Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[The Gaffer]

I find it deeply disturbing that people can so readily shift the identity of the enemy. We are fighting Iran and Syria now? When did that get passed through Congress?

It is well past time to ditch these incompetents.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Actually, you are fighting the Syrians. The Iranians are the ones actually keeping Moqtadah Al Sadr in check, and they were also hunting Zarqawi before you killed him.

Iran is funding Shi'ite militant groups, and the Shi'ite death squads. They are adding to the instability in that way, because a Shi'ite power that is dependent upon Iran is what suits their interests. Killing off the Sunnis is also in their interests.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find it deeply disturbing that people can so readily shift the identity of the enemy. We are fighting Iran and Syria now? When did that get passed through Congress?

Ayatollah Khameini has called for the destruction of the West, and Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel (and the only evidence opposing that is one article from the Guardian, which is one of the most radically left-wing papers out there). Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is trying to build nuclear weapons. At the same time, he continues to fund our enemies in Iraq and creates more instability there, which results in the deaths of thousands of innocents Sunnis and some of our troops. Iran is one of the major funders of terrorism. Ahmadinejad has walked in the streets with protesters who are holding signs that say, "Death to the US, death to Israel," and has never attempted to restrain his followers. Suicide bombers are receiving training in Iran.

Considering all this, it is very, very reasonable to consider Iran to be a threat. As Syria also continues to fund terrorism, it is also very reasonable to consider them to be a threat. It is unreasonable, to put it mildly, to not view these nations as threats.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It is well past time to ditch these incompetents.

We often expect gratification too soon and success too soon. It takes time and sustained effort to win a war.

[The Gaffer]

I find that view of Iran simplistic in the extreme. No-one wants to see them get nukes, but if I were Iranian, I would have no problem justifying their pursuit, thanks in no small measure to our behaviour.

And now that the military option has been shown to be pie-in-the-sky (apart from bombing installations, which would probably happen anyway but is fraught with risk) we are now faced with diplomacy as the only route. Thanks to Bush's incompetence, all Iran's cards are trumps.

So even if Iran is a major threat, we need people who are capable of dealing with them.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I find that view of Iran simplistic in the extreme. No-one wants to see them get nukes, but if I were Iranian, I would have no problem justifying their pursuit, thanks in no small measure to our behaviour.

Irrelevant. The Nazis could also have justified themselves, and the Russians during the Cold War could justify themselves. And perhaps there is some measure of justice to Iranian complaints. It doesn't make them any less a threat to us or enemies of us.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And now that the military option has been shown to be pie-in-the-sky (apart from bombing installations, which would probably happen anyway but is fraught with risk) we are now faced with diplomacy as the only route. Thanks to Bush's incompetence, all Iran's cards are trumps.

Again, if we use enough of our power and are willing to pay the price in Iraq, we can succeed. In the West, though, we tend to expect immediate results. This will time though, and resolve. As long as most Iraqis want a democracy and want peace, a victory can be won.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And more:

Yep, just as the Soviet Union disappeared and all its inhabitants were wiped out, so too will the Zionist regime....What? You mean the people of the Soviet Union weren't wiped out? That instead, a state based on an official ideology was replaced with a neutral democratic government in which everyone has a vote? And that this is the fate which Ahmadinejad has in mind for Israelis and Palestinians? The Horror!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Iran is funding Shi'ite militant groups, and the Shi'ite death squads. They are adding to the instability in that way, because a Shi'ite power that is dependent upon Iran is what suits their interests. Killing off the Sunnis is also in their interests.

And the main group which Iran supports is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was founded, organised, trained and paid for by Iran. Note the name- this group split from the Dawa party specifically on the issue of supporting Khomeneism, i.e. rule by the imams, which Sistani and other Iraqi clerics oppose.

The militia of SCIRI are the Badr Brigades, organised, trained and, up till the last few years, under the operational control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards- they fought alongside Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq Wars. They are often derided even by other Shiites as "Persians" because of their Iranian accents; most of them were born and grew up in Iran.

Their leader, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, is the main supporter of creating a Shiite federation in southern Iraq, which will be under the effective control of Iran.

Name sound familiar?

Hakim was just in Washington, where he was highly-praised by Bush for his
“strong position against the murder of innocent life.”
During the rule of former PM Jaafari, SCIRI ran the Interior Ministry under Bayan Jabar, and was widely criticised for turning it into Death-Squad Central

It's been widely speculated that Bush is trying to engineer a deal where the United Uraqi Alliance is broken and Moqtada al-Sadr is pushed out in favour of an a SCIRI/Sunni Arab Party/Kurdish coalition.

Ayatollah Khameini has called for the destruction of the West, and Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel (and the only evidence opposing that is one article from the Guardian, which is one of the most radically left-wing papers out there).

No, it has been pointed out time and again from many sources that Ahmadinejad was mistranslated; that other sources simply keep quoting that mistranslation is neither here nor there. What Ahmadinejad has been calling is for the dissolution of the State of Israel, just as (as your own quote shows) the USSR was dissolved; just as the US calls for the dissolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Now, I don't particularly believe the President's public statements- his holding of the Holocaust deniers' conference reveals a truer expression of his character- but that's what he's been saying.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is trying to build nuclear weapons. At the same time, he continues to fund our enemies in Iraq and creates more instability there, which results in the deaths of thousands of innocents Sunnis and some of our troops. Iran is one of the major funders of terrorism. Ahmadinejad has walked in the streets with protesters who are holding signs that say, "Death to the US, death to Israel," and has never attempted to restrain his followers. Suicide bombers are receiving training in Iran.

Iran is funding your 'friends' in Iraq- though some of their funding probably goes to al-Sadr, he has always been an Iraqi nationalist and an opponent of Iranian influence. The innocent Sunnis -who started being killed after the Sunni insurgency started targetting innocent Shiites- are being killed by both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades led by Bush's new-found buddy al-Hakim.

Considering all this, it is very, very reasonable to consider Iran to be a threat. As Syria also continues to fund terrorism, it is also very reasonable to consider them to be a threat. It is unreasonable, to put it mildly, to not view these nations as threats.

Which is precisely why they need to be included in talks- not that I think Syria has that much influence anyway, but Iran certainly does, and if Bush's new plan succeeds (though I don't think it will) they'll have even more influence, with al-Hakim at the center of power.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Again, if we use enough of our power and are willing to pay the price in Iraq, we can succeed.

Uh, Lief, who is this "we" who will be "paying the price" in Iraq? As far as I understand the word, it means "you and me"- in your use it seems to mean "if somebody else (not including me) is willing to pay the price in Iraq."

Warning that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations, the nation's top Army general yesterday called for expanding the force by 7,000 or more soldiers a year and lifting Pentagon restrictions on involuntary call-ups of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, issued his most dire assessment yet of the toll of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the nation's main ground force. At one point, he banged his hand on a House committee-room table, saying the continuation of today's Pentagon policies is "not right."

So, when are you joining up?

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Uh, Lief, who is this "we" who will be "paying the price" in Iraq? As far as I understand the word, it means "you and me"- in your use it seems to mean "if somebody else (not including me) is willing to pay the price in Iraq."



So, when are you joining up?

No kidding......They'll need to start the draft again....but to make it "fair"....imo.... only the healthy young bodies that voted for Bush should be called up, suited up, and introduced to their new home in the sand....

[captain carrot]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

... and are willing to pay the price in Iraq ...

What value would a true beleiver give that, think you, Lief?

What price is fair?

I find it odd a true believer should couch a christian view in such singuarly -

'them / us' and indeed Commercial greed / profit & Loss terms


- "price to pay"

- As a christian you are happy to barter for life and death? ..for innocent souls? and at best, therefore make human judgement on those souls that are not innocent above and beyond the justice of heaven or God himself ????




THIS is the teaching of Jesus, my friend? ????????????


Without pointless quoting various flippets or bejebits from here or there, as anyone can ... perhaps you tell me what are the cornerstone beleifs for you personally, of being a Christian are?

best, BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Yep, just as the Soviet Union disappeared and all its inhabitants were wiped out, so too will the Zionist regime....What? You mean the people of the Soviet Union weren't wiped out? That instead, a state based on an official ideology was replaced with a neutral democratic government in which everyone has a vote? And that this is the fate which Ahmadinejad has in mind for Israelis and Palestinians? The Horror!

I have visited the man's website, and there he says that it will be done through a wave of attacks that will come from an unspecified source.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So, when are you joining up?

If I'm drafted, I'll go willingly. My country has the power to call more people forward if it needs them enough.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Uh, Lief, who is this "we" who will be "paying the price" in Iraq? As far as I understand the word, it means "you and me"- in your use it seems to mean "if somebody else (not including me) is willing to pay the price in Iraq."

I'd willingly fight in Iraq if I'm called. Are you saying that anyone who supports a war should be in the front line?

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Their leader, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, is the main supporter of creating a Shiite federation in southern Iraq, which will be under the effective control of Iran.

Name sound familiar?

Hakim was just in Washington, where he was highly-praised by Bush for his
“strong position against the murder of innocent life.”
During the rule of former PM Jaafari, SCIRI ran the Interior Ministry under Bayan Jabar, and was widely criticised for turning it into Death-Squad Central

It's been widely speculated that Bush is trying to engineer a deal where the United Uraqi Alliance is broken and Moqtada al-Sadr is pushed out in favour of an a SCIRI/Sunni Arab Party/Kurdish coalition.

Al-Sadr is a dangerous man, and it makes sense that our government might try to lessen his influence. Bringing political parties together and trying to form unity from them also makes sense.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

No, it has been pointed out time and again from many sources that Ahmadinejad was mistranslated; that other sources simply keep quoting that mistranslation is neither here nor there.

That the Guardian, which has a strongly left-wing bias, is the only paper making this claim is telling. That all governments and major papers and sources aside from the Guardian translate his comments differently thoroughly undermines this rose-colored view of Iran.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

What Ahmadinejad has been calling is for the dissolution of the State of Israel, just as (as your own quote shows) the USSR was dissolved; just as the US calls for the dissolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Again, on his website he says that a wave of attacks will sweep Israel aside. The comparison to the USSR is a reference to Israel's military power. Israel has the fourth most powerful army in the world and has repeatedly defeated its Arab neighbors. It is similar to the USSR in terms of strength, from their perspective.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Iran is funding your 'friends' in Iraq- though some of their funding probably goes to al-Sadr, he has always been an Iraqi nationalist and an opponent of Iranian influence. The innocent Sunnis -who started being killed after the Sunni insurgency started targetting innocent Shiites- are being killed by both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades led by Bush's new-found buddy al-Hakim.

Bringing enemies into the peace process is an important element to victory in Iraq. And Iran, according to the Washington Post, has been funneling "hundreds of millions [of dollars]" to Iranian militias, as well as "arms and logistical support."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112801277.html
You may argue that President Bush is wrong in trying to bring al-Hakim into their side, and perhaps he is wrong about al-Hakim. But al-Hakim is not the only group in Iraq that Iran funds. Iran's money goes to many militant groups and is focused toward the destruction of the Sunnis and the establishment of a government Iran favors and can, perhaps, control. Maybe casting some blame on the Bush Administration in this is justified, and maybe not. But either way, Iran is responsible for destabilizing Iraq and causing many deaths for the sake of its own political agenda.

The Shi'ites are the majority in Iraq, and they will end up dominating in a democracy. Iran supports the Shi'ites and wants to woo them over to itself. Thus when we turn power over to Iraq, it will go over to Shi'ites, which will naturally also end up working along the same line as Iran's goals to some extent. So it's only natural that our efforts to be friendly to the Shi'ites will sometimes support the same groups that Iran is trying to woo and is supporting. There will naturally be some overlap. We are trying to get all these groups on board, and in a democracy, there will naturally be a power transfer to large Shi'ite groups in Iraq. That Iran wants to empower these groups also is only natural. The Administration and our leaders on the ground are the ones in the best position to say who they want to isolate and who they want to involve. They surely make some mistakes. But that does not change the fact that Iran is responsible for the deaths of many Sunnis in Iraq and for the deaths of some of our troops. They are an enemy that we are confronting there.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Which is precisely why they need to be included in talks- not that I think Syria has that much influence anyway, but Iran certainly does, and if Bush's new plan succeeds (though I don't think it will) they'll have even more influence, with al-Hakim at the center of power.

Condoleeza Rice recently spoke about this. She said that they wanted to get Iran and Syria involved, but not at the cost of giving up Lebanon's independence and handing it back to Syria, or at the cost of allowing Iran's nuclear program to go forward unchecked.

[captain carrot]

That the Guardian, which has a strongly left-wing bias, is the only paper making this claim is telling. That all governments and major papers and sources aside from the Guardian translate his comments differently thoroughly undermines this rose-colored view of Iran.

The Guardian does indeed have strong leanings, as you say, no two ways, Lief .

But jounalistically, i would be very careful of painting it as a white-wash rag, or stymied cyclops.

Hardly so.

Absolutely, take a filter to it's tint ... but i would stop way far, both in terms of journalistic merit and integrity, of calling the Manchester Guardian ( a by-word for investigative and integral journalism) and now for many years THE Guardian, simply a one-sided myopia ...

filter any media souce, of course, but in this case allow it some honest and integral journalistic credence.

best, BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by captain carrot

What value would a true beleiver give that, think you, Lief?

What price is fair?

It's not going to be fair. Many people have died in Iraq, and didn't deserve to die. Many people died in the Revolution in America, dying for freedom, and they didn't deserve to die either. They paid a price of their lives for freedom. We are paying a cost of lives and treasure for the protection of our country, and for the freedom of Iraq.

Originally Posted by captain carrot

I find it odd a true believer should couch a christian view in such singuarly -

'them / us' and indeed Commercial greed / profit & Loss terms

When I chose the words "pay the price," I did not mean money. I was referring to buying Iraqi freedom and our own national security at the cost of our lives. That naturally involves all sorts of unfairness, as many people die who did not deserve to die.

Originally Posted by captain carrot

[I] - "price to pay"

- As a christian you are happy to barter for life and death? ..for innocent souls? and at best, therefore make human judgement on those souls that are not innocent above and beyond the justice of heaven or God himself ????

Hmm . . . we've been over this one before . Do you mind if I explain my position by asking a question or two? I hope not, so here goes!

Do you think that whenever any injustice is done any of us, we should accept it and allow God to take care of it without our doing anything? For instance, if I had two children and one stole the other's cookie, should I wait on God to bring his justice, or should I give the mistreated child back his cookie and tell his sibling not to do it again?

I know, obviously, that a cookie theft issue is nowhere near the scale of life and death issues, but I'd appreciate hearing your answer anyway. This question is about the general principle of humans taking care of themselves and God taking care of people.

Originally Posted by captain carrot

Without pointless quoting various flippets or bejebits from here or there, as anyone can ... perhaps you tell me what are the cornerstone beleifs for you personally, of being a Christian are?

I think that that would be rather off-topic, and also very longwinded. Do you want to take me to the Theology thread and ask me a more specific question there? If so, I'll do that. Here, I'll just answer about my position as a Christian on the issues at hand.

God is just and he does see that justice is done. Sometimes, he wants to bring justice through his followers. Sometimes death is just. So sometimes, when God wants to bring justice through his followers, that also means bringing death to others through his followers. God also gives people a large ability to manage their own affairs, because if he intervened all the time, people would not grow. But he has given people the principles by which to live and the means to gain knowledge about what is right (the Holy Spirit).

I think that those are the basics of what I believe on this issue, as a Christian.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by captain carrot

The Guardian does indeed have strong leanings, as you say, no two ways, Lief .

But jounalistically, i would be very careful of painting it as a white-wash rag, or stymied cyclops.

Hardly so.

I'm not saying it's always wrong on everything. You're quite right that that would be the wrong approach. However, I am saying that when the only source that argues for a mistranslation is one that is known to have "strong leanings," while all other reputable papers and governments say otherwise, the Guardian's evidence looks very, very thin indeed.

[Insidious Rex]

The bottom line is Ahmadinejad is on a general scale bad news. Hes an extremist who makes frightening statements and supports things that go counter to our benefit. And of course whats sad is that his election was probably a response to Bush’s re-election and policies since 2001. But we have to make do with what we have.

So… whats important to realize about Ahmadinejad is that he speaks frighteningly in public for a specific purpose (it makes him look tough and instills Iranian pride and shows the rest of the middle east that Iran is one of the dominant forces in the region). Does he really intend to “wipe Israel off the map”? Probably not. He knows it would be suicide to do so and mean severe hardship for Iran’s people. And it should be noted that in the most recent elections in Iran, the biggest reformist party said Ahmadinejad had suffered a "decisive defeat" due to his government's "authoritarian and inefficient methods." So even now the people of Iran aren’t too thrilled with how things are being run. Day to day life for your average Iranian isn’t great and Iranians blame Ahmadinejad and his band of extremists for that. So the worry that Iran is turning into some kind of Nazi Germany-like regime are silly. The only real threat is some rogue element getting a hold of Iranian nukes somehow because its very doubtful that Iran, even the extremists, would ever sell or provide nukes to terrorists directly so that they could target Israel. Let alone do it themselves.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The only real threat is some rogue element getting a hold of Iranian nukes somehow because its very doubtful that Iran, even the extremists, would ever sell or provide nukes to terrorists directly so that they could target Israel. Let alone do it themselves.

I don't know whether they'd do it themselves or not. I think they very likely would use nuclear weapons as a deterent to attack. Then, while being impervious to attack, they can increase their dominance in other countries, perhaps funding rebel groups and sparking coups in the Middle East in general, much as the USSR did while using its nukes as a deterent. If they had nuclear weapons, they'd very likely use their power to increase attacks on Israel and armament for Israel's opposition. They'd be an all-around major thorn in the side of all Muslim moderate governments out there, and probably would spark new conflicts and fuel those that already exist.

But these are radical Islamic extremists we're talking about. They have the same ideology as many of those they support, and their followers would be glad to lay down their lives for Allah. That means they may in fact use the nuclear weapons, and certainly their selling them to militant groups like Hezbollah is a major and worthwhile concern. We shouldn't be too sure of ourselves, about how they'd behave. They might be among those who are willing to give up their lives for their God. I suspect that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini, for one, would be. So we can't underestimate the threat a nuclear armed Iran would pose at all. They may indeed use them and they certainly might sell them. It depends just how fervent their leaders are in their beliefs. These people don't think the same way that we in the West do, or in the way the USSR did. That increases the peril that we might make false assumptions about how they'll behave.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

These people don't think the same way that we in the West do, or in the way the USSR did. That increases the peril that we might make false assumptions about how they'll behave.

Be careful there about "these people". We're all Jock Tamsin's Bairns. However, we're agreed that no-one wants to see a nuclear armed Iran. Where we're not agreed is on whether waging war and militaristic posturing is the best way to prevent it.

We've already proved (thanks, George) that the military option is profoundly impotent. Who was it who said "speak softly, but carry a big stick"? Roosevelt? Anyway, Bush has managed to get us into the position of speaking harshly and carrying a soggy twig. Idiocy.

Throughout the 90s the Iranian regmine was softening and starting to open up more to the West. There was a small flowering of secular culture, particularly cinema, as Iranians enjoyed more freedom. Go and see "Taxi Driver" (not the one with Jodi Foster...) for an outstanding example of women leading from the front. As IR pointed out, by invading Iraq we helped push it back out to the extreme.

These sorts of regimes can only last as long as the perceived threat against which they define themselves. It should be obvious to all but the most myopic that by waging war against them we only increase the number of people willing to blow themselves up.

The Bush Administration is clearly incapable of taking any other approach. The Iraq Study Group looks set to have its recommendations ignored like everyone else who disagrees with them. In my view it is increasingly urgent that this lot are thrown out of office as being unfit for purpose.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree with you that attacking them increases the number of people who share the extremist ideology. However, attacking them sometimes is the only option. I can't see any good options, as regards Iraq or Iran, or in many places at all where we are confronting Islamic extremism. In Iraq, if we pull out, we'd get a civil war and Iran dominating the oil wells. If we stay the course, though, we suffer and increase the number of our enemies. Either way, our enemies gain and we lose. So the question becomes "what is the best option of the bad options available?"

And with Iran, the same applies. They reject diplomatic offers and have stalled the West for years now on this issue. They meanwhile develop nuclear weapons, espouse an extremist ideology, fund extremist militant groups, threaten Israel with annihilation, and show themselves in every way to be a dangerous, hostile force in the region. If they continue to reject diplomacy, using our military may become the best option of a bunch of bad options.

I think the situation thoroughly stinks as regards our position fighting Islamic extremism in general. There aren't any good answers, really. The best answers available seem to just minimize the damage. So those are the ones we have to take. Spending our time blaming the Administration for actions that they, Congress and the public all shared belief in isn't going to get us anywhere. Our time would be better spent pursuing the best options that remain.

[The Gaffer]

Agreed mostly, though the key issue is whether attacking works (I would say it hasn't, and isn't, and has, in fact, weakened our position).

Given that the current Administration refuses to acknowledge the need for a different approach, I would say that renders them incompetent to deal with the reality we now face.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Agreed mostly, though the key issue is whether attacking works (I would say it hasn't, and isn't, and has, in fact, weakened our position).

I agree with you that it expands the extremism, but then, leaving the extremism to itself or taking mere diplomatic actions against it can be an even more dangerous option, in this age of WMDs.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Given that the current Administration refuses to acknowledge the need for a different approach, I would say that renders them incompetent to deal with the reality we now face.

They are actually working to establish a new strategy in Iraq. That has been on the headlines for a long time. Also, they've been exploring diplomatic avenues as regards North Korea and Iran for a long time.

[hectorberlioz]

I would just like to say that the News Conference this morning with the President brought out the more sincere talk that he needs to use more often.