In interest of full disclosure, Barbara Amiel also dated Eric and even wanted to marry him. I’m glad he had the willpower to resist her siren call.
Conrad Black does seem to be intelligent and well spoken. He and Eric would probably agree on fiscal conservatism, but Conrad is typical British imperialist and neo-conservative supporter that Eric usually riles against. But I think it should be possible for reasonable people to disagree on something and still get along.
In an earlies Toronto sun article Eric mentions that a new version of his book is coming out this month. I wonder if it’s been published yet.
I also wonder who this Senator John Connolly is. He might be a Canadian senator, as I can’t find a record of his service in the US Senate.
Van
Posted by lore11 at March 26, 2007 12:53 PM
There existed once a Canadian senator named John Connolly. But, in the US, a former governor of Texas was called John Connelly.
Posted by theking01 at March 26, 2007 03:44 PM
Eric and Lord Black are both prominent Canadian (or ex-Canadian) conservatives, so I expect that they should be friends, and I admire Eric for standing by his friend. But, as someone much more sympathetic to the likes of Savonarola rather than the Medici, or the Jacobins (and Sans-Culottes) rather than Marie Antoinette, I easily admit regret that Lord Black is facing nothing like the justice of those bygone days.
The best I can say about capitalism is that there are two kinds of capitalist/businessman: those who build and those who destroy. Lord Black is a destroyer, a Mongol, a barbarian, notwithstanding his taste, learning, and fancy speech. He has always acted only as if “his” businesses were for his own sake, rather than the reverse. Selfishness, self-obsession, self-absorption are not always criminal, but may very well be in this case.
Posted by hyperbolus at March 26, 2007 07:31 PM
The sad irony of this entire mess is that if a certain newspaper articles are to be believed the criminal prosecution of Black probably cost the victims of what he is accused of far more than if they did absolutely nothing.
Criminal law is designed for situations where the perpetrator has little or no means of compensating the victim
ie: The perpetrator is Poor, or took way more than what could ever be repaid by the perpetrator.
or
What has been taken cannot be compensated monetary in terms
What Black is accused of certainly don’t fit this profile.
The board and shareholders of Hollinger in their zeal to stick it to Black they made themselves look worse for not catching it and stopping it.
Also for going along with the rather exotic Share structure where a party with a minority Equity stake in the company held the majority of the voting shares.
Posted by Allan at March 26, 2007 10:49 PM
bino, you really do need to learn to agree to disagree.
cant exactly shoot anyone over the internet :)
as far as the arguments go. only time will tell which one is right. fair enough?
Posted by _RealityBites_ at March 27, 2007 01:37 AM
Reality:
Bino? All he ever does is make a pipsqueak of a post after Eric has moved on to a new topic… some juvenile compulsion to have the last word. And that makes him a loser and not worth agreeing or disagreeing with. He is good for having fun with, however.
As for Conrad Black…. who the hell is this guy? I had never heard of him before this. But now that I’ve looked him up…. very interesting fellow.
That comment the French ambassador to UK made about Isreal… “shitty little country” (raised quite a stink with Yahoodistan)… that was made in a conversation with Black?
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 01:48 AM
Conrad Black is an ex-Canadian newspaper mogul who was knighted by the British, and has been embroiled in scandal ever since.
The article has nothing to do with Pakistan or Bino - please comment responsibly, Questioner.
Posted by Tovy at March 27, 2007 09:30 AM
Huh? How did this connected to Pakistan? Did I mention Pakistan? LOL
Tovey… your defence of Bino has made it so you’ve lost your sense of comprehension (if you ever had it in the first place, that is).
I was merely trying to tell Reality that his post mentioning Bino was superfluous.
But since you have brought him up… and as I dig deeper into this Conrad Black fella… it seems that Black and Bino have the same mental defects. Of course Black is rich and Bino isn’t… I’m talking about THIS mentality of being the servent of Yahoodistan “that shitty little country” (the poor fellow who said those words was posted to Africa):
——————————————
He has been described as a fanatical zionist by Lord Gilmour:
“Both he and his wife are almost fanatical, if under-informed, Zionists, whose credo is “My Israel right or wrong”, and who regard any criticism of that country as a demonstration of fierce anti-Israeli bias.
A decade ago, Black, to the great detriment of Israel, bought The Jerusalem Post and turned what had been a fine liberal Zionist paper into what a distinguished member of the British Jewish community called ‘one of the most rabid Jewish publications in the English language’.”
source: The Independent, 20 March 2001
Honest Reporting (the zionist media lobby created to prevent honest reporting) bestowed an award on him for publicly chastising one of his journalist who strayed from the Israeli line:
“Rarely does a major newspaper publisher publicly censure one of his prized writers. But last week [Feb 24 2001], media mogul Conrad Black heavily criticized Taki Theodoracopulos, a columnist at Black’s own British Spectator. Taki had condemned Israel for attacking “rock-throwing youth with armour-piercing missiles”… Black’s strong words sent ripples of fear through the ranks of anti-Israel journalists throughout the world. Black sits astride one of the world’s largest newspaper empires — the Hollinger Group — which includes The Spectator, Daily Telegraph of London, Chicago Sun-Times, Montreal Gazette, Jerusalem Post, and others. His newspaper holdings in Canada represent an estimated one-third of Canada’s entire daily circulation.”
source: Honest Reporting [15 March 2001]
——————————————-
Thank you Tovy for inspiring me to dig deeper into the life of this dirt-bag.
Servility to Yahoodistan is no guarantee of survival it seems. LOL.
More on Black:
———————
Another natural ally in this enterprise was Conrad Black, whose Daily Telegraph and The Spectator magazine are two of the most influential pro-Israel voices in Britain. He was Chairman of the Board of Directors of Hollinger Inc. which owns the right-wing Israeli Jerusalem Post which openly advocated the killing of Yasir Arafat in 2003. The leading Neo-con and pro-Israel hawk Richard Perle is also a top executive at Hollinger. Black’s wife Barbara Amiel is a famous right-wing Zionist columnist. Both are known for their unbridled support for Israel. Apparently as a reward for his contributions, Black has also been ennobled by the Blair government.27
————————
Richard Perle….
Now I understand.
——————-
By insinuating that those who criticise Israel are actually closet neo-Nazis, Black is effectively trying to suppress and muzzle justified criticism of a thoroughly brutal occupation, and to bully into submission any of his writers who disagree with him. In doing so he makes himself complicit in the continued enslavement of the Palestinian people, the on-going seizure of their land, and the systematic abuse of their human rights. To put himself in this position, while appearing to be speaking up against racism, seem to me to be beneath contempt.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/189.html
—————————-
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conrad_Black
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 11:00 AM
It seems that Black’s style of publishing news was the kind of advertising the Zionists didn’t need (even though he was on their side). And so off with his head.
This is what happens if you are more loyal than the king.
Tovy:
I still fail to see how any of this connected to Pakistan??? LOL
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 11:17 AM
No problem, Questionner - I guess your english isn’t as great as I thought it was. I said,
“Conrad Black is an ex-Canadian newspaper mogul who was knighted by the British, and has been embroiled in scandal ever since.
The article has nothing to do with Pakistan or Bino - please comment responsibly, Questioner.
Posted by Tovy at March 27, 2007 09:30 AM”
What I meant, and again, it is probably our language gap, was that this article has nothing to do with Pakistan, or Bino, so you don’t need to spam us this week.
Tovy
Posted by Tovy at March 27, 2007 12:24 PM
I am sure others will find my comments on Black to be relevant and on topic. Of course, the Yahoodi amongst us, might consider it spam. LOL. Too bad.
Thanks to Tovy from piquing my interest in Conrad Black and his rabid Zionism.
I feel quite confident to comment on this topic now.
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 12:48 PM
—- this article has nothing to do with Pakistan—-
We all know THAT… it is obvious to even a blind man this article as nothing whatsoever to do with Pakistan. So, Tovy, why did you mention Pakistan in the first place???
I have made like a million comments that have had nothing to do with Pakistan and on topics that have nothing to do with Pakistan… So with this.
Sometimes a Yahoodi lover has to take his lumps in public too. It is obvious some find the concept… disturbing.
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 12:55 PM
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050922/conrad_black_timeline_050922/20070312/
—————————
In late 2003, Black announced he would step down as CEO of Hollinger International.
The move followed findings of a special committee that Black and other senior Hollinger executives received $32.15 million in unauthorized payments.
Since then Black’s business empire has suffered a number of other problems, including a lawsuit suit accusing Black and chief operating officer David Radler of improperly diverting tens of millions of dollars from Hollinger International.
—————————
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 01:06 PM
Everyone knows rich people get a soft landing when it comes to white-collar crime. Eric sez, “RIGHT THIS WAY TO THE GUILLOTINE, LORD BLACK”.
What does that mean exactly in a practical sense? What is the worst they can do to this guy? Anyone know?
Posted by The Questioner at March 27, 2007 02:59 PM
Notice how zionist neocon Bingo has not posted yet. If the topic had been about EYE-ran, Azzrael or EYE-raq, he would have been the first to post. This topic is completely out of his league. His blood is boiling while he furiously continues to curse Margolis for not writing about about the EYE-ranian nuclear “crisis”. At some point he will of course no doubt also post a message, even in a discussion on a topic like this, if only just to start up yet another verbal web battle which he can not get enough of.
Posted by hedagem at March 27, 2007 10:16 PM
This is quite a misguided article and it is obviously unethical, unproffessional and disrespectful (to his readers) for Mr. Margolis to use his position as a journalist in order to defend his wealthy friend.
Either way, I’m not too sure that I am able to give a wealthy neo-conservative socialite the benefit of the doubt when it comes to corporate crime. How stupid would that be?
Posted by shu at March 27, 2007 11:56 PM
Im not too big on the courts and I am sure Mr. Margolis need not worry for Black; afterall, Mr. Black is an elite.
Moreover, I despise mob rule, but I despise capitalist Imperialists even more. It is difficult to think Mr. Black as being entirely innocent given the pattern of misconduct wherever he goes; from selling papers in high school to stealling attempted theft of 62 000 000 in pension funds from the working class.
I care not for a person that that cares not for people; however, I wish him no harm- merely a change of heart.
Posted by shu at March 28, 2007 12:32 AM
Hedagem:
His butt-buddy made a post. It is the same thing.
Shu:
I agree. It is unethical of Margolis to defend a white collar criminal just because he happens to be his pal.
There is an assumption… seen here:
———-somehow gulled a board made up of very smart people————
… that rich people are smart.
You don’t necessarily need to be smart to sit on a board of directors. I have known, seen, heard of, read about, pure morons in positions of power. It is quite common all over the world. Look at Chimpy.
The appearance of being smart comes with the money, true… but not the smarts themselves.
Black was a mediocre person, as seen from his student days (expelled from school for selling stolen exam papers), who had to turn to crime finally as all mediocre people eventually run out of options. He just couldn’t keep his hand out of the cookie jar specially with a harpy on his back.
Anyway… this is all a storm in a tea cup.
Posted by The Questioner at March 28, 2007 12:54 AM
Too bad the comments section of this board got taken over by 2nd world Pakistani Nationalism.
I like YOUR writing Mr. Margolis.
That’s about it.
Posted by Tovy at March 28, 2007 09:34 AM
Again Pakistani nationalism?
You just can’t understand this topic isn’t about Pakistan… can you? LOL
Too bad, too bad. And that’s about it.
Posted by The Questioner at March 28, 2007 10:04 AM
I see the standards on the message board still do not match the standards set by Mr.Margolis’ excellent commentaries.
It appears the idea that Bino is to blame for all this goes up in smoke when you see how his antagonists badger him even when he hasn’t posted. Rampart/Questioner contiues to drag this message board into the sewer with his determination to have the last word, the first word and every other word! Go start your own blog for goodness sake!
As the fuse appears lit and the implosion of this board seems inevitable, I just wanted to thank everyone for the memories.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at March 28, 2007 01:31 PM
In fairness, hedagem’s childish and repetitive antics are as telling an example of the coarsening of this board’s discourse as anything else. It seems that, regardless of what Eric may write, we can be assured that Hedagem will pipe in with the obvious “Bino has not posted yet” message laced with the usual obscenity and grade school antagonism.
Hopefully, the board will survive this childish behavior. While I hope it does, I can certainly understand why it might not.
Posted by chatman at March 28, 2007 01:38 PM
Chatman’s command of the English language is exceptional. I want to fellate him.
Posted by hedagem at March 28, 2007 03:51 PM
paul whiteside! again, you nailed it!
As for Conrad Black, it seems like he did pocket a lot of money not intended for him. Why else did David Radler plead guilty? When Eric Margolis defends Conrad Black by saying that “there are far more subtle ways to…” (move the money) Eric is denying the most obvious factor, Black’s ego.
An enormous ego, like Conrad Black’s, could never comprehend that he’s doing anything wrong, therefore, he’s got nothing to hide. That’s why nothing was hidden. Such mistakes of ego are common even among “common” criminals. The more elevated a person feels they are, the less they feel they’ll ever have to answer to anybody for anything.
Black may well be exonerated but the stink will linger on. Eric does make a good point though, it’s one thing to try a man for a crime he may or may not have committed. It’s another thing to declare him guilty simply because his spends more on dinner than we spend on a car. Theft breaks one of the Ten Commandments, but isn’t envy one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
Jesus:
“Let anyone who is free of sin, cast the first stone. klunk Mom, sometimes you piss me off.”
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at March 28, 2007 04:04 PM
Paul, as for the undesirables that post here, I suggest you read who is posting before you read the post. It saves me a lot of time and aggravation.
Unless you like to be aggravated! If so, watch “Outfoxed” or “Operation: Dreamland” or “The Corporation” or “Who Killed the Electric Car?” or “Darwin’s Nightmare” or…
Those’ll give you First Class Aggravation!
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at March 28, 2007 04:20 PM
This board is but a microcosm of this world we live in. Without any undue disrespect to any of the posters here I hope that we get on with the business of posting our respective thoughts and stop worrying about the demise or implosion of this board on account of postings that effect our sensibilities.
Every poster along with Bino has a right to their thoughts however vile they may be.
It would be nice to have a very sanitized board but, alas that would not mirror reality the way it is in this world.
I implore all those who object to the quality of posts here to redouble their efforts in making submissions of quality as well as in quantity and bring the standard up rather than prematurely throwing “in” the proverbial towel.
Posted by oldfan at March 28, 2007 05:30 PM
Well written Oldfan! I shall keep yours and DCanuck’s advice in mind.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at March 28, 2007 10:09 PM
On the contrary, I find The Questioner’s posts this week much better than usual, perhaps his best ever. I wish Bino would investigate Israel as well as The Questioner has investigated Lord Black.
I realize that, despite Eric’s invitation, I shouldn’t have compared Lord Black to the Medici or Marie Antoinette. She was a Hapsburg princess and queen of France, and a few of the Medici were popes, back when being pope really mattered (i.e. when the pope had an army). Lord Black bought his puny lordship and merely (infamously) dressed up as a cardinal for a costume party. The Medici sponsored some of the greatest artists of all time, and even Marie Antoinette, I believe, sponsored Gluck—though I think she (unforgivably, but unsurprisingly) missed the boat on Mozart. What has Lord Black sponsored? His book on FDR?
I don’t mean to sound ungrateful, but I would have preferred Eric to write this week about something/someone more significant, like the Iranian capture of British sailors. Or, even better, the Egyptian spy being tried (in Egypt) for spying in Canada on behalf of Israel, and why the Canadian government and media have all but ignored the story. I would love to see a column from Eric about this, with background on all the (numerous) other incidents of Israeli spying in/against Canada and the U.S.
Posted by hyperbolus at March 28, 2007 10:13 PM
As I recall, Black willfully forfeit his Canadian citizenship to enter the House of Lords. I’m sure that he wishes he had it back so that he could serve his time a well furnished Canadian institution.
Posted by thePond at March 28, 2007 10:21 PM
I don’t know a whole lot about Lord Black, but he was in Toronto last night wining and dining:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/197264
And for hyperbolis, as a gesture of goodwill I took a break from violently jerking it to provide you with an article from today’s Toronto Star about Mohamed el-Attar, the man accused of spying for Israel:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/197229
If you google.ca his name, you’ll see that every single major news outlet in the country is covering it. Perhaps not enough for your liking, but it isn’t being “ignored”:
Posted by Bino at March 29, 2007 08:49 AM
Eric’s articles about Pakis, Hindus and French revolution are boring. He should write about EYE-ran, Azzrael or EYE-raq or Afghanistan; something juicy that can really let me and zionist Bingo engage in a good dog fight.
Posted by hedagem at March 29, 2007 09:21 AM
Easy tiger… you’ll get your wish soon enough. Seen the news?
Posted by The Questioner at March 29, 2007 10:14 AM
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations protected Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network before September 11;
The highest levels of the US government were complicit in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;
Many of the named 9/11 ‘suicide hijackers’ are still alive and the real culprits have never been officially identified;
British MI5 have infiltrated the IRA and are carrying out terrorist attacks to maintain a divided Ireland;
Chaos mongers are arming tyrants worldwide as a pretext for endless war and empire building;
A despotic New World Order is being constructed, how it threatens us all and what we can do to stop it.
USSAMA WHO???
Posted by hedagem at March 29, 2007 11:08 AM
LOL.
Posted by Bino at March 29, 2007 11:09 AM
Questioner - thought you might be amused at this:
Pakistan’s $4.2 Billion “Blank Check” for US Military Aid
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032907O.shtml
In the three years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, US military aid to Pakistan soared to $4.2 billion, compared to $9.1 million in the three years before the attacks - a 45,000 percent increase - boosting Pakistan to the top tier of countries receiving this type of funding. More than half of the new money was provided through a post-9/11 Defense Department program - Coalition Support Funds - not closely tracked by Congress.
Posted by shazam at March 29, 2007 11:36 AM
Right on shu. And D Canuck. And, as ever, Oldfan.
Why toady up to a big fart of a criminal like Black? Don’t worry Eric, justice will be done. His neocon tart of a wife is likely complicit in some of his shady dealings too - sorry to break it to you. Black’s folly is a wicked sense of entitlement and arrogance. May the many occasions where he could have benefitted mankind (rather than himself) come back and bite him on the butt and may he never recoup his Canadian citizenship.
Lord Black of a British railway station. What a pompous ass. If this “press baron” (note the medievil term, an epoch he covets) had an ounce of compassion for the ordinary man he might be worthy of pity rather than contempt.
Posted by shazam at March 29, 2007 11:51 AM
So, Bino, you were thinking of me while you were “violently jerking it”? Should I be flattered or repulsed? Were tweezers and a microscope involved? Check that: I don’t want to know.
There’s no doubt though that the Asper-owned media at least or especially has been less than comprehensive in their coverage.
But ain’t it grand that the spy has been accused of being a homosexual, converting to Christianity, and spying for Israel? Three strikes and he’s out!
As for the Star story about the Toronto meeting of the Canadian local branch of the Elders of Zion, I wonder: was a Christian baby sacrificed, and did it end in an orgy or a key party?
Posted by hyperbolus at March 29, 2007 06:34 PM
hyper - that was a reference to many hegadem posts stating that was how I occupied my time. The whole “tweezers and a microscope” line was a nice shout out the the fourth grade.
The rest of your post seems rather unhinged.
Posted by Bino at March 29, 2007 07:59 PM
——-The whole “tweezers and a microscope” line was a nice shout out the the fourth grade.———-
Maybe… but it was funny as hell.
Shazam:
——thought you might be amused at this—-
US is not known as Uncle Santa for nothing.
One must milk while the milking is good.
Posted by The Questioner at March 30, 2007 03:28 AM
Re: “Maybe…but it was funny as hell.”
Thank you for proving my point.
Posted by Bino at March 30, 2007 09:41 AM
You’re welcome, Tweezer Boy.
Posted by The Questioner at March 30, 2007 10:48 AM
Unhinged…like Bino’s violently shaken tweezers?
Posted by hyperbolus at March 30, 2007 05:22 PM
Eric’s next article will be about EYE-ran and the capture of the British soldiers. Zionist neocon Bingo is already shaking with excitement.
Posted by hedagem at March 30, 2007 08:47 PM
Hedagem:
Apparently, you’re a little excited about it yourself. What is your unnatural obsession with Bino all about anyway?
The quality of discourse on this blog has really reached an all time low. One would think everyone here was rejected from elementary school for being overly vindictive.
Posted by chatman at March 30, 2007 10:16 PM
Hyperbolus:
—-Bino’s violently shaken tweezers?——
Tweezers should never be shaken. That’s how people lose an eye. Though this guy will probably lose something else.
Chatman:
The grade school small talk is only because we have nothing left to say about Conrad Black and his hussy.
I googled for pics of this lady… not my type, thank God. Otherwise I have been known to forgive much nonsense if the girl happens to be attractive.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1296236,00.html
————————
The extent to which Amiel, rightwing thinker, columnist, beauty and society hostess, is claimed to have benefited from the alleged wholesale looting of Hollinger International’s finances was set out this week in a 500-page report by a special committee established to investigate the affair.
One of the reasons the money was needed, the report said, was to “satisfy the liquidity needs arising for the personal lifestyle Black and his wife had chosen to lead”.
These choices included the purchase or lease of two corporate jets, a $530,000 (£295,000) holiday in French Polynesia, a $2,463 handbag, exercise equipment at $2,083, opera tickets for $2,785, a “birthday party for Barbara” at New York’s La Grenouille restaurant costing $42,870, contributions to the salaries of a chef, senior butler, guard and chauffeurs at their homes in London, New York and Florida, perfume, food, shopping trips for Amiel and cash for tips on such shopping trips.
———————-
Posted by The Questioner at March 31, 2007 12:09 AM
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Vanunu.txt
Posted by Weary at March 31, 2007 03:55 PM
Weary:
The link you posted took us back to 2004 and the Vanunu story and his ordeal in that beacon of democracy and justice on planet earth.
A good read nevertheless although I feel you intended and meant to actually post this story;
Headagem has been waiting in anticipation to engage with …., hoping that EM will be following with a similar story line next week.
Stay tuned for the fireworks folks.
Posted by oldfan at March 31, 2007 06:22 PM
Questioner:
You might be on to something there. I have to admit that Eric’s ordinarily intriguing choice in topics has been somewhat less interesting this week; I really could care less about a wealthy pro-Israeli capitalist being put on trial for some corporate malfeasance for which there is likely some corroborating evidence. I can’t imagine it’s gotten all that easy to secure a grand jury indictment in a place like Chicago against a person like Black. We shall see I guess, but I suppose I could care less either way.
Oldfan:
Either the Iranians are incredibly smart or incredibly foolish; I can’t tell which it is at the moment. Presumably, their forces have already engaged American troops in at least one border skirmish that left at least one Iranian soldier dead. Goodness knows which side of the border it was on, but given the tensions between the two, and Bush’s very real desire to go to war with the Iranians, I can only imagine that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are far closer to realization than anyone imagines; it would be interesting if seismometers in central Asia pick up murmurs from test blasts in a few weeks.
Otherwise, they are playing a pretty dangerous game of mouse against a very belligerent cat; one that is clearly hungry.
While I have little doubt that the Iranians could give us no end of grief if open war were to break out, I also have little doubt that our forces would shed a great deal of blood in pursuit of saving Bush’s party from war weariness. Bush is looking for pretext, and a seizure of American soldier, or some defensive / offensive action against American troops operating in areas where borders are disputed or fuzzy, would provide Bush with all the ammunition he needs to convince a credulous American public that we need yet another war…
Seems like we’ve got two crazy presidents on our hands.
Posted by chatman at March 31, 2007 08:07 PM
If Iranian sailors had been caught in British waters or in international waters near Britain, would the international community of idiots still have shown their UNCONDITIONAL support for Iran? No.
If Iranian sailors had been caught in British waters or in international waters near Britain, would Britain have accepted Iranian demands to have the sailors returned to Iran? No.
The Powerful Make The Rules.
Posted by hedagem at March 31, 2007 08:36 PM
Hedagem;
I don’t know what the English would have done, but I somehow doubt they would have forced confessions and letters out of them to bolster public support for incompetent government. While I am generally a supporter of Iran’s right to protect its interests, through nuclear weapons or otherwise), the simple truth of the matter is that Iran is perilously close to a conflagration in which they stand to lose quite a bit.
While I certainly don’t argue that the Iranian government curl up into a ball and wither, I also contend that making a mountain out of this particular molehill (an incursion into disputed waters by 15 sailors in inflatable dinghies), and using them to buttress political solidarity behind what is widely known to be a domestically incompetent government, is hardly sound policy.
From an international perspective, they would be better served by returning the sailors safe and sound, hence distinguishing themselves from the war-mongering Americans who long ago abandoned the proscriptions of the Geneva conventions for secret prisons, Guantanamo, executively authorized torture, and Abu Ghraib.
Were the Iranians to seize and then promptly restore the prisoners to Britain and either “forgive” the Brits for their mistake, instead of flexing their muscles at the foreign bogeyman for political benefit at home, they would look a lot more graceful than we do today. And that could only help them in the diplomatic (and possibly military) challenges that lie ahead.
Posted by chatman at March 31, 2007 09:24 PM
The Iranian government is not interested in trying to win any friends; particulalry with the British/American public.
This is clearly an issue of sovereignty. They understand (only too well) that giving in to international (a euphemism for ‘Western’ powers) pressure only weakens their sovereignty.
This is, of course, unfortunate for the British soldiers.
Posted by Joshua at April 1, 2007 05:03 AM
We should not underestimate the kind of engagement that would ensue in a conflict with Iran. Right from the start world oil prices would break previous records. Being that the US economy is heavily dependent on oil, such events would be disastrous for an already slowing economy. Secondly, any military engagement of Iran would require more than an aerial attack that was played out in Iraq. The geography is 4 times larger than Iraq, and unlike Iraq the topography is mountainous. The cache of cruise missiles would run out sooner than they did in the Iraq campaign. Now for the Gulf itself, every US ship would be a target of mobile Iranian launch vehicles compliments of Russian technology coupled with the Iranian water rocket torpedoes. 120 000 US soldiers in Iraq would also become fair game. What would be quite remarkable to witness would be the sudden reconciliation amongst the Sunni and Shia to engage their common enemy, the US. Conflict of this magnitude would not be a simple matter but would play right into the hands of two fanatics of equal caliber, Bush and Ahmadenijad. May God and Allah help us all
Posted by Frank at April 1, 2007 04:09 PM
Frank:
While I have little doubt that a war with Iran would have catastrophic consequences for the U.S economically, the Iranians face massive human and economic costs that their American counterparts don’t share. In the end, American forces can do more damage to Iran than Iran can do to us. Even if they could liquidate our forces in Iraq, we could drop enough bombs and incendiaries on Iran to make life for the average Iranian absolutely perilous. By contrast, we in America might perceive the peril through the pump, and start actually “compromising,” (which for us means buying a Prius instead of an Escalade, and maybe eating less meat because it costs more to produce and ship). Some military families will fear for their loved ones, but for the most part, life will go on, and be more expensive.
The Iranians, on the other hand, will wonder whether their kids are going to come back from school or not, whether their adolescent sons (most of whom participate in compulsory military service) will come home for holidays, or whether they can go to market without having a JDAM take out the entire block.
War would be bad for us, but worse for them. No one in good conscience should be interested in fighting a war with us at this point, as our military (buttressed by airpower whose accuracy is greatly overstated) operates with only a passing respect for civilian life. This is, after all, the same country that turned the idea of bombing a city packed with civilians into a marketing slogan (“Shock and Awe”). If Ahmadinejad gives a rat’s behind about the welfare of his people, he would be well advised to find a compromise between overt supplication to American demands, and unnecessary and largely unjustified chest-thumping.
The Americans are weakened, but have enough technology and firepower to spill a great deal of Persian blood; Ahmadinejad should not invite this needlessly. He has to know that Bush has no problem sacrificing both American and Iranian lives for the sake of his party, popularity, legacy, or his corporate friends. He’s an armchair warrior in search of a pretext. Further, there are many companies in this country that profit most when America is at war, the taxpayer be damned.
Ahmadinejad should realize this… and the catastrophic consequences upon his own nation in giving Bush his pretext. He could play this thing out intelligently and outflank us diplomatically, or take the bait and give Bush the reasons he needs slaughter Persians en masse. Given the options, Ahmadinejad’s regime seems to be erring on the side of the latter option. Again, the only way that the behavior of his regime in recent days (the British sailor incident) could be perceived as rational, given the current incendiary climate, is if Iran already perceives itself as a nuclear state. The objective accuracy of that perception will inform whether the Americans would be willing to escalate into a full blown war over a similar Iranian capture of American soldiers or sailors.
For Iran’s sake, I hope their test detonations happen soon. Otherwise, the bombs exploding in Persia may be dropped on them by someone else.
Posted by chatman at April 1, 2007 08:39 PM
I hope for everyone’s sake, that war is avoided between Iran and the US. The US will invent a pretext for war as they always have.
It is easy to see the media has been doing its part in constructing Iran as an ‘evil enemy’ that the public needs to embrace in order to approve of a war.
Really this is about power and control; as it always has been. The US will always need an enemy; it is what defines America as an entity; a evil and barbarous enemy is the central symbol of the mythology of America.
People like Strauss and Huntington have contributed so much to the construction of the America that requires a constant threat; grave and immanent danger around every corner to thrive.
Iran is no more of a threat to me than America is; perhaps less so.
Who threatens the existence of First Nations peoples more- Iran or Canada? Every goddamn problem is a result of the ongoing colonialism and imperialism in this world.
Iran is the product of British and, later, American imperialism (and others long before that).
There are democracy movements in and outside Iran, but they wont be supported by the US; the US only supports those who keeps wealth flowing in the right direction whether despot or dictator.
This isn’t about nukes and its not about democracy; its about geopolitical control (which is exasperated if Iran has nukes; besides, they have allies that have nukes.
War is wrong; you cant bring democracy and abstracts like ‘freedom’ with bombs.
I hope everyone out there has enough conscious to start organizing, protesting, and campaigning to make certain, that such a war is absolutely intolerable, unjust, and criminal.
Posted by Joshua at April 1, 2007 11:55 PM
Joshua:
—- “Iran is no more of a threat to me than America is; perhaps less so.”
Certainly less so… this is a truism really. That’s the whole point really. We Americans are wealthy and belligerent. Our commercial and public infrastructure has become intertwined most curiously; one of the most inefficient and costly activities a state can engage in (war) has been incentivized, because the people in power have financial interest in the companies that profit from war. That makes America the most dangerous countries in the world today. Far more dangerous, I might add, than Iran.
Iran is governed (at least in part) by another nutcase who uses the same tricks our president does; mask domestic incompetence under a shroud of nationalism and international name-calling. His latest bout of resistance, which involves the needless extended detention and exacting of forced confessions from British prisoners, is not making his nation any wealthier or safer. I imagine, however, that at least some select people in the Iranian government or military apparatus may be getting richer when the British foreign ministry finally pays the “under the table” costs of setting those 15 people free.
But the stakes are higher for the Iranians than it is for us. That’s all I am saying. I’m not comparing who’s more dangerous, because that’s really a foregone conclusion. If the Iranians have nukes, I say more power to them. But if they don’t this most recent course of action seems downright foolish, and very very risky. George Jr. is just looking for a reason to start “Shock and Awe II” for the benefit of Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Halliburton, and to the detriment of the men and women of the armed services, and the American taxpayer.
It’s possible that the Iranians are further along than we think in terms of their nuclear program. If not, they are playing with fire.
Posted by chatman at April 2, 2007 02:16 AM
USA + Britain + Israel = Axis of Evil
Posted by Rabbi Shalom Moshe Binovitz at April 5, 2007 05:17 PM
nice defense of a friend. Hardly a balanced article. Nice to compare the US prosecutors to the Russian secret police in Afghanistan. That one made me laugh. I guess the next article will compare Conrad to Robin Hood when he is really a pompous and arrogant aristocrat who got caught and will be hung on his own petard.
Posted by bgbuss at May 12, 2007 08:17 AM