Originally posted by EastCoastKid
At the risk of pissing you off and sounding unamerican,
My friends will always find me much harder to PO than others would, so no worries. As for unamerican... I'll leave it to Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads
to dole that one out- It's not my style to outright brand somebody a traitor; most countries just call it being the opposition party, which seems
reasonable to me.
As for terrorism in Iraq, let's assess the situation. We've got long-time allies of Iran running the government, but they've had to speak softly
because of the US. In practice however, they are an equal party to the blood bath over there.
The really odd thing is that Iran and America have a common friend here.
We're behind them... as strange as it feels for me to say... I guess because we have a newfound respect for elections, because I can't imagine that
we really want the new Iraqi government too cozy with Iran.
Iran is behind them A. Because their share an ideology. B. As an added bonus they are doing their part to propagate a conflict that is killing
Al-Hakim is replying to US criticisms of the working of the Ministry of the Interior, which has been infiltrated by the Badr Corps, SCIRI's
paramilitary. It is accused by the US of setting up secret prisons and torturing largely Sunni Arab prisoners. Its special police commandos have also
been accused of assassinating or kidnapping Sunni Arabs
Not to mention our old friend Muqtada Al Sadr. Remember that guy? Probably the second least charismatic-looking man I've ever seen... next to FDR.
His old man was the founder of the Dawa Party
which now a key component of the Iraqi coalition
government. Despite differences, Dawa was supported by Iran. What's the difference between Sadr and the Dawa party in power? Sadr hasn't toned
himself down from the views which won Dawa the approval of Iran back in the good old days.
Dude, we have been mutual enemies almost all of our lives (yours and mine). For good reasons on both sides. (snip) But right now it is in no
one's best interest to go fighting a new war.
We agree they are our enemies, I presume you acknowledge that they seek to develop nuclear weapons, so while a war is not anyone's first choice, it
is definately in our interest, considering that the alternative is to have a nuclear-armed enemy in a strategically and economically vital part of the
I think your post on the two sides backing off and letting the superpowers check and balance eachother to ensure peace was a pretty decent idea. If
Iran will allow verification that it is not developing nuclear weapons, then let's give them a non-aggression pact, get the UN involved and duely
authorize Russia and China to over-see the peace between Iran, Israel, and America, and that's that. Stability is better than war if we can have it
that way obviously. But if we can't have stability, short and hopefully small hot wars are not nearly as bad as severe dangers of nuclear war.
Last but not least, I reitterate my agreement that we're not ready to be committed all over the world the way we are, we certainly can't fight 2 and
a half wars anymore (frankly I maintain that considering the scale of the wars likely to happen back in the Cold War era, we never had that ability,
except perhaps for a few moments in the early 90s.). What I must stress however is that two adjoining nations do not constitute two wars. We can't
carry out two distinct large scale missions at once there, but we can certainly briefly reorient ourselves to the defense against Iran.
(On a slight tangent, I don't know what the heck we're still doing in Korea- seems like if we're going to draw down from the readiness of the cold
war, we can't keep guarding 1953's front-line.)
Thanks for the spirited discussion bro, no worries about ruffling my feathers. Looking forward to seeing what you think of my reply.
Peace (pardon my irony)