It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

do you think iraq will be handed over to iran soon?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
i was just wondering since U.S is having a hard time in iraq would you guys think its possible if they handed over to us since were training most of their military and are doing billion dollars worth of recontrusction, also the leaders are Shi'ite, Saudi president also stated iraq should just be turned over to iran.





NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. policy in Iraq is widening sectarian divisions to the point of effectively handing the country to Iran, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on Tuesday.

in.today.reuters.com...




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I think its a safe bet to say Iraq isnt going to be turned over to Iran.

I dont think most Iraqie people like Iran all that much in the first place they had quite a bloody war not to long ago.


NR

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think its a safe bet to say Iraq isnt going to be turned over to Iran.

I dont think most Iraqie people like Iran all that much in the first place they had quite a bloody war not to long ago.



i agree, but also most iraqis that were fighting during the war were sunnis but now most of iraqis population along with leaders are now Shi'ite, i know for fact that after U.S is gone were going to move in, something like that.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Well, out of all the outcomes of Iraq, this one has to be dead last as a possible scenario. Interesting, but its not going to happen.


i know for fact that after U.S is gone were going to move in, something like that.


Right... giving the US the perfect excuse to defend her ally (Iraq) and start rolling into Iran.




[edit on 20-9-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I'm not sure about the sectarian divisions involved, but if we were ever going to hand Iraq over to a neighboring country, I'd want it to be Jordan. In an ideal situation it'd be Kuwait, but they're just too small to handle the job. Jordan is our best friend in the region aside from Israel. King Abdullah happens to be my favorite Arab leader at the moment, and his country does a lot (most we never hear about publicly until much later) for our country.

I think it'd be a cold day in Hell before we ever turned Iraq over to Iran.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
i know for fact that after U.S is gone were going to move in, something like that.


Thats the first time I ever heard that... Very interesting



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
But its also a moot point, since the US will never really leave Iraq, can someone say permanent military bases?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
NR, I have read your posts and I wonder what your goal is. I mean, you've stated in other posts that Iran would gladly attack US carriers with cruise missiles and your avatar is a missile. What's up wit' dat? Are you somehow proud of your country's ability to start a war that would surely lead to major suffering for Iranians? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the US occupation is being so poorly received, many muslims are changing from the Sunni branch to the Shi'a branch.

Wikipedia says this:



Some extremist Sunni groups, such as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, have continued to persecute Shi'a as heretics. Such groups have been responsible for violent attacks and suicide bombings at Shi'a gatherings at mosques and shrines, notably in war-torn countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Is this what you are referring to?

I have to say that it seems unlikely to me that these two groups will ever get along. I am wondering what event you think would unite Muslims, since they cannot even agree on who should rule them right after their prophet died. I mean, what will it take for Shi'a and Sunni to go back on a division that has kept them totally apart for centuries? Will it be Ali or Abu who was your Prophet's religious heir?

Also, have you heard the theory that Komehni, like the Shah, was a puppet of the globalists? I'm sure you know that he was actually very progressive in a lot of his views.



Although considered a fundamentalist by the western countries, most Iranians believe that among Shia clerics, Khomeini was actually one of the reformists of his time. He made many reforms to the shia clerical ahkaam which were revolutionary in their own time, and many Iranian clerics were against him on those cases. His most famous fatwas are the ones allowing Muslims to play chess, allowing the Iranian Muslim TV to show women without hijaab, and allowing gender-change surgeries in hospitals (Iran has now become the only country in the region with the technology). It is even said that Khomeini was personally against the hijaab being compulsory in Iran, and it was done under the pressure of hard-liner pressure groups, some years after the 1979 revolution.

I think it's interesting how perfectly he contrasted with Reagan in the eighties and how fortunate the US was to have him as a posterboard-enemy. Do you think he could have been working to secretly westernize Iran? I'm not sure you totally understand how incredibly effective the West is at keeping less-aware nations (like yours) in the dark. I don't mean to mock Iranians, but let's face it: You got played by the US before. What makes you think you aren't being played now? Maybe they want you to shoot a cruise missile at a carrier. Do you think the US would not respond forcefully?

Also, if Iran moves into Iraq, as you seem to be suggesting, what will be the fate of the Sunnis there? Will they be liquidated if they propose a civil war against the Iranian Muslims who move in after the US leaves Iraq? Also, will these Iranians have vendettas against Iraqis from the long war they fought with them?


NR

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   


NR, I have read your posts and I wonder what your goal is. I mean, you've stated in other posts that Iran would gladly attack US carriers with cruise missiles and your avatar is a missile. What's up wit' dat? Are you somehow proud of your country's ability to start a war that would surely lead to major suffering for Iranians? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the US occupation is being so poorly received, many muslims are changing from the Sunni branch to the Shi'a branch.



i really dont undestand what you mean by what my goal is, its basicly a forum and everybody here has a state of opinion but none of mines were disrespectful to others, i never said iran would gladly shoot down carriers because thats only in war situation not by purpose, also i'm not stating that war is a good thing i'm just saying we can do more on what you think we can, also i never said U.S occupation is poorly done throughout iraq that saudi arabia guy said it. People can choose if they want to become Shia or Suni but i was just stating that since iraqi leaders are shai they would be in talks with irans leader.





Some extremist Sunni groups, such as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, have continued to persecute Shi'a as heretics. Such groups have been responsible for violent attacks and suicide bombings at Shi'a gatherings at mosques and shrines, notably in war-torn countries such as Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Is this what you are referring to?

I have to say that it seems unlikely to me that these two groups will ever get along. I am wondering what event you think would unite Muslims, since they cannot even agree on who should rule them right after their prophet died. I mean, what will it take for Shi'a and Sunni to go back on a division that has kept them totally apart for centuries? Will it be Ali or Abu who was your Prophet's religious heir?

Also, have you heard the theory that Komehni, like the Shah, was a puppet of the globalists? I'm sure you know that he was actually very progressive in a lot of his views.




Shi'as and Sunni mostly were enemies during iran-iraq war, most Shi'as are in northern iraq while the others are in south. Also theres alot of Sunnis in Iran but most arabs are sunnis but perhaps more like terrorist groups who dont give a dam about anyhting and will kill for media attention that is not what you call islam they just crazy fanatics trying to get themselves killed. As for shah i really dont have alot in mind about him since he did our country no good and just kept ruining irans economy, ever since the islamic republic joined irans economy has been improving tromendously and with fast growing population so i'll let it be.





I think it's interesting how perfectly he contrasted with Reagan in the eighties and how fortunate the US was to have him as a posterboard-enemy. Do you think he could have been working to secretly westernize Iran? I'm not sure you totally understand how incredibly effective the West is at keeping less-aware nations (like yours) in the dark. I don't mean to mock Iranians, but let's face it: You got played by the US before. What makes you think you aren't being played now? Maybe they want you to shoot a cruise missile at a carrier. Do you think the US would not respond forcefully?

Also, if Iran moves into Iraq, as you seem to be suggesting, what will be the fate of the Sunnis there? Will they be liquidated if they propose a civil war against the Iranian Muslims who move in after the US leaves Iraq? Also, will these Iranians have vendettas against Iraqis from the long war they fought with them?



Well We will mostly go there not for invading but more with military cooperation like bases, markets, training troops, navy fiels etc.... Sunnis and Shi'as can get along because if they arent right now than every iraqi would be shooting each other. I dont think anyone is getting played since this whole nuclear issue has been goin on for a long time, mabet sanctions will be hopeless who knows we'll just have to see for ourselfs, it was good talking to you.






posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
NR,

The U.S. and the U.K. would NOT allow Iraq to be "handed over" to Iran, period. In fact, one could argue, that the more Iran seeks to influence politics in Iraq, the more the west will agressively oppose them.

The current US policy is and will continue to be, to try and politically isolate Iran as much as possible, while encouraging and supporting the pro-democracy forces inside it. And please don't try and tell me you are a democratic state now, for a theocracy with sham elections and powerless leaders appointed by religious fanatics does not a democracy make.

It is the Supreme Leader, and his lackeys on the Council of Gaurdians that really run Iran, and until they are removed from power, the west will continue to maneuver to limit their political influence in the region. This is why ANY plans by the Iranian government to annex Iraq after U.S. forces leave, would be met with military force. Like westpoint23 said earlier, it would inevitably end up with U.S. forces on the streets of Tehran.

All this is really a shame, as I find Iran to be a fascinating country. The land is beautiful, and the majority of the people on the street are educated and friendly. If the good people of Iran truely ran their country, it could be the shining star of the Mid-East, and it's relationship with the west could be one of prosperity. However, as long as the religous tyrants such as the mullahs and the idiots of the Basij continue to rule the populace with fear and brutality, the U.S. will continue to oppose any expansion of their influence in the region.

One can only hope that someday Iran will have it's own "Tear down this wall!" moment.


-Cypher




top topics



 
0

log in

join