Lieberman wants Iran punished - Page 2




 
--
Lieberman wants Iran punished
 
June 12th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Lieberman wants Iran punished
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogg
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Nice one... hmmm I'll take option one.
OK, you got me on that one.

I think I prefer option two, less of a mess to clean up afterwards.
June 12th, 2007  
Del Boy
 
mmarsh - Your posts establish a reasonable picture of the situation. But the question then is, where does that leave you? Is it time to roll over and surrender. Leave the Islamic Caliphate to pursue their aims across Europe and the world. Isn't Iran already your front, without them having to take a punch. They have already told us that they are taking Europe without a shot being fired. Now the invasion pours through Libya to Malta and all points west. All is not quiet on the western front. The alternative to covering up your heads and hiding under the duvet?? Don't ask me, I don't know either. I just cannot face paying the Dane-geld or life as a slave. Remember, all those international armchair critics, who never stop slagging your leadership, are if fact looking to you to save them when their time comes.
June 12th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Del Boy

First of all the Islamic Caliphate really refers to Wahhabbi Muslims like al-Qaeda and not to Iran. They are entirely different religious groups.

Sunni groups like Al Qaeda is Whabbi Sunni Muslim, Iran is Shiia Muslim. The Shiia and the Sunni hate each other more than the West, even more than Israel. They have been killing each other since the 13th century, each views the others as being heretics. Always remember that Muslims in the Middle East prefer killing each other more than anything else. Iran has to keep a constant eye on Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, and Egypt which given the short distances and long ethnic hatreds are more dangerous to Iran then we are.

The (Iranian) Shiia Muslims are more reasonable that the Wahhabbi Sunni Muslims. Iran's interest in being a world policy player is political, not religious. That is important because not only are they able to negociate with non-Muslims it also means they have something to lose. As opposed to al-Qaeda which never negotiates with anybody and has nothing to lose. Therein lies the difference.

Iran's goal is to be a regional superpower, much like the US is in North America. That's all. So right off the bat, Iran is not a threat to Western security. Iran has no interest to launch strikes against the west or launch waves of terrorism without military provocation first. Why would they? It would be suicide. Jacques Chirac told the Iranians last year that if Iran started to use Terrorism in Europe to advance its goals, France's response would be attached via a nuclear warhead. Simply put, Iran is not going to take any course of action that would result in its obliteration. That's why I don't worry about them.

Al Qaeda is a different story, since they are religious lunatics and are convinced they are going to heaven anyway, their own death doesn't bother them much. If Iran's policy was like al Qaeda plan of world domination then I would consider them a serious danger to American National Security and urge that they be eliminated immediately. Right now they are more of a nuisance than a threat, just like Cuba and Venezuela are.

But If we deliberately provoke them by an attack, then Iran will feel like they have nothing to lose, and then all bets are off. I doubt they would defeat us, but they could hurt us very badly. Attacking Iran would be attacking a well trained, well equipped, highly motivated army that would make Iraq look like a beach party. And for what? The true winner of a US-Iran war would be al Qaeda. Two of their enemies fighting each other, need I say more?

To summerize: Al-Qaeda is the threat. Not Iraq, definitely not Iran, nor anybody else. If you want to deal a blow to Islamic Terrorism, go after its source. Instead the incompetent gnome we call a President wastes all our time and resources on sideshows and photo opts. Neither Iraq, Iran, nor Syria was responsible for 9-11, July 7, or any other of the Islamic Terror attacks this decade. We should pull out of these sideshows and hit al Qaeda where they are: In Afganistan and in Northwest Pakistan. Hit the terrorists were they are, not were they aren't.
--
Lieberman wants Iran punished
June 13th, 2007  
Del Boy
 

Great post mm. It is true that I used the Islamic Caliphate title generally as a reference to the continual striving to create one Islamic world. I have always, prior to the latest crisises, taken a great interest in Arabic and Persian history and art, my family name being of Moorish derivation,thro the Golden Age. I am familiar with the divisions and state of affairs, but you have presented them so succinctly. I have taken great interest in Arab affairs including the creation of Saudi Arabia by Abdul Azziz, and I understand Iran's current position, agreeing with your interpretation. Currently I am into Robert Fisk's The great war for civilisation, the conquest of the middle east. A sympathetic study I believe. My other interest stems from the fact that in the early fifties My army service was from a small barbed wire -surrounded Battalion desert camp, a couple of miles from Ishmaelia, the headquarters of The Moslem Brotherhood, the Grand-daddy of Al Quaeda, curbing their activities, Suez Canal, pipe lines etc. I am, as it happens, an admirer of the hospitable Arab culture, and have in times past been jokingly referred to by my children as Derek of Aquaba. ( Lawrence reference to my excitement at finding myself at Aquaba).

However, peace in the Middle East has been my treasured dream for a great many years, and given Iran's position in Middle East politics, and their particular ambitions, how much are they the power behind America's enemies in the region now. That is the question. This is why I queried your/our battle front.

Generally, please remember that it was not so long ago that the Ottoman empire was overcome, and that Europe was often in the clutches of Islamic conquerers.

When Nixon warned that The Soviet Union was winning WW111 without fighting a battle, the alert was sounded and the danger gradually retreated. I fear for Europe by dint of population invasion as a creeping menace.
I would be delighted to share your optimism, but we already have the first sharia law areas here.

Nevertheless, my compliments on the fine post. I cannot go as far registering disagreement there.
June 13th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Del Boy

Did you see the news today about the Samarra's Askariya Mosque being bombed this morning? Thats exactly what I am talking about. The Sunnis will never allow the Shiia to exercise any real power. Iran will never be able to control the Sunni (which vastly outnumber the Shiia) which is why their plans for creating a Iranian powerbase in the Middle East are going to fail.

The Arabs, whom are mostly Sunni, are simply not going to go back to the 400 years where they lived under Ottoman-Turk Rule. Its just not going to happen.

Iran has a another major problem. Iran has a very powerful pro-Democracy movement within its borders. Much as the Mullah might like, they cannot revert to a 12-Century Caliphate without provoking a major a Civil War. The Iranian yuppies (which unlike the Arab world) are highly educated, pro-European culture and will not tolerate a return to the Dark Ages.

The Mullahs grasp on power is tenuous at best, they are a hair's-breath away of another 1979 Revolution. Ahmadinejab popularity is in serious trouble because instead of introducing the economic reforms as he promised he spent all his time in provoking the west into. The more Ahmadinejab sabre-rattles the more unpopular he gets. His party already lost a major parlimentary election last year at the rate hes going the public is going to toss him out on his ass for the next election.

UPDATE -For Everybody

Liebermans Political Party, "Lieberman for Connecticut" has just asked him to resign, saying his wish to attack Iran did not coincide with the wishes of the people of Connecticut.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6647788&nav=3YeX
June 13th, 2007  
Del Boy
 
Agreed. And of course, much of his sabre-rattling is to cover his failure at home.

Is there reason for a little chink of optimism within Iran?? Is it closer that we think??
June 13th, 2007  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
To summerize: Al-Qaeda is the threat. Not Iraq, definitely not Iran, nor anybody else. If you want to deal a blow to Islamic Terrorism, go after its source. Instead the incompetent gnome we call a President wastes all our time and resources on sideshows and photo opts. Neither Iraq, Iran, nor Syria was responsible for 9-11, July 7, or any other of the Islamic Terror attacks this decade. We should pull out of these sideshows and hit al Qaeda where they are: In Afganistan and in Northwest Pakistan. Hit the terrorists were they are, not were they aren't.
Ok, so who exactly are we targeting? Hmmm. I know I know!!

Terrorists. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization right?

Damn you logic! You bit me again.
June 13th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 
I personally believe any one who thinks Iran is not a global threat to the world peace and security is completely clueless about the facts.
June 13th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
Del Boy

Yes, but I also think the Mullahs will never give up power willingly. I think a clash between extremists and the pro-democracy groups is sooner or later inevitable. I think the government will squeeze too tightly and that will be the kickoff of a coup d'etat.

MarinerRhodes

Not all the people fighting us are terrorists. In fact few of them are actually al-Qaeda members. Most of them just don't like us on their lily pad. We are the typical uninvited house guest who refuses to leave. The REAL al-qaeda people (those that we should be going after in Afghanistan) show up for the fight AFTER us, not before.
June 13th, 2007  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix80
I personally believe any one who thinks Iran is not a global threat to the world peace and security is completely clueless about the facts.
I am waiting with fingers crossed for Iran to demonstrate otherwise, but it is hard to have confidence and ignore the warnings to the world of the current regime.

They have been the big gainers in the current conflicts, but they do not appear satisfied with that.

Are we still trying to cope with primitives or not, politically.
 


Similar Topics
As U.S. Puts Pressure On Iran, Gulf's Religious Rift Spreads
U.S. Bid To Limit Iran Gets Wary Response
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions