IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 10




 
--
Boots
 
February 18th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Most of the FOX broadcasts that I watch always presents both sides or at least invites anyone with an opposing view on the show. Hannity & Colmes is a good example.
February 18th, 2005  
TBA_PAKI
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE IRANIAN
Okay. one by one then.

So, I will start with Iran's case as it seems to be THE actual America's problem and that I have some good reasons to speak about this country.

Brief History (tell me if I forget something broth):

1935: After the loss of regions like Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan... because of English pressure, the last part of the Persia Empire becomes offcially IRAN (which litterrally means "the country of the Arians" ---> Iranians have european origins).

An army general, Reza Chah Pahlavi, supported by the USA and England, proclames himself Imperator or "Shah". He is a dictator, but he loves Iran and modernizes the country.

After the 2nd World War, Iran becomes the 1rst American ally in the Middle East, and the only country not to be communist.

After his death, his son becomes Shah. He is very close to President Carter and he forgets that his country is not France, nor America.
He makes 3 big mistakes:
- He introduces the mechanization in the Iranian Agriculture, without concertation. Thousands of people loose their jobs and become communists.
- He forbidds the hidding of hair for women.... in a muslim country!
- Fearing the communist evolution, he diminishes the number of universities.

1956: Riots make the Shah escape to the USA.

Mossadegh installs a democracy, based on the french model.

The first law adopted by the regime is the oil nationalization. Soon Egypt and Irak do the same. The OPEP is created.
That means that Western countries will have to buy their oil, no more free oil.
America, the 1rst Iran's partner, withdraws its capitals, as an answer to the Mossadegh government decision. The iranian economy faces a crisis.
The law is adopted. And nobody could do nothing against it as slowly all the oil producers adopt the same policy.
But the whole iranian economy is based on America's exchange and the loss of this partner takes the country down to its knies.

1959: The Shah comes back. Again dictatorship.

1979: Iran's revolution.

In competition background between Europe and the USA, France and England propose Ayatollah Khomeyni to replace the Shah (he arrives in Iran in an Air France plane, with the French Foreign Minister, announced by the BBC).
Khomeyni promises the creation of a Democracy adapted to Iran: the model of the ISLAMIC DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

A few months later, 30000 communists are being assassinated by the SAVAC, the Iranian secret services.

Khomeyni proclaims the martial order. He suppresses all the political parties and declares his intentions to create the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC and his wishes to expand the model to the other muslim countries.

IRAK was a 14 million inhabitants country.
IRAN was a 68 million inhabitants country, 4th army of teh world.

facing the Islamic republic, and all the problems of terrorism it creates, Europe and the USA help Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. A resolution of the UN makes an embargo on IRAN.

1981-1988 : 7 years of war.

1989: At the end of the cold war, Iran's army is 60km from Bagdad.

But Russia is no more Iran's ally and Gorbatchev government wants to be closer to the USA.

The UN proposes Iran to come back to its 1981's borders. Iran accepts and signs an armistice with Irak.

Saddam has lost 2 million men in this war. His country is totally out of order. But he's got lost of Frenc-German weapons (the famous SCUDs) and American F16 aircrafts.

1990: Saddam attacks Kowe´t, a very small country between Irak and Iran.

You know what happened to Saddam then. And of course, the Islamic Republic became more and more powerful since then. And now Irak is following the same model.

How can I trust Mr Bush when he says he want democracy in these countries then?
When I was watching Foxnews last year, I was really shocked to see how they could transform Saddam Hussein in "a big devil" while he was USA's ally only 10 years before... teh poor man had not understood your manners....
Let me clear some points here!

IRAQ had the 4rth largest army in late 1980s (instead of IRAN, since they used human-wave tactics to counter enemy but there regular troops were close to 500000)

Europe and USA did not prepared SADDAM to attack IRAN. It was SADDAM's goal to take control of oil-rich "Shat-ul-Arab" region located on the border of IRAN and IRAQ. So he invaded IRAN for the purpose but later on the tides were slowly turning in favour of IRAN and that USA did not wanted it to achieve victory (due to opposition to government of Khomeini)

At the end of the war, you are mistaken that IRAN's army was 60 kms near baghdad. heck both of the countires gained very little.

SADDAM did not lost 2 millon men in this war either (seems to me that you under-estimated his capabilities). In-fact Iranians lost huge number of men due to employing human-wave tactics that did achieved some of there goals but at higher cost.

I don't think SADDAM got F-16's either but he did get Mirages from France and SCUDS from Russia!

USA only supported SADDAM in IRAN-IRAQ war situation but some take it as a partnership deal. In fact during COLD-WAR scenario, the two super-powers wanted to extend there partnerships to as many nations as possible so it was just the part of this big game.

And of-course removing a dictator from power and holding elections in a country does seems like transit to democracy to me !

In the case of IRAN, it is clear that USA opposes the use of Nuclear technology for the fear of development of nuclear weapons because Isreal is then under real threat!
February 19th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexybeast
is liberating Iraq the top objective for going into Iraq??
ask ur own ppl , ask ur own president and ask ur own congress..

for me, i ve heard U.S and UK were roaring about how Saddam support terriosts and how he have so much WMD ,

now U.S's own commission says saddam has no connection with Laden, and he has no WMD....

explain plz

Ahhhh the Convienance of selective reading , hearing and comprehension.

The UN inspectors could not confirm ethier that Sadaam had destroyed his WMD's or manufacturing capabilities. They were hasseled and barred from sites ....remember.
The coalation had every reason to believe , from intel sources that it was probable that WMD's were present.
And it's not like he hadn't used WMD's in the past on Iran and his own people
u r slapping ur own face with ur own hand...

so r u telling me i should not trust the commisson appointed by ur congress?
--
Boots
February 21st, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
No there Sexy Breast. I'm saying that the intel available prior to the war indicated that there was a high probability that Saddam possessed WMD's.
That the UN inspectors who had not been allowed to make complete inspections could not state for fact that Sadaam was not in possession of WMD's.

No Intelligance service had solid agents on the ground in Iraq. Due to the fact that Sadaams regieme was quick to execute anyone they even suspected of being an assett.

As far as a study complied well after the fact by politicians (many of whom voted in favor of the war) well thats typical Politcal 20/20 hindsight.
February 24th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
I wonder if the contention that because Saddam would execute humint operators is correct.

In the time of the Cold War, USSR was equally ruthless if not more and even now the Chinese are also sharp operators. Yet, the humint was and is operative and rather well too.

Even the unclass Senate Annual Reports on Russia and China of now are real eyeopeners and very exhaustively detailed. It is not merely the assemblage of info from electronic and other means, but a good deal from humint.
February 25th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
No there Sexy Breast. I'm saying that the intel available prior to the war indicated that there was a high probability that Saddam possessed WMD's.
That the UN inspectors who had not been allowed to make complete inspections could not state for fact that Sadaam was not in possession of WMD's.

No Intelligance service had solid agents on the ground in Iraq. Due to the fact that Sadaams regieme was quick to execute anyone they even suspected of being an assett.

As far as a study complied well after the fact by politicians (many of whom voted in favor of the war) well thats typical Politcal 20/20 hindsight.
agree that one,

and dont misunderstood me that, I truly believe getting rid of saddam is a good thing

but, i dont think WMD is a convincing excuse to go into there