Something You Won't See

Nimh--referring to your quote--
I think it looks especially bad in comparison with all that, to first beat one's chest about how magnanimous it was of America to "put aside [everything] and send assistance to those who made themselves our enemies",

I am getting tired of you assigning me emotions or behaviors incorrectly. I suppose it may be terribly disconcerting to hold tightly to views, and find them to be wrong--but that it no excuse to mischaracterize me. I never said it was magnanimous of the US to assist Iran. I said it was common decency. Either don't characterize me at all, or at least read back to ascertain whether or not the bias you feel is based on fact.

and then to respond to any reminder of what America did to them with some bland, guilt-erasing, "all have been crappy at one time or another". Basically, you came in here expecting liberals to apply some blatant double standards - and then demonstrated the biggest double standard of the thread, yourself. What we did is just history, **** happens, we've all done something - now what they did, that was really magnanimous of us to put aside.

Again, your entire tangent is based on something other than fact. You falsely attribute statements and motives to me. I do think if I were to begin to blithely throw around statements and such and attach your name--you wouldn't appreciate it.

My statement, with an addition for clarification--

This was not a history lesson. . As I said, I saw dlowan's, and your, attempt to get off the subject of US assistance and on to this stupid tangent, just another way to dodge something positive done by Bush.We did things to make us unpopular with Iran; and they did things to make themselves unpopular with us. Since they are the ones in need, we are the ones, who must overlook their behavior in deciding to help themAs I said, I saw dlowan's, and your, attempt to get off the subject of US assistance and on to this stupid tangent, just another way to dodge or minimize something positive done by Bush, by attacking the messenger on other points--

---------------
But, you really should stop short of making **** up.
This place will devolve quickly if we all follow your example.
<-- An emoticon to save me from your supernatural pronouncements of my mood, emotions and motivations during posts. If I can just find one to save me from being misquoted and mischaracterized.
<enjoyable jousting>

Nobody went off on a "stupid tangent" till you practiced your own revision of history.

What you posted was demonstratably false and you are just whining that others demonstrated it.

If you don't say "stupid" and false things people won't challenge them, thereby preventing the "stupid tangents" of your own creation.

I do not think nimh was making things up and Sofia is getting a little too touchy. Written posts are an ambivalent means of communication as all of the subsidiary information that comes with face to face communication (tone, body posture, facial expressions etc.) are absent. Thus we can read into posts intentions that are not there. I think you two are talking past one another.

It was not revisionist history, and to demonstrate it is wrong, you would have to show Iran never took any action against the US. I said nothing stupid or false.

The only one who has to consider whether they will or won't 'get over past insults' is the one being asked for help-- Whether the US made themselves an enemy of Iran is a moot point in this situation. We aren't asking for anything. However, Iran's actions toward the US could have been a deciding factor on whether or not we assisted them.

You are incorrect.

If dlowan or nimh or you think the business of the Shah escaped me, you were incorrect about that, as well--

Acquiunk--You don't think it is reason for consternation to have someone attribute words, motives and emotions incorrectly to you, and use their errors to make an argument against you? Think about it.

Of course it was revisionist history. You started the tangent with a demonstratably false post and then complained that the post was challenged.

In short, if you don't like "stupid tangents" don't start them. That one was your creation.

I was referring to this curious juxtaposition:

- on the context of what Iran did to the US:

Sofia: Let's hear it for the Compassionate Conservative, who put aside 1979 hostages, et al and sent assistance to those who made themselves our enemies...

- on the context of what the US did to Iran:

Sofia: We can almost always trace everything back to blame who we please. History seems to go back long time. All have been crappy at one time or another.

----



Reassured about that :wink:

Too much energy wasted by all, IMO, on this possibly intentional miscommunication...

If the issue was US/Shah/Iran, you can be sure it wouldn't have been dismissed in that manner.

At least two others in the thread had said we should put aside differences. What differences did they mean? Same ones I meant. I definitely don't wipe our responsibilities re: Iran from history, just from a major role in this thread.

I still find it hard to believe there were some who actually didn't think Bush would respond. Like he's some one dimensional non-human. And, when I see that, I'll say something--no matter the crap that ensues.

I don't find it hard to believe that some view Bush that way. Heck after all the hate that has been posted about Bush you shouldn't be surprised either. ;-)

But I agree that they shouldn't have been surprised.

Sending disaster relief is supposed to be a given. Even if Bush were a "non-human" he'd be foolish to impede aid.

American aid would have gone anyway, as many charitable institutions don't care a whit what the president wants.

America wasn't the only country sending aid and rescue teams either - Britain did (as always) and I am sure other European countries did

- it is easy to be parochial and see only what your own country does/wants and forget the wider picture

I don't think anyone forgot the global effort--we were just locked in the death grip of a stupid tangent. :wink:

BTW, the global effort and stories like nimh's article are the stuff of many smiles from this vector.

LOL! Sofia, I for one would have been quite happy to say well done Bush (though I do think that giving aid in such situations ought to be a given for both of our rich countries) - however, when you added your extremely myopic and US-righteous comment about Iran having made themselves your enemies, it was such a historical travesty that I was not just prepared to pass it by.

Again, although I believed your riposte was quite wilfully (or if not, blindly,) inaccurate, I was happy to let it lie - however, when it comes to stupid tangents, you were, in fact, the one who created it by your original silly comment.

"If dlowan or nimh or you think the business of the Shah escaped me, you were incorrect about that, as well--"

It sure looked that way....and calling it "the business of the Shah" when it was manifestly the business of the USA (and Britain) is, in my view, another sign that it it escapes you almost completely.

But, c'est la vie...

Mysteryman - I, for one, do not "hate" Bush. I think hatred is a stupid and unhelpful emotion.

Given that he is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth I wish for him that he makes good and rational decisions all the time. If I had any influence over the current American leadership I would be prepared to give them positive reinforcement every time they made such a decision - from chocky biscuits to good scotch - whatever floats their boats.

I know that politics in the US suffers from very deep divisions (which seem somewhat mysterious to an outsider such as myself) and there is a lot of name-calling and fruitless demonising. However, in your remarks you are doing exactly to the progressives on the site what you accuse them of doing to Bush et al. Did you notice that?

I for one am very happy to acknowledge when Bush does good things - not to do so would be stupid - and to see the world in ridiculous shades of black and white.

Today's New York Times:

Iran Turns Down American Offer of Relief Mission
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: January 3, 2004


WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 ? Iran has rebuffed an offer from the United States to send a delegation led by Senator Elizabeth Dole to assist in the distribution of relief supplies to earthquake victims in Bam, the Bush administration said Friday.

The offer had been seen by the administration as a gesture of American concern for Iran at a time when the United States has declared that some ? but not all ? of Iran's recent actions have been positive and could lead to a resumption of dialogue to improve relations.


Administration officials said Tehran cited the overwhelming difficulties facing relief workers in the ancient city of Bam in southeastern Iran as the reason it could not accommodate the American offer now. The officials did not rule out the possibility of a future visit, however.

"We have heard back today from the Iranians that, given the current situation in Bam and all that is going on there now, it would be preferable to hold such a visit in abeyance," said J. Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman. "Therefore, we are not pursuing it further at the moment."

Mr. Ereli said the message from Iran had been conveyed to James B. Cunningham, the deputy American representative to the United Nations, by the Iranian permanent representative at the United Nations, Dr. M. Javad Zarif.

Dr. Zarif could not be reached for comment.

Administration officials said the decision to make the offer to send Mrs. Dole, a former president of the American Red Cross, came after the senator suggested the idea herself.

A spokesman for Mrs. Dole, a North Carolina Republican, said that based on her experience overseeing relief deliveries from the Red Cross to Rwanda, Somalia and other disaster areas, she wanted both to assist operations in Iran and to report back to Congress.

The mere possibility of an exchange between Washington and Tehran, even on a nonpolitical subject, piqued the interest of diplomats and specialists who have been watching the twists and turns of American policies since President Bush labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil" two years ago.

The United States has repeatedly denounced Iran for what American officials say is an advanced nuclear weapons program and broad support for Hezbollah and other militant groups that have attacked Israelis, Americans and others.

On the other hand, the United States has recently praised Iran for its support of the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In October, the United States welcomed Iran's agreement to open its nuclear facilities to inspection, but considered as inadequate Tehran's decision to "suspend" its uranium enrichment operations, which Washington wants to see dismantled. Direct conversations between American and Iranian officials on Iraq and other subjects were held sporadically until May, when the United States suspended the talks after determining that a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia were carried out by groups based in Iranian territory.

From the beginning, there has been an internal debate over whether the administration should take a conciliatory approach to Iran or a confrontational one, including military pressure and interdiction of nuclear materials shipped to and from the country.

Mrs. Dole's spokesman said she broached the idea of a relief mission with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Monday and also with Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.

The offer to send Mrs. Dole was first disclosed Friday by The Washington Post.

In a statement issued Friday evening, Mrs. Dole said she had acted after seeing television reports of the "horrendous Iranian tragedy." She said she still hoped that "this humanitarian visit will be accepted by the Iranians because the American people are most willing to help."

An administration official said Mr. Bush had, at the same time, been discussing with his aides the possibility of making a stronger show of American concern, possibly by sending a high-level delegation that would include a member of his own family.

"It occurred to everyone to add A and B and get to C," said the official, referring to those two factors. "The administration was looking for a message saying that we care and wanted to help them in a moment of need."

No political intent aimed at signaling a change in administration policy was intended, the official said. Indeed, Mr. Bush on Thursday said Iran still had to rid itself of terrorists and nuclear weapons programs and to open its political system before relations could improve.

"Political motives should not be read into it," an administration official said, referring to the offer to send the delegation. "Nor do we read political motives in the fact that the Iranians said it's not a good time to do it."

There was even some debate in the administration about whether Iran had definitively shut the door on a visit to deal with the disaster, which struck last week and killed as many as 40,000 people. One official described Iran's reaction as a rejection but then corrected himself to say the trip was "in abeyance ? whatever that means."

The United States has ordered a temporary easing of trade restrictions on Iran to speed the flow of aid.

Like North Korea, another member of the "axis of evil" proclaimed by Mr. Bush, Iran has bedeviled the administration by what American officials regard as its erratic behavior ? occasionally supportive on some matters but unrepentant on backing Islamic militant organizations and on its nuclear ambitions.

By all accounts, the relief delegation envisioned by Mrs. Dole was not intended to serve as a vehicle to renew talks. But officials acknowledged that in such a situation, one small step could lead to another, and that before long the two sides could be talking again.

I can imagine the Iranians dont want to have to escort an American hotshot around when there's so much acute work to be done ... I mean, remember the security measures at Bush's visit in London? Dole is not Bush, but Iran is not London either - imagine something happening to her (terrorist-wise, for example), the **** Iran would be in ... and preventing any risk of that would take a lot of deployment that can now better be used otherwise.

Still, I think its great the US administration seems to be opening up new (and quite inventive) channels of communication with Iran. Such a far cry from the Axis of Evil rhetorics, or even that neocon appeal to the government just recently to clamp down harder on, amongst other countries, Iran. They seem to have come to their senses. A lot needs to be done to both support Khatami against the conservatives, and the democratic opposition against the lot - lessons can be taken from how reforming Soviet block countries were dealt with - and none of them include isolating the country or attacking it like it's a homogenous system of evil like Saddam's was. I hope the visit will take place a little while later, after all.

A change in policy, do you think - or even in just in rhetoric?

A colloquialism, perhaps you didn't adequately grasp. "The business of the Shah" translating to "events/info regarding the Shah". Possibly you knew this, and take some pleasure in intentionally distorting my words? The same thing which led to the stupid first tangent. Rather than nibbling all about the periphery, why don't we stay on topic?
----------------------
LOVED Bush's reponse to the opportunity with Iran. I wish they had allowed some higher up to visit. But, they did balk for a time on letting the first airship in... I guess things will have to move a bit more slowly for Iran's comfort--

Bush's rhetoric hasn't changed. Iran has made some changes in the direction of what Bush asked for. That has brought the thawing. It just seemed what happened in Bam may accelerate our response of closer ties.

It's no longer "evil"?

I am going to cook for my starving, no-cooking family. This is a great issue to research.

I shall make a statement I hope I can back up with links and sources upon my return:

"Bush's hard line approach toward Iran, and "object lesson" of Iraq has caused changes in Iran, favorable toward previous US hopes for stability in that country." ....making them "less evil"...

I shall return with my case.

'Evil' is a lot more transitive for you than it is for me.