View Full Version : Why Iran wants to be attacked...
GratefulFred
09-28-2009, 02:04 PM
Arab/Persian logic goes as follows...The big bad west attacks us and all of a sudden we are the one standing up to them. They killed (real number of casualties) x 1000 of our people and thus we urge all muslim to support us.
Civilian deaths don't matter to the muslim world...real men standing against the infidels are all that's important.
Price of oil goes up and hey we produce oil of some type. It's a win...win situation so long as the world attacks us especially those Israelis.
So it goes to my other post, to whomever wants to discuss, that if we send them back tot he 9th centuray (to quote Bibi), with an EMP blast (hopefully Bibi's idea), terrorist funding ends and Hamas goes bye bye and we could have peace.
What a concept...
Iranians are idiots. Everyone knows what needs to happen for all this to go away.... a radical regime change. With Saddam gone and US protecting both of Iran's borders, with growing oil prices (or rather growing demand), I am not really sure why the hell does Iran need nukes. Is that really about necessity to have power and safeguarding of a regime? Is the regime so afraid of itself that it is getting into this very dangerous nuke business?
shravan
09-28-2009, 08:25 PM
I am not really sure why the hell does Iran need nukes.
Pakistan.
GratefulFred
09-28-2009, 11:22 PM
What is the long term implication to being attacked? The Arab world gets behind them. Building nukes is a win-win formula. They get to parade nukes down the streets or get attacked. Either way they become champion of the muslim world.
Nothing to do with Pakistan, or any other place.
They want the prestige of being the victim and getting support.
Aliyah1995
09-28-2009, 11:50 PM
Iranians are idiots. Everyone knows what needs to happen for all this to go away.... a radical regime change. With Saddam gone and US protecting both of Iran's borders, with growing oil prices (or rather growing demand), I am not really sure why the hell does Iran need nukes. Is that really about necessity to have power and safeguarding of a regime? Is the regime so afraid of itself that it is getting into this very dangerous nuke business?
Actually, NOT all Iranians are idiots, as the rebellion since that lunatic "won" the last election shows, but they are the victims of a tyranny that won't go away. You are LITERALLY risking your life by protesting against the Iranian government in the streets of Iran and no small number of Iranian ex-pats all over the world are joining in the anti-Iranian government protests. So far, it is a sad lose lose situation for those concerned about democracy and there does not seem to be light at the end of the tunnel in the near future in Iran.
shravan
09-29-2009, 12:40 AM
Nothing to do with Pakistan, or any other place.
Pakistan nukes are funded by Saudi...:p Things changed after Iranian Revolution.
GratefulFred
09-29-2009, 09:19 AM
Pakistan isn't in a position to nuke Iran. Let's not make Iran the victim.
Iran wants to feel the west taking the on so they can be king of the muslim hill. Just like Nasir, and Al Assad the first, it's always about prestige int he greater muslim world.
Mediocrates
09-29-2009, 09:21 AM
Things are usually exactly as simple as they appear. Iran wants to extend its Islamic Revolution and all that it entails.
shravan
09-29-2009, 10:02 AM
Pakistan isn't in a position to nuke Iran. Let's not make Iran the victim.
If Iran has nukes it can increase its borders without any danger from Pakistan.
Iran wants to feel the west taking the on so they can be king of the muslim hill.
Iran = Shia. They are not treated as Muslims. They are treated more badly than the Non-Believers.
And West respects the country which has nukes.
---
shravan
09-29-2009, 10:10 AM
Things are usually exactly as simple as they appear.
I also believe that. I don't trust what i hear or read. The day i see Iranians are directly attacking Jews or Israel or Israel attacking Iranians, i will start to think there is something wrong.
What is the long term implication to being attacked? The Arab world gets behind them. Building nukes is a win-win formula. They get to parade nukes down the streets or get attacked. Either way they become champion of the muslim world.
Iranians are building the nuke to safeguard themselves from Arabs first and foremost.
GratefulFred
09-30-2009, 05:11 AM
However you look at things a nuke suits their fanatical ways.
Getting attacked is their dream come true.
andak01
09-30-2009, 08:05 AM
Things are usually exactly as simple as they appear. Iran wants to extend its Islamic Revolution and all that it entails.
And note that this is a Shiite Revolution. The Sunnis are not any too keen about extending Iranian power in the region.
Mediocrates
09-30-2009, 08:35 AM
The thing that does mystify me is how the US administration can come to the generic 'Muslim' world and seemingly ignore the harm done to Muslims by other Muslims or Arabs by other Arabs. For instance, Obamas statement of openness to Syria has effectively ended the investigation into the death of Lebanon's Hariri. The efforts to prosecute Sudan's Bashir have quietly ended. And Obama has made it a point to insult liberal Muslims by honoring women who wear and refuse to compromise on the Hijab. Moreover there's been little if any official comment about mass killings by bombings, of Muslims perpetrated by al Qaeda and others.
Isn't this being perceived as weakness?
Madeline
09-30-2009, 05:17 PM
The thing that does mystify me is how the US administration can come to the generic 'Muslim' world and seemingly ignore the harm done to Muslims by other Muslims or Arabs by other Arabs. For instance, Obamas statement of openness to Syria has effectively ended the investigation into the death of Lebanon's Hariri. The efforts to prosecute Sudan's Bashir have quietly ended. And Obama has made it a point to insult liberal Muslims by honoring women who wear and refuse to compromise on the Hijab. Moreover there's been little if any official comment about mass killings by bombings, of Muslims perpetrated by al Qaeda and others.
Isn't this being perceived as weakness?
Great question, no easy answer.
andak01
10-01-2009, 07:52 AM
And Obama has made it a point to insult liberal Muslims by honoring women who wear and refuse to compromise on the Hijab.
That brings up a good point. There are hijab wearing women who are far on the left but who feel uncomfortable with left wing issues such as abortion or gay marriage. There are secular Muslim women who don't wear a hijab, but also wouldn't dream of condemning those who do. My sister-in-law is a perfect example. Two of her sisters wear a hijab, but she chooses not to. She's not going around screaming about it or condemning Islam.
Bottom line, don't judge a book by its cover. If you are so sure that wearing a hijab dictates politics, you might be surprised.
Morocco is no secular country. Neither is any of the Arab countries. I personally believe into Sex, Drugs, Rock-n-Roll and personal choice..... Arabs don't.
Madeline
10-01-2009, 10:15 AM
Morocco is no secular country. Neither is any of the Arab countries. I personally believe into Sex, Drugs, Rock-n-Roll and personal choice..... Arabs don't.
You wild thang you.:rofl:
Madeline
10-01-2009, 11:02 AM
Question to all you wise people here. Does anyone have a direct translation of Mahmoud A wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
It seems that his fan club...notably those on the left...are certain that is was a "mistranslation" by those who "want to put words in his mouth".
Thanks in advance for your help.
Mediocrates
10-01-2009, 11:23 AM
Scholars like John "Juan" Cole assert that Farsi is so vague so complex that only he can translate it correctly.
bararallu
10-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Question to all you wise people here. Does anyone have a direct translation of Mahmoud A wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
It seems that his fan club...notably those on the left...are certain that is was a "mistranslation" by those who "want to put words in his mouth".
Thanks in advance for your help.
Madeline,
We have Farsi speakers that do come on here now and again, I think Parsi translated some stuff at one point. Yala, if she logs in, maybe able to link some sources too. All my Persian speaking friends loath to read that idiots writings and sayings, they'd probably throw something at me if I asked them to translate. :cool: If it's Arabic (and it wont be) I can take a look at it.
wat0n
10-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Question to all you wise people here. Does anyone have a direct translation of Mahmoud A wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
It seems that his fan club...notably those on the left...are certain that is was a "mistranslation" by those who "want to put words in his mouth".
Thanks in advance for your help.
It would be nice to know, because AFAIK it was translated to english by IRNA... And I doubt these guys don't know Farsi or that they would try to hurt the Iranian Gov't.
idfBEEP
10-01-2009, 05:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_transl ation
Aliyah1995
10-01-2009, 05:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_transl ation
So either way, that lunatic does not want Israel to exist. Why are we getting hung up on semantics?
Madeline
10-01-2009, 06:00 PM
So either way, that lunatic does not want Israel to exist. Why are we getting hung up on semantics?
That is a great question. Why do I waste my time discussing this with some antisemites on another board? Looking for punishment? I donno.:scratch:
Perhaps I quest to snap them into reality.....but it isn't working too well.:rolleyes:
GratefulFred
10-01-2009, 11:35 PM
The exact translation from Farsi indicates that Ahmadnejad is looking to wipe our floors clean.
Imagine all the beard hairs he leaves on the floor.
Disturbing...
andak01
10-04-2009, 11:59 AM
The statement below flies in the face of those who say all this looney, assuming he had the power to, which he doesn't, wants to do is kill all the Jews. You may rightfully hate him and consider him an enemy, but it is as dishonest to claim his goal is total genocide of the Jews as it would be to claim that Chavez of Venuzuela wants to kill every man, woman and child in North America.
Iran's President Ahmadinezhad Holds New York News Conference 21 Sep
News conference by Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad at UN headquarters in New York -- correspondents' questions in English simultaneously translated into Persian -- live
Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN)
Friday, September 22, 2006
Regarding the issue of the invasion of Lebanon, you saw that everyone - of all religions, of all faiths - condemned it. Because the nations have awakened. The nations hate aggression. . . Some people think that if they level accusations at Ahmadinezhad - saying: He is a terrorist, he is a murderer, he is anti-Semitic - the issue would be resolved. No. I am not anti-Semitic. Like all other human beings, Jews are respected. And, by the way, there are Muslims and Christians and Jews among the Palestinian people. We say the people of Palestine should choose. We do not say that it should be the Palestinian Muslims. For they lived in peace and harmony in the past. But then Britain came over and, with colonialist goals, took control and then handed it over to the Zionists. And the problem started. Let the people choose and see what will happen.
Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV
"Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 -- recorded
Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1
Sunday, March 25, 2007
(David Pujadas) The fact that Iran's position is disconcerting, one of the reasons is that Your Excellency's statements are to a large extent threatening. For instance, your assertion that Israel should be wiped from the map of the world, all these things have created some concern which has been reflected in the nuclear case too.
(Ahmadinezhad) . . . Let me ask you this question: where is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics now? Was it not wiped off (the map)? How was it wiped off? We have a totally humanitarian solution for Palestine. We have said that all the Palestinians should take part in a free referendum so as to end the 60 year old war. The outcome is clear from now. It is because of the same outcome that America and Britain are refusing to yield.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wordie/2007/07/ahmadinejad-misquoted-not-geno.php
Mediocrates
10-04-2009, 12:03 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6860161.ece
Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has handed the Kremlin a list of Russian scientists believed by the Israelis to be helping Iran to develop a nuclear warhead. He is said to have delivered the list during a mysterious visit to Moscow.
No. I am not anti-Semitic. Like all other human beings, Jews are respected.
And you believe that? That he is not anti-semitic? That he repects human life?
andak01
10-04-2009, 12:56 PM
And you believe that? That he is not anti-semitic? That he repects human life?
No. Him saying he's not an anti-semite doesn't make him NOT an anti-semite. However, were we to assume that all he wants to do is kill all the Jews, then I doubt he'd deny it. In short, that could very well be the statement of an anti-semite or a dishonest statement for that matter. But even as a dishonest statement, it isn't consistent with what a genocidal maniac with no goal other than killing all the Jews would say. Why even bring up Palestinians? Presumably Palestine runs a distant second to this proposed genocidal tendency.
My point is, there are enemies of Israel, there are anti-semites, there are people who hate all the Jews and there are those who wish every Jew was dead. Being a member of one group doesn't imply that one is a member of all of them. For that matter, someone who wishes all the Jews were dead and has neither the power nor the desire to do anything about it isn't much of a threat. Ahmadinijad does not have his finger on the button because there is not a button and even if there were, he doesn't have that authority.
bararallu
10-04-2009, 01:48 PM
Neither are they mutually exclusive Andak. In fact they are well correlated. Also mobs typically resolve the differences, where a few do the beating and the rest do the cheering.
andak01
10-05-2009, 01:51 PM
Neither are they mutually exclusive Andak. In fact they are well correlated. Also mobs typically resolve the differences, where a few do the beating and the rest do the cheering.
They are well correlated when a government makes them well correlated or when there is no government and only mob rule. Iran does have a relatively powerful central government. There isn't mob rule. Furthermore, Ahmadinijad is not the Supreme Leader of Iran. That falls to the man with that title who Ahmadinijad reports to. For us to treat the entire nation of Iran as if their only goal is to kill all the Jews, we'd either need to abandon all evidence and the contrary and go with our gut (something posters here are well aquainted with) or demand a) evidence and b) power to make it happen. Since the president does not control the armed services, he does not have the power to nuke Israel, assuming he had a nuke, which he doesn't.
Holocaust denial, as wrong headed and sick making as it is, is not the same as intent to genocide.
Now, does Israel have the right to preemptively strike Iran if they feel sufficiently threatened? I think so. I don't agree with the policy of preemptive strikes. I don't think it's a good policy for America, but; as an American, I can't dictate Israel's policies.
PRESIDENT
The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.
In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues.
SUPREME LEADER
The role of Supreme Leader in the constitution is based on the ideas of Ayatollah Khomeini, who positioned the leader at the top of Iran's political power structure.
The Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. The Leader is chosen by the clerics who make up the Assembly of Experts.
Periodic tension between the office of the Leader and the office of the president has often been the source of political instability. It increased during former president reformist Mohammad Khatami's term in office - a reflection of the deeper tensions between religious rule and the democratic aspirations of many Iranians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/supreme_leader.stm)
I don't agree with the policy of preemptive strikes.
Why?
andak01
10-05-2009, 04:06 PM
I don't agree with the policy of preemptive strikes.
Why?
In the case of Iraq, the reason for preemption, WMDs, turned out to be false. The second reason for preemption, Saddam's connection to the 9/11 attacks, also turned out to be false. The third reason given, for humanitarian purposes, remains to be seen. But so far, over a million people have been displaced, billions of dollars expended and tens of thousands of lives lost for this Shiite semi-theocracy, new state of Iran that was before a devil-we-know dictatorship.
Put it this way. Preemption is a good policy when you are omniscient and know the future. God could probably enact it pretty well. Among men, it's simply an excuse for imperialistic forays.
If Iran is going to build a nuke - and it's definitely their goal - the real victims will be the Arabs, including Morocco. Wait till you see what they will do in the name of Shia to attain geopolitical supremacy.....
devil-we-know dictatorship.
Saddam was very destabilizing, unpredictable and extremely deadly to the region. One Iran-Iraq war cost millions, not to mention endless Shia and Kurdish revolts which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And of course his adventure into Kuwait, Arab Israeli conflicts, and sponsorship of various regional and international terrorist groups. And he was extremely bad to Arab regimes and governments who were afraid of this dude.
Unless of course non-Arab non-Sunni lives are not dear to your particular outlook on life. Though he was pretty cruel to the Sunnis as well.
andak01
10-06-2009, 05:47 AM
Saddam was very destabilizing, unpredictable and extremely deadly to the region.
And opening the borders between Iran and Iraq, removal of all internal controls (police, military, etc.) conditions which lead to a virtual civil war which has caused hundreds of thousands to cross into Syria and elsewhere as refugees is what? Stabilizing? Predictable? I suggest you read the history of Al Qaida in Iraq operations prior to the onset of war. It's a very, very, very minuscule book.
What's more, the Iraq war has done nothing but strengthen Iran in a multitude of ways. It is clear now that Saddam was not a nuclear danger. Yes he wanted nukes, but he wasn't remotely close to getting them. There wasn't any mushroom cloud in twenty minutes or in ten years.
Posted by Andak:
And opening the borders between Iran and Iraq, removal of all internal controls (police, military, etc.) conditions which lead to a virtual civil war which has caused hundreds of thousands to cross into Syria and elsewhere as refugees is what?
dude - I am not sure how familiar you are with the history of Iraq but there was civil war there from the very inception. This country was very unstable from the very beginning and Saddam made the conflict really big. Do you think all this started yesterday or with the invasion?
I agree that Saddam was able to keep Iraq together but at what expense to the people of Iraq, to the region and to the world? Lots of killing, wars, internal sadism of every sort? What if Saddam would die tomorrow of natural causes - do you think anybody would be able to keep Iraq together?
Not to say that there are no unstable similar places in the region, Syria for one, but nobody did this as bad as Saddam or nobody was more distibilizing then Saddam.
In fact it's all these instabilities, corrupt and immoral regional politics, wars, dictators, lack of freedom and opportunities, repressions, religious discrimination (look at your self talking of Shia and you are an American!), economic and military rivalries that create all these Al Qaidas in the first place and give the Middle East the bad name. Hell - Arabs have 60% literacy rates!!!!!!
Everyone knows of how many people died in the Israeli/Palestinian thing but do you even care how many die right now in Yemen? Does Morocco condemn it? Or who have died in all those civil wars from Algeria, to Morroco, to Yemen, to Lebanon to Syria over the last 50 years? Do you care?
Stabilizing? Predictable? I suggest you read the history of Al Qaida in Iraq operations prior to the onset of war. It's a very, very, very minuscule book.
I agree - Al Qaida very much entered an Iraq devoit of controls. However, again - Al Qaida would enter Iraq no matter what - with or without Saddam. Especially without Saddam. Al Qaida is a pan-Arab-pan-Muslim Sunni movement and Arab world is full of these.
What's more, the Iraq war has done nothing but strengthen Iran in a multitude of ways.
Actually yeah - it removed Iran's main enemy from the picture and in fact made Iran a lot more secure. Hell of a lot more secure.... which only makes me wonder as to why Iran needs the bomb. American presence on both sides of Iran border and in the region is the best security Iran would ever get or wish for. But I know why the need the BOMB.
Iranian leaders are stupid and only shows their short-sightedness of the situation all focused on their own pride and geo-political ambitions. But mostly they are concerned about preserving the regime which they know is the primary precondition on the change in the relations.
It is clear now that Saddam was not a nuclear danger. Yes he wanted nukes, but he wasn't remotely close to getting them. There wasn't any mushroom cloud in twenty minutes or in ten years.
:) What was clear was that Saddam was very unpredictible and after 9/11 America needed allies in the region and not those who would use the situation for their own advantage - those like Saddam. Saddam was bad for the region and bad for the "War on Terror." What could not be predicted was how bad it was in Iraq itself where all predicted much smoother nation building process!!!! The Civil War started almost right away meaning that it was already out there boiling. It was so bad at how Saddam left that place that only NOW they are slowing down the fighting.
I am sorry but for me Al Qaida was the creation of the Middle East the result of the idiocy of that particular region of the world.
Mediocrates
10-06-2009, 08:49 AM
It's hard to tell who Saddam was a danger to except his own people. If you ignore such a fundamentally flawed machine like that, it eventually stops on its own. Having said that, I'm not always averse to knocking over a middle eastern despot or two anyway and packing up the troops and leaving right away.
By Med:
It's hard to tell who Saddam was a danger to except his own people. If you ignore such a fundamentally flawed machine like that, it eventually stops on its own. Having said that, I'm not always averse to knocking over a middle eastern despot or two anyway and packing up the troops and leaving right away.
:) Dude - what are you talking about? Saddam was by far the most distibilizing force in the region starting wars big and small over everything. The most armed country in the Middle East with the largest army!!!!! Kuwait, Iran/Iraq, the endless conflicts with Syria.... Saddam was a danger to everyone and everything in the region. He was like Qaddaffi on super-steroids.
andak01
10-06-2009, 10:50 AM
Posted by Andak:
And opening the borders between Iran and Iraq, removal of all internal controls (police, military, etc.) conditions which lead to a virtual civil war which has caused hundreds of thousands to cross into Syria and elsewhere as refugees is what?
dude - I am not sure how familiar you are with the history of Iraq but there was civil war there from the very inception. This country was very unstable from the very beginning and Saddam made the conflict really big. Do you think all this started yesterday or with the invasion?
Actually horrible dictatorships, if they last long enough, stabilize. In a word, there's nobody left to kill. The power vacuum left behind is very destabilizing. Witness Haiti after the fall of Baby Doc, Yugoslavia after Tito, Russia after the fall of Communism.
I don't advocate horrible dictatorships. But if stability and predictability is what you are after, there are worse things. Total anarchy is worse and more violent.
One of the biggest smears told about me, though I've said much to the contrary is that I loved Saddam or that, if I'd had my way, we'd have done nothing. My plan would have been very similar to Gulf War I with a large coalition invasion if need be. And the result might have been similar as well- a disabled Iraq struggling to rearm itself over another 20 years. But as far as leaving us in a position to strongarm Iran, it's infinitly superior. Iran's big advantage now is that America had its arms tied in Iraq.
I agree that Saddam was able to keep Iraq together but at what expense to the people of Iraq, to the region and to the world? Lots of killing, wars, internal sadism of every sort? What if Saddam would die tomorrow of natural causes - do you think anybody would be able to keep Iraq together?
If Saddam had died there probably would have been another strong armed leader along the same lines. Given the human cost of what's happened without him, we'd be about the same if not better off.
I agree - Al Qaida very much entered an Iraq devoit of controls. However, again - Al Qaida would enter Iraq no matter what - with or without Saddam. Especially without Saddam. Al Qaida is a pan-Arab-pan-Muslim Sunni movement and Arab world is full of these.
That was a joke. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq in any appreciable form prior to the war. Saddam didn't harbor them, because they would have threatened his own power base.
Actually yeah - it removed Iran's main enemy from the picture and in fact made Iran a lot more secure.
It did a lot more than that. Iraqi intelligence is totally transparent to Iran, much more than to the US.
What could not be predicted was how bad it was in Iraq itself where all predicted much smoother nation building process!!!!
And what shred of historic evidence was there that lead anyone to believe there could even be such a process?
I am sorry but for me Al Qaida was the creation of the Middle East the result of the idiocy of that particular region of the world.
Al Qaida wasn't the creation of the Middle East. A large part of why they had any influence was a situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yes, they were born in KSA, but they were bred in Afghanistan. Without the Soviet-Afghan war, there would have been some insurrections within Saudi Arabia that would have led to some degree of reform there. Afghanistan was like a university for terrorists.
Posted by Andak:
Actually horrible dictatorships, if they last long enough, stabilize. In a word, there's nobody left to kill. The power vacuum left behind is very destabilizing. Witness Haiti after the fall of Baby Doc, Yugoslavia after Tito, Russia after the fall of Communism
Dictatorships, unfortunately, are very unstable. And dictatorships cause instabilities both internally and externally. The Soviet Union was itself a very unstable country and the amount of damage it caused was enormous. Hitler, Tito, Mubarak, Mussolini, Caesar, Mao, Saddam, Qaddafi......
And believe me there is always someone to kill. You did not live in a dictatorship - I did.
I don't advocate horrible dictatorships. But if stability and predictability is what you are after, there are worse things. Total anarchy is worse and more violent.
I never knew you had a Kissinger in you!!!! "Chaos vs. Order" was one of his primary guiding principles. But then Kissinger was also a fan of "real-politik." Are you?
Anyways, unfortunately, the dictatorship stability theory is really a wrong one and has been disapproved every time. The West thought it could appease Hitler guided by your exact logic, and driven by the horrific experiences of WWI, and look what happened. There are millions of other examples. Appeasement and batting on dictatorial stability never works and in the age of nuclear bombs this is nothing to kid around with.
One of the biggest smears told about me, though I've said much to the contrary is that I loved Saddam or that, if I'd had my way, we'd have done nothing. My plan would have been very similar to Gulf War I with a large coalition invasion if need be.
Many countries did not want to do it. As to coalitions.... they can't fight worse sh***t. America did most of the fighting during the last war also.
And the result might have been similar as well- a disabled Iraq struggling to rearm itself over another 20 years. But as far as leaving us in a position to strongarm Iran, it's infinitly superior. Iran's big advantage now is that America had its arms tied in Iraq.
America is busy with Iraq and it can't tackle Iran? What are you talking about? Like America could tackle Iran before.
If Saddam had died there probably would have been another strong armed leader along the same lines. Given the human cost of what's happened without him, we'd be about the same if not better off.
It would be the same as what happened in Yugoslavia after Tito. Nothing different from what is happening now.
That was a joke. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq in any appreciable form prior to the war. Saddam didn't harbor them, because they would have threatened his own power base.
:) Saudi Arabia does not harbor them either - neither does Morocco. Does not mean they are not in KSA or Morocco. Saddam was not all-powerful and the Mahabarat was not everywhere.
It did a lot more than that. Iraqi intelligence is totally transparent to Iran, much more than to the US.
?
What could not be predicted was how bad it was in Iraq itself where all predicted much smoother nation building process!!!!
And what shred of historic evidence was there that lead anyone to believe there could even be such a process?
Germany, Korea, Japan, Greece.... Nobody could predict how high the tensions were in Iraq and the state of internal affairs Saddam had created. Do you really think it all started yesterday?
Al Qaida wasn't the creation of the Middle East.
Of course it was!
A large part of why they had any influence was a situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And in Egypt, and in Syria, and in Palestine, and in Iraq, and KSA.....
Yes, they were born in KSA, but they were bred in Afghanistan. Without the Soviet-Afghan war, there would have been some insurrections within Saudi Arabia that would have led to some degree of reform there.
A what? Why can't they do this now?
Afghanistan was like a university for terrorists.
As is authoritarian monarchy of Morocco, as is theocracy of KSA, or as is dictatorship of Syria. Al Zawahari was radicalized in Egypt and not in KSA (many say it was when Sadat decided to make peace with Israel). The 9/11 gang was a a collection of kids from all of the middle east. Afganistan was a cause... but most of Al Qaida's recruits are disenchanted peoples from across the region.
I am not sure why you are looking for excuses from that particular sh**ty region.
Mediocrates
10-06-2009, 03:33 PM
:) Dude - what are you talking about? Saddam was by far the most distibilizing force in the region starting wars big and small over everything. The most armed country in the Middle East with the largest army!!!!! Kuwait, Iran/Iraq, the endless conflicts with Syria.... Saddam was a danger to everyone and everything in the region. He was like Qaddaffi on super-steroids.
After 1991 he was a despot to Iraqis. He murdered them with impunity but that was largely self contained. He had the possibility of breaking out and wreaking havoc but that was a possibility. It's reasonably clear now that he was more bark than bite. At least outside of Iraq. I never will understand his desire to make us crush him for WMD he knew he didn't have.
So you mean that if we would not confront him then we would have to confront him now? I don't understand.
Mediocrates
10-06-2009, 04:34 PM
I'm not sure. It depends on what specifically he had planned. I think that the intent of the protracted no fly zones was to prevent Iraq from re-attacking Kuwait. I don't for a moment think that if the West believed he would limit himself to massacring Kurds that there would have been much concern. The Kurds were never able to raise awareness in the West that they were a unique religious or ethnic identity as did the Bosnians or Kosovars. And doubtless if Iraq were insane enough to attack Iran again, we would have been involved. None the less there was not much in the way of projective force that Iraq could mount against anyone else by the mid 90's.
Proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and expertise was quite possible especially in the light of war on terror.
ThetaRay
10-07-2009, 11:32 AM
If Iran has nukes it can increase its borders without any danger from Pakistan.
Iran = Shia. They are not treated as Muslims. They are treated more badly than the Non-Believers.
And West respects the country which has nukes.
---
Iran does not need nukes to use them... physically. They need nukes to give all their radical rants and demands credibility. We must understand that above all else, Iran is motivated by religion. Not politics or territorial gain. Religion.
ThetaRay
10-07-2009, 11:37 AM
Question to all you wise people here. Does anyone have a direct translation of Mahmoud A wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
It seems that his fan club...notably those on the left...are certain that is was a "mistranslation" by those who "want to put words in his mouth".
Thanks in advance for your help.
I heard that that idiom does not exist in Farsi, and therefore was just someone putting words into his mouth.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.