Can't live w/ 'em, can't live w/o 'em. Iran & Syria, that is

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

So it's come to this :rolleyes: :mad: If they dealt w/ us they'd be making a proverbial "deal with the devil" (the great satan) :p

I always thought of Kofi as being very reasoned, slow to speak and kind of wise. He admits he made a lot of mistakes but, on the whole, I thought he was a decent guy. I think he was proven right over Iraq and came out far more intact and able to hold his head up than Blair - who sold out.

So it's come to this :rolleyes: :mad: If they dealt w/ us they'd be making a proverbial "deal with the devil" (the great satan) :p

I always thought of Kofi as being very reasoned, slow to speak and kind of wise. He admits he made a lot of mistakes but, on the whole, I thought he was a decent guy. I think he was proven right over Iraq and came out far more intact and able to hold his head up than Blair - who sold out.
some more info:
'Vigorous action'

Allegations of kickbacks and illegal trading under the oil-for-food program are being investigated by an independent committee headed by former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

In two interim reports, the committee has questioned the ethical conduct of the program's head, Benon Sevan, and the involvement of Mr Annan's son, Kojo Annan, in a company linked to the oil-for-food deals.

UK Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell said the UK took "vigorous actions" to ensure that the sanctions regime was not undermined.

Pointing to the criticism of the UN in the two interim reports, he added: "I think the UN has to learn those lessons.

"I know Kofi Annan wants to do that and we want to work with him to achieve it."

On Thursday a Texan, a Briton and a Bulgarian were indicted for bribery.

Texan David Chalmers Jr, Bulgarian Ludmil Dionissiev and British oil trader John Irving are accused of paying bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime.

more on the subject:

There's an Iranian comes to my house every so often. He's an art student and never mentions religion. We find him very polite and good company and, seeing as he lives over here, maybe he's not to keen on the religious rule back home.
It seems as if the Middle East is slipping towards war, especially between Shia and Sunni Moslems. As ever religion seems to be the main motivation. I think the Middle East would be far better off without it.

more on the subject:

So it's come to this :rolleyes: :mad: If they dealt w/ us they'd be making a proverbial "deal with the devil" (the great satan) :p

Fact is that both Iran and Syria are regional powers and thus any viable solution to the chaos caused by the American/British invasion since March 2003, will require the co-operation of both Syria and Iran - and Saudi Arabia.

I think the situation in that region is a lot more dangerous now than at any time in the past several centuries.

The ethnic and religious tensions that have existed in that region predate a modern history (ie.1918-2003).
Iraq was a "created country" by the Brits in the 1920's following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
The disparate groups, Shia, Sunni, Kurd that shared territory in Iraq, were subsumed in to the entity called Iraq and were copperfastened by a strongman regime.
I read recently that the Brits have over 400,000 troops in Iraq in 1920.

The vacuum that was created after the removal of Hussein has now created civil war (as many of us said it would).
Sunni and Shia are at each others throats.
Both sides fearing attack, have become more polarised and the traditional Sunni (S.Arabia) and Shia (Iran) powers, are now supporting each group in their fight for the upperhand in Iraq - which leads to further polarisation.

The American/Brit combo are impotent in the face of this.
The Sunni/Shia vortex has the potential to also detonate other regional tensions such as Kurd/Turkish enmity, if it comes to a landgrab in Iraq.
Unfortunately the average Iraqi is caught in the middle.

The lies told by Bush from April 2002-March 2003 and his illegal invasion of Iraq are being compounded by the daily list of causualties of Iraqi people.

There's an Iranian comes to my house every so often. He's an art student and never mentions religion. We find him very polite and good company and, seeing as he lives over here, maybe he's not to keen on the religious rule back home.
It seems as if the Middle East is slipping towards war, especially between Shia and Sunni Moslems. As ever religion seems to be the main motivation. I think the Middle East would be far better off without it.
Yes.I've had more than a few iranian freinds over here. Never asked them why they came over here but it seems obvious enough-freedom of thought, economic opportunity, ect...

Fact is that both Iran and Syria are regional powers and thus any viable solution to the chaos caused by the American/British invasion since March 2003, will require the co-operation of both Syria and Iran - and Saudi Arabia.

I think the situation in that region is a lot more dangerous now than at any time in the past several centuries.

The ethnic and religious tensions that have existed in that region predate a modern history (ie.1918-2003).
Iraq was a "created country" by the Brits in the 1920's following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
The disparate groups, Shia, Sunni, Kurd that shared territory in Iraq, were subsumed in to the entity called Iraq and were copperfastened by a strongman regime.
I read recently that the Brits have over 400,000 troops in Iraq in 1920.

The vacuum that was created after the removal of Hussein has now created civil war (as many of us said it would).
Sunni and Shia are at each others throats.
Both sides fearing attack, have become more polarised and the traditional Sunni (S.Arabia) and Shia (Iran) powers, are now supporting each group in their fight for the upperhand in Iraq - which leads to further polarisation.

The American/Brit combo are impotent in the face of this.
The Sunni/Shia vortex has the potential to also detonate other regional tensions such as Kurd/Turkish enmity, if it comes to a landgrab in Iraq.
Unfortunately the average Iraqi is caught in the middle.

The lies told by Bush from April 2002-March 2003 and his illegal invasion of Iraq are being compounded by the daily list of causualties of Iraqi people.
Which brings us back to the eternal question-post-invasion-Are the people able to live together w/o an autocratic/kleptomaniac of a dictator :confused: It is easy for us to sit back in our armchairs and judge how better off they may have been pre-invasion. Aside from the fact that SH & his spawn never suffered from 'want' despite the economic sanctions & despite the fact that young girls could walk down the street for days, months, even years w/o being picked up by SH's son's & then systematically...I won't get into the particulars. The fact remains that the middle east has been a breeding ground for terrorists in no small measure due to the existence of autocratic kleptocracies, such as Iraq-pre invasion, which breed disillusionment; a hallmark of rentier states. One way to combat this is to wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels. We are practically paying for the bullets that they are putting into their guns not to mention despoiling the atmosphere through the use of carbon-based fuels. It is immoral to not try to influence the events given one's ability to do so. The main problem has been strategic error's in planning and cooperation not to mention the endemic, religio/sectarian, intransigence witnessed of late. The main goal of giving the country to the Iraqi people seems logical by any standard. Their main enemy right now seems to be themselves (see above) & the minority alien formentor's brought in via Syria and funded, in no small measure by Iran whose President seriously questions that the holocaust ever took place :confused: You do make some very relevant/interesting historical points. I beleive that is one reason the U.K. is participating in this endeavour in that they have a responsibility due to their historical role they played in creating Iraq's boundaries (& setting up their initial government?)-as you indicated. It is interesting to note that the Bath party of which SH was an adherent, which also has a presence in Syria, was predicated upon socialism, no :confused:

The U.S. offers more freedom and democracy than Iran, although that doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't have some significant problems in this area. True, Bush has to work within democratic constraints that limits his ambitions but I think Kofi Annan was right to criticize the U.S. in his last speech.
The problem is neither the U.S. nor the U.K. can really call themselves democracies. You see that politicians make decisions at their own discretion and tend to ignore the needs and considerations of the populations they claim to represent.
To my mind, democracy is as it was meant to be - the sovereign rule of the demos or people. That means, real people participate to make decisions on national policy whereas in the U.S. these decisions are made by a priviliged elite, I think.

Yes.I've had more than a few iranian freinds over here. Never asked them why they came over here but it seems obvious enough-freedom of thought, economic opportunity, ect...

If I had my way, every American and U.K. student would be taught "democracy" at school so they understand what democracy is (and also how Bush hasn't really a clue what the concept is about).
It was championed by the ancient Athenians as an alternative to Oligarchy and Dictatorship.
Every Athenian citizen had a direct say in essential items of policy which included going to war which isn't the case in the U.S. or over here, for that matter. I mean we had several million people marching against the Iraq war yet Blair couldn't have cared less (so long as Bush snapped his fingers).
So much for the rule of the people.
Another thing about Athenian democracy was is emphasised people power - the "sovereign rule of the demos".
Consider that even in the USSR there was greater practice of that democratic principle than in the U.S. or U.K. since everybody was a member of the Communist Party which meant ordinary people could meet and have a say in how things were run. There was active popular participation in the political system within the USSR, for all its shortcomings.
Sadly, what I see over here is virtually zero popular involvement. We're governed by a remote body of elitists (headed by Blair - a professional conman) that's virtually unaccountable to the so-called electorate. Such people act only in the interests of large capitalist enterprises, oil companies and think-tanks and couldn't care less what the masses may or may not think.
The biggest joke has to be this John Prescot guy - the U.K.'s answer to Lenin - a supposed working-class hero. This guy actually has a house filled with servants, several posh cars and is known to amuse himself playing croquet in his gardens. :confused:
Could you imagine Nikita Krushchev engaging in such a lifestyle? :confused: I wonder what Mr K would have made of Prescot as a working class agitator?



Yes.I've had more than a few iranian freinds over here. Never asked them why they came over here but it seems obvious enough-freedom of thought, economic opportunity, ect...

I mean we had several million people marching against the Iraq war yet Blair couldn't have cared less (so long as Bush snapped his fingers).So much for the rule of the people.
Popular will does not equate to legitimacy Carrera. Case in point-Nazi Germany :rolleyes: Use your 'noggin :eek: Our, former . President Lincoln was loathed, in his time, by a great many people. How would you regard his policy decisions now :confused:

But Hitler was a dictator. Once he got into office nobody dared disagree with him openly.
The Greeks didn't have anything that resembled a leader in Athens. Any Athenian politician who became too popular could be removed (possibly by a private citizen). The idea was social interaction and meetings.
Hitler and Stalin were both "leaders" and it was they who made the decisions, not the German-speaking Jews or communists within the populus of Germany.

Popular will does not equate to legitimacy Carrera. Case in point-Nazi Germany :rolleyes: Use your 'noggin :eek: Our, former . President Lincoln was loathed, in his time, by a great many people. How would you regard his policy decisions now :confused:

Which brings us back to the eternal question-post-invasion-Are the people able to live together w/o an autocratic/kleptomaniac of a dictator :confused: It is easy for us to sit back in our armchairs and judge how better off they may have been pre-invasion. Aside from the fact that SH & his spawn never suffered from 'want' despite the economic sanctions & despite the fact that young girls could walk down the street for days, months, even years w/o being picked up by SH's son's & then systematically...I won't get into the particulars. The fact remains that the middle east has been a breeding ground for terrorists in no small measure due to the existence of autocratic kleptocracies, such as Iraq-pre invasion, which breed disillusionment; a hallmark of rentier states. One way to combat this is to wean ourselves off of our dependence on fossil fuels. We are practically paying for the bullets that they are putting into their guns not to mention despoiling the atmosphere through the use of carbon-based fuels. It is immoral to not try to influence the events given one's ability to do so. The main problem has been strategic error's in planning and cooperation not to mention the endemic, religio/sectarian, intransigence witnessed of late. The main goal of giving the country to the Iraqi people seems logical by any standard. Their main enemy right now seems to be themselves (see above) & the minority alien formentor's brought in via Syria and funded, in no small measure by Iran whose President seriously questions that the holocaust ever took place :confused: You do make some very relevant/interesting historical points. I beleive that is one reason the U.K. is participating in this endeavour in that they have a responsibility due to their historical role they played in creating Iraq's boundaries (& setting up their initial government?)-as you indicated. It is interesting to note that the Bath party of which SH was an adherent, which also has a presence in Syria, was predicated upon socialism, no :confused:


I hear what you're saying but...........

If you read the history of the Near East and the Middle East, since early 20th century, France/Germany/Britain and now latterly the USA, have all drawn/redrawn maps of practically every country in the Near/Middle East.

Saudi Arabia did not exist as an entity before 20th century - and the same applies to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, UAE.
Historically there were territories like Syria, Lebannon, Palestine and Iran (Persia).

Empirical powers throughout the 20th century have indirectly imposed "their solution" upon "them" (and you can select any of the countries which I have listed).
This cynical imposition causes resentment : take Saudi for example.
They have one of the most tryannical regimes anywhere on the planet.
Never is a word uttered by the current (or former) empirical powers about Saudi's human rights records, it's lack of democracy, it's treatment of women, it's treatment of foreigners. A blind eye is turned.
In fact truth be known, even though the Saudi royal family "engage" the empirical powers, ultimately they despise those same powers.

And if you're further down the supply chain in Saudi - where educated third level qualified men are unemployed - resentment toward the regime and the powers that support that same regime, do prevail.
Apply this to - Iraq (under Hussein), to Jordan, to UAE (with several handpicked Emirs) and you start to see that perhaps people may have a reason (as opposed to a justification) for deciding to strike back either at their oppressor and/or the country which assists that oppressor.

The empirical powers interest in that region was previously religion-based (Cruscades of the 11/12/13th century), the currency of their current interest
is now oil and this has been the case since the British installed the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emirs of UAE in the 1920's-1950's.

But Hitler was a dictator. Once he got into office nobody dared disagree with him openly.
The Greeks didn't have anything that resembled a leader in Athens. Any Athenian politician who became too popular could be removed (possibly by a private citizen). The idea was social interaction and meetings.
Hitler and Stalin were both "leaders" and it was they who made the decisions, not the German-speaking Jews or communists within the populus of Germany.
Alright then. Let's take suffrage. Women an minorities were not allowed to vote in my country & it was accepted up until the 20th cen.

I guess I'm expressing the view Athens was more of a democracy than most countries in Europe and the U.S. The only fault you could accuse Athens of was the fact women couldn't vote whatsoever.
Foreigners were also excluded a vote.
My point is that Bush and Blair tend to preach to other countries such as Cuba and Russia about democracy but don't themselves practise democracy.
In this country I can't see any real inclusion of the masses or representation for people who disagree with Blair's policies (such as going to war for oil e.t.c.). I mean, literally millions of people protested over that war and Blair totally ignored that view.
In fact, Blair is a "chronyist" for want of a better term. He has a habit of planting chronies and sympathisers in key positions so he can ride roughshod over any opposition.
The entire political system and foreign policy tends to gravitate over his relationship with the U.S. President like some kind of throwback to Andropov and Chernenko.

Alright then. Let's take suffrage. Women an minorities were not allowed to vote in my country & it was accepted up until the 20th cen.

I guess I'm expressing the view Athens was more of a democracy than most countries in Europe and the U.S. The only fault you could accuse Athens of was the fact women couldn't vote whatsoever.
Foreigners were also excluded a vote.
My point is that Bush and Blair tend to preach to other countries such as Cuba and Russia about democracy but don't themselves practise democracy.
In this country I can't see any real inclusion of the masses or representation for people who disagree with Blair's policies (such as going to war for oil e.t.c.). I mean, literally millions of people protested over that war and Blair totally ignored that view.
In fact, Blair is a "chronyist" for want of a better term. He has a habit of planting chronies and sympathisers in key positions so he can ride roughshod over any opposition.
The entire political system and foreign policy tends to gravitate over his relationship with the U.S. President like some kind of throwback to Andropov and Chernenko.
Maybe your country needs to make some government reforms so as to minimize this abuse of power as you say :confused:

The U.S. has its problems too. Maybe California has broken out of the anti-democratic trend under Schwarzennegger whom I notice has distanced himself from Bush and began to champion the environment.
Simply put, the thing about democracy is it's about governing from the bottom upwards and not from the top downwards. It's about lack of emphasis on personality cults and the average guy on the street having a say.
Now, does the average American really agree with Bush sending more troops to Iraq and now, apparently, sending forces out to Iranian waters to threaten the regime? Does the average American figure that maybe WW3 might not be worth the bloodshed, at this stage?
I don't notice Bush calling any referendum (or Blair for that matter).


Maybe your country needs to make some government reforms so as to minimize this abuse of power as you say :confused:

The U.S. has its problems too. Maybe California has broken out of the anti-democratic trend under Schwarzennegger whom I notice has distanced himself from Bush and began to champion the environment.
California has always been pro-environment. Arnold is simply pandering to the electorate like any self-respecting politician would do :rolleyes:
Simply put, the thing about democracy is it's about governing from the bottom upwards and not from the top downwards. It's about lack of emphasis on personality cults and the average guy on the street having a say.
Then why do you endlessly post on the goings-on of the likes of Madonna, Schwarzenegger etal :confused:
Now, does the average American really agree with Bush sending more troops to Iraq and now, apparently, sending forces out to Iranian waters to threaten the regime? Does the average American figure that maybe WW3 might not be worth the bloodshed, at this stage?
I don't notice Bush calling any referendum (or Blair for that matter).My country is a representative republic based on democratic principles, not a democracy :rolleyes: Additionally, strategic naval deployments may be out of your area of expertise. Thier presence, alone, sends a msg. irrespective of thier intent.