Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He does understand well. It is the common bad-speaking of everything Turkey related allthough his position to Turkey would be different if i would not represent Turkey on this board. So it is mostly personal-related, since (must have been somwhere at my 500th post) we had a personal dispute with personal words allthough dilloduck was in the beginning the friendliest person to confront me on this board.
Now it is just same procedure as every login.
I accept that fully and modificate my discussion style to person who responds to me.
When someone like GunnyL is engageing me in a discussion i answer different as i would when people confront me of whom i know they have some sympathy for me. Yes they exist, but will not tell.
And absolute mostly only people answer to me in threads which have no sympathy, so my writing style and views mutate in accordance to audience i speak with.
But it is anyway fun, allthough i try not to be provocative to get sanctioned and between provocative writing embed informations and arguments.
But it is no big issue, and overall i am happy with my time writing here. Otherwise i would use my time different.
He does understand well. It is the common bad-speaking of everything Turkey related allthough his position to Turkey would be different if i would not represent Turkey on this board. So it is mostly personal-related, since (must have been somwhere at my 500th post) we had a personal dispute with personal words allthough dilloduck was in the beginning the friendliest person to confront me on this board.
Now it is just same procedure as every login.
I accept that fully and modificate my discussion style to person who responds to me.
When someone like GunnyL is engageing me in a discussion i answer different as i would when people confront me of whom i know they have some sympathy for me. Yes they exist, but will not tell.
And absolute mostly only people answer to me in threads which have no sympathy, so my writing style and views mutate in accordance to audience i speak with.
But it is anyway fun, allthough i try not to be provocative to get sanctioned and between provocative writing embed informations and arguments.
But it is no big issue, and overall i am happy with my time writing here. Otherwise i would use my time different.
I still consider the information you pass on to us as accurate but if you expect me to believe all of Turkeys' motives to be good for America you're crazy. Answer this--have you heard anyone in Iran who wants to negotiate with the US ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.htmlIn 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran's Offer of Dialogue
Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.
I still consider the information you pass on to us as accurate but if you expect me to believe all of Turkeys' motives to be good for America you're crazy. Answer this--have you heard anyone in Iran who wants to negotiate with the US ?
Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301540.html
Khatami hopeful U.S.-Tehran dialogue stabilizes Iraq
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=23312
Iran: Calls for Dialogue with the United States
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0922-27.htm
IRAN: Ready for Dialogue with U.S. Says Khatami
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37413
Also,
US not seeking dialogue with Iran
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/03/17/1593789.htm
This one is my favorite.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html
How ya like them apples?
No. I do not want you to expect all motives to be in accordance with USA or vice-verca.
90% of my posts since registration date are situational pictures of how motives and interests lie apart.
Altough it is mostly the issue Iraq i talk about, and there are surely areas where interests are equivalent but are no writing issues here. Iraq is both our primary interest, it does not mean anything in cooperating in other issues. Iraq has more weight and will lead direction of relations.
This thread is a continuation of motives in Iraq which do not corrospond to each other.
Before US war in Iraq, Iran and Turkey had almost hostile relations. Now it is 180 degree other direction like the example of the fine swiss clockwork.
So when i open a thread about Iran and Turkey, which are describing real events, i am in full knowledge that this is against US interest. From my point it is a good answer to people here what action takes a counter-action with it in state relations. And on personal user level it is a sort of remakeing digs to people who confront me for example in this way:
http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=586067&postcount=96
First, It is no big issue. Second i do not feel anysort of attacked.
But i can't for example confront such Users in same way by replaceing Turkey with USA in same sentence, without getting banned. Also i am not convinced to have a bonus to react to people who confront me in a non-factual way for example with personal dissing.
So i must piss some people otherwise, allthough pissing anyone is not my primary motive as when i start threads usually my beginning post describes the situation in a factual way. But i connect in further writings my diggings in my writings.
In the end, when i log-in i am not a new registered user, but i continue with a history of 866 posts and some experience here, who if they not write directly at me, i am sure they read.
So when i would open a thread to celebrate Turkish-US relations i surely would not make it on usmessageboards.
One user i wrote a PM once who had problems with a kind of group of users which i know they do not have sympathy with me, too.
I asked him to recommend me a US forum which is not that much with republican audience.
But that guy sent me a link to a niche-radio show forum.
So i always end up here.
And as i said before, i'm used to things going on here. It has become habituated every time even more i log-in. So it's fine.
We know each other well i think.
Dialogue and negotions are far from the same thing. They want to legimatize themselves and thier actions. Chomping on this kind of propaganda bait would be stupid.
We do. And you have been claiming for some time now that Turkey was going to invade Kurdistan and occupy a portion of Iraq in self defense. What happened?
Two things happened: America told Turkey not to do it, and the "invasion" was phoney posturing for the 22 July Turkish national elections.We do. And you have been claiming for some time now that Turkey was going to invade Kurdistan and occupy a portion of Iraq in self defense. What happened?
That is an interesting interpretation. Wanting to establish a dialogue is actually a counter-productive maneuver. Where exactly did you receive your diplomatic training?
This part of the Washington Post article was my favorite bit.
"The fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups."
It certainly can be. Agreeing to sit at the same table or even the same room has a way of elevating that short little Iranian to the same stature as our president. Did you not follow the N.Korean attempts to pull the same crap? The US has said it does not negotiate with terrorists. I can only guess what reaction the libs would have to Bush doing it.
as for the fax---did you notice it said "suggested everything was on the table"?
What do we want from Iran anyway and what do they want from us ? (and at what price? )
We did have dialogue with N. Korea. It seemed to work out a little better than pretending that they don't exist (instead of rousing speeches).
Yeah. I took that to mean that these things were up for discussion. I think that is the reasonable interpretation.
Silly me. I understand, you think because the article said "suggested" instead of "are definitely," it means in fact the opposite of what it purports to say. Shrewd.
First can I just say that I can't believe you are so stupid that you actually had to ask that question.
Things we could use from Iran:
1. Help (or at least non-interference) in Iraq
2. An agreement on their nuclear program
3. Cessation of funding for extremist islamic groups
Things Iran could use from us:
1. Security guarantees
2. Normalized trade relations with the world's biggest economy
3. Removal of international sanctions pertaining to (2) in category 1.
I can't believe you're so stupid that you even think these issues are up for negotiation.
I can't believe you're so stupid that you even think these issues are up for negotiation.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=294640]Move and Countermove: Ahmadinejad and Bush Duel
August 29, 2007 16 33 GMT
Dr. George FriedmanIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Aug. 28 that U.S. power in Iraq is rapidly being destroyed. Then he said that Iran, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, is ready to fill the vacuum. Ahmadinejad specifically reached out to Saudi Arabia, saying the Saudis and Iranians could collaborate in managing Iraq. Later in the day, U.S. President George W. Bush responded, saying, "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world." He specifically mentioned Iran and its threat of nuclear weapons.
On Aug. 27, we argued that, given the United States' limited ability to secure Iraq, the strategic goal must now shift from controlling Iraq to defending the Arabian Peninsula against any potential Iranian ambitions in that direction. "Whatever mistakes might have been made in the past, the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq would create a vacuum, which would rapidly be filled by Iran," we wrote.
Ahmadinejad's statements, made at a two-hour press conference, had nothing to do with what we wrote, nor did Bush's response. What these statements do show, though, is how rapidly the thinking in Tehran is evolving in response to Iranian perceptions of a pending U.S. withdrawal and a power vacuum in Iraq -- and how the Bush administration is shifting its focus from the Sunni threat to both the Sunni and Shiite threats.
The most important thing Ahmadinejad discussed at his press conference was not the power vacuum, but Saudi Arabia. He reached out to the Saudis, saying Iran and Saudi Arabia together could fill the vacuum in Iraq and stabilize the country. The subtext was that not only does Iran not pose a threat to Saudi Arabia, it would be prepared to enhance Saudi power by giving it a substantial role in a post-U.S. Iraq.
Iran is saying that Saudi Arabia does not need to defend itself against Iran, and it certainly does not need the United States to redeploy its forces along the Saudi-Iraqi border in order to defend itself. While dangling the carrot of participation in a post-war Iraq, Iran also is wielding a subtle stick. One of the reasons for al Qaeda's formation was the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. Radical Islamists in Saudi Arabia regarded the U.S. presence as sacrilege and the willingness of the Saudi regime to permit American troops to be there as blasphemous. After 9/11, the Saudis asked the United States to withdraw its forces, and following the Iraq invasion they fought a fairly intense battle against al Qaeda inside the kingdom. Having U.S. troops defend Saudi Arabia once again -- even if they were stationed outside its borders -- would inflame passions inside the kingdom, and potentially destabilize the regime.
The Saudis are in a difficult position. Since the Iranian Revolution, the Saudi relationship with Iran has ranged from extremely hostile to uneasy. It is not simply a Sunni and Shiite matter. Iran is more than just a theocracy. It arose from a very broad popular uprising against the shah. It linked the idea of a republic to Islam, combining a Western revolutionary tradition with Shiite political philosophy. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a monarchy that draws its authority from traditional clan and tribal structures and Wahhabi Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudis felt trapped between the pro-Soviet radicalism of the Iraqis and Syrians, and of the various factions of the Palestinian movement on the one side -- and the Islamic Republic in Iran on the other. Isolated, it had only the United States to depend on, and that dependency blew up in its face during the 1990-91 war in Kuwait.
But there also is a fundamental geopolitical problem. Saudi Arabia suffers from a usually fatal disease. It is extraordinarily rich and militarily weak. It has managed to survive and prosper by having foreign states such as the United Kingdom and the United States have a stake in its independence -- and guarantee that independence with their power. If it isn't going to rely on an outside power to protect it, and it has limited military resources of its own, then how will it protect itself against the Iranians? Iran, a country with a large military -- whose senior officers and noncoms were blooded in the Iran-Iraq war -- does not have a great military, merely a much larger and experienced one than the Saudis.
The Saudis have Iran's offer. The problem is that the offer cannot be guaranteed by Saudi power, but depends on Iran's willingness to honor it. Absent the United States, any collaboration with Iran would depend on Iran's will. And the Iranians are profoundly different from the Saudis and, more important, much poorer. Whatever their intentions might be today -- and who can tell what the Iranians intend? -- those intentions might change. If they did, it would leave Saudi Arabia at risk to Iranian power.
Saudi Arabia is caught between a rock and a hard place and it knows it. But there might be the beginnings of a solution in Turkey. Ahmadinejad's offer of collaboration was directed toward regional powers other than Iran. That includes Turkey. Turkey stayed clear of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, refusing to let U.S. troops invade Iraq from there. However, Turkey has some important interests in how the war in Iraq ends. First, it does not want to see any sort of Kurdish state, fearing Kurdish secessionism in Turkey as well. Second, it has an interest in oil in northern Iraq. Both interests could be served by a Turkish occupation of northern Iraq, under the guise of stabilizing Iraq along with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
When we say that Iran is now the dominant regional power, we also should say that is true unless we add Turkey to the mix. Turkey is certainly a military match for Iran, and more than an economic one. Turkey's economy is the 18th largest in the world -- larger than Saudi Arabia's -- and it is growing rapidly. In many ways, Iran needs a good relationship with Turkey, given its power and economy. If Turkey were to take an interest in Iraq, that could curb Iran's appetite. While Turkey could not defend Saudi Arabia, it certainly could threaten Iran's rear if it chose to move south. And with the threat of Turkish intervention, Iran would have to be very careful indeed.
But Turkey has been cautious in its regional involvements. It is not clear whether it will involve itself in Iraq beyond making certain that Kurdish independence does not go too far. Even if it were to move deeper into Iraq, it is not clear whether it would be prepared to fight Iran over Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Turkey does not want to deal with a powerful Iran -- and if the Iranians did take the Saudi oil fields, they would be more than a match for Turkey. Turkey's regime is very different from those in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but geopolitics make strange bedfellows. Iran could not resist a Turkish intervention in northern Iraq, nor could it be sure what Turkey would do if Iran turned south. That uncertainty might restrain Iran.
And that is the thin reed on which Saudi national security would rest if it rejected an American presence to its north. The United States could impose itself anyway, but being sandwiched between a hostile Iran and hostile Saudi Arabia would not be prudent, to say the least. Therefore, the Saudis could scuttle a U.S. blocking force if they wished. If the Saudis did this and joined the Iranian-led stabilization program in Iraq, they would then be forced to rely on a Turkish presence in northern Iraq to constrain any future Iranian designs on Arabia. That is not necessarily a safe bet as it assumes that the Turks would be interested in balancing Iran at a time when Russian power is returning to the Caucasus, Greek power is growing in the Balkans, and the Turkish economy is requiring ever more attention from Ankara. Put simply, Turkey has a lot of brands in the fire, and the Saudis betting on the Iranian brand having priority is a long shot.
The Iranian position is becoming more complex as Tehran tries to forge a post-war coalition to manage Iraq -- and to assure the coalition that Iran doesn't plan to swallow some of its members. The United States, in the meantime, appears to be trying to simplify its position, by once again focusing on the question of nuclear weapons.
Bush's speech followed this logic. First, according to Bush, the Iranians are now to be seen as a threat equal to the jihadists. In other words, the Iranian clerical regime and al Qaeda are equal threats. That is the reason the administration is signaling that the Iranian Republican Guards are to be named a terrorist group. A withdrawal from Iraq, therefore, would be turning Iraq over to Iran, and that, in turn, would transform the region. But rather than discussing the geopolitical questions we have been grappling with, Bush has focused on Iran's nuclear capability.
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, though we have consistently argued that Tehran does not expect to actually achieve a deliverable nuclear device. In the first place, that is because the process of building a device small enough and rugged enough to be useful is quite complex. There is quite a leap between testing a device and having a workable weapon. Also, and far more important, Iran fully expects the United States or Israel to destroy its nuclear facilities before a weapon is complete. The Iranians are using their nuclear program as a bargaining chip.
The problem is that the negotiations have ended. The prospect of Iran trading its nuclear program for U.S. concessions in Iraq has disappeared along with the negotiations. Bush, therefore, has emphasized that there is no reason for the United States to be restrained about the Iranian nuclear program. Iran might not be close to having a deliverable device, but the risk is too great to let it continue developing one. Therefore, the heart of Bush's speech was that withdrawing would vastly increase Iran's power, and an Iranian nuclear weapon would be catastrophic.
From this, one would think the United States is considering attacking Iran. Indeed, the French warning against such an attack indicates that Paris might have picked something up as well. Certainly, Washington is signaling that, given the situation in Iraq and Iran's assertion that it will be filling the vacuum, the United States is being forced to face the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.
There are two problems here. The first is the technical question of whether a conventional strike could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. We don't know the answer, but we do know that Iran has been aware of the probability of such an attack and is likely to have taken precautions, from creating uncertainty as to the location of sites to hardening them. The second problem is the more serious one.
Assume that the United States attacked and destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. The essential geopolitical problem would not change. The U.S. position in Iraq would remain extremely difficult, the three options we discussed Aug. 27 would remain in place, and in due course Iran would fill the vacuum left by the United States. The destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities would not address any of those problems.
Therefore, implicit in Bush's speech is the possibility of broader measures against Iran. These could include a broad air campaign against Iranian infrastructure -- military and economic -- and a blockade of its ports. The measures could not include ground troops because there are no substantial forces available and redeploying all the troops in Iraq to surge into Iran, logistical issues aside, would put 150,000 troops in a very large country.
The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran, but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however, Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests, military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
A blockade, however, also would be problematic. It is easy to prevent Iranian ships from moving in and out of port -- and, unlike Iraq, Iran has no simple options to divert its maritime energy trade to land routes -- but what would the United States do if a Russian, Chinese or French vessel sailed in? Would it seize it? Sink it? Obviously either is possible. But just how broad an array of enemies does the United States want to deal with at one time? And remember that, with ports sealed, Iran's land neighbors would have to participate in blocking the movement of goods. We doubt they would be that cooperative.
Finally, and most important, Iran has the ability to counter any U.S. moves. It has assets in Iraq that could surge U.S. casualties dramatically if ordered to do so. Iran also has terrorism capabilities that are not trivial. We would say that Iran's capabilities are substantially greater than al Qaeda's. Under a sustained air campaign, they would use them.
Bush's threat to strike nuclear weapons makes sense only in the context of a broader air and naval campaign against Iran. Leaving aside the domestic political ramifications and the international diplomatic blowback, the fundamental problem is that Iran is a very large country where a lot of targets would have to be hit. That would take many months to achieve, and during that time Iran would likely strike back in Iraq and perhaps in the United States as well. An air campaign would not bring Iran to its knees quickly, unless it was nuclear -- and we simply do not think the United States will break the nuclear taboo first.
The United States is also in a tough place. While it makes sense to make threats in response to Iranian threats -- to keep Tehran off balance -- the real task for the United States is to convince Saudi Arabia to stick to its belief that collaboration with Iran is too dangerous, and convince Turkey to follow its instincts in northern Iraq without collaborating with the Iranians. The Turks are not fools and will not simply play the American game, but the more active Turkey is, the more cautious Iran must be.
The latest statement from Ahmadinejad convinces us that Iran sees its opening. However, the United States, even if it is not bluffing about an attack against Iran, would find such an attack less effective than it might hope. In the end, even after an extended air campaign, it will come down to that. In the end, no matter how many moves are made, the United States is going to have to define a post-Iraq strategy and that strategy must focus on preventing Iran from threatening the Arabian Peninsula. Even after an extended air campaign, it will come down to that. In case of war, the only "safe" location for a U.S. land force to hedge against an Iranian move against the Arabian Peninsula would be Kuwait, a country lacking the strategic depth to serve as an effective counter.
Ahmadinejad has made his rhetorical move. Bush has responded. Now the regional diplomacy intensifies as the report from the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is prepared for presentation to Congress on Sept. 15.
