Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Wants Closer Economic, Military Ties To Iraq  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

If anyone who wants the U.S. to just pull out of Iraq right now, needs any further proof of what would happen should the U.S. leave, this is a harbinger of what is to come:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...xpand-role-in/20070129064609990002

Iran is, in my estimation, setting up for the day the U.S. abandons Iraq. That's what this is about. And, also, it further magnifies the failure of the U.S. in the post-invasion conflict that has arisen, thanks to not sending enough troops to Iraq, in disbanding the Iraqi military, and in not being able to quell this insurgency.

Iran is playing a dangerous game. As you see, their spokesman mentioned the "nuclear file", which is a subtle hint, again, at what Iran is trying to do on that front.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
As you see, their spokesman mentioned the "nuclear file", which is a subtle hint, again, at what Iran is trying to do on that front.

I dont think its a subtle hint of anything, its a rather blatant statement that Iraq should not suffer because of the current US-Iran animosity regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

Quote:

Mr. Qumi also warned the United States against playing out tensions in what he called “the nuclear file” in Iraq. “We don’t need Iraq to pay the cost of our animosity with the Americans,” Mr. Qumi said.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):

Iran is, in my estimation, setting up for the day the U.S. abandons Iraq.

Of course this was one of reason discussed by some prior to going to war, once Saddam was gone from power, Iran ifluence over Iraqi would grow. Its happening now, while the troops are still on scene.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
I dont think its a subtle hint of anything, its a rather blatant statement that Iraq should not suffer because of the current US-Iran animosity regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

RP, you'll swear up and down until the second Iran drops a nuke on Israel, or someone else, that they're just a peace-loving government, with no nuclear intentions, despite the fact they keep hinting at what they'll do if they get one.

Alan Drury is a writer, he wrote a set of books called "The Hill of Summer", and "The Roads of Earth", back in the 80's. It was about the USSR and it's designs on the world. In it, there were always people who defended the "progressive" USSR. He called those people the "Great Gullibles" of the West.

Today, the exist to excuse the likes of Iran and Islamic terrorism.

Welcome to that club, my friend.

{edited for spelling)

[Edited 2007-01-29 18:02:37]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1140 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):

RP, you'll swear up and down until the second Iran drops a nuke on Israel, or someone else, that they're just a peace-loving government, with no nuclear intentions, despite the fact they keep hinting at what they'll do if they get one.

Oh dont go down this road again, you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth.

You also seem to enjoy getting confrontational, and Ive learnt my lesson so I wont be participating in this mutual masturbation you seem to want each time, so knock yourself out.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1137 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 4):
You also seem to enjoy getting confrontational, and Ive learnt my lesson so I wont be participating in this mutual masturbation you seem to want each time, so knock yourself out.

Way to avoid the subject at hand, RP.

Fact is, any time the subject on Iran is brought up, you deny up and down they have any nuclear intentions beyond peaceful means, when, in fact, they drop the hint all the time that they don't just want it for energy.

Get back to the subject: Iran is starting to make overt attempts to gain influence and economic, military inroads into Iraq. Do you think it's solely because they're peace-loving folks, or does the fact that they're probably one of the players behind the inter-factional fighting not bother you, and give you pause when you hear stuff like this?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Fact is, any time the subject on Iran is brought up, you deny up and down they have any nuclear intentions beyond peaceful means, when, in fact, they drop the hint all the time that they don't just want it for energy.

Again, blatant misinterpretation of my posts. Every time this has come up, all I have requested is evidence of Irans actions that justify the violent course of action you demand, and time and again you choose to respond with a torrent of abuse and put all sorts of labels on me.

You seem to want to manufacture an opposition to yourself in each of these threads, and you do that by taking posts wildly out of context and making claims about posters.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1108 times:

In fairness, Falcon, you should also show in your original post that the Iraqi government is moving closer to Iran.

This is a two way street.

The driving force is the Talabani government's Shiite orientation, which meshes nicely with Iran's Shiite orientation. Iran isn't the only one planning for the US departure, Talabani is as well, and obviously the Iranians are always going to be around to help a fellow Shiite regime control the Sunnis, regardless of what the US does.

The US invasion in Iraq has one big winner: Iran.

Cairo


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1094 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
Every time this has come up, all I have requested is evidence of Irans actions that justify the violent course of action you demand,

And the evidence is set forth: their intrastringence on this subject; the fact they've openly threatened to annihilate the U.S. and Israel. The fact they keep pressing forward with this program despite the doubts of the world.

All circumstantial? Yes, but that's all you're going to get right now. But they add up to a fundamentalist regime, who BELIEVES Israel and the west should be destroyed. That's where I draw my suspicions at.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
You seem to want to manufacture an opposition to yourself in each of these threads, and you do that by taking posts wildly out of context and making claims about posters.

Manufacture? I guess people like you, ME AVN FAN and the like are all figments of the imagination.  Yeah sure

Quoting Cairo (Reply 7):
In fairness, Falcon, you should also show in your original post that the Iraqi government is moving closer to Iran.

This is a two way street.

A valid point, and it is taken, Cairo. You are correct in that regard.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 7):
The US invasion in Iraq has one big winner: Iran.

We agree twice in one post! (gasp!).

Seriously, it is looking to be turning out that way, which helps no one in the region.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Get back to the subject: Iran is starting to make overt attempts to gain influence and economic, military inroads into Iraq. Do you think it's solely because they're peace-loving folks, or does the fact that they're probably one of the players behind the inter-factional fighting not bother you, and give you pause when you hear stuff like this?

Isn't that exactly what the US _has_ already done?

A couple of points:
-- I have no doubt that Iran is helping to some degree the insurgents. I would
think they wish to make the US stay in Iraq as painful as possible -- to
encourage Bush et al to declare victory and go home;
-- Iraqi Kurds have been crossing the border and doing killings and/or bombings
in the Iranian Kurdish area. Iranian security forces are crossing the border
in 'hot pursuit' -- a policy America approved of regarding Cambodia. There
is an old (coarse) saying: Same shit, different stink.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Fact is, any time the subject on Iran is brought up, you deny up and down they have any nuclear intentions beyond peaceful means, when, in fact, they drop the hint all the time that they don't just want it for energy.

Iran will soon start commissioning 2 Russian VVER-1000 PWR reactors at Bushehr on the Gulf Coast. These use 5% enriched uranium fuel. Iran has plans to acquire more of these. If they wish to be free from depending on foreign enrichment sites, a perfectly legitimate desire, then they need enrichment facilities, and can therefore justify the installaiton at Natanz. QED.

However, I do believe they are pursuing a weapons capability. From my p.o.v. in the business I'd think they're 4-5 years from it, anyway. I have read that the CIA thinks 10 years, but I'm not a big fan of theirs.

What to do about it ? Confront the problem directly. Declare the US (and other Western nations + Russia/India/China) want _direct_ talks with Iran, with the carrot being a normalisation of relations. After all, it's been 27-28 years since the embassy thing. Time to move on. The US did after Vietnam.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 9):
Isn't that exactly what the US _has_ already done?

No, it is not, in my view. The U.S. is fighting an insurgency, not encouraging one.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Instead Of Soldiers, Send Nappies/diapers To Iraq! posted Tue Aug 15 2006 01:31:36 by Braybuddy
US Military Hearing On Iraq Rape Case Begins posted Sun Aug 6 2006 19:16:46 by Rammstein
UH60FtRucker Deploying To Iraq posted Mon Jan 30 2006 04:38:07 by ANCFlyer
USA Should Start Military Out Of Iraq Now posted Mon Sep 5 2005 14:32:26 by LTBEWR
Has Anyone Paid Any Attention To Iraq? posted Mon Sep 5 2005 00:52:45 by Cfalk
Graceful US Exit & What Wl Happen To Iraq posted Mon Aug 15 2005 17:33:52 by Iakobos
Forty Year Old Technology Going To Iraq posted Mon Jan 10 2005 04:09:00 by ANCFlyer
A New Reason For Going To Iraq posted Tue Oct 12 2004 17:21:59 by Oly720man
SWVT's Have Ties To Rove, Bush posted Fri Aug 20 2004 15:12:32 by Alpha 1
Saddam To Return To Iraq posted Tue Jun 29 2004 15:14:25 by Scotty