Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSeveral top Iraqi politicians have been making the rounds in Iran lately, getting support from Tehran in advance of elections scheduled in Iraq for January. Among the politicians: Ammar al-Hakim, the son of the late Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the former Iraqi prime minister who leads a breakaway faction of the Islamic Call (Dawa) party in Iraq.
Their tour, which reflects Iran's intimate relationship to many Iraqi politicians, is a sign that Iran is paying close attention to Iraqi politics. Over the summer, top Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Leader, urged Shiite Iraqis to re-unite into a unified movement for the elections. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who leads another faction of Dawa, initially wanted to join the Shiite bloc, but he demanded too much as a condition for joining, and he eventually opted out. The new Iraqi bloc includes Hakim's ISCI, the Sadrists, Jaafari's Dawa faction, and other Shiite groups. (Maliki still maintains close ties to Iran, however.)
The issue of Iran's influence in Iraq is critical for President Obama's policy toward both countries. The ongoing US talks with Iran, if they make progress, could create space for Iran and the United States to work together on stabilizing Iraq in 2010, when at least 70,000 US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq. But if the US-Iran talks falter, Iran could use its influence in Iraq to create conflict, greatly complicating the planned US pullout. And, of course, if the US-Iran conflict escalates toward confrontation and war, Iran can use its military, intelligence, and political power in Iraq to inflict casualties on American troops there.
Last week, Hakim -- himself a cleric -- visited several top Iranian ayatollahs in Qom, including Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi and Ayatollah Ali Safi Golpayegani, both relative hardliners in the Iranian spectrum. Shirazi told Hakim that "security in Iraq and Iran are inseparable," and he issued a not-so-veiled criticism of US allegations that Iran supports violent Shiite groups that attack US forces, according to the Tehran Times, saying:
"I am surprised to hear some countries saying Iran helps terrorists in Iraq, while Iraq's peace and security is our security and the two countries are not separable."
The Tehran Times added:
"The ayatollah also warned that the enemy is promoting Iranophobia and Iraqophobia, expressing hope that the two countries could thwart the enemy's efforts through joint cooperation."Everyone should be aware of the enemy's plots and this fact that the enemy is greedy about Iraq, he added."
Golpayegani, the other ayatollah, told Hakim that Iran's Shiites should stick together under the leadership of the Iraq-based clerics in Najaf, including Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Persian-born mullah who is the chief religious leader in Iraq and who commands the devotion of Shiites worldwide. It was Sistani who helped assemble the sectarian Shiite-only voting bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, that included the Hakims, Maliki, and Muqtada al-Sadr, in 2005.
In Tehran, Hakim also met Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki all of whom pledged support for Iraqi national security efforts.
Jalili told Hakim that US forces in Iraq are a threat to both countries:
"Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili, in a separate meeting with Ammar Hakim on Sunday, said the presence of foreign forces in Iraq is a major threat to the country's security situation."Jalili added that the presence of occupying forces in Iraq is hindering the country's progress."
Hakim, a thirty-something political neophyte who's inherited his father's mantle, didn't go so far as to agree with his Iranian interlocutors, at least according to the Iranian media. Unlike Sadr, who's made no bones about denouncing the US force, the Hakims have been careful not to express outright opposition to the US role in Iraq. On the contrary, both the Hakims and Maliki have welcomed US assistance to the Iraqi armed forces and police, as long as that assistance is used to build up the Shiite-led military. But they've resisted including Sunni forces into the army and police, especially the remnants of the Sons of Iraq movement -- the Awakening, or sahwa -- that was funded and sustained by the United States. The Sons of Iraq militia, which were organized by former anti-US resistance fighters and Sunni tribal leaders, have been abandoned by the United States lately, and they've splintered. Some support Maliki, but many of them are drifting back into sullen opposition if not armed resistance.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
So after 4100+ dead GIs and a trillion in debt...
George Dubya Bush and the neo-cons have created a MORE-friendly-to-Iran government and attitude in Iraq?
Odd...doesn't seem to comport with their view on Iran, does it???
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:09am
and after ? dead GIs and trillions in debt, Obama may create a unified Taliban hegemony in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Posted by trueleftist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:30am
So after 4100+ dead GIs and a trillion in debt...
George Dubya Bush and the neo-cons have created a MORE-friendly-to-Iran government and attitude in Iraq?
Odd...doesn't seem to comport with their view on Iran, does it???
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Obama's the President. Not Bush.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by trueleftist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:30am
That's going to happen regardless, just as, as soon as Saddam and the Sunni minority Baathists were overthrown....Shiia would take over and find a new friend in Iran.
And Obama isn't suicidal enough to keep us in it until 2012 to prove it.
Too long?...yes. But he WILL pull us out of Afghanistan well before 2012.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:44am
After 4,100 + dead GIs and a trillion in debt... doesn't begin to cover the real costs of the Iraq war. What about 37,000 + wounded GIs. How many dead and wounded Iraqis? How many fatherless / motherless / orphaned children? What is the cost of a destroyed infrastructure and what will be the cost in Iraqi lives and treasure for years to come? How may terrorists were created and what will the future cost be? What is the cost to the reputation of the USA? As for Iranian influence in Iraq, that should come as no surprise considering the majority of Iraqis share the same branch of the Muslim faith as the majority of Iranians!
Posted by amasiam at 10/13/2009 @ 11:58am
"The ayatollah also warned that the enemy is promoting Iranophobia and Iraqophobia, expressing hope that the two countries could thwart the enemy's efforts through joint cooperation.
"Everyone should be aware of the enemy's plots and this fact that the enemy is greedy about Iraq, he added."
Kind of sums it up.
And what have the American people gained by invading & occupying Iraq?
And by invading & attempting to subjugate Afghanistan?
Already CNN -- a TimeWarner wholly owned subsidiary, TW being a close Bloomberg ally -- is labeling the Afghan war as Obama's war.
Pres. Obama, you've been set up & you're playing right along, Nobel prize notwithstanding.
Posted by sloper at 10/13/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by amasiam at 10/13/2009 @ 11:58am
However you make the calculus....if you had PLANNED on a way to boost the prestige and influence of Iran...
you couldn't have done it any better than Dubya and the neo-cons did.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 1:55pm
WASHINGTON -" The Pentagon is speeding up delivery of a colossal bomb designed to destroy hidden weapons bunkers buried underground and shielded by 10,000 pounds of reinforced concrete.
Call it Plan B for dealing with Iran, which recently revealed a long-suspected nuclear site deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom.
The 15-ton behemoth -- called the "massive ordnance penetrator," or MOP -- will be the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal and will carry 5,300 pounds of explosives. The bomb is about 10 times more powerful than the weapon it is designed to replace.
The Pentagon has awarded a nearly $52 million contract to speed up placement of the bomb aboard the B-2 Stealth bomber, and officials say the bomb could be fielded as soon as next summer."
uh oh, here we go.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/13/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by amasiam at 10/13/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
right, but it gets even worse.
our puppet regime spent the last twenty years in exile in, wait for it, Iran.
so our puppet is THEIR puppet.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 5:12pm
so our puppet is THEIR puppet.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 5:12pm
Right on the money Emile.
It's so ironic that most Americans, especially the right, are so ignorant of this fact. Tehran and Washington both support the same government, but the war party keep insisting that Iran is trying to undermine it.
Clueless.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 5:43pm
However you make the calculus....if you had PLANNED on a way to boost the prestige and influence of Iran...
you couldn't have done it any better than Dubya and the neo-cons did.
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 1:55pm
I would expect this stupidity from you Mask but you seem to be in pretty good company to date.
Iran happens to be Iraq's next door neighbour and its alienation from Iraq was the work of Saddam.
Of course you unashamedly borrow part of your defective jigsaw puzzle from the "neo-cons". Iran for all the defcts of its present leader and leadership is streets ahead of of Saddam's Iraq in terms of democracy and human rights.
That Arab (and that is the difference) Iraq seeks to have normal cultural and trade relationships with Persian Iran would seem sinister only to the "fundamentalist type" mindset of so many Americans, left or right, that you and others including Dreyfus display.
If it becomes necessary for America, with others to do something to halt Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions then that is a matter that does not concern Iraq's new relationship with America or with Iran. I don't think even the neo-cons want to bomb Iran because it is Shiite.
Iraq, expressing its independence, is making it very plain that it is not America's proxy or puppet in the ME. I think you will find that is what most would call the exercise of national sovereignty.
So there you have it. Bush got rid of an horrific tyrant, opened the door not only for a new democratic state but also a sovereign one. It's a little independent country called Iraq that should have no trouble with telling Iran, as it has told the US, that "we intend to run our country ourselves".
I don't know Mask but somehow you make Bush's "bad" war look better every time you say something.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 6:50pm
Mr Dreyfuss,
You aren't serious about this article are you?
Your whole premise is a terrible joke if you actually are going to promote the idea that Iran doesn't support terrorist activities in Iraq.
Or maybe you suddenly have become the western media arm for Hezbollah?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 7:00pm
Your whole premise is a terrible joke if you actually are going to promote the idea that Iran doesn't support terrorist activities in Iraq.
Or maybe you suddenly have become the western media arm for Hezbollah?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 7:00pm
What's the matter Larry? You have no proof to back your claim that Iran supports terrorist activities in Iraq, so you are opting for the ad hominem about western media arms for Hezbollah?
How lame, but then again, how typical of you.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 7:14pm
"Iran for all the defcts of its present leader and leadership is streets ahead of of Saddam's Iraq in terms of democracy and human rights."
Very true. Saddam killed well over 800,000 people and his wars of aggression cost over a million lives. His manipulation of the sanctions killed perhaps a quarter of a million. The Iranian regime, by contrast, in the same length of time, killed 100,000 people. Of course, only in the Middle East and North Korea and parts of Africa is 100,000 deaths considered "acceptable".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 8:17pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 8:17pm
It is interesting how with Saddam out of the way, the attention and recycled WMD propaganda has turned to Iran.
The US started a war that has led to the deaths of 1.2 million Iraqis, one third of which has been at the hands of the US military, all in the pace of 6 years.
I suppose in those terms, 100,000 deaths over a few decades does pale in comparison.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 8:23pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 8:17pm
Is this why we supported Iraq under Saddam and continue to support regimes in the area such as Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel? All of which have problematic human rights records (and that's not a complete list).
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 9:10pm
lrjones believes that the citizens of Iran will deliver their flowers to us by proxy through the Iraqis after we've taken out their nuke facilities.
God god man, is there a "down under" equivalent of lala land? Your home address would indicate such.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
nkurland, you would compare Israel and Turkey to Saddam's Iraq? Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia couldn't really compare, though Iran is probably freer than the latter. We supported Iraq to contain Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. I think we fought on the wrong side, not least because Iraq started the war and Iran was the initial victim of Iraqi aggression.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 9:50pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 9:50pm |
I'm listing them along with our support for Iraq, not comparing them. If anything, I'm comparing them to Iran and what seems to be a highly dubious figure of 100,000 killed. Not because they weren't killed in conflict, but because they were killed in a war of self defense, which is entirely different from the conflicts in Turkey, Morocco and Algeria, all of which were either wars against their own populations, or groups seeking autonomy.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 10:09pm
nkurland, you would compare Israel and Turkey to Saddam's Iraq? Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia couldn't really compare, though Iran is probably freer than the latter. We supported Iraq to contain Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. I think we fought on the wrong side, not least because Iraq started the war and Iran was the initial victim of Iraqi aggression.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 9:50pm
Why are you so sensitive to "comparing" states to one another? You right wingers are obsessed with the notion o moral infalibility and superiority.
If Israel is so pure, then it's record should reflect that. Sadly, that is not the case.
Posted by Shingo at 10/13/2009 @ 10:36pm
lrjones believes that the citizens of Iran will deliver their flowers to us by proxy through the Iraqis after we've taken out their nuke facilities.
God god man, is there a "down under" equivalent of lala land? Your home address would indicate such.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
Rather unusual way for a supposedly rational mind to work. So all I can suppose is you are indulging your imagination or misunderstand Iraq's present relationship with Iran. My suggestion was that the Iraqis almost certainly have a different appreciation of and attitude toward Iran on the basis of a shared religious culture and fairly extensive trade links than some Americans on both sides of politics seem to have.
Liberty mentioned Iran's terrorist assists against the US and government forces in Iraq and that shows the relationship is a little more complex than Mask and his merry band of experts imagine.
So how does a Maliki deal with that sort of fly in the ointment? Issue an invitation for a chat at the local flower decked mosque? Well no. In fact against the American's advice he confronts the Iran sponsored insurgents in Basra bashes the shit out of them and sends them scurrying over the border into Iran. We are told Basra has never been the same since.
So it's OK to go all romantic and look for extra business for Baghdad's florists courtesy of the Iranian freedom fighters fund but it's another thing to see how Iraqis fix up the Iranian's proxies when they cause a bit of trouble in Iraq.
So it's back to the drawing board, flowerless, for you.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 10:52pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 10:52pm
So Iran is really not so bad when considered from Iraq's perspective? Looks like Israel has a new launching pad for strikes into Iran, that is, when Iran & Iraq are not busily engaged in regional trade, conducted of course on the basis of commonalities like shared religion, identification as Homo sapiens, etc.
Looks like you're holding the flowers, dude.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/13/2009 @ 11:19pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 10:52pm
Another great assist LRJ!
I just don't understand why these libs don't get Iranian terrorism and why they support people who would think nothing of killing them as infidels?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:25pm
"what seems to be a highly dubious figure of 100,000 killed."
http://www.petitiononline.com/persis/petition.html
This 2004 article states: "As House Resolution 398 (May 06, 2004) has rightly recognized, the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Such weapons would pose an immediate threat not only to Iran's neigbors, but ultimately to the entire world. The cruelty of the IRI regime is well known and abundantly documented. The regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States; the murder of more than 100,000 Iranians; continuing policies of rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools; and the kidnapping of thousands of women and girls for sale into prostitution and slavery."
"Not because they weren't killed in conflict, but because they were killed in a war of self defense"
Not sure what this nonsense is about. The Mullahs have killed over 100,000 Iranians. Saddam's attack on Iran killed over 700,000 Iranians, and I don't blame the Mullahs for these deaths because Saddam was the one who initiated aggression against them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
Not sure what this nonsense is about. The Mullahs have killed over 100,000 Iranians. Saddam's attack on Iran killed over 700,000 Iranians, and I don't blame the Mullahs for these deaths because Saddam was the one who initiated aggression against them.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
Provide the proof that they've killed 100,000 of their own people. God knows you weren't able to find proof that the Afghan war saves 50,000 lives a year.
Posted by nkurland at 10/13/2009 @ 11:45pm
"God knows you weren't able to find proof that the Afghan war saves 50,000 lives a year."
You might want to check again the thread beneath this one.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:51pm
"Provide the proof"
The link I provided wasn't good enough?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:53pm
Another great assist LRJ!
I just don't understand why these libs don't get Iranian terrorism and why they support people who would think nothing of killing them as infidels?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:25pm
Oh don't worry Larry,
We get Iranian terrorism, as well as Israeli and US terrorism. It just so happens that US band of terorrism kills many more people, whil you pretend it doesn't exist.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 12:21am
http://www.petitiononline.com/persis/petition.html
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
You have got to be kidding rightwingnutcase. Your proof of the numbes you've pulled out of your ass is a web site with a banner reading:
"TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN"
is this supposed to be credible or is it your idea of a joke?
A House Resolution is proof of nothing but the fact that politicians ar being poilticains.
While the House believes that Iran has engaged, and continues to engage, in efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, 16 UN intelligence agnecies and the IAEA says otherwise.
So what if the regime has been implicated in assassinations throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the United States? Israel, our ally, arrogantly boasts that it does the same.
The source of the so called murder of 100,000 Iranians is not cited.
Rape, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment as political tools is laughable, given that the US has implemented the same policies.
So the only proof that the Mullahs have killed over 100,000 Iranians is heresay. How typical of you. You and Larry probably believed Saddam fles those planes into the WTC buildings by remote control.
The right wingers here are frighfully unhinged from reality.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 12:27am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:53pm |
No, it isn't, you merely provided a highly politicized piece of legislation from congress, that, above all, does not have a source. Unless you're accepting the regime's own figure of 60,000 killed in the revolution, which is pure propaganda since a) most of the deaths were attributable to the Shah's forces and b) western sources put the figure at about 3,000, your figures are way off.
There were 8,000 killings between 1981 and 1985, in addition the killing of roughly 10,000 prisoners in 1988. So essentially you have a figure of under 20,000 with zero mass killings occurring in the past 20 years, though their record remains decidedly terrible. By contrast, Turkey engages in brutal repression of its Kurdish population up to this day, while Israel has been occupying 3.5 million Palestinians for over 40 years (under international law the Gaza Strip is still under occupation), 1.5 million of which are suffering a severe humanitarian crisis.
But still, we need to keep obsessively focusing on Iran. Good grief.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:38am
The link I provided wasn't good enough?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/13/2009 @ 11:53pm
Nope.
It wasn't proof.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 12:41am
R. J. Rummel estimates that the Iranian regime killed 56,000 from 1979-87 alone. Notice how nkurland has no links or sources for his claims at all, while I do, yet he expects me to accept his words at face value.
Castro has killed about 100,000 Cubans, and Iran is far, far, far larger than Cuba, so why are these numbers so suspect for you?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:53am
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:53am
Here's your sources:http://www.emadbaghi.com/en/archives/000592.php#more that's for the Iranian revolution
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58am
R. J. Rummel estimates that the Iranian regime killed 56,000 from 1979-87 alone.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:53am
Who's R. J. Rummel and who gives a crap what he estimates? Where are the UN and HRW numbers to back up this claim?
Notice how you yourself have provided no sources for your claims at all. All you provided was a resolutio that was clearly baased on no evidence.
And how do we know that Castro has killed about 100,000 Cubans? Did R. J. Rummel say so?
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 01:02am
Ervand Abrahamian in his book "A history of Modern Iran" sites 8,000 killed between 1981 and 1985.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:02am
This last source actually places the prison executions at 5,000- 6,000:http://www.iranrights.org/english/document-289.php
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:16am
Notice how nkurland has no links or sources for his claims at all, while I do, yet he expects me to accept his words at face value.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 12:53am |
Notice how I was just able to provide 3 sources, all backing my points, in less than 10 minutes.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:18am
Notice how I was just able to provide 3 sources, all backing my points, in less than 10 minutes.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:18am
...and notice how they were real sources, not some lame brained statements with no basis in fact, made by a bunch of political whores on the AIPAC payroll?
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 01:30am
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 01:30am |
Or pathetic attempts to give the U.S. military credit for something done by an NGO.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 01:33am
So Iran is really not so bad when considered from Iraq's perspective? Looks like Israel has a new launching pad for strikes into Iran, that is, when Iran & Iraq are not busily engaged in regional trade, conducted of course on the basis of commonalities like shared religion, identification as Homo sapiens, etc.
Looks like you're holding the flowers, dude.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/13/2009 @ 11:19pm
Hmmm you are not Mask by any chance? You both seem to have trouble getting out of first gear in the thinking department when there is any hint of complexity.
It's not so much about a good or bad relationship when one examines the available data. But rather a very realistic one where Iraq is prepared to be nice when it pays and do a Basra on Iran when its sovereignty is threatened. Perhaps mature relationship nails it.
The relationship is further complicated by the reality that most political factions want a united Iraq and that all Iraqi Muslims don't belong to the Shia sect. That factor militates against it being too closely identified with "Shia Iran" as it is likely to jeopardise Iraq's national unity.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 04:10am
"Iran for all the defcts of its present leader and leadership is streets ahead of of Saddam's Iraq in terms of democracy and human rights."-----Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 6:50pm
Got it....tucked away. Thanks.
BTW, remember this....don't show it to sjchermak...he's a Palin fan-
"Mask I don't know how much you know about women but from my vast experience I would far rather have a male finger on or near the nuke button. "----Posted by LRJONES4 10/17/2007 @ 12:29am
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:59am
"Mask I don't know how much you know about women but from my vast experience I would far rather have a male finger on or near the nuke button. "----Posted by LRJONES4 10/17/2007 @ 12:29am
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:59am
Getting a bit bored with this Iran thing Mask or do you have a fixation with the lovely Sarah?
Jones Law still stands but the real question is: "Is the gorgeous Sarah more than just woman"?
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 08:49am
"Iran for all the defcts of its present leader and leadership is streets ahead of of Saddam's Iraq in terms of democracy and human rights."-----Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 6:50pm
Got it....tucked away. Thanks.
Posted by Mask at 10/14/2009 @ 07:59am
Mask, why don't you explain to us why Iraq was such a wonderful place under Saddam?
I'm sure we'd all love to hear it and you could get some of the pro jihad bloggers here to chip in with some refinements to your info. Shingo, nkurland, Sloper, One Vote, Sorelish, Wolfgang, and some others have nothing but glowing praise for Saddam and the way he ran Iraq.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:29pm
I've argued several times that we shouldn't have been supporting Hussein's Iraq in the first place. But hey, God knows reality isn't on your side. Why live up to it.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 12:29pm
And it was your beloved Reagan who supported him all throughout the 1980's. Not to mention Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 1:03pm
I get a laugh out of leftist revisionist history.
Why did Reagan decide to support Saddam and Iraq?
Because the Ayatollah Khomenei publicly declared that Iran meant to conquer not only the middle east, but the world
<Iran's threats became more explicit when Khomeini multiplied his declarations urging the Iranian Revolution to be "exported". This idea was very clearly stressed in the speech drafted by Khomeini on March 31, 1980 and read for him by his son, in which the Ayatollah stated: "We are doing everything possible to export our revolution to other countries in the world". This declaration, in addition to the University bombing and the declarations of different Iranian leaders (notably the above-cited interview with Bani Sadr in the weekly "An-Nahar "), caused Baghdad to compose two letters of protest against the provocative acts of Teheran (11). These letters were sent April 2nd by the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Saadoun Hammadi to Fidel Castro, in his capacity as President of the 6th Conference of Nonaligned Countries, and to Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations. In reply, on April 8, 1980, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister pretended that Aden and Baghdad composed two territories belonging to Persian sovereignty. The same day, Khomeini declared that in the case in which Iraq would continue to demand the evacuation of the three Arab Islands, Iran would lay claim on Baghdad. He also addressed an appeal to sedition to the Iraqi people and army. On April 9, 1980, Ghotbzadeh exclaimed that the Iranian government meant to conquer Iraq.>
http://tinyurl.com/yhbnp8j
Read it; you may learn something including the threat today from Iran
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 1:28pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 1:28pm
So that explains why Iraq invaded Iran, right? I suppose its also supposed to explain why Reagan assisted Hussein in the gassing of his own people. Or why Bush senior supported him right up to the Gulf war. Is there any chance that you drop the disgusting apologetics anytime soon?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
So that explains why Iraq invaded Iran, right? I suppose its also supposed to explain why Reagan assisted Hussein in the gassing of his own people. Or why Bush senior supported him right up to the Gulf war. Is there any chance that you drop the disgusting apologetics anytime soon?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 1:46pm
I'm not apologizing at all. It is evident that you neither understand the actual facts nor did you read the history.
Reagan condemned Hussein for the gassing of the Iranians
Your responses reflect a stereotypical leftist viewpoint-one that looks back on history with today's eyes and makes judgments from today's perspective.
The US was in a terrible catch 22 with Saddam, Iraq, and Iran.
You had the Ayatollah and the Mullahs seeking to conquer Iraq and then the greater middle east. You had Syria taking over Lebannon and still looking at taking out Israel.
You had Saddam whom the US recognized as being a thug. Yet he was a thug who courted the Soviets (where he got a majority of his weaponry). But he represented the lesser of two evils in staving off the expansionist threat of Iran.
Tell us what you would have done to keep Iran and Syria from their conquering agenda? The UN just did what they always do, which is to sit on their hands-that's why they are worthless.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 2:38pm
"And it was your beloved Reagan who supported him all throughout the 1980's. Not to mention Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz."
Vulgar nonsense. Wolfowitz was one of the few dissident voices in the Reagan administration who passionately condemned Saddam Hussein as an evil, genocidal dictator, and who argued that the United States should not offer him any aid or support at all. He remained 100% consistent, and advocated war with Iraq to oust Saddam long before 2002 or 2003. He is a true neocon and a man of principle.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 3:36pm
"And how do we know that Castro has killed about 100,000 Cubans? Did R. J. Rummel say so?"
Yes, actually. In fact, he's probably killed closer to 150,000 by Rummel's estimates.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 3:39pm
"Mask I don't know how much you know about women but from my vast experience I would far rather have a male finger on or near the nuke button."
Why? That strikes me as a rather odd point of view.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 3:41pm
"Because the Ayatollah Khomenei publicly declared that Iran meant to conquer not only the middle east, but the world"
Yes, but that was just propaganda to rally the masses. Its not as though Reagan was really worried that the Iranians would conquer the whole world if Saddam didn't stop them. It was Iraq that launched the unilateral aggression against Iran, not vice-versa, and Iran was the first to accept the UN-sponsored peace agreement ending the war in 1988 (though to be fair, in 1983, Saddam for the first time realized that this war was going to be much costlier then he had anticipated and he tried to cut a peace deal, which Iran rejected, calling for the removal of Saddam's regime; perhaps both countries had to have their hubris punished so that Iraq had to plead for peace in 1983 and Iran had to plead for peace in 1988).
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 3:52pm
Reagan condemned Hussein for the gassing of the Iranians
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 2:38pm
But actions speak louder then words, correct. The following page contains the following links:http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_824
These links prove that a) we sold Bell helicopters to Hussein's Iraq which were used in the gassing b) the administration advocated closer ties with Iraq after the gassings and c) that the administration defended Hussein from sanctions after the gassings.
And an article detailing how we gave Hussein the chemical weapons and biological agents, complete with sources cited:http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 4:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 2:38pm
Iraq initiated the Iran- Iraq war by invading Iran. Show me anything that says otherwise and then we'll talk about supposed Iranian aggression.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 4:02pm
Iran's threats became more explicit when Khomeini multiplied his declarations urging the Iranian Revolution to be "exported". This idea was very clearly stressed in the speech drafted by Khomeini on March 31, 1980 and read for him by his son, in which the Ayatollah stated: "We are doing everything possible to export our revolution to other countries in the world". This declaration, in addition to the University bombing and the declarations of different Iranian leaders (notably the above-cited interview with Bani Sadr in the weekly "An-Nahar "), caused Baghdad to compose two letters of protest against the provocative acts of Teheran (11). These letters were sent April 2nd by the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Minister Saadoun Hammadi to Fidel Castro, in his capacity as President of the 6th Conference of Nonaligned Countries, and to Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations. In reply, on April 8, 1980, the Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister pretended that Aden and Baghdad composed two territories belonging to Persian sovereignty. The same day, Khomeini declared that in the case in which Iraq would continue to demand the evacuation of the three Arab Islands, Iran would lay claim on Baghdad. He also addressed an appeal to sedition to the Iraqi people and army. On April 9, 1980, Ghotbzadeh exclaimed that the Iranian government meant to conquer Iraq.
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:44pm
Iran goes to war against Iraq continued
On April 19, 1980, the Iranian newspaper "Joumhouri Islami" published an appeal of Khomeini: "The Iraqi people must not fall into the hands of its aggressors. Its duty as well as that of the army is to overthrow the Ba'ath, that non-Islamic party".
April 18, 1980, at a meeting with the National Reserve Committee, Khomeini declared : "The Iraqi government is not a real one, it doesn't even have a parliament ; it is a military clique which really holds power and does whatever it pleases. There are neither ties nor communication between the power and the people... Saddam Hussein boasts of his Arabness... It is necessary that all Muslim nations know the real meaning of this notion. 'We are Arabs' is equivalent to saying 'We are not Muslims'... At a certain moment in their history the Arabs stood up against Islam. They want to revive the period of the Umayyads, or that of Jahiliyah, during which force and power were on the side of the Arabs..."
On April 23, 1980, Ghotbzadeh announced in a broadcast message that the duty of the Iranian people was to give its aid to the people of Iraq who were subjected to the repressive measures of a "criminal " regime. He also revealed that only the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime would satisfy him.
During an interview at Radio Monte-Carlo, April 30, 1980, Minister Ghotbzadeh indicated that "all the countries in the Gulf are historically a part of Iranian territory."
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:47pm
<One question arises: What is the reason for Iran's interference in the internal affairs of neighboring Arab countries and its incessant attacks against Iraq? Several explanations have been proposed; in principle, two must be recalled: according to the first, war with Iraq would offer the means to end the conflict opposing the diverse factions in Iran, thus creating the unity which would guarantee that a regime whose economic and social accomplishments are negligible would be kept in place. The second explanation deals with the historical causes of the conflict, the Iraq-Iran war simply representing another episode of Persia's perennial undertaking to annex Arab lands, notably those of Iraq, Shatt-al-Arab and Arabistan>
http://www.al-moharer.net/moh255/i_ebeid255b.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:47pm
The bottom line is that Iraq initiated the war by invading Iran. Even rightwingnutcase just told you that.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 4:56pm
And that's not all. The war was launched by Iraq in hopes of reversing a territorial settlement from 1975. This was a clear cut war of Iraqi aggression that involved a goal of both eliminating the Islamic Republic and territorial conquest. Speeches do not equal concrete action.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 5:01pm
Just curious, how old are you?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 5:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 5:09pm
24, why?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 5:29pm
http://www.al-moharer.net/moh255/i_ebeid255b.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 4:49pm
Just curious Larry. Who os Al-mohrarer and why is he your only souch of your revisionist history?
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 5:46pm
"Mask I don't know how much you know about women but from my vast experience I would far rather have a male finger on or near the nuke button."
Why? That strikes me as a rather odd point of view.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 3:41pm
Well it would to me if I were a woman but as always context is important. I defer to Mask's Gestapo like file but if my memory serves me correctly it was the contemplation of Hillary's little finger hovering over the nuke button that prompted that observation. Oh yes and being married to a woman for over 20 years.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:40pm
24, why?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 5:29pm
The reason I asked is that it often shows up in posts like yours when you don't have the reference of living through a period of time that you are debating.
You are relying only upon what others say about that period whereas those like myself are commenting from the position of living through those times.
You don't have the memory of seeing our embassy personnel taken hostage by the Iranians and beaten and tortured.
There is a reason why first hand experience has a value that those who don't share in that can never approach.
It doesn't mean that all of your comments have no value or are less valid. But it does change the reliability in many cases of the evidence.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 6:48pm
The reason I asked is that it often shows up in posts like yours when you don't have the reference of living through a period of time that you are debating.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 6:48pm
You often debat eissues relating to WWII, but clearly you didn't live through that time either Larry. Did youhave first hand experience of that period?
I have the memory of the embassy hostage and what I also rememebr is thatthey ALL came out alive and well, unlike the 100 or so prisoners we've taken hostage in Gitmo etc and killed.
You had no first hand experience of that event Larry. You were at home, liek th rest of us, watching the news on the tube and being fed government propaganda. You probabyl had no idea at the time, of that crimes of the US supported Shah or the US sponsored 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government.
In fact, even if you did have any first hand experience, you woudl nver have known then waht we know today abotu those events and what led up to them.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 7:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 6:48pm
When I got my history degree I took more classes then were required for it. I'll read anything that looks intriguing and I feel that I have a fairly coherent lense through which to judge things. No, I don't have that experience. But in a way, I'm glad that I don't since the coverage passes through a filter and so often it seems that we work our way backwards from a conclusion. After September 11 I actually began to follow current events more and more. The conclusion that I eventually came to is that people basically cling to the emotion of the moment and that's constantly exploited and clung to. Just saying...
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:23pm
Simply put, I'd rather read the objective history of a Robert Fisk, or Patrick Cockburn then have to put the pieces together based on an event that popped up in a seeming vacuum. And that's exactly what happens on the news. Whether its Afghanistan, Israel, Iran or South America, the history seems to start at the point of the most recent conflict.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:27pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:27pm
Very well put nkurland and excellent observation. You demonstrate that youth is no barrier to wisdom, while Larry demonstrates that age is no gurantee of it.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 7:33pm
"Simply put, I'd rather read the objective history of a Robert Fisk, or Patrick Cockburn"
Objective????????????????
Osama admires Fisk!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:36pm
"the contemplation of Hillary's little finger hovering over the nuke button that prompted that observation."
Well, I can certainly understand why you didn't want that to happen.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:37pm
"You probabyl had no idea at the time, of that crimes of the US supported Shah or the US sponsored 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government."
The Shah, according to you, killed 10,000 people over 30 years. Most Iranians supported him and the 1953 coup relied on Iranian public support for his regime. The "democratically elected" leader to which you refer was a Socialist. I don't doubt that America got involved in the coup strictly for oil.
The Mullahs who replaced him killed more than ten times as many people in their first 25 years as he did.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:42pm
Simply put, I'd rather read the objective history of a Robert Fisk, or Patrick Cockburn then have to put the pieces together based on an event that popped up in a seeming vacuum. And that's exactly what happens on the news. Whether its Afghanistan, Israel, Iran or South America, the history seems to start at the point of the most recent conflict.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:27pm
You can't seriously state that Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are objective. I've read them both for many years.
They are no more objective than Michelle Malkin, although Cockburn is not as bad as his brothers or his father.
< Candidly acknowledging that neutral reportage is not his goal, Fisk approvingly quotes the Israeli journalist Amira Hass: "There is a misconception that journalists can be objective ... What journalism is really about is to monitor power and the centres of power.">
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Osama admires Fisk!
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:36pm
As do tons of credible personalities. What the hell is your point?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:46pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:42pm
If most Iranians supropted teh Shah, then the Shah (or his son) would still be in power. What you mean is that the wealthy and elite supoprted the Shah.
It's of no consequence whether Mossadegh was a socialist or otherwise. You either respect democracy and the soverreginty of other nations or you don't.
"The Mullahs who replaced him killed more than ten times as many people in their first 25 years as he did."
Which nkurland debunked.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 7:46pm
"The war was launched by Iraq in hopes of reversing a territorial settlement from 1975."
True. Iraq wanted the oil-bearing Iranian region of Khuzestan and attempted to redraw the frontiers in it's favor. "No blood for oil!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:47pm
They are no more objective than Michelle Malkin, although Cockburn is not as bad as his brothers or his father.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
This statement makes it quite clear that you've read neither, only the attacks other make on them. I've read both Fisk's Pity the Nation and Cockburn's Muqtada. Neither make an attempt to romanticize the topic at hand.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 7:50pm
"As do tons of credible personalities. What the hell is your point?"
If Osama bin Laden thinks that you are a great political writer on American foreign policy, odds are that your accounts of American foreign policy are by no stretch of the imagination "objective".
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:54pm
They are no more objective than Michelle Malkin, although Cockburn is not as bad as his brothers or his father.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Larry clearly does not knwo the difference between a righ wing blogger and Fox News pundit that has never left the US and no embedded investigatives journalists who lhave spent most of their lives in the Middle East.
Fisk was inteviewing Bin Laden when Malkin hadn't ever heard of the guy.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 7:54pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:54pm
Translation: I haven't read a single thing by the guy, nor do I intend to. Its easier to just make the generalizations. Read Pity the Nation or any of his works.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:00pm
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/14/2009 @ 7:54pm |
Notice how you use the term "odds are" its a dead giveaway that you've never read the guy.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:06pm
Larry has never let facts or reality get in the way of rhis right wing talking ponits.
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 8:08pm
You can't seriously state that Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are objective. I've read them both for many years.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Let's see if I've got this straight: you've supposedly read both of them but are mysteriously unwilling to specify which works?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:32pm
You can't seriously state that Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are objective. I've read them both for many years.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Translation: I've read both for many years, but what they report doesn't square with my pre-determined ideology.
I am curious though Larry, if you don't find either of htem objective, or as credible as Michelle Malkin, why have you read both for many years?
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 8:52pm
Posted by Shingo at 10/14/2009 @ 8:52pm
That is, assuming he's read them at all.
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:55pm
or Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto etc....which clairvoyantly predicted the great recession on account of the demise of investment profits and now its labor less "recovery" - the Iranian revolution's ideology had no place for the barbaric/satanic Western/US inhumane idolatrous scientific excess and military pride that nuclear power represents until gratuitously attacked by a Muslim neighbor nation, and its revenge seeking US backed , ruthless Saddam our "anti-socialist" puppet in Iraq...US militancy in both Iran and Afghanistan contra the Soviets and then Iran literally birthed and spoon fed Al Qaeda and the nuclear program of Iran - the warmongering wind the US has sown and continues to sow it now and will continue to in a gruesome unpredictable and unmanageable self destruction whirlwind reap ...
Posted by nonukes at 10/14/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Robert Fisk, who visits Australia regularly is regarded by conservatives here as "hard left".
We have a national (government paid) television and radio broadcaster , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that has been regarded, as long as I can remember, as a left or liberal leaning organisation.
During the Howard conservative government era he stacked the ABC board with as many conservatives as was possible but strangely the ABC went on its way just as pinko or left wing as it was before.
It has been suggested that the staff including Journos of the ABC are wall to wall left wingers who believe and act as though left is centre and anything right of their position is extreme right wing.
Thus most of the programming is restricted to the issues dear to the hearts of lefties such as minority rights and the environment etc. It has been noticed that there is never a representative number of centre or right wing opinion on any discussion. The lone dissenting voice is likely to be introduced as a right wing extremist. These are generally shouted down or shut up by the moderator or interviewer.
When Mark Steyn is occasionally on, he is introduced as "a right wing polemicist" but when the extremist , from a centre or right wing perspective, Robert Fisk is introduced it is as a "leading Middle Eastern affairs expert".
That is why debate about right, centre and left commentators is, I suggest, most instructively dealt with by examining their presuppositions and thus the way the data is used to draw their conclusions.
Reading books without a critical mind is the short cut to brain washing because the printed page in itself comes with a sort of authority. That is the danger, viz the argument from authority.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/15/2009 @ 07:45am
You can't seriously state that Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are objective. I've read them both for many years.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/14/2009 @ 7:45pm
Let's see if I've got this straight: you've supposedly read both of them but are mysteriously unwilling to specify which works?
Posted by nkurland at 10/14/2009 @ 8:32pm
So, the only way to know what these guys write and believe is if you read their books?
Both are featured on Counterpunch, on Democracy Now, on Background Briefing with Ian Masters. I have watched and listened to them for many years, and read their articles in Counterpunch and the leftwing British paper, the Independent.
And I notice that you ignored the quote from Fisk that I posted where he states that he is not objective.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 08:29am