Question to those who favor bombing Iran

[HorseArcher]

Here it is:

The Iraq war has featured a changing cast of U.S. adversaries. Saddam Hussein. Sunni insurgents. Foreign fighters. Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

In the latest shift, the two top U.S. officials in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, focused in this week's congressional testimony on "special groups" — Iranian-backed militias — as the greatest long-term threat to Iraqi democracy.

On Thursday, President Bush endorsed the officials' troop recommendations and again recast the enemy. Iraq, he said toward the end of his speech, is "the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: al-Qaeda and Iran."

So before I quote one more piece (and it's a fact) , let me ask this:

-If we favor the peacekeeping in Iraq and want to create a democracy there, that means, we favor the Iraqis and the current Iraqi government, right?

but.

Doesn't that mean that we also favor Iran as well? According to logic, yes.

Why?

well well:

As Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., pointed out with some irritation at Tuesday's hearings, Iran's hard-line, anti-U.S. president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was greeted in Iraq recently with red carpet treatment and kisses.

Link


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (R) shakes hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upon his arrival in Baghdad March 2, 2008. Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, the first Iranian president to visit Iraq since the two neighbours fought a bitter eight-year war in the 1980s that killed a million people


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) welcomes Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as they attend an official meeting in Tehran.

There goes the "we are not talking to Iran because they are terrorists", but our puppet Iraqi government does!

I want someone to explain this to me, that Iran the "great satan" enemy of USA, while Iraq is a "hopeful democracy in the Middle East, where 4000 US soldiers died to secure peace and countless civilians , and here you go, Iraq is friendly with Iran.

How is this make sense to you, I don't know.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's making things a bit simplistic, there, Archer.



Politics is politics and the Iraqi government desperately needs to keep in Iran's good books as the country is at the mercy of Tehran in every possible way. The presence of US troops is sole reason warding Iran from interfering even more directly than it allegedly already is.

[roy34543]

Probably because both of them are better off being friendly with each other anyway .
Just because someone is evil doesnt mean it might not be in your interest to butter them up.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Probably because both of them are better off being friendly with each other anyway .
Just because someone is evil doesnt mean it might not be in your interest to butter them up.

i.e.

[NaptownKnight]

i.e.

Well the Muslim does have a point, bookstores are allowed to, as they should be in a free speech country, sell whatever they want. It is ironic however, that someone receiving Saudi money is using Free Speech to defend his actions, as Saudi Arabia is hardly known for it's freedom of speech.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

well well:

Link


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (R) shakes hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad upon his arrival in Baghdad March 2, 2008. Ahmadinejad arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, the first Iranian president to visit Iraq since the two neighbours fought a bitter eight-year war in the 1980s that killed a million people

Countries always treat visiting leaders very well. We did it for Hu Jintao and the UK did it for King Abdul Aziz (I think that's the Saudi king's name)

The kissing thing is a Middle Eastern culture thing. Not because Jalal Talabani is studly.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) welcomes Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as they attend an official meeting in Tehran.

There goes the "we are not talking to Iran because they are terrorists", but our puppet Iraqi government does!

The government of Iraq and America clearly think differently of Iran.

Not to mention it's in Iraq's best interest to keep good relations with Iran as it needs help stabilizing.

I want someone to explain this to me, that Iran the "great satan" enemy of USA, while Iraq is a "hopeful democracy in the Middle East, where 4000 US soldiers died to secure peace and countless civilians , and here you go, Iraq is friendly with Iran.

We never called Iran or Ahmadinejad the "great satan" as far as I know. As a matter of fact, he's the one that called George W. Bush one.

[Heinz Guderian]

@OP. Iran's influence in Iraq is in the national interest of the former. The connections between the Iraqi government, the militias and the political parties, and Tehran are much stronger than most people like to believe. The vacuum left by the Ba'athists was filled by the US and Iran. The proportion of the vacuum that belongs to Iran is getting bigger.

[Каие]

Actually i had a theory in which the Americans new favorites are the Shias while marganalising the influence of the sunnis to avoid a return to the saddam days. What they didn't realise is that Iran is a Shia country and now seeing as the Iranian leader is the supreme leader of the shias, Iran has a lot more influence over Iraq and a lot more in common anyway, they will soon become best friends.

You know Saddam warned everyone in his final speech before death, he told the Iraqis to unite against the Persians and told the rest of the world too.

[roy34543]

I dont thnik they will become best friends, People tend to never become friends with two such distrustful countries. They would rip each others throat out for a bit of land. But they will most likely become strategic allies. Theyre never really going to sacrifice anything for each other though.

[Каие]

Iraq is now the second largest Shia country right?
Saddam oppressed the Shias and couldn;t stand their fellow Shias across the border in iRan, they are natural allies, and as teh USA influence wanes Iranian influence grows.

[Heinz Guderian]

This is the first time in several hundred years that Iraq has been ruled by Shias. The historic and carefully evolved paradigm was destroyed in just a few weeks in April 2003. Iran and Iraq are pilgrims in an unholy land, surrounded on all sides by a ditrustful sunni brethren. The key religiously important cities of Qom and Najaf now bind the nations. On top of the Iraqi Shia government in waiting which was present in Tehran for over a decade.

[Big War Bird]

One thing at a time there outdated cavalry unit, one thing at a time.

[Emperor Taizu]

Are you doing illegal things HorseArcher? It clearly says "Not for public use" on it.

Back on topic: I think that Iran will turn on the US once they get their nuclear project done.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That would be suicide however. All of our troops are right there.. we could be in Tehran in no time at all.

[Каие]

That would be suicide however. All of our troops are right there.. we could be in Tehran in no time at all.

And leave Iraq in the .

If Iran gets a nuclear missile i would be surprised if it doesnt start flexing and threatening everyone they will shoot it them if their demands arent met.

There situation is the same as Israel. Everyone has ignored and threatened Iran ever since their revolution, including Israel, and now Israel has nukes, they feel threatened and at the will of the world. I can;t remember who it was who said, the only truly independent nations have Nukes.

I don;t want them to have Nukes, frankly i don;t think they will, but I'm against Nukes in general as who ever created a weapon they never used?
They are the single most disastrous invention of this century, possibly ever.

Incorrect. Iran invaded sovereign American soil on Nov. 4th, 1979.

It did?

[Holger Danske]

That would be suicide however. All of our troops are right there.. we could be in Tehran in no time at all.

I wouldn't push it that far, yes, you could win the war, but i'm pretty sure the Iranians would put up alot more fighting than most americans are willing to see on CNN... Bombing with B2's seems more likely.

[roy34543]

If Iran gets a nuclear missile i would be surprised if it doesnt start flexing and threatening everyone they will shoot it them if their demands arent met.

[HorseArcher]

If Iran gets a nuclear missile i would be surprised if it doesnt start flexing and threatening everyone they will shoot it them if their demands arent met.

I don't know. Self defense is one thing, pre-emptive strike is another. Iran hasn't attacked anyone for the past 400 years.

They are a giant bluff, whenever their leader opens his mouth, but besides this, Just think for a second. Let's say USA begins to bomb various places to get rid of his nuclear facilities. There will be civilian casualties, in the best case scenario (no invasion) , guess what happens in Iraq?

I'm sure violence will go up and then you gonna have a giant problem on your hands. Not just that it's hard to keep down the violence in Iraq, but now you gotta deal with Iran at the same time.

[roy34543]

Im not saying theyll attack anyone, But nuclear missiles have the capabilities to ruin whole economies of nearby regions. If people think that a nuclear missile is going to be shot at them theyre going to go the hell out of there, and that tends to be the wealthy and affluent who can afford to go.

[Hunter Makoy]

North Korea is more of a giant bluff then Iran. And maybe by having Iraq friendly with Iran ti will help with Iran's relationship with the west.

Iran may not have attacked anyone in 400 years, but they have also been on bad terms with America for 400 years. If Iraq can help that at all, then they should go ahead.