Iran may be biggest threat to Iraq - U.S. general

[Gary7]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina Ghook and Zionists Co. don't know that literal translation from Persian to English (or between any two languages) may often mean something quite different to what was originally said. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was calling for the replacement of the brutal and racist regime with a friendlier one (he wasn't that obvious, thinking people are intelligent enough to understand what he implied). Alas, the Zionists weren't. No, I am wrong! Zionists did understand it. However, they pretend to not to know in order to portray Ahmadinejad in a negative light. Ghook you can only 'label' Ahmadinejad as "anti-semitic" or "genocidal". Nonetheless, Olmert's practical demonstration of being genocidal is something even a rational Israeli should be human enough to condemn.

He is a radical terrorist that must be as dumb as he looks to believe that the Halocaust never happened.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa By the way, it's questionable that Iran can be considered as the source of most al-Qaeda operatives, most of whom can largely be considered "non-state operatives" anyway. For instance, in the most recent attack al-Qaeda was implicated rather than the government of Iran, which seems reasonable enough: Grandpa h.

Al Qaeda = Sunni Radicals that hate Shias also
Iran = Non-arab Shias

I don't see any plausible connection. In Iraq Iran was (is?) helping the Shia militants wage war against the Sunni militants (and Al Qaeda)! The connection is not plausible!

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 Al Qaeda = Sunni Radicals that hate Shias also Iran = Non-arab Shias I don't see any plausible connection. In Iraq Iran was (is?) helping the Shia militants wage war against the Sunni militants (and Al Qaeda)! The connection is not plausible!

At least we can agree on SOMETHING.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina At least we can agree on SOMETHING.

But it is undeniable that they fund the radical Shiite militias in Iraq, which creates great instability in Iraq. That is a huge threat to Iraq.
They fund Hezbollah, which is a huge threat to Lebanon! They support Syria, which is a terrorist state that believes Lebanon belongs to them. They support the Hamas terrorist organization.
The only one they don't support is the Al Qaeda, simply because Al Qaeda doesn't accept Shiaism

[Ghumanto]

At least 3 of my friends are Jews ( and 1 of them is a hardcore Zionist who lives in Ramat Gaan, Tel Aviv. This guy thinks the Arabs are nothing but insects!!! ). We have great debates over many issues - yet we don't quarrel and doesn't make claims that are baseless.

Last week Israel killed 120 Palestinians ( even 3 months old child ) and then a Palestinian killed 8 Israeli students.
Both are bad acts. But isn't it is genocidal what Israel is doing ?
If it was the act of any other country - what would have been your reaction ?

Why Israel need all the Nukes ?
When is the last time Iran attacked and killed other country's citizens? Whether Iran is occupying any land from any other country ?

Quote by: GHook93 Yep another way of stating they want to kill every Jew! Just wording it differently, obviously you can determine the difference because you hold the same genocidial views! Please stop the BS propaganda machine. What Israel is doing is protecting herself. If the DAILY missile attacks didn't happen then Israel would not attack the MILITANTS! What Hamas is doing is committing acts of terror, terror... What Israel is doing is defending, defending... Don't be bashful, yes you do! All the leftest do! They have never done what is in the countries best interest! Hey isn't this thread about Iran and Iraq! Can Israel be left out of at least one thread?

[Matt W]

Let's stay on-topic, people.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[GHook93]

Iran could be a huge threat to Iraq if it seeks to see a destabilized Iraq. Do they want that? Not so sure a country would wish to see its neighbor destabilized, even a country as crazy as Iran.

My theory still stands Iran is a threat to US interests in Iraq; Not to Iraq itself!

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 But it is undeniable that they fund the radical Shiite militias in Iraq, which creates great instability in Iraq. That is a huge threat to Iraq. They fund Hezbollah, which is a huge threat to Lebanon! They support Syria, which is a terrorist state that believes Lebanon belongs to them. They support the Hamas terrorist organization. The only one they don't support is the Al Qaeda, simply because Al Qaeda doesn't accept Shiaism

You got any proof of this? Or repeating Fox News/CIA brainwashing stuff again?

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 Iran could be a huge threat to Iraq if it seeks to see a destabilized Iraq. Do they want that? Not so sure a country would wish to see its neighbor destabilized, even a country as crazy as Iran. My theory still stands Iran is a threat to US interests in Iraq; Not to Iraq itself!

Iran could destabilize Iraq loooooong ago if she wanted to do. She gains nothing from doing so and most importantly, history tells us that Iran has only been a peaceful (to everyone) country under the rule of Ayatollah.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina Iran could destabilize Iraq loooooong ago if she wanted to do. She gains nothing from doing so and most importantly, history tells us that Iran has only been a peaceful (to everyone) country under the rule of Ayatollah.

I'm doing my best to understand you, but here you baffle me. Iran has been peaceful to EVERYONE under the Ayatollah? Since when?

For example, if someone went around with a banner saying "Long Live Iran, Down with the Islamic Republic," how would the Iranian government respond? Peacefully? Or how would it respond to women's rights campaigners and/or those speaking up for the rights of atheists? To such people Iran appears to be very much a threat.

Grandpa h.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: D Sretenovic There are other countries using nuclear power although they already posses enough energy-related resources; they build nuclear power plant to collect that kind of energy because it is ``sustainable`` energy source- these sources are not expected to be depleted in a time frame relevant to the human race... Iran is located on Earth, has influence on others, so? USA is also located on Earth, has huge influence on other countries, and correct me if I`m wrong- it has bigger proportions than a standard apartment. Would you accept international control of your domestic affairs on these grounds? Iran is a potential nuclear force. Iran is potentially hostile. But, that`s not enough for USA, or any other country to violate their sovereignty. Although it seems that forcing Iran to accept international control is a more secure option, on the long run, the situation is quiet opposite. Sovereignty of independent countries must be respected.

I understand your points expressed.
The difference : the Iranian governning body's position clearly indicates a potential use of WMD - if available, against other states.

[Charlatan]

Iran is not engaged with Iraq in any way other than as a friendly state, as I am sure they trade a lot and have good relations. But the prospect of owning more resources could result in Iran taking the offensive to Iraq, in her vulnerable situation. I am sure all the Middle Eastern states have that on their mind as the war drags on, but as soon as they invaded Iraq they would have the States coming back to resecure their ties with Iraq, as they have done so already, for economic reasons and power gain. They didn't fight this war for nothing, and would see to it that nobody took over Iraq and ruined their new buddies prosperity. It is funny how America wants to get involved in all matters around the world, I think it is the gung ho attitude of the president in any of these matters that leads to them making it into a Rambo movie and them seeing themselves as the good guys at war with the bad guys, rather naive if you ask me. People die in wars, and people are freed too, but isn't life under a dictator better than a lot of death and poverty in a space of time? There isn't more money for the people, so the level of living is going to be the same, and that is what really matters to the people, so why topple the government? For political reasons, for better relations, for a launch pad to the middle east.

Iran might look over at the country the same way, and seek to control it too, so Iraq is in a tight spot. I am sure none of the states want a lanch pad for the US right near them, so they may all decide to wage war on Iraq and cut her up for their own pleasure, or restore her to normal, depends what the higher powers decide to do, but I am sure they would like a link to the States through Iraq, so may leave her alone, as politicians can realise regional ties with Iraq, and Iraq will realise poltical ties with America, so maybe this will be the end of strife in the region?

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: grandpa I'm doing my best to understand you, but here you baffle me. Iran has been peaceful to EVERYONE under the Ayatollah? Since when? For example, if someone went around with a banner saying "Long Live Iran, Down with the Islamic Republic," how would the Iranian government respond? Peacefully? Or how would it respond to women's rights campaigners and/or those speaking up for the rights of atheists? To such people Iran appears to be very much a threat. Grandpa h.

I meant Iran has been peaceful in an international relations context. Iran never waged wars against anybody. The conspiracies about alleged supply of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas are unfounded.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina I meant Iran has been peaceful in an international relations context. Iran never waged wars against anybody.

Then I pretty much agree.
Iran has not been very aggressive internationally.
Still, plenty will support Bush's assertions that Iran is a massive threat (as if the Iraq War and America's own weapons development is solely for "peaceful purposes").

Grandpa h.

[southernbread]

Quote by: Charlatan Iran is not engaged with Iraq in any way other than as a friendly state, as I am sure they trade a lot and have good relations. But the prospect of owning more resources could result in Iran taking the offensive to Iraq, in her vulnerable situation. I am sure all the Middle Eastern states have that on their mind as the war drags on, but as soon as they invaded Iraq they would have the States coming back to resecure their ties with Iraq, as they have done so already, for economic reasons and power gain. They didn't fight this war for nothing, and would see to it that nobody took over Iraq and ruined their new buddies prosperity. It is funny how America wants to get involved in all matters around the world, I think it is the gung ho attitude of the president in any of these matters that leads to them making it into a Rambo movie and them seeing themselves as the good guys at war with the bad guys, rather naive if you ask me. People die in wars, and people are freed too, but isn't life under a dictator better than a lot of death and poverty in a space of time? There isn't more money for the people, so the level of living is going to be the same, and that is what really matters to the people, so why topple the government? For political reasons, for better relations, for a launch pad to the middle east. Iran might look over at the country the same way, and seek to control it too, so Iraq is in a tight spot. I am sure none of the states want a lanch pad for the US right near them, so they may all decide to wage war on Iraq and cut her up for their own pleasure, or restore her to normal, depends what the higher powers decide to do, but I am sure they would like a link to the States through Iraq, so may leave her alone, as politicians can realise regional ties with Iraq, and Iraq will realise poltical ties with America, so maybe this will be the end of strife in the region?

wow man, Have you seen anything on the news. Iran is supplying weopeons to iraq. I know i dont have to prove anythiing. But just think before you talk man. Iraq doesnt want anything to do with the war but they keep helping the "bad guys " in iraq out. Explain that. bye the way im in iraq

[Matt W]

Quote by: southernbread But just think before you talk man. Iraq doesnt want anything to do with the war but they keep helping the "bad guys " in iraq out.

Reading the second sentence shows exactly why you should apply the first sentence to yourself.

And you do have to prove stuff, sorry....this is a debate board.

[shrike]

Quote by: Ibn_Sina I meant Iran has been peaceful in an international relations context. Iran never waged wars against anybody.

Iran-Iraq war. It was an Iraq that invaded but Iran gave many reasons to do so.

Quote by: wiki In turn the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed Muslims, particularly the Shias in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, who he saw as oppressed, could and should follow the Iranian example, rise up against their governments to join a united Islamic republic.[10] Khomeini and Iran's Islamic revolutionaries despised Saddam's secularist, Arab nationalist Ba'athist regime in particular as un-Islamic and "a puppet of Satan,"[11] and called on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam and his regime. At the same time severe officer purges (including several executions ordered by Sadegh Khalkhali, the post-revolution sharia ruler), and spare parts shortages for Iran's American-made equipment, had crippled Iran's once mighty military. The bulk of the Iranian military was made up of poorly armed, though committed, militias. Iran had minimal defenses in the Shatt al-Arab river. ... The two nations severed diplomatic relations in June 1980, and sporadic border clashes increased. On September 17, in a statement addressed to the Iraqi parliament, Saddam Hussein stated that "The frequent and blatant Iranian violations of Iraqi sovereignty...have rendered the 1975 Algiers Agreement null and void... This river...must have its Iraqi-Arab identity restored as it was throughout history in name and in reality with all the disposal rights emanating from full sovereignty over the river."[14] Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980. Iraq's justification was an Iranian assassination attempt on Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. "Relations deteriorated rapidly until in March 1980, Iran unilaterally downgraded its diplomatic ties to the charged'affaires level, withdrew its ambassador, and demanded that Iraq do the same. The tension increased in April following the attempted assassination of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and, three days later, the bombing of a funeral procession being held to bury students who had died in an earlier attack. Iraq blamed Iran, and in September, attacked.[15]

The conspiracies about alleged supply of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas are unfounded.

It's not conspiracy it's the truth. Even pro-Muslim UN accept it.

Hezbollah mainly gets its money from donations. Lebanese Shi’ites often make contributions directly after prayers, leaving change in the two-handed Hezbollah collection tins. According to frequent accounts in the western press, the group also receives considerable support from Iran and Syria

IRIN Middle East | Middle East | Lebanon | LEBANON: The many hands and faces of Hezbollah | Governance Health & Nutrition Human Rights | Feature

[grandpa]

Quote by: shrike Iran-Iraq war. It was an Iraq that invaded but Iran gave many reasons to do so.

And, to my knowledge, America supported Iraq "courageously" during the whole war.

Grandpa h.

[shrike]

Quote by: grandpa And, to my knowledge, America supported Iraq "courageously" during the whole war

So?What it has to do with OP?

[Domino]

America supported both sides. Rumsfeld took care of Saddam over the table, while Ollie North took care of Iran under the table.