US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

[Timber Loftis]

Skunk, it's dirty pool to declare salient points to be personal attacks. The belly dancer may be in your tent on this one.

As well, I'm sure you'd love to limit the discussion to just the points you made, as we all would, but an open discussion doesn't quite allow one to draw those narrow lines, does it?

And, let's be clear, you responded to some real concerns stated in the original article about the Iraqi ex-pats in the US influencing the US's policy by basically saying "that's not the view I prefer." Well, duuuuuuuh, we all know the view you prefer -- it's strictly anti-US (the government, not the country). Bias abounds on all sides here, it seems to me.

[ 06-04-2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Yorick, these personal attacks are so thinly veiled these days that they'd make a belly dancer blush with shame.

What personal attacks? Stay on topic Skunk.

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.

According to Karl E. Meyer, Reza Shah's ascension was endorsed and encouraged by Sir Edmund Ironside, the Englishman running the show in Persia. All the USA did was choose not to reverse the British decisions or contracts. The "partition" of Persia between Britain and Russia happened well before that.

As to "living in today" Central Asians have a longer and stronger collective memory than westerners. It's easy for the victorious affluent westerner to revel in the now, much harder for the people who's glories lie centuries in the dust. It is vitally important to understande the "sins of the past" if we're to understand today.

USAs problems in the area are inheritted from British imperialism. Period. What causes suspicion? Past actions. Britian were Machiavellian in manipulating the politics of areas outside their direct control. As I stated, Persia/Iran, learned their politics from the British, so, if true, the scenario of duping America into a war, is not far fetched at all. Would be, as I stated, a delicious irony in fact.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by johnny: Skunk, there is NO democracy in Iran.

Exactly, it's a pseudo-theocracy.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Skunk, there is NO democracy in Iran.

Exactly, it's a pseudo-theocracy. [/QUOTE]There is MORE democracy in Iran than in any other state in the middle-east (with the exception of Israel) - Iran's democracy is on a par with Egypt - which is a whole lot more than the dictorship of the Shah.

As for the current middle-east - *ALL* of the US's allies in the region (excepting Israel) are petty dictatorships which use torture and murder to control as a matter of course.

Iranians do not want to share the plight of Libyans - living under an oppressive regime backed by the US and UK - and therefore with NO HOPE of removing the shackles.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: There is MORE democracy in Iran than in any other state in the middle-east (with the exception of Israel)

And why make the exception, as though Israel are not REALLY part of the middle east????????

One could actually say: "There is less democracy in Iran than Israel - the most democratic nation in the area."