NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahmadinejad angrily abandons plans for UN visit
Sat Mar 24, 6:57 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has abandoned plans to address the UN Security Council ahead of a vote on fresh sanctions against Tehran, with Washington angrily accused of scuppering them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsunahmadinejad_070324105715
my2cents: I think the UN should directly issue Visas to Presidents and Diplomats.

The way it is today, BUSH gov decides who may, or may not come to the UN.

'Abandon' makes it seem like Ahmadinejad doesn't want to come.

Anyway, if I were him I would have just come regardless and applied for an emergency visa. I would think it highly unlikely that such a visa would be denied.

he has the visas.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said an initial 39 visas -- 13 for diplomats and 26 for security staff -- had been delivered in Bern. He said requests for another 33 visas for Iranian crew were still being examined.

"It was one of these incidents when they failed to fill out all the forms. But our folks in Bern are working as quickly as they can to make sure that those visas get issued within the confines of our host country obligations," he said.

so it's the extra 33 people that are missing theirs. and if all the forms are not filled out, considering that 39 were issued. the problem seems to be on their end.

Oh, I forgot where I am... It's always the USA's fault. :headbang:

'Abandon' makes it seem like Ahmadinejad doesn't want to come. why wouldn't he want to come :confused:

why wouldn't he want to come :confused:

Because he might have to answer some awkward questions like:

"Why are you kidnapping our marines?"
"Are you trying to provoke us?"
"Are you out of your tiny mind?"

Because he might have to answer some awkward questions like:

"Why are you kidnapping our marines?"
"Are you trying to provoke us?"
"Are you out of your tiny mind?"

Or maybe the UK might have to answer awkward questions like:
'What were you doing in our sovereign waters?'

Because he might have to answer some awkward questions your questions are more appropriate for Bush.

Or maybe the UK might have to answer awkward questions like:
'What were you doing in our sovereign waters?'

Actually that is in question:

The Britons were seized in an area where the boundaries of Iraqi and Iranian waters have long been disputed. A 1975 treaty set the center of the Shatt al-Arab - the 125-mile-long channel known in Iran as the Arvand River - as the border.

But Saddam Hussein canceled that treaty five years later and invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war. Virtually all of Iraq's oil is exported through an oil terminal near the mouth of the channel.

Iran and the new Iraqi government have not signed a new treaty on their sovereignty over the waterway.

http://www.kauz.com/news/local/6688402.html

Or maybe the UK might have to answer awkward questions like:
'What were you doing in our sovereign waters?'

We weren't in their sovereign waters, just like we weren't in their sovereign waters the last time they played this little stunt. :rolleyes:

We weren't in their sovereign waters, just like we weren't in their sovereign waters the last time they played this little stunt. :rolleyes:
Why not? It's a complex border in a disputed area. It's probably just a mistake or misunderstanding that will blow over by the end of the week.

Because he might have to answer some awkward questions like:

"Why are you kidnapping our marines?"
"Are you trying to provoke us?"
"Are you out of your tiny mind?"
How are these questions awkward to answer? Is the arabic word for yes particularly hard to pronounce or something?:p

How are these questions awkward to answer? Is the arabic word for yes particularly hard to pronounce or something?:p
Actually, it's the Farsi word for yes.:p

Yes, I am a pedant.

Why not? It's a complex border in a disputed area. It's probably just a mistake or misunderstanding that will blow over by the end of the week.

I doubt it's a mistake. The evidence so far suggests that they plan to use the fifteen British naval personnel as bargaining chips to secure the release of some Iranian commandos who were captured in Iraq recently.

How are these questions awkward to answer? Is the arabic word for yes particularly hard to pronounce or something?:p

LMAO!!! :p

Ahmadinejad angrily abandons plans for UN visit
Sat Mar 24, 6:57 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has abandoned plans to address the UN Security Council ahead of a vote on fresh sanctions against Tehran, with Washington angrily accused of scuppering them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsunahmadinejad_070324105715
my2cents: I think the UN should directly issue Visas to Presidents and Diplomats.

The way it is today, BUSH gov decides who may, or may not come to the UN.

I love how you did not post the full story. That's ok. Ahmadinejad is just pissed off that he is losing the debate in the United Nations.

Kudos to the US for approving the visas and working with them to get the others approved as well. I guess Ahmadinejad did not like the wait but then, it was his own nation's fault for that.

Or maybe the UK might have to answer awkward questions like:
'What were you doing in our sovereign waters?'

Has that been proven that 15 British sailors were in Iranian waters?

I doubt it's a mistake. The evidence so far suggests that they plan to use the fifteen British naval personnel as bargaining chips to secure the release of some Iranian commandos who were captured in Iraq recently.
If it were a case of confusion over the borde all it would have taken was a bloke with a loud hailer saying "oi, you've crossed over to our side of the border"
"Don't believe we have old chap"
"yes you have"
"Fair enough, we still don't think we have, but we'll go back and check with our ship"

You know, not a clearly prepared operation involving surrounding them with a flotilla of destroyers.

If it were a case of confusion over the borde all it would have taken was a bloke with a loud hailer saying "oi, you've crossed over to our side of the border"
"Don't believe we have old chap"
"yes you have"
"Fair enough, we still don't think we have, but we'll go back and check with our ship"

You know, not a clearly prepared operation involving surrounding them with a flotilla of destroyers.

Exactly. Not to mention that Iran's made several attempts recently to kidnap US and UK troops from Iraq, they've clearly been planning this for some time.

I doubt it's a mistake. The evidence so far suggests that they plan to use the fifteen British naval personnel as bargaining chips to secure the release of some Iranian commandos who were captured in Iraq recently.
There is no evidence for anything at the minute, unless you're privy to information from the UK/Iranian military.

Exactly. Not to mention that Iran's made several attempts recently to kidnap US and UK troops from Iraq, they've clearly been planning this for some time.
Any credible evidence for that? The most the Americans have accused Iran of is training insurgents, not kidnapping troops.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6260301.stm

There is no evidence for anything at the minute, unless you're privy to information from the UK/Iranian military.

Well, there's significant pressure on the Iranian government to secure the release of the five commandos in Iraq. There's also the recent attempt to capture a US patrol in Iraq (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm).

According to a U.S. Army report out of Iraq obtained by U.S. News, American troops, acting as advisers for Iraqi border guards, were recently surrounded and attacked by a larger unit of Iranian soldiers, well within the border of Iraq.

The report highlights the details: A platoon of Iranian soldiers on the Iraqi side of the border fired rocket-propelled grenades and used small arms against a joint patrol of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers east of Balad Ruz. Four Iraqi Army soldiers, one interpreter, and one Iraqi border policeman remain unaccounted for after the September incident in eastern Diyala, 75 miles east of Baghdad.

During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.

While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.

Exchanging prisoners is a common diplomatic gambit; if Iran want their soldiers back the best way for them to do it would be to capture some coalition troops. This is what they've done. There's also this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879162063&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) article in the Jerusalem Post:

The sailors, taken at gunpoint Friday by Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Al Quds soldiers were captured intentionally and are to be used as bargaining chips to be used for the release of five Iranians who were arrested at the Iranian consul in Irbil, Iraq by US troops, an Iranian official told the daily paper Asharq al-Awsat on Saturday.

In addition, a senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary Guards' operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

Wasn't that the reason that Israel went into Lebanon last summer because of a cross border attack to capture soldiers? To bad no one has the guts to attack Iran for doing the samething.

Well, there's significant pressure on the Iranian government to secure the release of the five commandos in Iraq. There's also the recent attempt to capture a US patrol in Iraq (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm).
And the report it links to specififies that the incident could have taken place in Iranian territory. As such, it is still inconclusive.

Q2. Was it on the Iraqi or Iranian side of the border?
A2. The exact location is part of the ongoing investigation into this incident. The road the unit
was traveling on was a trail used by Iraqi Army and Border Police in the past without incident.
We take border incursions by any force seriously and will thoroughly investigate this matter to
determine the specific location.
Q3. Did U.S. forces cross the border?
A3. The location and route of travel are part of the ongoing investigation into this incident. We
take border incursions by any force seriously and will thoroughly investigate this matter to
determine the specific location.

Exchanging prisoners is a common diplomatic gambit; if Iran want their soldiers back the best way for them to do it would be to capture some coalition troops. This is what they've done. There's also this (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879162063&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) article in the Jerusalem Post:
Of course the were intentionally captured. Did the Iranians accidentally take them to Tehran? If they were in Iranian waters, which they claim, they have every right to do so, and is, with regards to prisoner exchanges, an opportunity that fell right into their laps. Just because they intend to use them to bargain with the Americans does not prove Iranian wrongdoing. Until it can be proven where this incident took place, it is impossible to determine whether the Iranians are in the right or wrong.

Wasn't that the reason that Israel went into Lebanon last summer because of a cross border attack to capture soldiers? To bad no one has the guts to attack Iran for doing the samething.
One, we don't know Iran did the same thing, and two, nobody is stupid enough to do the same thing.

One, we don't know Iran did the same thing, and two, nobody is stupid enough to do the same thing.

That's because everyone knows the capabilities of Iran. Though if Iran does not cooperate, I say show them a messege that we mean serious business. Either that or send someone in there to talk to the REAL leaders of Iran.

Ahmadinejad angrily abandons plans for UN visit
Sat Mar 24, 6:57 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has abandoned plans to address the UN Security Council ahead of a vote on fresh sanctions against Tehran, with Washington angrily accused of scuppering them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070324/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsunahmadinejad_070324105715
my2cents: I think the UN should directly issue Visas to Presidents and Diplomats.

The way it is today, BUSH gov decides who may, or may not come to the UN.

That's not actually true. The US handles visas and passports FOR the UN, as part of the quid pro quo of having the UN in New York, but it's handled separately from visas to the US. The US never refuses visas to the UN - even people declared persona non grata in the US may come and go freely on a UN visa. I don't think it's unreasonable for the immigration service to ask for properly filled out forms, though.

I think Ahmadinejad is just playing games. The US gave out 75 visas well before the time needed to take the trip.

Since most votes at the UN are already known (that is, the results known due to behind the scenes talk), I think he knew the UN Security Council was going to vote unanimously no matter what bullshit he was going to spout, and he didn't want to be pwned by them on international television.

So he made up a bullshit reason not to show up.

And the report it links to specififies that the incident could have taken place in Iranian territory. As such, it is still inconclusive.

The evidence suggests that it took place on Iraqi territory as "the road the unit was travelling on was a trail used by Iraqi Army and Border Patrol in the past without incident". Yes, it's theoretically possible that the Iraqi millitary has been stupid enough to draw up a patrol route without checking a map to see if it ran through Iranian territory but it's hardly very likely. As the report specifies that they saw Iranians running across the border and that they encountered an Iranian on the Iraqi side of the border it seems obvious that they knew exactly where the border was and which side of it they were on.


Of course the were intentionally captured. Did the Iranians accidentally take them to Tehran? If they were in Iranian waters, which they claim, they have every right to do so, and is, with regards to prisoner exchanges, an opportunity that fell right into their laps. Just because they intend to use them to bargain with the Americans does not prove Iranian wrongdoing. Until it can be proven where this incident took place, it is impossible to determine whether the Iranians are in the right or wrong.

Given the context, it's pretty clear that 'intentional capture' means that the Iranians went out with the aim of capturing some UK sailors, rather than as a reaction to a border crossing.

Or maybe the UK might have to answer awkward questions like:
'What were you doing in our sovereign waters?'

A lot of reports are saying they were, in fact, in Iraqi waters. And anyway, they're being extrememly shifty about this. They won't release any details of their location, saying only they are being "interrogated, but in good health."

So is "Operation Iran Freedom" any closer to fruition?

Of course the were intentionally captured. Did the Iranians accidentally take them to Tehran? If they were in Iranian waters, which they claim, they have every right to do so, and is, with regards to prisoner exchanges, an opportunity that fell right into their laps. Just because they intend to use them to bargain with the Americans does not prove Iranian wrongdoing. Until it can be proven where this incident took place, it is impossible to determine whether the Iranians are in the right or wrong.
Why are you trying to put as favourable spin as you can on the Iranians' actions? You think it's reasonable even if the British had strayed onto the wrong side of a heavily disputed border, a border that of course isn't marked at all, to do what they have done. Just take them without warning, detain them indefinitely, and if it's anything like last time try to humilate them on TV and steal their equipment to parade as 'trophies of victory'. Those aren't the actions of a reasonable country, and you shouldn't defend them as such.

So is "Operation Iran Freedom" any closer to fruition?

Hopefully, you're not implying that George Bush made the Iranians go out and try to capture US troops inside Iraq (on one occasion), and caught UK personnel inside Iraqi waters and took them back to Iran.

I mean, who is the aggressor here?

Hopefully, you're not implying that George Bush made the Iranians go out and try to capture US troops inside Iraq (on one occasion), and caught UK personnel inside Iraqi waters and took them back to Iran.

I mean, who is the aggressor here?

No. I've been wondering for the last 2 years when Iran was going to be reduced to a crater in the Earth. Not because I want this to happen, but rather I suspect that this is going to happen.

Bah, as of today any sympathy I had towards Iran as dropped considerably.

Hopefully, you're not implying that George Bush made the Iranians go out and try to capture US troops inside Iraq (on one occasion), and caught UK personnel inside Iraqi waters and took them back to Iran.

I mean, who is the aggressor here?The issue of sovereignty over the waters that the soldiers were captured in is a tricky one. It annoys me that the Iranians felt they had to resort to capturing the soldiers in what they percieve as their territory, rather than escorting them out. What pisses me off is that they want to play political games and charge them with espionage. It reminds me of that part in Robinhood men in tights where Achoo is jumping from one side of the stream to the other. Had the soldiers really strayed that far into Iranian waters that they could make out all the details of Iran's nuclear facilities or what not? Bollocks.

I'm not willing to play along with the Iranian's games of inducing fear of a western invasion in their population.

Why are you trying to put as favourable spin as you can on the Iranians' actions? You think it's reasonable even if the British had strayed onto the wrong side of a heavily disputed border, a border that of course isn't marked at all, to do what they have done.
They have the right to do so. The American/British response to Iranian forces crossing into Iraq would be no different. There has so far been no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by either side, so it is foolish to suddenly jump to conclusions.

Just take them without warning, detain them indefinitely, and if it's anything like last time try to humilate them on TV and steal their equipment to parade as 'trophies of victory'. Those aren't the actions of a reasonable country, and you shouldn't defend them as such.
If they were in Iranian territory they have the right to take them without warning, and it should come to no surprise that the Iranians would do so considering the tensions in the region. They may well be being unreasonable, but that's not illegal. In any case, we're hardly ones to complain on the detention front, either.

Of course, it would be better (for everybody) if they had just deported these guys into Iraqi waters, but these days, playing politics is more important, it seems.

EDIT: And I'm not defending the Iranians' actions, I'm merely saying that it is too early to draw conclusions, and what they are doing is quite possibly legal.

The evidence suggests that it took place on Iraqi territory as "the road the unit was travelling on was a trail used by Iraqi Army and Border Patrol in the past without incident". Yes, it's theoretically possible that the Iraqi millitary has been stupid enough to draw up a patrol route without checking a map to see if it ran through Iranian territory but it's hardly very likely. As the report specifies that they saw Iranians running across the border and that they encountered an Iranian on the Iraqi side of the border it seems obvious that they knew exactly where the border was and which side of it they were on.
If they don't know where the incident took place, as the report says, you can't be sure who was crossing the border when. There simply isn't enough information to judge what happened when. The Iranians may well have been running operations on the Iraqi border - it wouldn't surprise me - but until there is clear evidence (perhaps when the inventigation the report mentions comes out) we can start judging the situation clearly.

Given the context, it's pretty clear that 'intentional capture' means that the Iranians went out with the aim of capturing some UK sailors, rather than as a reaction to a border crossing.
Or, it could just mean they intentionally took these guys back into Iran as opposed to doing what they should have done and sent them back to somewhere clearly Iraqi.

The issue of sovereignty over the waters that the soldiers were captured in is a tricky one. It annoys me that the Iranians felt they had to resort to capturing the soldiers in what they percieve as their territory, rather than escorting them out. What pisses me off is that they want to play political games and charge them with espionage. It reminds me of that part in Robinhood men in tights where Achoo is jumping from one side of the stream to the other. Had the soldiers really strayed that far into Iranian waters that they could make out all the details of Iran's nuclear facilities or what not? Bollocks.

I'm not willing to play along with the Iranian's games of inducing fear of a western invasion in their population.
And playing these games when two countries on your border have just been invaded is stupid at the very least.

They have the right to do so. The American/British response to Iranian forces crossing into Iraq would be no different. There has so far been no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by either side, so it is foolish to suddenly jump to conclusions.

I don't think I was jumping to conclusions. If I were I'd have resisted any thought that the Iranians were telling the truth. Instead I was pointing out that even if what they said was entirely true, they still behaved like the tin pot dictatorship they are.

And I find it very hard to believe that had the situations been reversed and the iranians had been mounting regular anti-smuggling patrols and the Royal Navy spotted two iranian boats on the wrong side of the border (if indeed they were in this case) that they would have done anything except chase them off. And they certainly wouldn't have gone in mob handed with a whole group of ships to cut them off to prevent them escaping back to their side.

If they were in Iranian territory they have the right to take them without warning, and it should come to no surprise that the Iranians would do so considering the tensions in the region. They may well be being unreasonable, but that's not illegal. In any case, we're hardly ones to complain on the detention front, either.

Of course, it would be better (for everybody) if they had just deported these guys into Iraqi waters, but these days, playing politics is more important, it seems.

EDIT: And I'm not defending the Iranians' actions, I'm merely saying that it is too early to draw conclusions, and what they are doing is quite possibly legal.
And the problem with that is we'll never know who was telling the truth. It'll always be a case of 'you say, we say'. We'll never be able to get any comeback from the Iranians' actions beacause they'll never be convinced with anything we put up as proof. Tht being so, we have just as much justification to assume our version of the story is correct and say, start sinking ships or what have you.

And the problem with that is we'll never know who was telling the truth. It'll always be a case of 'you say, we say'. We'll never be able to get any comeback from the Iranians' actions beacause they'll never be convinced with anything we put up as proof. Tht being so, we have just as much justification to assume our version of the story is correct and say, start sinking ships or what have you.
Neither side has put up any proof of anything, which is why I won't say one way or the other. All that has happened is the Navy calling it 'unjustified' to take them into Iran and the Iranians saying they were committing espionage in Iran, which is complete shit anyway.

I don't think I was jumping to conclusions. If I were I'd have resisted any thought that the Iranians were telling the truth. Instead I was pointing out that even if what they said was entirely true, they still behaved like the tin pot dictatorship they are.

And I find it very hard to believe that had the situations been reversed and the iranians had been mounting regular anti-smuggling patrols and the Royal Navy spotted two iranian boats on the wrong side of the border (if indeed they were in this case) that they would have done anything except chase them off. And they certainly wouldn't have gone in mob handed with a whole group of ships to cut them off to prevent them escaping back to their side.
I agree with you there.