Thread: Is the US now in the 'end game' in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

Which Generals? Those ones which lived in Iran for 20 years, where they recieved all their training and combat experience, who fought alongside Iranians against the Iraqi Army in the 80s?

The ones wanting 2000 T-72's and hundreds of F-16's. Your assuming that allies against Saddam equals a willingness to accept Iranian domination. Calling some one a Persian is still an insult in Iraq among the Shia. The major Iranian backed party had to change its name to try and ease off some of the odious association with Iran.

Also, you say Iraqi shia only fought half heartedly against iran. Those same soldiers ddn;t fight at all vs the US. Why the difference? Perhaps because one of those groups was a Persian. Persia is not looked upon kindly by the bulk of the Arab world and this includes Arab shias. To them Persia is the original and ultimate imperial power.

Originally Posted by Kermanshahi

Which Generals? Those ones which lived in Iran for 20 years, where they recieved all their training and combat experience, who fought alongside Iranians against the Iraqi Army in the 80s?

Babaker Shawkat B. Zebari

Originally Posted by zraver

The ones wanting 2000 T-72's and hundreds of F-16's. Your assuming that allies against Saddam equals a willingness to accept Iranian domination.

Most important Shi'a parties are pro-Iranian and most influential clerics are pro-Iranian, in particular you should note that Iraq's most powerfull man, Ayatollah Sistani is an Iranian who does not even want an Iraqi passport.

Calling some one a Persian is still an insult in Iraq among the Shia.

Because they were all Persians, Arabized by force, most of the Middle East are not originally Arab, but they all see themselfes as Arab now, and these Arabs thus don't like it when others say they are Persian meaning they don't accept them as Arab. But Southern Iraq was still full of Persians until the Ba'ath Party seized power when a massive ethnic cleansing campaign followed.

The major Iranian backed party had to change its name to try and ease off some of the odious association with Iran.

They changed their name from Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and that's because there was no need to be revolutionary anymore, Saddam was gone.

Also, you say Iraqi shia only fought half heartedly against iran. Those same soldiers ddn;t fight at all vs the US. Why the difference?

As for why they didn't fight the US but did fight Iran, when they were in the 1980s war most didn't want to fight, but if they deserted Saddam would execute their families and there were hundreds which deserted, joined the Iranians and this happened to their families.
When America attacked in 2003 everyone knew it was Saddam's end, now there was no fear for Saddam, no one bothered fighting except the Sunnis.

Perhaps because one of those groups was a Persian. Persia is not looked upon kindly by the bulk of the Arab world and this includes Arab shias. To them Persia is the original and ultimate imperial power.

First of all Iran is not the same as Persia and if the country was only Persian part it wouldn't be sh*t. Secondly it's we Kurds and the Iranian Arabs who took the heaviest toll in the war, not the Persians. Thirdly, this is clearly not true, the knew Iranian policies have gained a lot of popularity among Muslims, including Arabs, and not just Shi'a but also Sunnis.
Only the Wahabis, Ba'athists (and other ultra-nationalists) and Westernized Sheikhs from the Gulf regeon, don't like Iran.