Thread: How Iran will fight back.

"Yes there is, but it wasn't Israeli policies, it was Israel's existance."

And outcome of Israeli policies wouldn't you think? No important nation other then the USA evens votes for Israel at the UN.

"I still cannot help but think you are just playing devil's advocate."

who knows....

"Or are you just arguing on the legal basis that the burden of proof is on the accuser but that you think there probably is a nuclear program"

Well of course the burden of proof is totally on us.

We would have to prove that the nuclear program is to make a bomb and not for peaceful means. It is not illegal to develop nuclear power under article 4 of the NPT it says that much.

That is different that proving they have a nuclear program but proving the nuclear program is to make a bomb.

"Now of course their believing it does not make it true, but the Europeans normally like to be an ostrich on this sort of thing, and yet even they think Iran has a program."

Not an ostrich but negiotating. Thats how this thing will be properly diffused. And seeing as thus far Iran has not broke the law...

"On what grounds do you say it had nothing to do with "the enemy of an enemy"?"

They were so buddy buddy that Iran sent missiles to Israel to be refurbed and Israel came very close to selling Iran A-4N skyhawks. Sending missiles to a nation shows a degree of trust wouldn't you say.

And outcome of Israeli policies wouldn't you think? No important nation other then the USA evens votes for Israel at the UN.

Wait...Israel's existance is an outcome of Israel's policies? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, Australia and Canada OCCASIONALLY vote in Israel's favour, but I really don't consider the UN to be a moral guide. After all, when Mugabe, the Sudanese government, and the Saudi government get to vote and yet democratic Taiwan can't, and democratic Israel gets bullied non-stop there, I really don't see any reason to defer to their judgement. I'm not saying you were saying the UN was a good moral compass, but I just figured I'd cover all bases lol.

Well of course the burden of proof is totally on us.

We would have to prove that the nuclear program is to make a bomb and not for peaceful means. It is not illegal to develop nuclear power under article 4 of the NPT it says that much.

That is different that proving they have a nuclear program but proving the nuclear program is to make a bomb.

Well sure, but the US and Israel claim to have evidence...then again, they said so with Iraq. So I don't know. I believe them over Iran, but they have a very recent **** up indicating that they aren't as smart as they think they are.

Not an ostrich but negiotating. Thats how this thing will be properly diffused. And seeing as thus far Iran has not broke the law...

But what incentive is there for Iran to stick to an agreement? Can they not get what they want from the Europeans and just go back to building their bomb?

They were so buddy buddy that Iran sent missiles to Israel to be refurbed and Israel came very close to selling Iran A-4N skyhawks. Sending missiles to a nation shows a degree of trust wouldn't you say.

I don't know, the USA and UK gave FAR more in aid to the USSR during WWII, yet that is the greatest case of an alliance of convenience in human history.

from the looks of it, and the latest rumblings in the congress about a possible withdrawl soon, all these threads will be a sad reminder of how delusional and pathetic ppl become after what their beliefs and wishes get ripped to shreds by wild camel jockeys

nothing but a giant reality check........and a correspondingly giant smile on my face right now from the vindictive elation I god-damn feel!

On the contrary, I think you will be disppointed - with Zarqawy and Bathists having declared war on the very idea of democracy, nevertheless, the Iraqi will vote - many will suggest that the percentage of those voting will be too low for us to say that the elections were credible, but reality in that no one is looking 100 percent participation, 20 - 30 percent is a respectable figure.

Lull, What if Zarqawi is arrested or killed, what if some key financiers take a hit and at the same time, greater numbers of Iraqi soldiers are trained ? What if this takes place within the a 6 month time frame from now and fewer American soldiers are required in Iraq? Will you feel vindicated?

If Iraqi electorate deliver neither a Shi'ah theocraCY nor a polity that will not allow space for the Sunni, what then?

I think you may be taking too simple a approaCH.

Originally Posted by tarek

On the contrary, I think you will be disppointed - with Zarqawy and Bathists having declared war on the very idea of democracy, nevertheless, the Iraqi will vote - many will suggest that the percentage of those voting will be too low for us to say that the elections were credible, but reality in that no one is looking 100 percent participation, 20 - 30 percent is a respectable figure.

Lull, What if Zarqawi is arrested or killed, what if some key financiers take a hit and at the same time, greater numbers of Iraqi soldiers are trained ? What if this takes place within the a 6 month time frame from now and fewer American soldiers are required in Iraq? Will you feel vindicated?

If Iraqi electorate deliver neither a Shi'ah theocraCY nor a polity that will not allow space for the Sunni, what then?

I think you may be taking too simple a approaCH.

yaar Tarek there are many variables to consider here. the Iraqi voter is sadlt beleagured by much larger players in the scenario. INMO, and you can discount that view however you like, but we are headed for a phased, if not a brisk U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. And as soon as unkal sam packs up ( leaving the usual 2 cent lackeys in control ) the situation will rapidly deteriorate. The sunni terrorists and thugs aided by mercenaries and islamists will be emboldened to take on the throughly demoralised and very defection prone iraqi conscripts. This will inevitably draw iran into the fray. With Allawi and the largely Shia/ Kurdish setup of the governing council, we will increasingly see a them count on iran to at least hold them in power to ward off the sunni front. Insurgents will continue to pour in from jordan and Sodi to reverse the situation, and the country will become a hotbed of instability and terror in much a similar way as Lebanon did.

What these jahil fundo's in the White house finally realized, although a couple of years too late is that the key to controling Iraq is to instal Shia's in power. now a painful lesson being learnt is that it has unfortunately once again come down to those same Shia's who have already started to pledge allegiances to the Ayatollahs in Tehran their hand picked and most trusted thug ( Chalabi) sold his ass to the irani mulla right under their noses.

yaar it was a very embarrassing incident. You think this Allawi will do any different? He knows that once Unkal leaves, then it will get very dirty and very sectarian. The showdown will be between shia's and sunni's and ..via a Lebanon style Proxy war full of car bombings and beheadings and massacres.

Abbay yaar this is exactly what these guys wanted anyway! they know that the jahil mouzlum is his own worst enemy.

I swear Tarek the day U.S. leaves these Iraqi Shia's will lift their 'jalabiyya's'
in front of the Irani Akhunds and assume the pozishunn! Iran holds massive sway over these hapless Iraqi buffoons! Shia's will be the only winners in this pathetic election. Its a double whammy for the Neocons. You have to ask yourself the question.....didn't they expect this to happen? or arethey willingly doing it?

Check this out:

Ex-enemy Iran may be biggest winner in Iraqi poll 21.12.2004
By Jack Fairweather in Tuwella



Iraqi officials fear that the big winner from next month's historic election will be its powerful neighbour and former enemy, Iran.

The countries share a 1,000-mile border, stretching from the flat desert wastes and marshes of the south to the stark mountains of the north.


There are plenty of innocent travellers crossing the frontier: pilgrims on their way to visit Shia Muslim holy places, or people with family and friends on the other side, a result of Saddam Hussein's relentless purging of the Shia majority in Iraq.

In the region around the mountain town of Tuwella they rarely bother using the official crossing, a time-consuming and costly enterprise, instead simply walking over the hillside above the town.

There are, however, less innocent visitors. Officials of Iraq's interim government maintain that hundreds of Iranian agents have infiltrated the country and joined the insurgency in an attempt to keep American forces unbalanced.

At the same time, they say, Teheran is maintaining a stranglehold on Shia political parties in Iraq.

The two largest, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the ad-Dawa party, spent decades of exile under Iranian tutelage and have formed a single voting bloc for the Jan 30 poll. Many analysts expect them to command a majority over the secular party led by the interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, and officials fear Iran will be sitting pretty, with a pliant government of a strong Islamic bent in Baghdad.

"There is a real concern that the interference we are seeing from Iran at the moment is just the beginning, and that Baghdad could be slowly slipping into the orbit of Teheran," said Safa Rasul, chief of staff of Iraq's National Security Council.

Iraqi leaders from all sides called for calm yesterday after Sunday's suicide attacks which killed more than 60 people. The elections would take place on time, they promised.

But amid concerns over the dire security situation, Iraq, with its traditional ruling Sunni elite, continues to be uncomfortable with its powerful neighbour, the largest Shia nation.

The war between the two in the 1980s, one of the bloodiest fought anywhere, began with an Iraqi invasion after it accused Iran of making a land grab.

In the Kurdish-controlled north officials say they have intercepted a steady stream of fighters from the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which they say Teheran has sheltered since the US-led invasion to topple Saddam.

"Iran is continuing to work with Ansar," said one senior Kurdish official, who believed there were 1,500 members working in Iraq for the Ansar group, an affiliate of al-Qa'eda.

"They are trained and recruited across the border for terrorist attacks in the south of Iraq," said the official.

For their part, US officials in Baghdad see Teheran as playing a more ambivalent role in Iraq's insurgency.

They agree that money and weapons are crossing the border, but say the support is coming from individual clerical organisations, rather than representing a concerted government policy, a reflection of Iran's joint rule by government and religious bodies.

"We believe some ayatollahs have taken an active role, others have not. They're waiting to see what happens, with a finger in every pie," said a senior American official.

Privately, officials concede that Iraq is likely to take "an Iranian turn" after the election, a notion unimaginable before the invasion, when neo-conservatives in Washington believed they could create the Middle East's first secular democracy.

Now many grudgingly accept that the elections are likely to usher in an Islamic state.

The south, where most of the Shia majority live, already has a strong Iranian and Islamic tone.

As in Iran, religious law imposed by the Hawsa, the Shia clerical body, now rivals secular courts. Religious parties, often with militia backing, hold considerable sway over local government.

There are hundreds of Iranian operatives in the south, known simply as ittila'at - the Persian word for intelligence.

One group, Thar-Allah, was set-up with Iranian money and openly pledges its loyalty to Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and ad-Dawa party play down their Iranian roots although they are none the less prevalent.

Both parties were forced into exile in Teheran by Saddam in the 1970s and early '80s. In 1983, the Supreme Council, under the tutelage of the late Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim, formed the Badr Brigade from Iraqi exiles.

The brigade, trained by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, fought on Iran's side during the Iran-Iraq war. Since returning to Baghdad in 2003, and for some time before that, the Supreme Council's call for an Islamic revolution along Iranian lines - as the name of the organisation suggests - has been softened.

But asked what level of influence Iran has over the parties, one western diplomat replied: "Vast. In the south of the country the whole idea of Iraqi nationalism has broken down. There's a strong sense of community with Iran."

The Supreme Council and ad-Dawa recently formed the United Iraqi Alliance with several smaller Shia parties with the approval of Iraq's senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

According to his aides, the Iranian-born ayatollah wants an Iraqi state that strongly encourages Islamic law in all aspects of life, from controlling women's dress and mandatory prayer lessons in schools to Islamic codes of marriage and inheritance, without the overpowering Islamism of the revolutionary regime in Iran.

The effect of Shia dominance in government after the elections is likely to reduce Iran's support for cross-border terrorism, say some Iraqi officials.

"We're going to see a lot less violence when Teheran no longer feels threatened," said the Kurdish interior minister, Saeed Othman.

Back in the frontier town of Tuwella, Omar Ali, who regularly crosses the border to visit family members, cracks one of the locally grown walnuts between his hands at his greengrocer's shop, and ponders Iraq's future.

"We used to have a lot of trade with Iran. They haven't always been our enemies," he said

Tarek check out this one from Rediff both parts too!

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/20spec1.htm

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/19spec2.htm

Abaay yaar Iran bohat harami hae!

Interesting even if authored by Hamid Mir- Iranian involved with Al-Qaida? Possible, really I don't know one way or the other - but I do know that we should hope and pray that the US does have an opportunity to set all "brothers" straight, in a way that will ensure sobreity for generations to come.

No oil rich country will ever be stupid enough to take on the US. The US will not stop short of destroying it's oil assets.....as I recall the US did this in WWII? I mean, it is an asset to be able to hold ones over their "oil barrels," but there is also a downside to it as well. Get my drift?

“Wait...Israel's existance is an outcome of Israel's policies?”

Well you have the fact creating Israel kicked people off their land… but lets not get into that discussion…

“Well sure, but the US and Israel claim to have evidence...then again, they said so with Iraq. So I don't know. I believe them over Iran, but they have a very recent **** up indicating that they aren't as smart as they think they are.”

Well this "evidence" comes from the MKO which is hardly a reliable source. Kinda the same as listening to the INC...

“But what incentive is there for Iran to stick to an agreement? Can they not get what they want from the Europeans and just go back to building their bomb?”

They are not building a bomb but are only confirmed to be developing nuclear technology. That is a big difference...

Lull,

I must grant you this.

You do have the gift to hunt out 'hot potato' links!

Originally Posted by Ray

Lull,

I must grant you this.

You do have the gift to hunt out 'hot potato' links!

But at least he is providing the links....we have to give him credit for that.

"They are not building a bomb but are only confirmed to be developing nuclear technology. That is a big difference..."

Then what are the European's negotiating about? Either there is a bomb project and the Europeans are trying to stop it diplomatically, or there is no project in which case wtf are the Iranians and Europeans discussing? And even though for some reason you don't think there is a bomb project, pretend there is, what would the answer to my question be? I seriously want to know what would keep the Iranians from reneging on any deal.