US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

[The Hierophant]

Ok, so, again, what do the words 'free' and 'secure' mean to you? I don't care what the writers of a particular reference book have to say, I was asking you.

[promethius9594]

i think, heirophant, that what timber was saying is that what he means is the dictionary definition. he could cut and paste it here for you if you need to see him say it, but that doesnt change the definition.

[The Hierophant]

Alright then....

[Masklinn]

If "secure and free" implies not lead by a bunch of extremists...then I don't see any end to this occupation.

Either way Iran's involvement in this war makes a lot of sense to me :
- US leaves, Iraqis choose a chiit(sp?) islamist govt : Iran is happy.
- US stays and the whole middle-east spit on them for that : Iran is happy.

The game is over ? Naaah, it has just begun.

[ 06-01-2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Oh god - the new 'scapegoats'. Ain't gonna buy that one. Iraq war with the US was *always* going to end up with a) the US winning and b) the US *forever* maintaining control of Iraq. No-one but an idiot would believe that Iran didn't know this/wanted it. They'd rather have mad but very weak Saddam on the other side of the border that a permanent US troop presence.

Are you aware of how much the British shafted the Iranians by any chance? Are you aware of the history of Iran? Iran learned it's shrewd international policymaking the hard way - on the receiving end of British bastardry - which still pays the British nice fat pounds. Check out B.P. for starters and who still has oil rights in southern Iran.

Then check out who created Kuwait, and Bahrain. Actually, check out who created modern Iraq itself come to think of it.

Prior to the current negative relationship with the USA, Iran actually looked to the USA to save them from British and Russian molestation. It makes sense that Iran would prefer the (now hated) Americans on their doorstep, rather than the lovechild of their demon oppressor.

I see no proof for this, just speculation, but were it true, it would be a delicious irony, and yes, would make perfect sense, given Irans history of it's internal affairs being manipulated by the British Empire.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Masklinn: If "secure and free" implies not lead by a bunch of extremists...then I don't see any end to this occupation. Either way Iran's involvement in this war makes a lot of sense to me : - US leaves, Iraqis choose a chiit(sp?) islamist govt : Iran is happy. - US stays and the whole middle-east spit on them for that : Iran is happy. The game is over ? Naaah, it has just begun.

I agree

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I love to see people proven wrong, but few so much as you when middle east issues are involved. I eagerly anticipate the day where you are proven wrong on (b).

I doubt if you want me to be proven wrong on middle-eastern issues as much as I do. [/QUOTE]Oh I doubt that very much.

[Timber Loftis]

If "secure and free" implies not lead by a bunch of extremists...then I don't see any end to this occupation.

I hope this is eggregiously wrong. And I hope that you do too, Masklinn.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Oh god - the new 'scapegoats'. Ain't gonna buy that one. Iraq war with the US was *always* going to end up with a) the US winning and b) the US *forever* maintaining control of Iraq. No-one but an idiot would believe that Iran didn't know this/wanted it. They'd rather have mad but very weak Saddam on the other side of the border that a permanent US troop presence.

Are you aware of how much the British shafted the Iranians by any chance? Are you aware of the history of Iran? Iran learned it's shrewd international policymaking the hard way - on the receiving end of British bastardry - which still pays the British nice fat pounds. Check out B.P. for starters and who still has oil rights in southern Iran.

Then check out who created Kuwait, and Bahrain. Actually, check out who created modern Iraq itself come to think of it.

Prior to the current negative relationship with the USA, Iran actually looked to the USA to save them from British and Russian molestation. It makes sense that Iran would prefer the (now hated) Americans on their doorstep, rather than the lovechild of their demon oppressor.

I see no proof for this, just speculation, but were it true, it would be a delicious irony, and yes, would make perfect sense, given Irans history of it's internal affairs being manipulated by the British Empire. [/QUOTE]Yorick, these personal attacks are so thinly veiled these days that they'd make a belly dancer blush with shame.

The Shah's dicatorship was put in place and maintained by BOTH the Britain and the US - both had an oily reason for him to stay in power (and some cold war reasons too) - the Shah was not afraid of the British anymore than he was of the US. The SHAH loved Britain and the US for that - the people who suffered and died under the regime did not - hence the popular revolution that removed him and the level hate seen for the US and Britain during the embassy siege of '79.

Anyway, this discussion wasn't about the shah's dictatorship or middle-eastern history, it's about the current situation. And in today's world, Iranians are very COLD to the idea of having the US on their borders - not just the leadership, but the people too.

Democracy is shaky in Iran, but it's better than what they had before.

[johnny]

Skunk, there is NO democracy in Iran.