continue.”
At a news conference later in the day, Mr Amano gave more details of the Agency’s activities in Iran.
“Our inspection work has doubled since 2013. IAEA inspectors now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran,” he said. “We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We collect and analyse hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras in Iran — about half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world.”
I didn't make an effort to search for the latest confirmation that there was no change in the status quo, because you'd ignore it just the same. If I recall it correctly, it was around the moment that Trump broke the agreement that the AIEA said that Iran still was complying with the rules, and I recall that they reaffirmed that more recently. And they now found that Iran is stepping up production, because there is no deal.
Cheers,
Bart
-
(Holding a glass of champers and trying to contend with a canapé at the same time takes learned skills and marks the fake from the real poseur who never drops a crumb nor soils the edge of his glass.)
My technique, in those bygone days when I attended embassy receptions—accompanying my wife, who was the invitee; none of the foreign missions cared a hoot about me—was to park myself close to the buffet table, which allowed me to use it to alternate holding my glass, plate, and utensils, thus obviating the necessity to repeatedly repair to the gents to remove a spot from my tie. This gimmick offered the added advantage that I was strategically positioned to scarf up any particularly interesting morsel the instant a server deposited it. The only dicey part was to disguise my real intentions. Whenever possible I would park myself in the general proximity of a senior employee of my own agency—someone who would tolerate my overhearing the undoubtedly essential boozy international negotiation he was transacting with his counterpart as long as I didn't have the temerity to attempt to participate in the conversation—which gave me a plausible excuse for standing there. Maybe this is what the spooks mean when they refer to "diplomatic cover."
-
"Mr Amano said IAEA inspectors had had access to all the sites and locations which they needed to visit."
Exactly the problem, Bart. It's the ones they don't think they need to visit that are the problem. Eventually the whole world will find out about that.
-
No ambassadors here, just ordinary, real Americans:
-
No ambassadors here, just ordinary, real Americans:
I seem to remember Twilight themed weddings were popular a couple of years ago.
-
Rob, I understand your situation, and having now known you for ten years, am very sorry for the crap you're up against. But unlike our European "contributors," all of whom seem sure they're experts on United States politics though they continuously demonstrate the obverse of that belief, I don't claim to understand European or UK politics, so all I can say is: I'm sorry my friend. I hope it all works out satisfactorily in the end.
Well, it has been a matter of survival for Europeans to understand US politics due to the degree of influence the US has (had). We would be a lot less interested if monstrous state created fake news hadn't triggered a war in Irak that killed 500,000 civilians and caused indirectly many terrorists attacks in our cities killing our friends and families.
So I do believe that many Europeans do in fact understand US politics extremely well, and dare I say, probably better than some Americans since we do have plural information sources and tend to listen to different voices, including Fox news... while some Americans appear to lock themselves into listening to the media that tells them what they want to hear. Talk about freedom... but there isn’t a better prisoner than the one who volunteers for jail time, is it?
Not to say that European media are necessarily free of influences, France being a great example of oligarchy controlled news channels. Macron wouldn’t be president without them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As for my “ignorance,” what do I know? I only spent seven years working inside an American embassy, accompanying the ambassador and other diplomatic personnel on their trips and visits.
Good for you. What were your duties?
I spent a year making a film about a transmission line in Zaire, but that didn't make me an expert on electrical engineering, or Africa for that matter.
-
Without being here, talking to people, seeing thing with your own eyes, you wouldn't understand the sentiment that propelled him to power. Saying we are "naive and used" is just plain condescending.
Maybe, but it doesn’t make it untrue.
-
Maybe, but it doesn’t make it untrue.
Were we to believe Email Hillary? How honest and forthright are your politicians? Trump said he would do or try to do a lot of stuff. He's pretty much followed through. You can;t expect much more from a politician. LAbor rates and the stock market are at all time highs. ISIS has been practicality eliminated. NK stopped testing nukes and ICBM's. EUrope is paying more for defense. Our military is stronger. These are things he promised to do. Others have not been as successful such as Obamacare. NK isn't done yet. Trade gauntlet has been thrown down without resolution in the making yet, but NAFTA was changed. Where's the "naive and used"? Frankly, your statement is condescending too. I get it. You don;t like him.
-
Good for you. What were your duties?
I spent a year making a film about a transmission line in Zaire, but that didn't make me an expert on electrical engineering, or Africa for that matter.
No, but I would gladly admit that you know more about transmission lines in Zaire than I do. Besides, your line of work had nothing to do with electrical engineering.
I was an economic specialist for seven years in the embassy. Our day would start with a press briefing, where an officer from the political section would be present as well. A translator would read relevant news from the local press and we would discuss it. The rest of the time I would prepare economic analyses on local issues, inflation, industrial production, etc. for the Economic Counselor. I would occasionally assist him in drafting a cable on particular issues, that would then go to the Ambassador. I would be a part of the State Dept. delegation when they would come from Washington DC to visit the local Chamber of Commerce and discuss economic assistance. As I said, I would occasionally travel with the Ambassador or other diplomats when they were visiting various parts of the country for economic talks. Not to mention cocktail parties, where I learned how to juggle a glass and plate and still shake hands.
You may not agree, but I'd like to think that I had a better insight in how embassies collect and process data and how much they have exposure to real local life than you and others who only read about it.
-
"Mr Amano said IAEA inspectors had had access to all the sites and locations which they needed to visit."
Exactly the problem, Bart. It's the ones they don't think they need to visit that are the problem. Eventually the whole world will find out about that.
Hi Bart, I was in a rush yesterday when I wrote this. I should have expended it: Until we have an agreement that will let the IAEA inspect anywhere. at any time without prior notice, we'll never know what Iran actually is doing. At the moment it's not a question of the locations the IAEA needs to visit, it's a question of what the agreement has allowed them to visit. The whole arrangement is absurd.
-
No, but I would gladly admit that you know more about transmission lines in Zaire than I do. Besides, your line of work had nothing to do with electrical engineering.
Of course not. Other than the fact that, in order to make a film about nearly anything, you have to learn about it first.
I was an economic specialist for seven years in the embassy.
You may not agree, but I'd like to think that I had a better insight in how embassies collect and process data and how much they have exposure to real local life than you and others who only read about it.
Based on that information, I agree. You know more about how embassies collect and process data than most. Even me. :)
So, the UK's ambassador:. Did he reveal anything false? Or anything we didn't already know? Or did he just make that stuff up?
-
So, the UK's ambassador:. Did he reveal anything false? Or anything we didn't already know? Or did he just make that stuff up?
Actually, Bill Maher has been saying all these things for a while now. But the ambassador uses a more diplomatic language.
-
So, the UK's ambassador:. Did he reveal anything false? Or anything we didn't already know? Or did he just make that stuff up?
Not sure what all the controversy is about. It's not like many others haven't said the same thing.
-
Of course not. Other than the fact that, in order to make a film about nearly anything, you have to learn about it first.
Based on that information, I agree. You know more about how embassies collect and process data than most. Even me. :)
So, the UK's ambassador:. Did he reveal anything false? Or anything we didn't already know? Or did he just make that stuff up?
Two issues. Who revealed the secret communications and why? Second issue is that it makes it impossible for the ambassador to represent his country having made personal insults about the president. Even here on this forum, there are rules about that including getting banned.
-
Hi Bart, I was in a rush yesterday when I wrote this. I should have expended it: Until we have an agreement that will let the IAEA inspect anywhere. at any time without prior notice, we'll never know what Iran actually is doing. At the moment it's not a question of the locations the IAEA needs to visit, it's a question of what the agreement has allowed them to visit. The whole arrangement is absurd.
Hi Russ,
You cannot enrich uranium in your backyard. You need facilities to do it in any meaningful way. Those are the locations that the IAEA needs to visit, and they do. In addition, the whole country is being surveilled by all sorts of cameras and other sensors. Do you really think it's possible to escape being noticed? Sure, one needs to stay vigilant, but how is breaking up a working deal going to help with that?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Who revealed the secret communications and why?
Exactly. That's what one needs to focus on. The rest is not news.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Russ,
You cannot enrich uranium in your backyard. You need facilities to do it in any meaningful way. Those are the locations that the IAEA needs to visit, and they do. In addition, the whole country is being surveilled by all sorts of cameras and other sensors. Do you really think it's possible to escape being noticed? Sure, one needs to stay vigilant, but how is breaking up a working deal going to help with that?
Cheers,
Bart
We had an agreement with North Korea for them to stop production under previous presidents. Because of a lack of thorough inspections, they secretly continued their program. Once burned, twice foolish.
-
Hi Russ,
Do you really think it's possible to escape being noticed?
Cheers,
Bart
I worked in a related field for many years, Bart, and yes I do think it's possible to escape being noticed in a country as large as Iran with varied topography. What's hard (or nowadays probably impossible) to hide is nuclear weapon tests, not nuclear production.
-
I worked in a related field for many years, Bart, and yes I do think it's possible to escape being noticed in a country as large as Iran with varied topography. What's hard (or nowadays probably impossible) to hide is nuclear weapon tests, not nuclear production.
How about multispectral Satellite imagery following movements on the ground?
How about spies on the ground?
Cheers,
Bart
-
We had an agreement with North Korea for them to stop production under previous presidents. Because of a lack of thorough inspections, they secretly continued their program. Once burned, twice foolish.
In no way comparable to the Iran deal.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Who revealed the secret communications and why?
Vladimir Putin: to undermine the relationshp between the United States and the United Kingdom?
Nigel Farage: to disrupt pre-Brexit communication between U.S. and U.K. diplomats?
Chinese-government hackers: to retaliate for U.S. tariffs?
Iran: well, isn't it obvious?
-
Vladimir Putin: to undermine the relationshp between the United States and the United Kingdom?
Nigel Farage: to disrupt pre-Brexit communication between U.S. and U.K. diplomats?
Chinese-government hackers: to retaliate for U.S. tariffs?
Iran: well, isn't it obvious?
Or North Koreans who got mad at Trump walking away from their last summit.
Or even Meghan Merkle unhappy with Trump's remarks about her.
-
Or an intern unhappy that the ambassador didn’t want to divorce ;)
-
How about multispectral Satellite imagery following movements on the ground?
How about spies on the ground?
Cheers,
Bart
I suspect you don't really believe what you're saying, Bart. You can't penetrate rock with multispectral imagery. As far as spies on the ground are concerned, I have no doubt the Israelis have them, but they'd be crazy to let on before it's time to strike, and Israelis are a long way from crazy.
-
I suspect you don't really believe what you're saying, Bart. You can't penetrate rock with multispectral imagery.
Russ,
To even dig a tunnel in rock or underground, ground has to be moved, seismic activity may be recorded, trucks have to transport equipment, electricity must be generated by equipment, ventilation is required, personnel has to travel and drink and eat, etc., etc.
And all that activity will produce CO2, which can be measured, and money needs to be paid to purchase materials.
It's not easy to do something that will not be noticed, especially when watched so closely.
But now, it doesn't matter anymore, since there is no longer a deal, and Iran refuses to talk with the USA until the sanctions are lifted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Or even Meghan Merkle unhappy with Trump's remarks about her.
I doubt she is that petty. But word is the Queen has a wicked sense of humor.
-
Russ,
To even dig a tunnel in rock or underground, ground has to be moved, seismic activity may be recorded, trucks have to transport equipment, electricity must be powered by equipment, ventilation is required, personnel has to travel and drink and eat, etc., etc.
And all that activity will produce CO2, which can be measured, and money needs to be paid to purchase materials.
It's not easy to do something that will not be noticed, especially when watched so closely.
But now, it doesn't matter anymore, since there is no longer a deal, and Iran refuses to talk with the USA until the sanctions are lifted.
Cheers,
Bart
All I can say, Bart, is: I believe they're working on a weapon right now. I believe they already have ratholed the highly enriched stuff they need, or they're working somewhere we don't know about to produce it. They're not really going to need tests. There's too much known nowadays for that to be necessary. All they have to do is produce one weapon and then threaten Israel with it.
I'm 89, and I hope I'll be out of here by the time that happens, but you're only 18 according to your profile, so you'll be around when the world reaches that frightening point. Keep watching.
-
Russ,
To even dig a tunnel in rock or underground, ground has to be moved, seismic activity may be recorded, trucks have to transport equipment, electricity must be generated by equipment, ventilation is required, personnel has to travel and drink and eat, etc., etc.
And all that activity will produce CO2, which can be measured, and money needs to be paid to purchase materials.
It's not easy to do something that will not be noticed, especially when watched so closely.
But now, it doesn't matter anymore, since there is no longer a deal, and Iran refuses to talk with the USA until the sanctions are lifted.
Cheers,
Bart
None of that matters. In 10 years Iran can produce the bomb legally. The rest is just conversation.
-
All I can say, Bart, is: I believe they're working on a weapon right now. I believe they already have ratholed the highly enriched stuff they need, or they're working somewhere we don't know about to produce it. They're not really going to need tests. There's too much known nowadays for that to be necessary. All they have to do is produce one weapon and then threaten Israel with it.
I'm 89, and I hope I'll be out of here by the time that happens, but you're only 18 according to your profile, so you'll be around when the world reaches that frightening point. Keep watching.
We've been at that frightening point for 70 years or so.
-
None of that matters. In 10 years Iran can produce the bomb legally. The rest is just conversation.
Not legally, but with the agreement out of the way and trade sanctions imposed, thanks to Trump, they are forced to ramp up production of enriched Uranium.
They need it to generate Nuclear power, and then why stop, enrich it further, commercialize it and also sell it to e.g. North Korea and Russia.
To get back on the thread's topic, one could wonder what the ambassador of Iran to the USA would report about Trump, if there was one (the embassy was closed in 1980). It's currently handled by a chief of 'Interests Section', General Isaac Khan, out of the Pakistan embassy. I doubt that his reporting about Trump would be materially different from other ambassadors.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We've been at that frightening point for 70 years or so.
Not really, Robert. The nukes have been in the hands of nations with a desire to survive. Even North Korea fits that description. But a nuke in the hands of a religious madman is a different thing altogether.
-
Not legally, but with the agreement out of the way and trade sanctions imposed, thanks to Trump, they are forced to ramp up production of enriched Uranium.
They need it to generate Nuclear power, and then why stop, enrich it further, commercialize it and also sell it to e.g. North Korea and Russia.
To get back on the thread's topic, one could wonder what the ambassador of Iran to the USA would report about Trump, if there was one (the embassy was closed in 1980). It's currently handled by a chief of 'Interests Section', General Isaac Khan, out of the Pakistan embassy. I doubt that his reporting about Trump would be materially different from other ambassadors.
Cheers,
Bart
I imagine ambassadors advise their leaders to play it careful with Trump. Stay on his good side. Try to accomodate America's needs and complaints. He has a "shoot from the hip" side. On the other hand, he did not attack Iran when they shot down one of our drones. This is all advantageous to America. If you kiss his butt and support America, he'll compliment and support you. If you become disloyal and do things that hurt America, then he'll take a swing at you. Pretty much how he runs his life. Exactly how a American president should operate. I wouldn't expect less from your leaders.
-
.... I doubt that his reporting about Trump would be materially different from other ambassadors.
Because they all get it from the same source: American media.
-
Because they all get it from the same source: American media.
You mean they are ethnically blocked from viewing e.g. Fox news and Breitbart?
Do they get a 'Kelly Ann Conway filter' installed when they cross the border?
Or do you mean that they can't rely on White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders's (no-longer-existing) press briefings?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I imagine ambassadors advise their leaders to play it careful with Trump. Stay on his good side. Try to accomodate America's needs and complaints. He has a "shoot from the hip" side. On the other hand, he did not attack Iran when they shot down one of our drones. This is all advantageous to America. If you kiss his butt and support America, he'll compliment and support you. If you become disloyal and do things that hurt America, then he'll take a swing at you. Pretty much how he runs his life. Exactly how a American president should operate. I wouldn't expect less from your leaders.
I should imagine nobody tells their ambassador how to behave; knowing how is part of the job description - or selection criteria at the very least.
Conflating drones with Brit ambassadors is a wild one - but hey, it's the Internet!
I had not realised that a foreign ambassador owes his country of duty "loyalty"; I wonder if anyone else knew that? Does your man in Moscow feel he owes Russia a sense of loyalty? Oh, now wait a minute... Certainly that has to be the case in Israel. Gives "family" a warm, familar Italian feeling, doesn't it?
In any case, the ambassador did nothing wrong. The person or persons who did that are still to be discovered. Then, it will either be a public display of indignation or a quiet reprimand and possibly a prosecution. I would sue for treachery if it's on the UK side, and take it as rather stupid if from the American: what else do they expect ambassadors to do but give their opinions, just as do American ones - except of client countries in the Middle East, perhaps. Or maybe they don't and they all do it as you prescribe, so that their nation (America) never gets to hear what the noise of the truth on the ground sounds like. Could explain a lot; extend the fantasy into vital life situations. Cool.
Hollywood and Marlboro Man have never been so important before; now they have become the new reality.
-
Trump axed Iran deal to spite Obama: How the British ambassador called the President's actions 'diplomatic vandalism' fueled by 'personality reasons' - as revealed in more explosive cables that have sparked a free speech row while Iran tensions mount
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244539/Trump-axed-Iran-deal-spite-Obama-British-ambassador-says-Trumps-actions-diplomatic-vandalism.html
Sir Kim suggested there were splits among the President’s closest advisers and said the White House lacked a ‘day-after’ strategy on what to do following withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal was called.
Sir Kim could not hide his disappointment when at 1.38pm in Washington on May 8, he sent his cable.
‘I’m grateful to you for coming out on short notice and undertaking such a packed programme,’ he told Mr Johnson. ‘The outcome illustrated the paradox of this White House: you got exceptional access, seeing everyone short of the President; but on the substance, the Administration is set upon an act of diplomatic vandalism, seemingly for ideological and personality reasons – it was Obama’s deal.
‘Moreover, they can’t articulate any “day-after” strategy; and contacts with State Department this morning suggest no sort of plan for reaching out to partners and allies, whether in Europe or the region.’
Less than two hours later, the failure of Mr Johnson’s mission was confirmed when Mr Trump announced he was terminating America’s participation in the Iran deal and re-imposing sanctions.
In a second cable sent at 6.58pm Washington time, Sir Kim reported that ‘following a typically hyperbolic statement on the nature of the “murderous” Iranian regime, Mr Trump signed a presidential memorandum to start the process of reinstating US nuclear sanctions.’
Mr Trump’s decision was, he said, ‘the end of a long road’ and highlighted how Mr Bolton’s arrival in the White House in April 2018 ‘was widely predicted to cement this outcome.’
‘Much of the speech echoed lines we have heard from Bolton in person,’ he explained.
Alan K. will be pleased, Trump stuck to a campaign promise, and in the process causes a nuclear catastrophe in the Middle East.
Collateral damage, or plain incompetence?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump axed Iran deal to spite Obama: How the British ambassador called the President's actions 'diplomatic vandalism' fueled by 'personality reasons' - as revealed in more explosive cables that have sparked a free speech row while Iran tensions mount
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244539/Trump-axed-Iran-deal-spite-Obama-British-ambassador-says-Trumps-actions-diplomatic-vandalism.html
Alan K. will be pleased, Trump sticked to a campaign promise, and in the process causes a nuclear catastrophe in the Middle East.
Collateral damage, or plain incompetence?
Cheers,
Bart
To your last question: Nero on the fiddle after lighting the fire in Rome.
A raving lunatic with the smallest finger on the biggest button. We may soon all rest in peace.
And to think women are accused of being irrational and swayed by monthly mood; this naked emperor does it by the minute.
-
There are many Trump haters. One was sent to Washington as ambassador. End of story. For the ambassador, literally.
-
... In any case, the ambassador did nothing wrong..
Hmmm. A matter of perception.
The ambassador spat into Trump’s soup. Like with the proverbial waiter, when done in the kitchen, nobody knows, nobody cares. When done on the way to the table, with everybody seeing it, a totally different outcome. The same soup, the same taste, and yet...
-
There are many Trump haters. One was sent to Washington as ambassador. End of story. For the ambassador, literally.
I think the ambassador was just giving his professional assessment of the Trump administration. But I understand why you need to put the label "hater" on anyone who disagrees with him.
-
There are many Trump haters. One was sent to Washington as ambassador. End of story. For the ambassador, literally.
Implication: we should have sent a Trump admirer - could we but find one not called Farage. That way, we could get sent back to Blighty the official US line (plus hook and sinker) to toe instead of the observed one. Cool...
Slobodan, it's difficult enough as it is finding staff: I have none!
And to continue on personal woes: a very pleasant waitress at my French restaurant has walked off set this past week without even saying goodbye! It's the heat, you know: tempers are on unnaturally short fuses, and one poorly timed reprimand from Mr Boss and plates fly! I'm glad I wasn't there when it went down: I might have felt obliged to interfere and have lost access for ever more. Clearly, my timing was impeccable: never be in the right place at the wrong time.
;-)
-
I think the ambassador was just giving his professional assessment of the Trump administration. But I understand why you want to put the label "hater" on anyone who disagrees with him.
You first version of the reply, which you changed while I was writing this, started with:
I think you can believe Trump is incompetent without hating him.
I have yet to see a person who disagrees with Trump on everything without simultaneously hating his guts.
As for “incompetent.” By definition, he is expected to be. People knew it before they sent him to the White House. For someone without a day of experience in politics and government, he can not be, by definition, competent in those things. People chose him over someone who was labeled “uniquely qualified” (competent) to be president. It should tell you something. That being competent is not enough if people do not like what your are competently going to do. People sent him there to shake up same old, same old “competence.”
-
You first version of the reply, which you changed while I was writing this, started with:
I have yet to see a person who disagrees with Trump on everything without simultaneously hating his guts.
As for “incompetent.” By definition, he is expected to be. People knew it before they sent him to the White House. For someone without a day of experience in politics and government, he can not be, by definition, competent in those things. People chose him over someone who was labeled “uniquely qualified” (competent) to be president. It should tell you something. That being competent is not enough if people do not like what your are competently going to do. People sent him there to shake up same old, same old “competence.”
I think you have just explained the rationale behind the Brexiteers: vote for it not expecting to be better off, just in a different and deeper hole. Makes warped sense, in its way.
Rob
-
You first version of the reply, which you changed while I was writing this, started with:
I have yet to see a person who disagrees with Trump on everything without simultaneously hating his guts.
As for “incompetent.” By definition, he is expected to be. People knew it before they sent him to the White House. For someone without a day of experience in politics and government, he can not be, by definition, competent in those things. People chose him over someone who was labeled “uniquely qualified” (competent) to be president. It should tell you something. That being competent is not enough if people do not like what your are competently going to do. People sent him there to shake up same old, same old “competence.”
Then why the (feigned) indignation when the ambassador calls it as it is?
Trump only cares about Trump. One should be ashamed of his followers, and not blame the messenger.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Then why the (feigned) indignation when the ambassador calls it as it is?...
I already provided an explanation:
... The ambassador spat into Trump’s soup. Like with the proverbial waiter, when done in the kitchen, nobody knows, nobody cares. When done on the way to the table, with everybody seeing it, a totally different outcome. The same soup, the same taste, and yet...
-
I have yet to see a person who disagrees with Trump on everything without simultaneously hating his guts.
I think you are projecting to make those you disagree with your enemies.
-
Trump axed Iran deal to spite Obama: How the British ambassador called the President's actions 'diplomatic vandalism' fueled by 'personality reasons' - as revealed in more explosive cables that have sparked a free speech row while Iran tensions mount
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244539/Trump-axed-Iran-deal-spite-Obama-British-ambassador-says-Trumps-actions-diplomatic-vandalism.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244539/Trump-axed-Iran-deal-spite-Obama-British-ambassador-says-Trumps-actions-diplomatic-vandalism.html)
Alan K. will be pleased, Trump stuck to a campaign promise, and in the process causes a nuclear catastrophe in the Middle East.
Collateral damage, or plain incompetence?
Cheers,
Bart
Iran's going to have the bomb in ten years with the current deal. What kind of deal is that? The problem was kicked down the road. Better we face the problem now. All they have to do is agree they won't make a bomb forever. Isn't that what you want? Why do you protect Iran?
-
All they have to do is agree they won't make a bomb forever.
Why would they do that?
-
I already provided an explanation:
The Ambassador was not spitting in his soup.
But someone felt it necessary to publicize confidential information, knowing that Trump couldn't ignore it.
WHO?
That's the only thing that matters.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think...
I wish you do.
-
Iran's going to have the bomb in ten years with the current deal.
On the contrary!!!
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) most of Iran's production capabilities were dismantled, and a tight monitoring scheme was agreed upon. But now that deal is no more. But at least Trump held a promise ..., nevermind the consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why would they do that?
Exactly. As with Israel (still neither denying nor admitting ownership?), NK and perhaps soon Iran, owning and holding is the only way of staving off the bigger guy. If he believes you to be a religious suicide jockey on top of that, then he will be even more careful. Remove that possibility and your Uncle or the friendly Bear can easily crush you without breaking wind. The question today is not why would any of these crush you, but why not?
Rob
-
Why would they do that?
To eliminate sanctions.
-
To eliminate sanctions.
A guarantee by the USA?
Demonstrated to be worthless.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A guarantee by the USA?
Demonstrated to be worthless.
Cheers,
Bart
Treaties approved by the US Senate are respected by America. There was no Treaty with the original "deal". Obama signed it without consent of the Senate. America did not sign it. If Iran had originally agreed to eliminate nukes totally, our Senate would have agreed and the issue would have been settled forever. Think about it. If Iran has no plans for ever obtaining nukes, why didn't they sign a more comprehensive agreement? Obviously they planned to get the bomb in a few years when the current deal ends. They were willing to wait to get the original sanctions lifted. But they continue to develop when the deal ends.
So now the ball is in Iran's court. What are they going to do? Have sanctions continue to cripple their economy? And threaten who with a bomb if they make it now? Will the other signatories to the original agreement accept Iran with a bomb? After all, you didn't accept it before. Why would you accept it now? While you may not agree what America did, did you suddenly have a change of heart regarding a nuclear armed Iran? What will you do if Iran wants to weaponize their nukes?
-
Hmmm. A matter of perception.
The ambassador spat into Trump’s soup. Like with the proverbial waiter, when done in the kitchen, nobody knows, nobody cares. When done on the way to the table, with everybody seeing it, a totally different outcome. The same soup, the same taste, and yet...
No, he analysed that soup and made his professional kitchen report.
As I have maintained all along, those who leaked are the guilty.
-
Treaties approved by the US Senate are respected by America. There was no Treaty with the original "deal". Obama signed it without consent of the Senate. America did not sign it. If Iran had originally agreed to eliminate nukes totally, our Senate would have agreed and the issue would have been settled forever. Think about it. If Iran has no plans for ever obtaining nukes, why didn't they sign a more comprehensive agreement? Obviously they planned to get the bomb in a few years when the current deal ends. They were willing to wait to get the original sanctions lifted. But they continue to develop when the deal ends.
So now the ball is in Iran's court. What are they going to do? Have sanctions continue to cripple their economy? And threaten who with a bomb if they make it now? Will the other signatories to the original agreement accept Iran with a bomb? After all, you didn't accept it before. Why would you accept it now? While you may not agree what America did, did you suddenly have a change of heart regarding a nuclear armed Iran? What will you do if Iran wants to weaponize their nukes?
More than ever will they strive to be come nuclear and, thus, independent of external existential threat.
It's so bloody obvious: you will not attack a guy who has the power to kill you too. Damaged economy? Those things recover, sooner or later depending on who the next external (or internal) idiot may or may not be.
The world will only survive with peace and the acceptance that nobody has a divine right to being right. When we can compromise, share out regional tasks and possibilities, then everyone has a reason for staying put and getting on with the production of whatever his region can produce to the greater good of mankind. No good all trying to manufacture washing machines or fridges, no better that than all trying to producer grain or fruits: we need to work a system that makes us all useful as our locaton allows and interdependent, which should offer some guarantee of things staying safely stable.
-
Treaties approved by the US Senate are respected by America. There was no Treaty with the original "deal". Obama signed it without consent of the Senate. America did not sign it.
Help me remember, Republicans blocked most anything the Obama administration proposed. So who's to blame?
If Iran had originally agreed to eliminate nukes totally, our Senate would have agreed and the issue would have been settled forever.
And jeopardize a weapons deal with Iran's sworn adversary Saudi Arabia? Keep dreaming.
Sorry Alan, your US-centric reasoning makes little sense on the geo-political stage.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, he analysed that soup and made his professional kitchen report.
As I have maintained all along, those who leaked are the guilty.
Indeed, and it's going to be interesting to find the source of the leak.
Many potential leakers: Russia, UK Brexit dissidents, Bannon/Farage, Wikileaks, China, West Wing, etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
More than ever will they strive to be come nuclear and, thus, independent of external existential threat.
Check.
It's so bloody obvious: you will not attack a guy who has the power to kill you too. Damaged economy? Those things recover, sooner or later depending on who the next external (or internal) idiot may or may not be.
Check. And it's a heaven sent for the Hawks in the Iranian leadership circles. Now they can blame the economic troubles on the USA, and a new generation of USA haters is born.
The world will only survive with peace and the acceptance that nobody has a divine right to being right. When we can compromise, share out regional tasks and possibilities, then everyone has a reason for staying put and getting on with the production of whatever his region can produce to the greater good of mankind. No good all trying to manufacture washing machines or fridges, no better that than all trying to producer grain or fruits: we need to work a system that makes us all useful as our locaton allows and interdependent, which should offer some guarantee of things staying safely stable.
Agree, although I'm not naive about to how easy this will be to achieve. It will be next to impossible in the short term, but things will get worse before they get better.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Help me remember, Republicans blocked most anything the Obama administration proposed. So who's to blame?
And jeopardize a weapons deal with Iran's sworn adversary Saudi Arabia? Keep dreaming.
Sorry Alan, your US-centric reasoning makes little sense on the geo-political stage.
Cheers,
Bart
You avoided answering the questions.
Will the other signatories to the original agreement accept Iran with a bomb? After all, you didn't accept it before. Why would you accept it now? While you may not agree what America did, did you suddenly have a change of heart regarding a nuclear armed Iran? What will you do if Iran wants to weaponize their nukes?
-
You avoided answering the questions.
Will the other signatories to the original agreement accept Iran with a bomb? After all, you didn't accept it before. Why would you accept it now? While you may not agree what America did, did you suddenly have a change of heart regarding a nuclear armed Iran? What will you do if Iran wants to weaponize their nukes?
Our governments try to salvage what's left and make a new deal. But the US sanctions make it impossible.
So I guess the Iranians will go ahead and retaliate against the US if they think that is wise. They have a whole , or get even more cosy with the Russians. They have a whole new generation to do what they think they need to do, so no rush. Maybe we'll have to wait till 2024 for a new US president if they can find a volunteer to clean up the mess, but Iran is by then unlikely to give up their life-insurance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Our governments try to salvage what's left and make a new deal. But the US sanctions make it impossible.
So I guess the Iranians will go ahead and retaliate against the US if they think that is wise. They have a whole , or get even more cosy with the Russians. They have a whole new generation to do what they think they need to do, so no rush. Maybe we'll have to wait till 2024 for a new US president if they can find a volunteer to clean up the mess, but Iran is by then unlikely to give up their life-insurance.
Cheers,
Bart
If they think that suffering through such damaging sanctions is worth it, they they really had no intention of giving up the bomb in any case. So the "deal" they signed was worthless to us.
-
If they think that suffering through such damaging sanctions is worth it, they they really had no intention of giving up the bomb in any case. So the "deal" they signed was worthless to us.
Has it occurred to you just how much you are making the world hate you by insisting on being the arbiters of who will posses what, as if given some holy right to do that? Doesn't it seem obvious to you that the more you bully and attempt to manipulate, the worse it will become and the more attractive - and essential - having nuclear weapons becomes to non-Americans?
You should have left well alone and dealt with any deal-that's-not-a-deal-because-Obama-liked-it problems as they might or might not have arisen; your government is creating problems between itself and its few remaining allies, never mind worsening the situation with those it knows already detests it.
That's why proper diplomats and political leaders are de rigueur in this world, as ever they were. Your choice of a property developer for head honcho was a massive, insane shot in the foot of everyone on this friggin' planet.
-
Has it occurred to you just how much you are making the world hate you by insisting on being the arbiters of who will posses what, as if given some holy right to do that? Doesn't it seem obvious to you that the more you bully and attempt to manipulate, the worse it will become and the more attractive - and essential - having nuclear weapons becomes to non-Americans?
You should have left well alone and dealt with any deal-that's-not-a-deal-because-Obama-liked-it problems as they might or might not have arisen; your government is creating problems between itself and its few remaining allies, never mind worsening the situation with those it knows already detests it.
That's why proper diplomats and political leaders are de rigueur in this world, as ever they were. Your choice of a property developer for head honcho was a massive, insane shot in the foot of everyone on this friggin' planet.
From your perspective, that might be true. But Obama and many former presidents were "Gee, I hope you like us." Trump doesn;t care about that. He's concerned with protecting American power and its economy, just as your PM does or should for your country. Americans have been "saps" for decades. We provide military protection and economic help and others take advantage of that. So now, America says "enough". The bill's come due. And you're not use to it. But Trump doesn;t care if you don't like us. He's bottom line oriented. That may create caustic relations at times. But everyone knows how their bread is buttered and will respond from national interest.
-
To eliminate sanctions.
That didn't really work out too well with the North Koreans.
-
That didn't really work out too well with the North Koreans.
Too soon to tell. In any case, Iran isn;t NK. Iran has huge oil exports that's being held up and other trade not moving. NK can't feed its people without China handouts. In NK, if people complain, you don;t see them anymore. Iran has bigger political implications from sanctions when people complain. We'll see what happens in both countries. Right now Trump seems to get along better with Kim than the mullahs.
-
From your perspective, that might be true. But Obama and many former presidents were "Gee, I hope you like us." Trump doesn;t care about that. He's concerned with protecting American power and its economy, just as your PM does or should for your country. Americans have been "saps" for decades. We provide military protection and economic help and others take advantage of that. So now, America says "enough". The bill's come due. And you're not use to it. But Trump doesn;t care if you don't like us. He's bottom line oriented. That may create caustic relations at times. But everyone knows how their bread is buttered and will respond from national interest.
The joys of simplistic thinking! I envy you that.
:-)
-
The Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command launched a criminal investigation on Friday, and on Sunday, the Sunday Times, citing unnamed government sources, reported that a suspect had been identified and the possibility of a computer hack by a foreign state ruled out.
“They think they know who did the leaking,” the paper quoted an unnamed government source as saying. “It’s now a case of building a case that will stand up in court. It was someone with access to historical files. They went in and grabbed a range of material. It was quite crude.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/14/suspected-leaker-of-kim-darroch-emails-identified-report
Apparently, it was some associate with a positive Brexit sentiment. Further details are forthcoming.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The joys of simplistic thinking! I envy you that.
:-)
It actually is very simple. Trump understands power and how to use it. If you want to do business with Trump, the real estate developer, you had to be ready to get squeezed. That's how he handles international relations. He's always looking for an edge. He cancels the Iran deal and imposed sanctions on NK and tariffs on China. He'll just sit back and wait until you want to make a deal when it gets painful enough. If you want to sit back and wait, he'll outwait you. But he harbors no ill will. Canada made a new trade deal as did Mexico. He's happy. America's happy. So are Canada and Mexico. Life goes on. It's really not complicated. Countries and people act the same.
-
It seems "the British are vicious" according to the Iranians. I think they hate your more than they hate Trump. Shame on you.
"“The vicious British government committed piracy and attacked our ship,” Mr. Khamenei said. “They commit crimes and legalize it. The Islamic Republic and the believing members of the establishment will not leave such vicious acts without a response.""
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-khamenei-shipping.html
-
It seems "the British are vicious" according to the Iranians. I think they hate your more than they hate Trump. Shame on you.
"“The vicious British government committed piracy and attacked our ship,” Mr. Khamenei said. “They commit crimes and legalize it. The Islamic Republic and the believing members of the establishment will not leave such vicious acts without a response.""
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-khamenei-shipping.html
Iran has reacted by seizing British ships. Will the UK now support the US with sanctions? How about France, Germany, others?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2019/07/19/operator-oil-tanker-says-unable-contact-ship-strait-hormuz/45RXKgOlWj4ULMdWb9rvBL/story.html
-
It was supporting you that got us here.
;-)
-
It was supporting you that got us here.
;-)
Indeed. The incident at Gibraltar that triggered this Iranian reaction is rather vague. Why the Iranian tanker was exactly forced to stop, is not quite clear, but the timing does suggest that the USA had something to do with it. Maybe it was justified (illegal oil transport destination?), but how did they know the destination? Why is there not more information available?
So a reaction was provoked, and Iran seemingly responded (although the British tanker may have indeed made a maneuvering error).
What the USA doesn't seem to get, is that Iran has little more to lose now that sanctions are already crippling its economy. So they will be calling the USA's bluff call, and they do have a capable military force to push back with. It also bolsters the hawkish elements in the Iranian leadership, and it unites the Iranian people (a majority is relatively young) behind a common enemy, again. A new generation of USA haters is born.
And all that without a US Secretary of Defense ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed. The incident at Gibraltar that triggered this Iranian reaction is rather vague. Why the Iranian tanker was exactly forced to stop, is not quite clear, but the timing does suggest that the USA had something to do with it. Maybe it was justified (illegal oil transport destination?), but how did they know the destination? Why is there not more information available?
So a reaction was provoked, and Iran seemingly responded (although the British tanker may have indeed made a maneuvering error).
What the USA doesn't seem to get, is that Iran has little more to lose now that sanctions are already crippling its economy. So they will be calling the USA's bluff call, and they do have a capable military force to push back with. It also bolsters the hawkish elements in the Iranian leadership, and it unites the Iranian people (a majority is relatively young) behind a common enemy, again. A new generation of USA haters is born.
And all that without a Secretary of Defense ...
Cheers,
Bart
If there were a Secy of D, there's an even chance we may never have got here. Had we some common sense left in Tory England... Dysfunctional or what?
:-(
-
What should England do? NATO? France? Germany?
-
What should England do? NATO? France? Germany?
What they were already doing, not adding oil to the fire. In the mean time, European hands are tied by the US sanctions.
NATO has little to do with it, this is provoked by the USA and will not drag the rest of the world into a reelection campaign for Trump.
The European leadership is trying to find a financial construction that will allow doing business with Iran (as was agreed in the deal that the USA broke with), but not becoming a target for USA sanctions against Europe for doing that. If they succeed, that might release tensions a bit, until the next irresponsible USA action.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks, Bart. In other words, Europe is going to do its usual thing: hide its head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem until its too late to avert disaster. Europe's been doing that since before WW I. Why should it change now?
-
Thanks, Bart. In other words, Europe is going to do its usual thing: hide its head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem until its too late to avert disaster. Europe's been doing that since before WW I. Why should it change now?
No we are trying to tackle a possible disaster of The USA igniting a war that we can avoid. The problem is not Iran, it is Israel + the USA + Saudi Arabia trying desperately to find grounds to ignite a war.
As soon as they know the USA will support them, Israel will bomb all nuclear installations in Iran as they want to do since a long time.
If that happens we have a new middle east war of unprecedented proportions with Israel having nuclear weapons.
The second Irak war was a drama that caused about a million people their lives and it was ignited by the USA on false grounds. So we have seen this scenario before, only few years ago.
Weapons of mass destruction....Weapons of mass destruction.... Weapons of mass destruction.... ask United States Secretary of State Colin Powel:
NBC news 2015
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/colin-powell-invasion-iraq-badly-flawed-n422566
...
But Powell defended the decision to invade Iraq against that criticism, asserting it was based on a unified — if faulty — evaluation from the intelligence community.
“If we had known the intelligence was wrong, we would not have gone into Iraq. But the intelligence community, all 16 agencies, assured us that it was right,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
-
No we are trying to tackle a possible disaster of The USA igniting a war that we can avoid.
Yeah, you were trying to do that before WW II also, Pieter. You were sure that if you gave in again and again you could avert war. If you could avert war by hiding your head in the sand, there'd have been no WW II. Unfortunately it doesn't work.
-
Yeah, you were trying to do that before WW II also, Pieter. You were sure that if you gave in again and again you could avert war. If you could avert war by hiding your head in the sand, there'd have been no WW II. Unfortunately it doesn't work.
What war did we avert by invading Iraq?
-
We’ll never know the answer to that question, Fab, and as I suspect you know, because I know you’re not stupid, it’s not really a serious question. The roots that grow and lead to war are tangled and complex. If you don’t believe that, read the history of what led to WW I. WW II was simpler. Its roots were planted at Versailles, but they still were too complex for most “statesmen” to comprehend. Churchill was about the only one who saw the future clearly. In spite of “international” assurances that Iraq wasn’t working on nukes, I suspect it was happening. And, again, if one of its adversaries gets close to a deliverable nuclear weapon, in order to survive Israel’s going to have to take out the offender – by conventional means if possible, but with nuclear means if not. The country is too small to tolerate even one fair-sized nuclear detonation.
We handled the Iraq war very badly, almost as badly as we handled Vietnam. But that’s what happens when politicians like LBJ take control of the details.
-
How come nobody seems to think about neighbouring Pakistan in this context, also a nuke power? Religion is stronger than politics, and in a huge area where nationhood is largely an arbitrary, external construct, the ramifications are more like taking on the Mafia than a specific country.
In the end, the difference has always been that where the West thinks it's fighting a political war, the other side is seeing it as an existential, religious clash of civilizations.
The deal-that-Alan-says-is-not-a-deal was supposed to bring counter benefits to Iran in terms of investment and trade: what did it see? Next to nada. A few little French capillaries, then Amen. But it did see stronger hatred, more vitriolic language and, ultimately, the dismemberment of the thin ray of hope both sides could have used, given some patience and slack. There is the presumed attempt to bring some countries back into the wider world, but the moment there's even a chance, bam! there goes the straight left. It often seems those "pariahs" are actually an essential part of the trade paradigm: remove them, and waddya got? You got no reason to make or buy weapons and have vast armed forces... that will never do!
Some people speak of compromise when what they mean is absolute defeat and humiliation of the other side. As has been posed here before: a man with nothing left to lose is one dangerous cat.
-
And the answer as to what happened here?
(https://graphics.reuters.com/MIDEAST-IRAN-TANKER-BRITAIN/0100B09N0M0/IRAN.jpg)
Why the change of course that forced Iran to intercept???
Cheers,
Bart
-
There you go, Bart. That makes it all very clear. Maybe you have some charts with zigzag lines that'll make it even clearer.
-
What they were already doing, not adding oil to the fire. In the mean time, European hands are tied by the US sanctions.
NATO has little to do with it, this is provoked by the USA and will not drag the rest of the world into a reelection campaign for Trump.
The European leadership is trying to find a financial construction that will allow doing business with Iran (as was agreed in the deal that the USA broke with), but not becoming a target for USA sanctions against Europe for doing that. If they succeed, that might release tensions a bit, until the next irresponsible USA action.
Cheers,
Bart
"“The vicious British government committed piracy and attacked our ship,” Mr. Khamenei said. “They commit crimes and legalize it. The Islamic Republic and the believing members of the establishment will not leave such vicious acts without a response.""
The Brits insist it was European sanctions on Syria as the reason it grabbed the Iranian ship. That means The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, etc. as well as Britain.
From the linked article below:
"The British insist that they only impounded Grace 1 due its suspected destination – a port in Syria – not due to the fact that the ship was carrying Iranian oil. European Union sanctions against the regime of Bashir al Assad regime were there to be enforced and international law upheld, the British argued. There seemed little doubt, given its circuitous route, that the ship was bound for Syria."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz)
-
It was supporting you that got us here.
;-)
"It's not our fault. The Yanks made us do it."
If you did it for that reason and not Syria and the EU sanctions, isn't that what allies are for? What do you expect to gain from staying friends with us? Did we not support you in your war with Argentina providing critical intelligence information about where their navy ships were? Friendship, NATO, etc is not a one-way street. Frankly I think America should back off of Europe's defense and NATO. We can't afford it and Europe is rich enough today to pay their own way. We should pull out of Europe and NATO. You guys should figure it all out and defend you own oil lines in the Middle East. The last thing Trump wants is war with Iran. He opposed war with Iraq.
-
Yeah, you were trying to do that before WW II also, Pieter. You were sure that if you gave in again and again you could avert war. If you could avert war by hiding your head in the sand, there'd have been no WW II. Unfortunately it doesn't work.
Russ, as you know I am relating to a very similar situation only a few years ago...
This situation has nothing to do with WWII, nor with Napoleons journey into Russia...
Also i am presenting to you Colin Powell admitting the US started this war on false grounds... causing a million deaths, with American Arms ( fighting against older western imported arms by Irak)
Maybe it is you that has its head buried into sand.
-
[...]The Brits insist it was European sanctions on Syria as the reason it grabbed the Iranian ship. That means The Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, etc. as well as Britain.
From the linked article below:
"The British insist that they only impounded Grace 1 due its suspected destination – a port in Syria – not due to the fact that the ship was carrying Iranian oil. European Union sanctions against the regime of Bashir al Assad regime were there to be enforced and international law upheld, the British argued. There seemed little doubt, given its circuitous route, that the ship was bound for Syria."
Maybe the Brits have some charts with zigzag lines to prove it?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Also i am presenting to you Colin Powell admitting the US started this war on false grounds...
Colin is a good guy, Pieter, but he wasn't always right. What he's saying is that he thinks the intelligence was wrong. I suspect it's Colin who was wrong. Every intelligence service in the world was convinced Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Once we got into Iraq the weapons weren't there. But I'm doubtful about the whole scenario. I suspect that the world's intelligence services were right and that, when faced with the obvious fact they were going to lose the war, the Iraqi military cleaned up the place. As I recall, there were some indications that was the case. But, of course, the news media aren't going to push that idea. They're going to push what they like to believe.
-
Colin is a good guy, Pieter, but he wasn't always right. What he's saying is that he thinks the intelligence was wrong. I suspect it's Colin who was wrong. Every intelligence service in the world was convinced Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Once we got into Iraq the weapons weren't there. But I'm doubtful about the whole scenario. I suspect that the world's intelligence services were right and that, when faced with the obvious fact they were going to lose the war, the Iraqi military cleaned up the place. As I recall, there were some indications that was the case. But, of course, the news media aren't going to push that idea. They're going to push what they like to believe.
Talk about pushing what you like to believe.
-
Hi Fab. Since your age is N/A, I'd guess you're too young to have been around when the thing actually was going on. The history has been written by the "news media," so it's pretty badly distorted. But I was around, and I remember the arguments.
-
Hi Fab. Since your age is N/A, I'd guess you're too young to have been around when the thing actually was going on.
There you go again flattering me about how young I am, though for the life of me I can't figure out why you attribute my comment as having anything to do with age. And which "thing" are you talking about? The Iraq war?
-
Colin is a good guy, Pieter, but he wasn't always right. What he's saying is that he thinks the intelligence was wrong. I suspect it's Colin who was wrong. Every intelligence service in the world was convinced Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Once we got into Iraq the weapons weren't there. But I'm doubtful about the whole scenario. I suspect that the world's intelligence services were right and that, when faced with the obvious fact they were going to lose the war, the Iraqi military cleaned up the place. As I recall, there were some indications that was the case. But, of course, the news media aren't going to push that idea. They're going to push what they like to believe.
This is much more plausible than the latter explanations and reversals. The only remaining puzzle is when some of those details will emerge.
-
This is much more plausible than the latter explanations and reversals. The only remaining puzzle is when some of those details will emerge.
It is plausible because there is no credible evidence? Why can't you just admit we made a mistake, learn from it, and move on?
-
Colin is a good guy, Pieter, but he wasn't always right. What he's saying is that he thinks the intelligence was wrong. I suspect it's Colin who was wrong. Every intelligence service in the world was convinced Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. Once we got into Iraq the weapons weren't there. But I'm doubtful about the whole scenario. I suspect that the world's intelligence services were right and that, when faced with the obvious fact they were going to lose the war, the Iraqi military cleaned up the place. As I recall, there were some indications that was the case. But, of course, the news media aren't going to push that idea. They're going to push what they like to believe.
I don't think it was an easy thing for Colin Powell to admit (t)his HUGE mistake.
Irak was under constant inspections by the international community before this war was started, just like Iran is under surveillance.
This commitee concluded that there was no evidence that Irak had weapons of mass destruction. Their findings were put aside by the US.
-
It is plausible because there is no credible evidence? Why can't you just admit we made a mistake, learn from it, and move on?
I haven't made any mistake, I was just an observer.
Bush wasted a lot of time searching for evidence. If they had acted sooner, they would have found the evidence.
-
I don't think it was an easy thing for Colin Powell to admit (t)his HUGE mistake.
Irak was under constant inspections by the international community before this war was started, just like Iran is under surveillance.
This commitee concluded that there was no evidence that Irak had weapons of mass destruction. Their findings were put aside by the US.
Sure, Pieter, the "inspections by the international community" involved areas where they were allowed to go, at times they were allowed to go there. That's not an "inspection" cycle that encourages confidence. It's the same crap that's been going on in Iran. The only kind of inspection arrangement that can even come close to guaranteeing anything is one that allows inspectors actually interested in turning up violations to go anywhere they want to go any time time want to go there. Of course thee was "no evidence."
-
Okay, gang, I've wasted enough of my life on this idiotic "discussion." I'm outta here. You guys go ahead and keep rattling.
-
Indeed. The incident at Gibraltar that triggered this Iranian reaction is rather vague. Why the Iranian tanker was exactly forced to stop, is not quite clear, but the timing does suggest that the USA had something to do with it. Maybe it was justified (illegal oil transport destination?), but how did they know the destination? Why is there not more information available?
So a reaction was provoked, and Iran seemingly responded (although the British tanker may have indeed made a maneuvering error).
What the USA doesn't seem to get, is that Iran has little more to lose now that sanctions are already crippling its economy. So they will be calling the USA's bluff call, and they do have a capable military force to push back with. It also bolsters the hawkish elements in the Iranian leadership, and it unites the Iranian people (a majority is relatively young) behind a common enemy, again. A new generation of USA haters is born.
And all that without a US Secretary of Defense ...
Cheers,
Bart
I suspect that both ships will be released as Britain and Iran make a deal. What will be interesting is whether the Iranian ship will return to Iran or will continue to Syria. If they do that they'll be violating US sanctions with oil and EU sanctions with trading with Syria. What will happen then?
-
And the answer as to what happened here?
(https://graphics.reuters.com/MIDEAST-IRAN-TANKER-BRITAIN/0100B09N0M0/IRAN.jpg)
Why the change of course that forced Iran to intercept???
Cheers,
Bart
Apparently your squiggly lines are different than my squiggly lines. In either case, it doesn;t appear the ship invaded Iranian waters but rather were "dragged" there by Iranian ships.
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/07/19/2nd-ship_wide-102e29875a090cfc164053339cbbce746bd1c0e4-s800-c85.jpg)
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/743556229/iran-says-it-has-seized-a-british-tanker-in-strait-of-hormuz (https://www.npr.org/2019/07/19/743556229/iran-says-it-has-seized-a-british-tanker-in-strait-of-hormuz)
-
I suspect that both ships will be released as Britain and Iran make a deal. What will be interesting is whether the Iranian ship will return to Iran or will continue to Syria. If they do that they'll be violating US sanctions with oil and EU sanctions with trading with Syria. What will happen then?
Nothing worth squat.
When they get near Syria they get Russian cover...
-
Nothing worth squat.
When they get near Syria they get Russian cover...
What will EU countries do since they violated your EU sanctions by trading with Assad? Europe always points fingers at America but doesn't stand up and take responsibility for its own actions.
-
What will EU countries do since they violated your EU sanctions by trading with Assad? Europe always points fingers at America but doesn't stand up and take responsibility for its own actions.
Of course it does!
That's why it has huge National Health Services everywhere and you lot don't!
It's all that standing up makes it necessary. Saltpetre, yes, that's what we need! A teaspoon a day will fix everything; no more excessive standing up!
;-)
-
Well, Europe stands up with Britain. Germany and France condemn Iran's seizure of British tanker.
Now Trump can relax and let you guys handle Iran. Your oil is safe.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-france-condemn-irans-seizure-of-british-tanker/a-49665532
-
Well, Europe stands up with Britain. Germany and France condemn Iran's seizure of British tanker.
Now Trump can relax and let you guys handle Iran. Your oil is safe.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-france-condemn-irans-seizure-of-british-tanker/a-49665532
But are your cities?
-
But are your cities?
???
-
Highly touted Cuban medical research at work. Another reason to admire it.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/23/cuba-sonic-attacks-changed-us-diplomats-brains-study-finds/
-
Highly touted Cuban medical research at work. Another reason to admire it.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/23/cuba-sonic-attacks-changed-us-diplomats-brains-study-finds/
That's mystifying. Just a friendly Canadian embassy. Although there may be also other explanations for the strange sounds.
The sound that some believed may have caused the problems was later identified by insect experts as the mating call of the male Indies short-tailed cricket.
OTOH, something like couldn't happen to Russian embassy in Havana. That is a contemporary looking building, but built on ten acres like a fortress. Surrounded by 10 ft high outside wall, and the embassy walls must be also extremely thick and impenetrable.