Ray

Xerxes,

You make many an interesting point that requires mulling over.

I have benefited, at least, in knowing the Iranian side of the issue as seen by an Iranian.

It is good to have you here to learn about the 'other side of the hill'.

Nothing like seeing both sides of the coin.

However, this is NOT a white supremacy forum. I vouch for that since I am an Indian and not an American or British or French.

There will be divergent views since we all look at issues from our national perspectives. Some present this in a very aggressive way and some more logically. But one has to learn to take the thick with the thin.

The fact that you explained your viewpoint in a concise and logical way, except for this statement of supremacy, has at least set me thinking. Isn't that a good thing you have achieved, especially when Ahmedinejad is making many feel very worried with his belligerent statements? I am sure he can achieve more, as you have done with your balanced post, without being so provocative.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

delam beh zadam ra darya

dast beh dahan mandam.

Galrahn

No, I think you misunderstand. Terrorist organizations are not the same as legal states, and do not conform or even account for international law in their trade of violence. They operate outside the state body.

An example would be Al Qaeda or Hezbollah. The reason their was no negotiation with Hezbollah in the conflict with Israel last summer is because they are not a state, rather an organization that has taken up within a state, so the negotiation has to take place between Israel and Lebanon, because the legitimate state is Lebanon. Whether Hezbollah holds the political power or not is irrelivent, the fact that Lebanon has a legitimate government and leader representing its people trumped any political authority in international diplomacy Hezbollah thought they did or didn't have.

The same is true for Al Qaeda. The idea that there could be negotiation with Al Qaeda that would result in something meaningful isn't very well thought out. Al Qaeda doesn't represent anything any more than say a large Japanese corporation represents a government in Japan. They don't speak for a legitimate state unless the legitimate state has made Al Qaeda its government.

It is more likely a non-state organization would violate international law, and in fact has happened many times including the attacks on the World Trade Center, a clear direct and intentional attack on civilian targets, the Madrid Train bombings, the London Subway, and the execution style killings of Shia civilians in Iraq by the insurgency are all also examples. Organizations that don't have a state ignore international laws of war, and would likewise ignore the Law of the Sea.

I don't think Iran falls into that catagory. Iran is a legitimate state, not some random radical organization. I think it is very unlikely Iran would intentionally violate international law by mining the straits if the US was to attack them pre-emptively. Given current circumstances, I think it would be political suicide for Iran to do so, because there is little question the US would be on the losing end of the political fallout of a pre-emptive strike without undeniable proof that Iran's nuclear program is for military purposes, so a strike by the US without accepted context (which I think is unlikely) would result in Iran gaining the political advantage over the US, although that won't mean much since Iran is unlikely to get support from anyone other than rhetoric.

Support other than rhetoric isn't something unique to Iran, Lebanon had plenty of support in the form of rhetoric when the IDF was bombing thier infrastructure to dust, but when it came time for others to take action, they can't find many friends other than UN troops on their soil.

One of the sad realities of the world today is, only a handful of countries actually give support other than rhetoric in the world, among them is the United States, Great Britain, and Australia; and look how popular it makes them for it.

Galrahn

nope. You may not like the UN, but it is a power broker in the world and remains a powerful political medium by which disputes and disagreements can be resolved without war.

xerxes

thank you ray for the nice comments ... i spoke too quickly as passionate people sometime do too often

xerxes

I stand corrected .. and i apologize

As far as Al-qaidia or Hizbollah is concern. I do consider Hizbollah to be a "state within state", just like I considered pre-2001 Taliban to be a "state within state" in Afghanistan. But not Al-Qaidia in a sense that the latter organization is more of broader nationalities of yet-unknown objectives. Amidist the rhetoric that bin laden springs out as his objective the only one that was his real objective to was get a US forces largely off the Saudi Arabia. But now with this war that Bush himself started in Iraq, it was just too good not to take a bit in Iraq and establish haven.

Bush went to war in Iraq on the platform of Al-Qaida-Iraq connection, it is somewhat amuzing to see that phantom connection to become reallity and at a higher scale. If I were Al-Qaida chief, I would love George Bush who gave my holy war and a reason to make Baghdad a magnate to forgien fighters just as Afghanistan was such a case during the 80s.

but now that we are on the subject allow me to broaden the scope of discussion just a bit to show other "good" or "better" "state within state", just to show that the idea of "state within state" is not to be soley associated with the Usual Suspects:

1) Chechnyia was a defacto nation within the Russian Federation prior to Putin's takeover

2) Taiwan is a defacto nation within People's Repulic of China
*** As funny that it sounds it is a fact

3) Mujahedin of Afghanistan was is a defacto state within People's Repulic of Afghanistan in the 80s

4) Kurdish tribes in north of Iraq is defacto power within Republic of Iraq


As you may see some of these are supported by the United States and Israel, depending on its needs. The Mujahedin of Afghanistan in the 80s got the same treatment from the Soviets press and government, that the Iraqi or Afghan insurgency gets from the American press and government. Israeli Mossad agents actually train Kurdish militia in northern Iraq. Now can I say that according that to the Iraqi constitution the only bearer of arms are the national army and anything else is "terrorist" entities: that would make the Iranian sponcered Shia-militia, the Saudi sponcered Sunni Insurrgency and the Israel sponcered Kurdish-militia as "terrorist" and "unlawfull" entities

mossad in iraq - Google Video

... now why is that most Americans do not know about the Israeli involvement in northern Iraq but eveyone knows about Iranian involvment with the Shia? ... why is that most American cannot simply understand the fact that Sunni insurrgency is financed and supported and manned with Jordan and Saudi Arabia in a broader conflict of dominance between Shia and Sunni. Iraq's government is led by Shia majority and therefore the Sunni insurrgency is fighting against that and the US occupation forces. Why is that we do not hear Saudi Arabia's name ever on this issue??

Bluesman

xerxes, what kind of Iranian are you? Would you be hung by your thumbs by your brutal countrymen if you returned to Iran? Would you be welcomed back, and allowed the same status as every other citizen? Are you the kind that likes living in the West, although you can't stop criticizing your new hosts? Are you the kind that hates living in the West, but won't move back to Iran because of the holy fascism practiced therein? Are you just here for an education, a job, to cruise for chicks or to kill yourself and gain entry into the otherworldly brothel that Allah has promised you? Or are you of a type that I haven't even guessed at?

One thing I do know about you, though: you're every bit as arrogant and closed-minded as every other single Iranian I've ever known (which is probably around 100 or so). Actually, there was ONE man that I knew from Bushehr that was a helluva swell. And he happened to tell me his life story one day, which included the part about consciously making the attempt to 'Westernize' himself and his kids, so that he would assimilate himself into what he considered the finest body of people he'd ever known.

He made it, too. Not that you'd ever try, but I get the distinct impression you couldn't pull it off.

And about all those back-handed comments about what's wrong with us?

Suck it, you creep. You'll never be anything other than what you are. And I'm not sure that there's a curse that's very much worse than that.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Stan187

Regardless of what you believe, unless you post up some source beside headlines that shows that most of the killings are done by Sunnis against Shias, you're just making an assumption. It goes both ways. There are a lot more Shia militias roaming around. Plus, is it only secterian violence if insurgents kill people? What about the Shia dominated Interior Ministry? They have long been infiltrated by militias and run death squads. Whether they are under the auspices of the state or not, they are still part of the sectarian violence. Violence is a cycle. You wouldn't see it escalate continously unless both sides were striking back at each other.

I wouldnt be surprised if Iran finances some of the Sunni factions too, and then just try to hide it from the Shias. They're not too exlcusive on who to give money to as long as it satisfies their goals. Just look at all the money they are pouring into Hamas for example. They could care less about their fellow Shias, what the care about is their own goals and interests. Whether they present themselves in such a manner or not is irrelevant. They always play both sides off of each other, because an unstable Iraq gives a power vacuum to fill.

I think you need to look at the nuances of what is happening a bit more.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

xerxes

here we go again ... someguy who claims that he knows 100 iranians out 70 millions and judge them but what he knows ... great .. awesome

I am a Canadian. Get that straight into your head. Got it ...
I have been living here over a decade here and of what I do and I have finished my master in mechancial engineering and currently looking for employment

brutal countrymen .....

so the Moderator was wrong after all.. it is not about the government but rather a personall despise on Iranians. Good that we got that straight.
... and this base on 100 iranians out 70 millions.

I dont know ... when I will try, I will tell you ...

I do not criticize Canada, I love my new country. showme when did I criticize Canada ...if you can't you best shutup. I guess this is how Americans translate an offering an opposition to generally prevailing western view about the current situation in the world

Like I said Canada is my nation .. but hopefully one day i will go back for a visit

how old are you?? ... grow up

All this because of a few posts i made in this forum. What are you a genuis!!!
if a neutral reader where to read your post, he would probably call you an arrogant closed-minded American.

lol ... so the only good iranians are either the dead ones or the ones that are completely westernized .... so much for the great unarrogant American view

again grow up. I can see that you are trying to piss me off but unfortunatly for you I have a grown a very thick skin after so many of these type of conversation I had with Americans just like you. (which is probably around 100 or so)

So I see what is wrong ... you couldnt answer my comments and infact you came close to understanding it .. but your childish personality tookover and you answered it the only way you could. By making this idiotic post.

xerxes

I did not say such a thing. I said most of the killing of Americans is done by the sunni opposition (insurrgency) that are against the US supported Malaki government. I was not talking about the civil war.

unfortuantly, these type of secterian violance always happen whenever a forgien country invade a nation that is deeply divided either religously or ethically. Specially when that forgien country choose sides:

The fruit of American invasion was to bring democracy and therefore intentionally and-or unintentionally pissing off minority Sunni that had dictatorial powers while favouring the Shia who had the advantage and the edge in a new democratic Iraqi, because they were the majority. Events like this always happen when an invading army - wether by design or accident - chose sides in multi-ethical nation. Look at the massacre of the Palestinean in 1982 after the Israeli invasion.

i can certainly understand your point of view and the prevailing point of view that Iran is just pouring oil on fire everywhere. and you are correct about Hamas, eventhough that was a grave error on the part of Iran. In case of Hamas, you have to remember that there is no Shia equivalent to it in Palestine. And they are just doing that to piss off Israel and to undermine the credibility of Sunni regimes in the eyes of their people. , though Hamas is always ungratefull to the Tehran regime. Iran IMHO would be happy to just have a presence and strong influence like the hizbollah in south lebenon, in the new Iraq. Shia-Sunni great game that goes beyound this war of terror and all other nice headlines. It is potential future conflict between Saudi and Iran, with Americans playing the role of mercenary for the Saudis.

I completely agree with this phrase, but keep in mind that doing such a thing is not illegal. Correct me if i am wrong, but America play both sides off of each other in Iran-Iraq war and infact is quite good in that game. Correct me if i am wrong, but the British did the samething in their bid to control India. How do you think 250,000 British troops ruled a continant of several hundreth millions people. So my point is that it is not a new thing and is an art practised and perfected by the western colonial powers centuries ago. But personnaly I do not think Iran has anything to gain from supporting the sunni, mainly because the Sunni are already heavilly supported by Saudi and Jordan.

I think you are neglecting the intrests of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the rise of Iraqi insurrgency, when the remnant of the die-hard Republican guard that melted before 3rd infantry division formed a oppoistion in 2003. Those secular Bathist remenants obviously fought for what they had lost ... though soon they lost their influence in the Insurrgency itself as they ran out of money. Soon after Saudi start pouring money into their coffins ... soon after Baghdad became a magnate to recruit forgien fighters and soon after the Iraqi Insurrgency shifted from being a secular bathist uprising to that of a Islamized Sunni Insurrgency. I believe Saddam before being captured warned his die-hard bathist of the influx of forgien fighters into Iraq.

when you have time please feel free to watch this great documentary

FRONTLINE: the insurgency | PBS

highsea

It may not fit your definition of what is illegal, but I will say this- It will certainly draw a response. The US doesn't like to have her soldiers in Iraq blown up by roadside bombs built in Iran. Iran can either back off, or face US strikes on Iranian targets in reprisal.

Call it legal, call it illegal. It won't change the outcome.

But I agree with you wrt the insurgencies- Iran has no reason to support the Sunnis, and I don't believe they are. I do think Syria is supporting some of the remnants of Saddam's regime, though. But yes, most of the Sunnis support that is directed against the Shiites comes from KSA, Jordan, and Egypt.

Both insurgencies, the Saudi funded Sunnis and the Iran funded Shia are targeting Americans and civilians, and both are trying to destabilize Iraq.

So the US has no reason to play favorites with these people.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Stan187

If one religious group controls the country, and we are attacking a country, the sides pick themselves rather quickly. That's the way it was in the beginning at least. Later it is important to be equal-handed and what not, post "Mission Accomplished" time so to speak.


A lot more important in the beginning was not the fact that there were Baathists in the insurgency. These are people we can't turn. They were people that we have to kill. I was much more concerned when we disbanded the Iraqi army with any sort of phased DDR program. This left people with no income, and no way to peform the job that they know best how to do. These are people we could turn. They blew up Americans because they were getting paid and had no jobs. These are people that could be coerced. That component was much more important than foreign fighters, because they were rational opportunistic individuals who would quit fighting if they were provided for.

Stan187

Which plays into the hands of the Iranians either way. That's why I think its not that far out that they secretly fund some money to Sunni insurgents. Ultimately, Sunni insurgents killing Shias is a good thing for Iran, because it forces them to ask the Iranians for help. Iran has been known to play two sides before, that's why I'm saying it is plausible it's happening in Iraq right now too.

Stan187

.

xerxes

That was Bremer's fault as he had a very simplistic appraoch. Not only that the de-bathifiation program that was meant to be modelled on the de-nazifiation program in Germany was not received well.

Because, many employees in Iraqi governement including doctors and teachers were part of bathist party , some of them only because of the increase salary for being a bathist. Compare it to being part of the communist party in China or being a Basiji in Iran.

Those people lost their priviliges, naturally they did not took it well.