iran rejection

[awol]

Does the fact that iran rejected the british ambassador have anything to do with george Bush's 'axis of evil?'

[incitatus]

I find that attempts to link reality and Bushworld are increasingly futile. It may have more to do with some notion of pan-Arabism but bear in mind that the government of Iran is slowly reaching a rapprochement with the West. The real problem is that we are helping police Afghanistan and the Iranians would rather there was a power vacuum so that their client Afghans could rule.

[indobrit]

Loath as I am to correct Incitatus, who is a dear friend: Iran is NOT an Arab country, but it IS an Islamic one, therefore it is correct to say "pan-Islamism"... Historically, Iranians and Turks have always looked down upon their Arab co-religionists, on the grounds that the Arabs are Johnnies-come-lately to the arts of civilisation. That said, Incitatus's comment in re: Afghanistan being a client state of Iran is more plausible than it may seem. As to the rejection by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran of Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary: the UK's persistent r�le of lapdog to the USA has cost, does cost, and will continue to cost the UK very dear. The UK has no special relationship with the USA; it exists only in the hearts and minds of those UK politicians eager to be seen at the Executive Mansion or somewhere equally status-laden on USA soil, and on the lips of those few USA politicians who have some vague notion of these isles - usually along the lines of "Edenboro' is the capiddle of Li'l Ol' Inglun'." The UK must wake up to the fact that she can depend on no-one but herself. There are no friendships in politics, only temporary alliances built on quicksand.

[incitatus]

Oh God, sorry,Iran, I do apologise to it. Indobrit is right. I await the vengeance of the Peacock Throne.

[USAgentleman]

To answer the question; probably. U.K. foreign policy in the region is seen as being linked with that of the U.S. since the Gulf war. Thus, that comment probably resulted in them rejecting the ambassador who once held that post. Although I agree that the 'special relationship' hasn't done much at all for the U.S., it did a lot for British(English) prestige on the world stage, as it's authority waned drastically since the fall of the Empire. Because of this, it is natural that Britain would want to ingratiate itself to the U.S. As for what that gets Britain now; well, not a whole lot... It is unfortunate, but because the Britain is seen as largely irrelevant, there isn't a need to know a lot about it by US politicians. But I daresay, we are not as ignorant as you may have others believe. Indeed, in terms of history, up to 1945, the U.S. knows more about Britain than any other country! That might not be saying a whole lot, but it's a start. My advice; the UK should get away from the US, and lessen impact for the Franco-German alliance to rule Europe known as the EU. But it should also remember, that the US has been it's ally for a long time. Why would it want to lose that position with the world's lone hegemon? Peace.

[indobrit]

For the USA person to say that the UK is irrelevant is for a child to say that its parents are irrelevant. You owe the UK and Ireland everything, from language to laws, from table manners to trains. "It is natural that Britain would want to ingratiate itself with the US..." (1) Please explain, and (2) please use "US*A*", since you are not the only "US" on the planet - Brazil and Mexico come to mind, amongst others. As for waning authority: you seem to know little or nothing about the Commonwealth, Sir (my identity should give you a resounding clue as to my own heritage). Wherever the UK has ruled, so she continues to be respected - and that includes the USA, *in spite of* people who go around killing everyone and everything in sight, then ending their intervention with "Peace". Hypocrisy, Sir, has many colours. Hold your own peace, as we continue to hold ours.