We don’t usually agree very much, but I’m with you on every point you made there. I’m actually sorry I overlooked that thread.
Except that Iran isn’t composed of US suckups. I expect that to an Iraq war/US apologist like xtisme, anything that doesn’t keep Iraq a subjugated puppet of the US is “dire”.
That excluded middle part you overlooked is that maybe xtisme doesn’t expect Iran to do a better job bringing stability to the middle east than we are.
That’s the problem with your “all or nothing” argument style. Are you just trying to insult xtisme, or are you actually trying to have a conversation? It’s hard to respond to you, because your arguments are so awkwardly, wildly abusive and accusational that it seems unlikely you actually care about what the response is.
I don’t see any reason to think that xtisme cares about stability. Just US hegemony.
And he didn’t answer your question about why he considered it “dire”, so I had to guess why he meant that; and his arguments about Iraq typically boil down to “America is the Truth and the Way”.
I was going to bombard you with sites showing the Ira /Iraq war was fueled by a dispute over an oil rich border area and a waterway that Iraq wanted. In about 9 sites I found one that mentioned religion as a 3rd cause. But your brain lives in a gated community. The only info you permit in is what agrees with your preconceptions. You are wrong again. But I know you will never be swayed by facts and information.
http://quotes.gaia.com/28718/whence_comes_war_and_fighting/by_plato?printable=1
Even in Platos time they knew war is about money.(ie land and resources)
Bahrain is mostly Shi’a, but the ruling Khalifa family is Sunni. This has caused tensions in the past and every so often violence flares up, but overall it is quite calm.
Oh, well, let me answer it for him then.
Link to my reply to your other, um, statements.
Iran having influence isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I didn’t read the OP that way though. I read the OP as Iran would dominate Iraq and Iraqi policy in the future…and that WOULD be a ‘dire’ prediction IMHO. And Iraq completely dominated by Iran is going to make the over all situation in the ME even worse than it is today…and I have my doubts that many Iraqi’s would simply go along with this happy (to the OP) state of affairs.
Iran is, afaiac, a rogue state who is constantly pushing the envelop of international censure. Note the fact that the UN is AGAIN bringing sanctions against Iran for it’s constant violation concerning it’s nuclear policies (that they AGREED to abide by…again). Do you REALLY want such a nation to dominate one of the major sources of oil in the region? I think ‘dire’ is an accurate term wrt that possibility.
I have seen nothing in this thread indicating that it is acceptable to launch attacks on another poster simply for disagreeing with your cherished notions.
Stick to arguing actual facts and positions and leave your uninformed guesses about other posters’ thought processes for the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
That all depends on your perspective. From an Iranian perspective, Western powers have dominated the Middle East for a hundred years, and they’re the first ME society who can effectively stand up to the foreigners.
Why SHOULD they do what the UN says? America frequently ignores the UN, but we’re too strong for the UN to push around. Iran might be too strong for the UN to push around, too, and we’re just starting to realize that. We might not like it because it diminishes our influence and role, but that doesn’t make it “bad” or “wrong” for Iran to take a major, active role in Iraq’s future.
They signed the treaty and enjoyed the benefits. I suppose that by your rationale no one should listen to the UN…and in fact, that is pretty much what actually happens. Powers like the US, Russia, China, France and the UK use the UN when it is in their best interests…and ignore it when it’s not. Lesser powers flaunt the UN when they can get away with it (as with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc etc)…and pay the price when they piss off one or more of the honcho countries on the UNSC (as with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc etc).
I think Iran should try and straighten up and fly right because I think it’s in their long term best interests to do so…but they are obviously making different calculations based on different criteria.
-XT
Agreed - The demise of the Taliban and Saddam’s regime removed Iran’s biggest threats in the region. Iran wants to be viewed as a legitimate world player. It is extremely unfortunate that the Bush administration didn’t at least try to cultivate a diplomatic relationship with Iran after 9/11 when the reformists opened the door.
The U.N. is fast becoming a U.S. relic. China is open for business and provides a life line to Iran. With Iraq’s stability now depending on Iran’s influence, it doesn’t seem wise for the U.S. to continue the diplomatic cold shoulder. Ahmadinejad is a staunch conservative, and his denial of history is not comforting, but his power is limited and he may not even serve a second term. Iran controls Iraq and the U.S. needs to adjust because every billion spent on this occupation weakens our economic strength and threatens our long term well being in a new world order.