| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US again threatens to take Iran to UN Security Council |
| 2005-05-18 |
| 'UNSC may refuse to punish Iran' |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #25 I am well aware of the left wing bias of the NYT but it is still one of the best written MS newspapers in our country... Sorry - it's a gut reaction. It's akin to having Itzhak Perlman and Yo-yo Ma playing 'La Cucaracha' with a San Antonio mariachi group and calling it an orchestral performance(tho I'd still pay dearly to see it...) ...the point I was making was that State Dept. and the UN are useless at the best of times for problem solving real world political tensions and this is the case... I believe it's called "following a checklist". Aircraft pilots, ship captains, and others perform it even if they know that the rudder is still attached to the craft they just brought in. If the UNSC does nothing, well, that's one procedure checked off. No one can come back if it all falls apart and say "you didn't do this". ...especially when 2 countries like Iran and the USA are on a collision course to war with neither country's gov't leaders speaking to one another for the past 25 years. I think the Iranian government spoke quite clearly with Khobar Towers and the Beruit Maine barracks, no? It would be nice if tensions were abated. I trained a lot of Iranian sailors; overall they are a good people. But having done three tours in that region, I'd regretfully say my experience sort of overrides any wishes I have. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-05-18 22:57 |
| #24 Thairong, you may well be right about future Iraq/Iran relations, but I come up with a very different analysis. Iraq is on its way to being the first modern state in the region (excepting a couple of Gulf statelets). Many issues exist between Iraq/Iran not least ethnic tensions. The potential for military conflict is high and its a forgone conclusion that Iraq would win. There are a lot of borders in the region that should and IMO will be redrawn. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-18 19:12 |
| #23 The NYTimes' foreign coverage is occasionally excellent (John Burns in Afgh, Iraq) Thank you Lex for that observation. The NYT article I have been referring to about the hopeful side effects (possibly) of Iraq and Iran re-establishing diplomatic ties was indeed written by John Burns. |
| Posted by: Thairong Clack2550 2005-05-18 18:42 |
| #22 Sorry Lex. The Village Voice has the gay Manhattan arts scene franchise. I hear the city health inspector beat is still up for grabs. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-05-18 17:55 |
| #21 Hey, I thought I did a helluva job covering the Soviets back in the 30's. Won me a Pulitzer. Sometimes when me and Uncle Joe are getting roasted in Hell again, I remind him of that. He laughs like evil bastard he is... |
| Posted by: The Ghost of Walter Duranty 2005-05-18 17:50 |
| #20 The NYTimes' foreign coverage is occasionally excellent (John Burns in Afgh, Iraq), usually lame (see their Russia and FSU coverage), and often non-existent. As far as I can tell, they do not have correspondents in Afghanistan, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine, Indonesia.... In point of fact, what should be the Times' distinctive excellence is probably its weakest point. Q: If the OpEd page and their national reporting have become a joke, and if their local coverage is surpassed by the NYC tabloids, then what's left? A: Culture, aka coverage of the gay Manhattan arts scene. Science. So much for the Paper of Record... |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-18 17:22 |
| #19 Fine, have it your way, pray for war, view the the possibilties that came up in a recent article I describe as a glass half empty not half full. My point was not to get into a defense of the NYT's previous deriliction/lapses in journalistic integrity - take your complaints up with Mr. Schulzberger, Jr. and his advertisers if you feel so strongly - but rather I wanted to share some positive news from the ME region I read in a NYT article that might be of some interest to you and which relates to the posted article about state dept and the UNSC. I suspect that apart from the right wing party supporters, the majority of Israelis would be very very happy if Iraq somehow ended up attenuating the Iran/Israel-US hostilies without more war and bloodshed in the region. The same desire could be said for most Americans and Iranians I would venture. I don't see the UN being an agent of peace, but Iraq might, as a link to both Iran and the US, and for that small ray of hope, I am glad. |
| Posted by: Thairong Clack2550 2005-05-18 17:07 |
| #18 How about a twofer: refer Iran and NoKo to UNSC. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-05-18 17:02 |
| #17 No starvation here, Times said so. Course I'm still dead with about 10 million neighbors. |
| Posted by: Just Another Kulak 2005-05-18 16:04 |
| #16 It just happens to be an American icon. You misspelled Anti-American.... I wouldn't beleve the NY Slimes if they told me my own name! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-05-18 15:06 |
| #15 And to tell the truth, so long as Iran continues to trumpet development of nuclear weapons designed to hit Israel and [in their dreams] the U.S., I see no benefit to diplomatic relations, however enjoyable the dinner parties may be (mmmm, Persian food! eaten off the former Shah's dinner service!!) for the diplomatic corps. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-18 14:32 |
| #14 The NYT was not"in the dark" about the Holocaust, they just chose not to report it. Big difference. As for Iran, we may not be at war with them (yet), but I believe they've been at war with us since 1979. Their choice, and I see no reason for us to kow tow to them now, just to make the NYT and its readers happy. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-18 14:25 |
| #13 I am well aware of the left wing bias of the NYT but it is still one of the best written MS newspapers in our country with decent int'l news coverage as well as business, travel, cultural, literary news. Being able to stay in business for over 100 years is nothing for any of us to sneer at. And I'm certainly not going to stop reading NYT because of its owners/reporters' bias. I wouldn't have gone to college, I wouldn't have dated people I did if I wanted to be a purist about political views. I'm interested in national/int'l politics so I read broadly to get different perspectives including journals and blogs. The point is no one news source is telling it like it is - there will always be slant, ommission or embellishment of details. As long as the I know it from the onset, what's the problem? Therefore, I read NYT, WSJ, The Economist, the London Times, The Spectator, Globe and Mail, National Post as well as political journals like National Review or journals with politics like New Yorker and of course news blogs as often as I can. Libraries and bookstores are my favorite haunts. Btw, the NYT was not the only one in the dark about the Holocaust - political leaders of nations were similarly "in the dark." The point is not what I read or do not read, the point I was making was that State Dept. and the UN are useless at the best of times for problem solving real world political tensions and this is the case especially when 2 countries like Iran and the USA are on a collision course to war with neither country's gov't leaders speaking to one another for the past 25 years. For the first time in recent months of escalating hostilities, there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel, which most of you appear to not care about discussing - Iraq has established diplomatic relations with both countries and its leaders have just now announced that it plans to open its doors to both and Iraq does not care what the 2 feuding cousins have going with one another, Iraq is going to be the adult and work for a peaceful future in the region. That is fantastic! We brought democracy to Iraq, but Iraq may end up being the agent of peace for us with Iran. |
| Posted by: Thairong Clack2550 2005-05-18 13:21 |
| #12 Ozzie Davis as JFK? I gotta rent this thing... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-05-18 12:39 |
| #11 He died in a resthome in east Texas after an encounter with an evil, undead mummy. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-18 12:27:45 PM |
| #10 Isn't Elvis dead? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-18 12:18 |
| #9 It just happens to be an American icon. So's Elvis. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-05-18 10:56 |
| #8 thawed relations don't count on it anytime soon. the UNSC is a lost cause, I agree. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-18 10:04 |
| #7 an American icon ooooo .... an ICON. Do you light candles and bow to it when you come in the room and all? I do SO love old customs ... |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-18 10:01 |
| #6 The New York Times managed not to notice the Holocaust some years back. They don't exactly have a history of balanced or complete reportage, self-proclaimed iconic status or no. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-18 07:45 |
| #5 Yes, I read the NYT -so what? It just happens to be an American icon. As for Iran not wanting diplomatic relations with the USA, no I did not know it was Iran's choice. I assumed it was ours because of the Iranian revolution. I stand corrected. Then it will be Iran who will be forced to resume relations with the USA due to Iraq -same result- thawed relations due to Iraq. That is a more hopeful scenario than Boucher and Rice spinning wheels at the UNSC. |
| Posted by: Thairong Clack2550 2005-05-18 02:46 |
| #4 You might want to check but Irasn desires no diplomatic relations with us. It's not the other way around. But since you rely on the NYT for ionformation you knew that... |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-18 02:18 |
| #3 This is so absurd. State dept. plans to complain about Iran to the UNSC without actually ever bothering to engage Iran in dialogue first. Is there no common sense left in gov't these days? I read a NYT article today by John F. Burns that stated the Iranian Foreign Minister would be making an official visit to Iraq for 3 days to commence diplomatic relations between the 2 countries and that our Navy Seals would be in charge of his security while he was visiting the Iraqi politicians in Baghdad. So here we have our military guarding this Iranian politician's life but officially he is invisible to our gov't in DC. Whether gov't bureaucrats like it or not, their protocol books are about to be turned upside down and inside out in the near future because of the Iraq-Iran relationship. The Iraqi officials intend to have a full fledged normalization of relations with Iran and say they don't care about the hostilities between Iran/USA. So if we plan to stay around Iraq for a while, it will be pretty hard to pretend Iran does not exist since Iranian officials will be coming back and forth on a regular basis whether state likes it or not. |
| Posted by: Thairong Clack2550 2005-05-18 02:09 |
| #2 Came through fine for me. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-05-18 01:59 |
| #1 Fred - Service Unavailable from Pak Land.... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-05-18 00:48 |