Unsophisticated Reporting – Moon of Alabama

May 27, 2013

Unsophisticated Reporting

so·phis·ti·cat·ed

Adjective (of a person or their thoughts, reactions, and understanding)

"Aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle."

—–

According to a writer at the Washington Post the level of sophistication of an election campaign in Iran is measured by its numbers of English language spokespersons:

With fluent English speakers on staff available to address media requests, Rouhani’s campaign team is also more sophisticated than those of his competitors.

That sentence (and the whole report) is stupid on various levels.

1. English is taught as mandatory second language in all pubic and many private schools in Iran. About everyone who finishes at highschool level in Iran will have had at least 5 years of English language education. All candidates for the presidential election will have capable English speakers on their staff.

2. Any election campaign's aim is to maximize the number of voters that will choose it. One probably could measure a campaigns sophistication by its ability to get the votes. To use the existence of English capable spokesperson in a Farsi speaking country as a measurement of sophistication is just nuts. While Americans might like to believe otherwise fact is that English language capabilities in non-English speaking countries have zero effect on a local candidates capability to attract the local vote.

3. By writing that sentence the author shows his own lack of sophistication. Reporting from Tehran on elections while emphasizing English campaign spokesperson seems to be a confession that the reporters capabilities in understanding Farsi are less than those spokespersons' English capabilities. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in anything else that author may write.

Posted by b on May 27, 2013 at 16:16 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The idea that being able to speak in English makes one more sophisticated is not just stupid it’s racist.

Posted by: Amar | May 27 2013 17:12 utc | 1

Stenography is probably easier if the interviewee speaks in the reporter’s native language.
But…oh, my. How self-centered this reporter is. And he probably reflects his nation’s self-centeredness.

Posted by: jawbone | May 27 2013 17:27 utc | 2

The “sophistication” lies in the understanding that many of the decisions regarding the election will be taken in Washington (New York and London) by imperialists who have no knowledge of farsi or arabic.
They will decide whether the “world community” judges the result to be fair or rigged. They will decide whether opponents of the regime need to be “protected” and whether sanctions should be imposed. They will decide whether to sneak snipers into the country to pick off demonstrators. They will decide whether to organise and finance riots and demonstrations. They will decide whether to assassinate a candidate or subsidise a campaign. They will decide how the 100 odd UN members who do as they are ordered will vote in the General Assembly. They will decide how the media will interpret the election..
It is stupid and it is racist, but that is imperialism for you: racism abroad and stupidity at home.

Posted by: bevin | May 27 2013 17:33 utc | 3

I woke up to an NPR top of the hour news which reported that the increasing number of bombing attacks in Iraq, mostly Sunni against Shia, has made some European leaders rethink their decision to opt to send more weaponry to the “rebels” in Syria. Some of the European leaders reportedly are concerned that the users of these weapons, along with their modern, high powered weapons, just might come back to Europe and attack people within Europe…. In other words, blowback enabled by one’s own weapons. Or being hoisted on one’s own petard.
Someone in the British government said they just might have to go it alone if EU countries will not join them in sending weapons.
And my thoughts went to what has happened to these EU and British leaders, what is causing them to begin really loving the US inspired illegal wars? I realize I’m using a broad brush is merely saying “EU,” as there are many different attitudes among the several nations, but what has made France react so differently?
And then, underlying that, why have so many found austerity, a proven bad policy, so appealing? Are they all owned by or so threatened by Corporations and Corporatism that they fear to follow the more logical and proven to help approach of John Maynard Keynes?
B, you’re so much closer to what’s going on in Europe, albeit Germany is not in the same bad situations as the southern tier of EU nations. But, how do you understand what is happening? Do those with Big Money control the politicians, no matter their principles, what they ran on to be elected?
I don’t understand it.
I somewhat understand Obama, as he seems to have learned what he has internalized about economics from this wealthy mentors and benefactors. He wrote in one of his books that the more he was around the wealthy, the more he came to understand their thinking and objectives (I lost my bookmarked citation in a PC death ahd haven’t been able to find it again). Obama is a con man who used carefully phrased words to sound like an actual Democrat when he ran for his elections, but he made crystal clear to his his wealthy backers just what he would do for them.
The people were conned, and, even now, cannot believe someone could con them so masterfully, and, thus, continue to believe in Obama the 11 dimension chess player: He’s only doing these seemingly out of character things because he’s forced to or is playing some long game it’s hard for mere mortals to follow.
Is Global Corporatism* so firmly in control, so pervasive, there’s simply no way to stand against it other than outright revolution? And people deeply fear what revolution would bring in its stead?
Or…?
We have leaders here in the US who seem completely unable to address the looming and actually existential issue of global climate change. It seems the Uberwealthy feel they can create their own micro climates or take of areas which remain more benign to human existance
*The 21st C. version of fascism

Posted by: jawbone | May 27 2013 18:04 utc | 4

@4 I think the British government should go it alone. Send weapons, establish a no-fly zone, send in troops. That would show true moral courage and determination. All on condition that they don’t ask for help if things go wrong.

Posted by: dh | May 27 2013 18:33 utc | 5

And my thoughts went to what has happened to these EU and British leaders, what is causing them to begin really loving the US inspired illegal wars? I realize I’m using a broad brush is merely saying “EU,” as there are many different attitudes among the several nations, but what has made France react so differently?
And then, underlying that, why have so many found austerity, a proven bad policy, so appealing? Are they all owned by or so threatened by Corporations and Corporatism that they fear to follow the more logical and proven to help approach of John Maynard Keynes?
The Brits had to hand their empire over to the U.S. as payment for “winning” the second World War. They cling to it though and that’s why they follow the U.S. into every war, at least any war in the former British sphere.
On austerity. Merkel is like a full time employee of Deutsche Bank. She knows zero about economics but knows who she has been ordered to follow. Add her Prussian Lutheran upbringing to that and it fits her personality. Unfortunately the German people do not see how austerity kills the idea of a united Europe which Germany needs for a prosperous and peaceful existence.

Posted by: b | May 27 2013 18:34 utc | 6

I expect a voter participation of 75 o 80 % , more than in any so called western democracy.
Velayati , Jalili and Ghalibaf will be the top candidates and personally I think that Velayati will make it and hopefully no more ‘Green Shit’ Soros theater.

Posted by: Tehran | May 27 2013 18:41 utc | 7

Can some one make a phone to see if Syrian troops could capture this dope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/27/john-mccain-syria_n_3342897.html

Posted by: jo6pac | May 27 2013 18:56 utc | 8

@ 4 re: Le Monde report on poison gas:
Comment by Rhysa, #44, taking apart the Le Mone report.
b’s comment #45, adding detail to the takedown of the report.

Posted by: jawbone | May 27 2013 19:08 utc | 9

Re: Jawbone #4;
I don’t see how -from the perspective of capital- increasing the government spending is a “good policy” and austerity is a “bad policy”. 2013 is not the post war period.
The problem of insufficient effective demand -in my opinion- is a result of the tension between ‘consumption’ and ‘increasing wealth’. As the amount of capital increases, there comes a point where ‘consumption’ of those whose consumption can creat profit (ie. capitalists) does not suffice to create enough profit in comparison to the existing capital. Increasing wages and the consumption of the working class will not turn into more profit (consumption of the working class is financed by the wages paid by the capitalist).
I think if somehow by increasing the government spending or increasing the wages, there were a way for the rate of profit to recover, the corporations would not push for austerity.
Re elections in Iran:
The only force which can save IR from the Western military/economic bullying, is the poppular support. If vast portions of people are alienated because the main candidates of their choice are taken off the race, if people feel that a council which has not been elected by them can take precedence over their will and show a lack of enthusiasm towards the elections, US will be the big winner. The worst thing that IR could do is to create a suspicion in people’s head that Guardian Council has become an instrument of a specific sect to eliminate its competitors whom it cannot eliminate in elections.
I think in one month time we will see how the gamble that the principlist camp has played in Iran will turn out. If people are pissed off and do not go to elections, and the participation falls down to 50-60%, that will be a very worrying sign.

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | May 27 2013 20:11 utc | 10

Of course, b is perfectly right with his interpretation of the wa-zio-post “article”.
On the other hand I actually welcome this kind of smearing as it shows beyond reasonable doubt how blunt the western presstitutes are. That’s an easy one and can be easily “translated”; just ask a French how primitive americans must be to judge frech candidates by the number of english speaking staff they have; or a German, a Czech, an Italian …
And, of course, this a classical example of the Dumbass not understanding why everyone is laughing about him. Chances are that even the zusa ambassador in Iran, assumed there was one, would hardly understand more Farsi than “Good morning” (being on the optimistic side here, I know, I know).
And the joke goes on: picking out rafsanjani as the only “acceptable” candidate, the americans, of course without understanding it, basically paint a zusa flag on rafsanjani and label him “western whore”.
But then, how could americans understand (I’m applying that term very, very generously here) that being associated with them actually stains and taints anyones image rather than being a distinction.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 27 2013 20:40 utc | 11

To #7 Tehran:
little over 60% is more likely.
It’s between Jalili and Ghalibaf.

Posted by: LOYAL | May 27 2013 21:50 utc | 12

re 4

Someone in the British government said they just might have to go it alone if EU countries will not join them in sending weapons.
And my thoughts went to what has happened to these EU and British leaders, what is causing them to begin really loving the US inspired illegal wars? I realize I’m using a broad brush is merely saying “EU,” as there are many different attitudes among the several nations, but what has made France react so differently?

and 6

The Brits had to hand their empire over to the U.S. as payment for “winning” the second World War. They cling to it though and that’s why they follow the U.S. into every war, at least any war in the former British sphere.

The fact is that in the old days neither the Brits nor the French were slaves of US policy. In the case of Vietnam, Harold Wilson refused to take part. Good for him. In the case of Iraq 2003, Jacques Chirac also refused to take part. Good for him too. The situation only changed subsequently. I only saw from close-up what happened in France. French diplomats started saying, well maybe we went too far out on a limb.
Blair was probably enthusiastic to be close to the Americans from the start. But now the Zionist lobby in London has taken hold, and Cameron lacks the moral fibre to stand up for Britain, let alone his ministers. We’ve had William Hague today arguing for ending the embargo on arms for the rebels. Fortunately, there are principled countries like Austria who refuse.
The French, since Chirac they have become fearful, and afraid to launch an independent policy. At any rate, they impose an American style policy. They support the Kurds; as a result our students can get grants to go and study Kurdistan. Nothing in the case of Arab Iraq.

Posted by: alexno | May 27 2013 21:54 utc | 13

@12 alexno
I think the big change in bellicosity of Europe is the antidemocratic nature of the EU. Finance capital trounces any domestic sentiment. And if the banks want a war, then those governments are for it, even if they can’t send their unwilling population to die for it.

Posted by: Crest | May 28 2013 0:16 utc | 14

“Someone in the British government said they just might have to go it alone if EU countries will not join them in sending weapons…”
Re-wind to 2003 when a million people marched through London in protest against taking part in America’s war. And the government was pissing its pants. The Cabinet was split and so was the Parliamentary caucus: the only way that Blair got any sort of approval of the war through parliament was by writing off half of the Labour MPs and relying on Tory support.
What has changed to the extent that Hague, who makes the pigmies in Blair’s cabinet look like giants, can take the lead in arming the takfiri forces in Syria? And how is it that Hollande, the French Blair without the flair, can back a war that Chirac would have laughed at?
It can’t be that the capitalist system is making everyone so prosperous that the public is indifferent to the policies its governments pursue, because since 2003 the bottom has fallen out of the good times bubble that made so many happy with the status quo.
One big difference is that much of the left, which backed the anti-war, anti-islamophobe cause then, is now in the imperialist camp, supporting wahhabi warriors in Syria and refusing to fight the likes of Hague and Hollande. It will be the last service these pseudo-Trotskyist parties ever perform, because it will kill them but the imperialists will be grateful for their self sacrifice, as the neo-cons can assure them.

Posted by: bevin | May 28 2013 0:47 utc | 15

My turn. I reckon b is close to the mark on the support for amerika, englander colonies thing, but he has missed the point on the change that occured when the bliar & everybody’s voodoo doll (sorry action figure)george_W made an agreement.
fdr & to a lesser extent truman insisted on decolonisation.
The 1941 Lend-lease act which provided england with sufficient loans to buy armaments (whilst ensuring amerikan hegemony over england, contained clauses insisting england decolonise.
The same article claims that it was Uncle Joe who in the period immediately post ww2 insisted that england follow through on decolonisation. I have read elsewhere that Harry Truman wasn’t quite so insistent about englanders shedding empire as fdr was. After all Harry was more concerned with furthering the growth of the amerikan empire hand in hand with amerikan corporate capitalism, than he was focussed on ‘world peace’ fdr’s major foreign policy interest -fdr’s bank buddies had been true equal opportunity money lenders in the pre war period. They got busy underwriting deals for both english & nazi expansion. Once ww2 really goy going fdr saw war as being an impediment to making money.
Truman was from a younger generation, one that believed growth in arms meant growth in the amerikan economy – only if every nation possible was signed up to the world bank, IMF post ww2 amerikan economic hegemony.
Even so (particularly true after the India debacle), the amerikan democratic party became a little more flexible & encouraged england to hang onto assets (sorry, nations of the world) that may be likely to ambrace communism or even worse jump into the non-aligned camp if they got independant control of their nation.
But that history is pretty ancient by now – what is more interesting and more relevant is what happened after bliar & dubya cut their deal back in 2002.
It is impossible to get a clear idea of what was said since allegedly some meetings were conducted free of advisors or 3rd party witnesses of any sort. Just dubya & the bliar on their own.
Now that’s scary.
If we look at events since 2002 we may infer what was agreed.
Since 2002 england has had a much more visible presence in a number of ‘former’ colonies – most notably South Africa. England & more submissive france were assisted in their effotrs to steal libyan resources once more, just as all amerikan obstructions were removed from england’s efforts to grab back control of Myanmar (the colony formerly known as Burma).
Ordinary humans such as us are unlikely to get incontrovertible proof that amerika relaxed its attitude towards englander & european imperialism in return for support in the ME, until it is far too late to do anything about it – that is how these things usually pan out.
Me? I have about 90% certainty that is what happened. Sadly that 10% doubt is all the greedies need to keep most everyone busy arguing among themselves instead of sawing the heads off empire’s enablers with blunt bread knives, or even better, de-wealthifying the rich.
Why did I come in here?
That’s right, I remember now – the local fishwrap has a story (reprinted from one of those media outlets which still maintain a foreign desk)claiming Iranian traitors in london are working hard to prevent the Iranian authorities from blocking all of the nasty shit fukUSi installed before the last iranian elections when international access to Iran’s net went down for 10 days. Remember a big mob of ‘fishing boats’ dragged their anchors across Iranian submarine cables contemporaneously with ‘sun flares’ blocking microwave & satellite access.
If they are having to install work-arounds manually, one by one from outside Iran, soros’ mob have bugger-all chance of effecting any change.

Posted by: debs is dead | May 28 2013 1:02 utc | 16

@12 alexno I am also not sure the extent to which the French have an independent policy. In fact it seems the elites have decided to operate within a policy architecture outlined by the US – the French acts in Libya and now Syria are a case in point. In francophone Africa, ‘former’ french colonies, the US has prudently let the French take the lead in Mali.
I’d appreciate your take on what the French are up to in Mali.

Posted by: thirsty | May 28 2013 1:24 utc | 17

This is a fantastic movie called “Our Brand is Crisis”.
It tracks the Bolivian election which brought Evo Morales to power, through the eyes of the neo-liberal candidates US-advisers. It shows their complete ignorance and stupidity – the same tone deafness exhibited by the reporter b discusses here.
en.wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Our_Brand_Is_Crisis

Posted by: guest77 | May 28 2013 2:19 utc | 18

“And my thoughts went to what has happened to these EU and British leaders, what is causing them to begin really loving the US inspired illegal wars?”
I mentioned this in the previous post, but do feel that this is an attempt by the UK and France to seize assets for their corporations (and in turn generate tax revenue) in what is nothing more than neo-colonialism. That’s why they want this – in the face of the US (at least segments of its ruling class) who have not made the decision arm the rebels without, apparently, doing any vetting at all.
What’s a few subway bombings when you can give Total and BP new $100B oil fields to drain? France of course is in the most desperate position at all…something has to replace those Iranian Puegot sales.

Posted by: guest77 | May 28 2013 2:27 utc | 19

@17 I got the plot of the movie wrong, Morales did not win that election. The stupidity of the AMericans is certainly what I took from the movie – perhaps I need to watch it again…

Posted by: guest77 | May 28 2013 2:31 utc | 20

austerity is needed to maintain Euro strength, the european union is preparing the euro to subsume the dollar was the (or one of the) worlds reserve currency. The US dollar suffers from Triffin’s dilemma which causes imbalances in the international monetary system, the Euro in contrast was designed from its inception to avoid Triffin’s dilemma, since Robert Triffin was one of the architect of the EU and Euro. The Eu will not break because the Euro will not break because all european countries will eventually have to use Euro to buy oil.

Posted by: clubofrome | May 28 2013 3:31 utc | 21

Did the EU just officially declare war on Syria???
WOW…Who would’ve thought that an institution meant to better the lives of people will be dabbling with jihadis etc etc.
The EU’s pretty much become UK+France+Germany..The rest of the member’s opinions don’t really matter..

Posted by: Zico | May 28 2013 7:04 utc | 22

EU is now officially state-funding terrorism in Syria. Ugly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28 2013 7:20 utc | 23

Hague and John insane Mccain are acting like panicked maniacs. They can now see that hey have chosen the losing side in Syria. Their behavior will only get worse. Lets sit back and enjoy their demise.

Posted by: Hilmihakim | May 28 2013 8:07 utc | 24

add this misreporting to the list – the EU has not decided to deliver weapons to the opposition – the opposite is heard in the news

With regard to the possible export of arms to Syria, the Council took note of the commitment by Member States to proceed in their national policies as follows:
– the sale, supply, transfer or export of military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression will be for the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces and intended for the protection of civilians;
– Member States shall require adequate safeguards against misuse of authorisations granted, in particular relevant information concerning the end-user and final destination of the delivery;
– Member States shall asses the export licence applications on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the criteria set out in Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment.
Member States will not proceed at this stage with the delivery of the equipment mentioned above.
The Council will review its position before 1 August 2013 on the basis of a report by the High Representative, after having consulted the UN Secretary General, on the developments related to the US-Russia initiative and on the engagement of the Syrian parties

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 9:15 utc | 25

@somebody #24
Good catch, media in my country is also pushing the agenda how EU will start delivering weapons to our friendly peace-loving cannibals.

Posted by: Harry | May 28 2013 9:49 utc | 26

#24, #25
Uh the statement say EU will lift the embargo for EU member states and the decision to go on fully will be revised Before 1 augsut 2013. How could you read it so wrong?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28 2013 11:44 utc | 27

@12 Alexno–
I don’t think the British or French elites are slaves of any nation. Their perceived interests just happen to coincide with the perceived interests of other elites, in this case the US. And I believe that to be true–not always, but mostly–throughout the post World War 2 era.
What I believe has changed in the past few years is that those western European elites no longer feel the need to publicly engage in hypocritical domestic political public relations winks and nods such as “the US has a crazy foreign policy which we disagree with, but they’re an important ally, so we grudgingly will not stand in its way. …”
Nowadays, the European elites no longer bother with the pretense. That’s what has changed imho.

Posted by: sleepy | May 28 2013 12:06 utc | 28

@23, h\just read that – MCain – WTF? Best caption by far: John McCain spends ‘Memorial Day’ with Al Qaeda in Syria… treason much? Then we have Kerry end his 8 day Munster head (He does look like Herman)smile; between the both, we have the tale of the ‘Frog and the scorpian’ within it’s own ranks. If this is forign policy, the US should be discusted, its comical and uncontrolled. he held talks with Asifat al-Shamal (Northern Storm Brigade), which controls the crossing. O’Bagy said the rebel commanders told him, “They don’t need more pizza, they need weapons.” Pizza – Did he say that? Idriss said (The rebel military leader) “Of course we want a no-fly zone and we ask for strategic strikes against Hezbollah both inside Lebanon and inside Syria.” – so we have Lebanon as the primary target?
What I find (Keeping in mind the region and diplomacy/Tact)is MCain is actually senile: McCain asked the rebels how they would keep the “Islamsts” out of a new government for Syria – Is he a absolute serious? What is McCain doing there besides trying to insight a war and on his own political agenda; McCain is simply a old bitter hateful warmonger, now insane and bitter; in fact, mentally incompetent (If not inept or retarded, but DS are nice & hug) to be in the senate.

Posted by: kev | May 28 2013 12:17 utc | 29

so·phis·ti·cat·ed
wrong b.
the word comes from Sophia = wisdom…However, in its form ‘sophistry’, sugggests corruptionwhich leads to its medievel use : ..So to ‘sophisticate beer or bread means to dilute or corrupt them
To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.
2. To make impure; adulterate.
3. To make more complex or inclusive; refine.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sophisticate
the idea being that urban dwellers are less natural(true) and corrupt.This was certainly the case in places like ancient Rome and Byzantium

Posted by: brian | May 28 2013 12:45 utc | 30

Posted by: Crest | May 27, 2013 8:16:06 PM | 13
‘democracy’ = rule by the people’ exists nowhere on earth

Posted by: brian | May 28 2013 12:46 utc | 31

It is the hight of euro-centrism to believe that Britain’s
“de-colonisation” after 1945 was voluntary.
It wasn’t. It didn’t take much in the way of brains to recognise that ruling India, even when it was split into pieces was no longer an option. Britain quit India because there was no alternative: the Indians wanted us out and the working class was not prepared to lift a finger to maintain the Raj.
As to US objections to Britain’s empire, these had largely disappeared by 1948. By then they were begging Britain to stay on and keep the nationalists (aka Communists) out.
In Kenya, Malaya, central Africa, Yemen and, that bulwark of the empire, South Africa there were long guerrilla wars before the British (or the successor white governments) left. In fact, except in a superficial sense, Britain never has left its empire, though, as part of the payment of war debts to the USA, it has continued giving up bases though it hasn’t received a destroyer for seventy years. The old empire is now firmly established as part of a US empire which differs only from Britain’s in that it is ruled according to different principles. These principles differ as air power differs from seapower, and as current anthropology differs from the racism of the C19th and the Progressive era.
Sleepy is right: the “elites”, formerly and more precisely designated the ruling class, belong to no country and are just as happy to sell their birthplaces and neighbours as any warlord in Benin ever was. Their loyalty is to the Empire, more powerful than ever before, which licenses them to steal, enslave, cheat and terrorise.

Posted by: bevin | May 28 2013 13:38 utc | 32

Height?

Posted by: bevin | May 28 2013 13:39 utc | 33

British and American capital are inextricably linked, they are one. The British were, the last time I checked, the largest foreign investors in the United States, while American corporations and billionaires make continuous use of British overseas tax havens and money-laundering centers. In fact, City of London banks would have a much more serious solvency crisis were it not for the continuous sloshing of capital extracted by the American Empire from it’s client states. This is the simplest explanation for why Britain is America’s poodle. Occasionally, for appearance sake, they are allowed to pretend they are taking the diplomatic or military lead, but they wouldn’t make a move without a thumbs-up from the greatest democracy that money can buy.

Posted by: Gareth | May 28 2013 14:06 utc | 34

deb is dead (16)
Thanks. Sure, it’s “just” your private thoughts. But I liked your post very much. Because you offered more than some newsbits, you offered seasoned reflections based on lots of information.
Concerning that Iran part with sub flares and anchors. Of course, that would fit perfectly the “super smart” ways of zato powers. Nowadays, however, Iran can’t be regarded a “raghead country” anymore where they are high-tech if they are able to connect the cables in a car. So in case western powers were to pull off some “smart attack” (like the one you mentioned) they’d be well advised to consider that a distance of some 50 miles can be crossed in both directions.
Which would bring me to my hypothesis that actually it’s not the west who provokes and goes for war anymore; now it’s Russia/China – not in the bad sense of instigating war but in the sense of considerably raising the stakes; for the west, that is.
But I’ll keep it at that. The matter at hand is interesting enough.
Thanks debs is dead

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 28 2013 14:08 utc | 35

27) where do you read in the statement “lift the embargo”?
The statement does neither say renewal nor non renewal – it “takes note of the commitment” and states that they are not going to do anything till August and then they will “renew the position” i.e. it is completely open what they will decide then.
Let’s face it – Europe has no friends in the political opposition and no influence on the fighting force – Al Nusra. Politically they cannot afford to support either party. What they do now is hoping Assad and Hezbollah will finish Al Nusra whilst trying to get some leverage on the outcome afterwards …

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 15:27 utc | 36

Apparently, the Israeli’s “reserve the right” to attack Russian shipments to Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-warns-russia-against-giving-syria-missiles-132538404.html
Let’s hope this is hot air. The only way in hell that Israel would pick a fight with Russia is if it was certain that the US would defend it against any Russian retaliation.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were them.
The US elites own need for self preservation will trump plunging head-first into a nuclear holocaust against Russia.

Posted by: RC | May 28 2013 16:31 utc | 37

RC (37)

Apparently, the Israeli’s “reserve the right” to attack Russian shipments to Syria:
…
Let’s hope this is hot air.

Nope. Let’s hope they really do it. And being at that let’s hope zusa is “helping” them.
Sooner or later the day has to come when zusas/zatos “power” has to be challenged or, more correctly, proven vain and not any more existing.
Unfortunately every day the myth of american invincibility and leadership is held alive is costing the lives of many innocent human beings and major damage to the world.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 28 2013 16:46 utc | 38

27) see here

Britain and France said on Tuesday they did not have to wait until August 1 to arm rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, contradicting European Union officials, but both countries stressed they had no plans to do so yet.

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 16:55 utc | 39

Somebody:
Again you are misreading for some reason, the “commitment” are that they make clear who they plan to arm, thus:
“..the sale, supply, transfer or export of military equipment or of equipment which might be used for internal repression will be for the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces and intended for the protection of civilians; – Member States shall require adequate safeguards against misuse of authorisations granted, in particular relevant information concerning the end-user and final destination of the delivery”
As your #39 post, Britain and France even admit the embargo is in principle lifted.
Of course they have friends with the syrian opposition, also you think these psychopaths care which terrorists within the ” opposition ” they arm?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28 2013 17:10 utc | 40

#37
Russia returning fire on Israel? Lets be serious.
Russia wouldnt do jack if attacked by israeli regime and thats why Israel could threat Russia like that, maybe Russia and Israel even have a deal that Israel could destroy, perhaps already, non-functioning s-300.
Aslong as Russia get cash for s-300 they couldnt care less what happens with the weaponry.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28 2013 17:13 utc | 41

40) Same way they have friends in Libya?
No, seriously, if you are on the side of someone, you arm – immediately, yesterday not today. You do not review in August. Hey, you might even intervene.
Europe, the US, have no one in Syria, they do not pay, they do not own.
It is irrelevant anyway – are there any weapons Qataris and Saudis cannot get?
What is significant is the obvious split – Europe did not decide to lift the embargo, that was the default because they could not agree on either continuing or arming – they got a face saving compromise waiting till August secretly hoping the problem has disappeared till then.
The US, UK or France are trying to keep onto some leverage and not lose face completely. Why should the US not be able to arm ? What happened to all this training in Jordan? And by the way, why does the EU talk on arms not NATO?

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 18:20 utc | 42

41) somehow I doubt Syria is in a position to pay …

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 18:29 utc | 43

41) somehow I doubt Syria is in a position to pay …

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 18:30 utc | 44

41) somehow I doubt Syria is in a position to pay.
Obviously Israel will not dare to hit Syria again as now they have to consider the possibility of a counterattack by a Russian backed Hezbollah ….
There is a lot of irony in it considering that Hezbollah fought in the Bosnian war according to Nasrallah …

Posted by: somebody | May 28 2013 18:34 utc | 45

Latin was the language of the Church; German the language of science; French the language of diplomacy.
English is the language of imperialism.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | May 28 2013 18:39 utc | 46

Isn’t this WaPo story merely a precursor to ‘picking winners’ by the White House after the election? If so it’s pretty unsubtle in that it, more or less, names the CIA/State Dept’s candidate in an Iranian election. Or is it just bitching about CIA/State’s candidate being eliminated from the race before it begins?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 28 2013 19:07 utc | 47

@ Jawbone, #4, who wrote:
“He wrote in one of his books that the more he was around the wealthy, the more he came to understand their thinking and objectives (I lost my bookmarked citation in a PC death ahd haven’t been able to find it again).”
The quote is here; photo from Kuttner here; http://bit.ly/skFDhw
Obama: How I came to listen to just the wealthiest 1%- Pages 177-79 in Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” – see by “looking inside” book at Amazon.com here:
here
Photocopied from Robert Kuttner’s “A Presidency in Peril” see by “looking inside” book at amazon.com here and clicking on “first page

Posted by: erichwwk | May 28 2013 19:46 utc | 48

test

Posted by: erichwwk | May 28 2013 20:06 utc | 49

#45
Thats because there are already arming of the rebels by various groups, covertly. Apparently the EU see no apparent reason to start arming TODAY. By the way Hezbollah isnt backed by Russia.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 28 2013 20:33 utc | 50

Anonymous (41)

Russia returning fire on Israel? Lets be serious.
Russia wouldnt do jack if attacked by israeli regime and thats why Israel could threat Russia like that, maybe Russia and Israel even have a deal that Israel could destroy, perhaps already, non-functioning s-300.
Aslong as Russia get cash for s-300 they couldnt care less what happens with the weaponry.

Anything to back that up, any facts? Or are you just satisfying your russiaphobe hate?

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | May 28 2013 21:08 utc | 51

Russia is NOT the US. They won’t allow Israel to strike one of their ships and play it off like it was an “accident”…

Posted by: RC | May 28 2013 21:22 utc | 52

David Bromwich is a serious person and this article in the NY Review of Books may indicate that sense is beginning to creep into the American discussion of Syria.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/20/stay-out-syria/?

Posted by: bevin | May 28 2013 21:26 utc | 53

Anonymous @ 41
I really hope you’re right but Russia’s history proves otherwise..If anything, they don’t take shit for nothing.
The Israelis provoked them not too long ago in Georgia..Sakaashvilli was left eating his tie to breakfast, lunch and dinner..They will shoot back and possibly flatten a few Israeli naval/air-force bases as boonus..Don’t expect the US to enter into a shooting war with Russia either. To paraphrase a former Chinese general, “at the end of the day, the US cares more about San Francisco, New York than they do Tel Aviv”. They wouldn’t risk having Topol missiles incinerating their cities because of some stupid move Netanyahoo made. The best they’ll do is call for restrain and make a lot of noise at the UN..Kinda like what they did when Hezbollah was pounding Israeli cities with hundreds of rockets..
I’ll have to admit, though, that I’ll be very excited should the IDF be stupid enough to fire on a Russian ship.. 😉

Posted by: Zico | May 28 2013 21:35 utc | 54

b- what is the policy here re removing posts?
Is there something offensive about be answering a question as to the source of the the Obama quote jawbones #4 forgot?
or is there some automatic trigger I should know about?
My message #38 (test) wa posted as my attempt to reply had disappeared. After #38 posted I tried again. (I notice it has again disappeared).
Please advise as to the problem. Thanks erich

Posted by: erichwwk | May 29 2013 0:53 utc | 55

test

Posted by: erichwwk | May 29 2013 0:57 utc | 56

What is the policy here for removing posts?
Any automatic blocks I should no about? thanks erich

Posted by: erichwwk | May 29 2013 0:58 utc | 57

When the embargo is lifted, perhaps the first shipment from France will be a shipment of some fava beans and nice chianti.
http://www.youtube DOT com/watch?v=SEQZiElLp-E
It’s only too bad they didn’t eat McCain. They probably didn’t want to risk the dysentery.

Posted by: guest77 | May 29 2013 1:04 utc | 58

@erichwwk – I do not remove comments unless they are really offensive or spam.
There is an automatic spam filter that I can not influence. It often catches regular comments. I release those at least once a day. If something doesn’t go through you will have to wait until I release it.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Posted by: b | May 29 2013 13:03 utc | 59

b, I’m kindly asking you to use the word Persian not Farsi as the name of the main language of Iran: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/persian_not_farsi.htm

Posted by: Michal | May 31 2013 23:33 utc | 60

re 60
I’m kindly asking you to use the word Persian not Farsi as the name of the main language of Iran
I read your link. It is just an anti-Islamic crank, who wants to bring back pre-Islamic nationalism. Such nationalism is typical of the upper-class exiles who fled after the downfall of the shah, not necessarily typical of thinking in Iran today.

Posted by: Alexno | Jun 1 2013 1:11 utc | 61

Back to Main