You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

An Iran Puzzle-- [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 10:50 PM
Original message
An Iran Puzzle--
Advertisements [?]
Things at which I, a puzzler--puzzle.

I'm talking about Iran, and I think I do so because of a snippet of a thing I can't corroborate except by re-postings of the same:

The "absurd Condi Rice" issue is the one about which I, the conspiracy theorist and would-be wonky-blogger, am concerned. To just highlight the snippet that strikes me:

Point 1 of the Accords states: "The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs."

Yet, according to the rumor passed to me in St. Petersburg, when Secretary of State Rice was asked about Point 1, she denied that it was legally binding on the United States, because it was agreed to "under duress."

Although I have not been able to verify the truthfulness of this rumor, it does fit well with Ms. Rice's penchant for politically expedient revisionism. Moreover, if true, it's something to keep in mind whenever you read that President Bush's decision to follow the path of diplomacy, through his Secretary of State, is finally the voice of reason prevailing over obnoxious Cheney's mongering for war.

Not only can Uhler not verify the truthfulness of this thing, I can't either. And I am a dedicated, stupid Googler--I love me some search engines. So here is the deal: I think, if we do not know ahead of time that this is the position of one Dr. Rice, we pre-emptively (because pre-emptive is okay, okay? way to look at an argument, if not a war) examine whether a position so taken could even possibly be useful or correct.

A little background for the youthful may be in order--I was a 1st-grader when the hostage crisis happened--so you know two things about me, the first being I did not know what was going on then, but it did influence my world-view--the second is, that once I knew my world-view was influenced--I needed to know why. This is why my own particular version of being a conspiracy theorist hinges on things regarding the "October Surprise"-it was the exact time I became aware of politics.

So what even was the backstory of the Iran crisis? Here's a quick review of the preceding story:

We kind of interfered with a dude titled a "prime minister" to back a dude called a "shah" and king of a peacock throne--this was not possibly our finest democracy-promoting moment. When the guy we backed was in serious trouble, politically and health-wise, we decided to take him in, and p-o'd a section of the Iranian populace--who, well, retaliated in terrorist form.

Eventaully things got hammered out--there were the Algiers accords, and the bit about our not interfering with their internal affairs-politially or militarily, which would include any so-called Black-Ops, I would think,

but it could easily be ascertained that we were kind of under duress, as to the extent that our hostages were under the gun--and certainly, it can be argued that Iran has not always held up its side of the bargain:

Or so I just generally, as an outsider, see. But this petty tit-for-tat--we think you guys ain't behaving so we'll run such and such an operation--is this cool? And do I seriously think that Condoleeza Rice, the not-terrific NSA who probably still has nightmares about Ben-Veniste asking her just exactly what was the title of the August 6 PDB, and who is now the diplomat her education probably favored her being from the first--the Sec of State--could even articulate a "So what?" statement regarding an accord signed by the US that this administration doesn't particularly like?

I think I could, really.

The Algiers Accord--we were under duress.

The Geneva Convention--our fingers were crossed.

The US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights? Hey, the Enlightenment was an Age of Satire--this was a tongue-in-cheek parody regarding democratic utopias--no more.

And this is one reason I get creeped out about this Administration--the revisionism. I never know when they are or aren't serious--when to be a little paranoid, or when to chill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC