Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (143101)	8/14/2004 1:25:24 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There's hope, Nadine. The war-blogging Beeb has finally put its toes in the water on the Iranian support for al-Sadr story, though does so in its characteristic doubting style: news.bbc.co.uk The Rumsfeldian Iranians all but admit helping al Sadr: iribnews.ir The Guardian, that archconservative right-wing extremist rag, chimes in: guardian.co.uk I guess the story doesn't exist for Win unless the NYT reports it. I can see the NYT article now: "In an exclusive to the NYT, it has been reported that young Iranians wearing the distinctive garb of the Revolutionary Guards have set up charitable soup kitchens to assist Iraqi residents of Najaf made homeless by severe US air and land attacks. Praising these efforts, Moqtada Al-Sadr explained that the Iranian humanitarian assistance provided by the Guards is welcomed with open arms by his embattled defenders, who have had to fight brutal US attacks while seeking sanctuary in some of Islam's holiest sites. He particularly praised the talents of the Iranian cooks, who have set up their kitchens in conditions which can only be described as primitive. Rubbing his massive belly, al Sadr said "A good cous-cous is hard to beat, and the peace-loving Iranians make the best." Al Sadr took the opportunity to speak to us to bitterly complain about the damage being done to the Shrine of Ali by American troops, whom he said are firing indiscriminately upon any person walking the streets of Najaf." Nothing new for Win. We lie, we steal, and we cheat while the truly bad guys need to get fitted for halos.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (143101)	8/14/2004 2:25:17 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<You can believe that the mullahs are helpless and their borders are uncontrollably "porous" if you wish to be so naive about it.> On the contrary -- it is naive to deny the porous nature of the borders surrounding Iraq -- borders that the US itself cannot secure either. It would not come as a surprise that Iran is siding with people in Iraq that share a common history and religion. Iran is rapidly becoming a nuclear power, and Iranian support for terrorism -- tacit or otherwise -- would seem to be far easier to establish in comparison with the endless attempts to conjure an Iraqi/al Qaeda hook-up where none is likely to have existed. Most of what you post underscores a conclusion that you have never been ready to admit: Invading Iraq was not the answer to our (the United States) national security problems. Now you want to talk about Iran. Our chances for dealing with Iran are gone -- and they know it. We did not just shoot ourselves in the foot -- we blew off both our own legs.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (143101)	8/14/2004 4:31:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<The British in Basra report a number of provocative Iranian steps, including seizing British troops on sea, seizing border areas, etc.> Nadine the capture of British troops on sea were British troops in a boat provocatively inside Iranian waters. They were released because Iran didn't want to make a big deal about something that was relatively minor. Maybe there was some other capture and that isn't the one you meant. The British were the ones being provocative, albeit possibly inadvertently, though it seems unlikely, given the important of territorial integrity and knowing where you are in a military conflict zone. It's the same as the Korean pilot of the 747 provoked the USSR, which shot them down. The Koreans did the provoking, not the Russians. It's not quite the same as the USS Vincennes shooting down the Iranian airliner, which couldn't really be said to be provocative by taking off as scheduled from a civilian airport, going about its civilian business in accordance with normal commercial flight rules. That one seems to have been an outright blunder by trigger-happy American soldiers on the Vincennes. The border areas are disputed. It's understandable that the Iranians would try to recover territory they think is theirs, just as it's understandable that Saddam tried to take over Iranian territory he thought was his and Kuwaiti territory, with the tacit approval of the USA, which he also thought is properly part of Iraq, which I have some sympathy with, though I don't think he should be the owner of it. Given the belligerence and threats of King George II against Iran, I would be surprised if they aren't doing what they can in self-defence, such as supporting fighters in Iraq who are on their side. The USA is out to get them and they have seen the carnage that the USA causes when it's out to get somebody. So they are figuring out and doing what they can to defend themselves. The USA meanwhile doesn't want another country with an Islamic Jihad noocular bomb. Neither does Israel. So, I think we will see conflict with Iran at some stage, unless Iran backs down. From Iran's point of view, if the USA electorate gives the game away due to carnage in Iraq, that's good. So, the more carnage the better, in Iraq. Which means supplying Sadr, Sistani and anyone else they can think of who won't turn the guns on them. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (143101)	8/18/2004 9:19:35 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Yes Nadine, I have looked at your reports and I also read a lot of other reports in multiple languages. I have learned to never trust any news source, no matter who. Instead, I contrast the news from sources with known biases and figure out the most likely case for myself. And this is the crux of the problems with your sources; they are very one sided. Take for example the issue of British troops who were inside Iran's waters. Oh BTW, don't try to obscure the issue by saying may be they were inside international waters. The river they were captured at has no international waters. Half of it is Iraq's the other half is Iran's. Anyway, back to the issue. If you had fallowed the bigger picture in the news around the Persian Gulf, you'd have known that only a few days before UAE escalated its provocation of Iran by seizing a few Iranian fishing boats and holding 25 Iranians in custody for illegally entering its waters (unlike the river where the Brits were arrested in, there is international waters between Iran and UAE). The Iranian response came 3 days later not from the foreign ministry or even the navy, but from the Revolutionary Guards. Surprisingly, they stated that UAE was right in arresting the fishermen and anyone who enters another's territory without permission should be kept for answers. When I read that, I knew they were up to something, but I was not sure what. Soon enough, though, I got my answer. The British boats inside Iranian waters were captured by the Revolutionary Guards. In a panic ridden move, UAE only asked the Iranian fishermen to pay a small fine and leave. When they claimed to have no money, the judge told them not to worry about it because a good Samaritan has paid their fines for them and they should get on their boats and leave right away. After their release, the British were released as well. Now if you really want to dig in deeper into all these connections and how it ties to the Brits, you need to fallow up on the news between UAE and Iran over some disputed islands. With regards to the foreign fighters entering Iraq via Iran, I have a few things to say: (1) Yesterday I was watching CSPAN broadcast of Senate's Arms Committee. They asked both Rummy and Acting CIA Director point blank if Iran is controlling the boarders to prevent AQ fighters entrance into Iraq. Both answered that Iran supports terrorism through its support of Hezbollah against Israel. Talk about avoiding the question!!! Neither one confirmed that Iran is too lax on Iraqi boarders. (2) The boarder is identical on both sides of the line. If you think it can be secured, then why doesn't US do it? (3) There are over 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran. Afghans speak a dialect of Persian that is fairly close to the one spoken by majority of Iranians. So an Afghan crossing Iran is no more suspicious than a Mexican crossing I.A. (4) Why are you upset about this? Is this not what Neocons claimed they wanted; an opportunity to fight off their enemies inside Iraq? You should in fact encourage Iran to provide good transportation for anyone wishing to fight off US in Iraq, if you really believe in the fly-paper strategy. Now let's move on to Sadr and Iran's desire for a messed up Iraq. There is some truth to what you say, but it is really a lot more complex than the picture you paint and is not even close to what you think. There are factions within Iran who support Sadr and there are factions who are against him. However, Iran is not interested in seeing Iraq disintegrate. This is purely for selfish reasons. Should Iraq actually split into 3 (or 5) independent or even mostly autonomous regions, Iran risks chaos along its own boarders with the ethnic groups who are closely tied with their cousins in Iraq. This is most critical in Kurdistan, but can be true for other parts as well. For this same reason, Israel has a vested interest in seeing an independent Kurdistan. Israel is also very interested in seeing Iran put in its place by US. So I wouldn't be surprised to find out Israel has been encouraging some factions in Iran to do something to provoke US invasion. Politics makes for very strange bedfellows (and enemies). BTW, who are these people who are accusing Iran as a big factor in the uprisings in Iraq? Would that be the same people who promised Iraq would be a cakewalk and are now proven wrong? Here is a little quote from a Guardian article that as you wanted, reports the claims of US and its appointed Iraqi government guardian.co.uk note that despite the article's title, the Iraqi government does not confirm captured fighters' ties with Iran. "The invitation was something of a surprise but it perhaps is an acknowledgment that Iran realizes that things could get out hand in the south. It is not in their interests for there to be chaos. Many many Iraqi Shia are against what Moqtada al-Sadr are doing, and the sensible elements of the Iranian government know that. We believe we can develop better relations if we are honest with one another." But one Iraqi diplomat, a former member of the Iraqi opposition who took part in the postwar planning, said: "You know we didn't misread the reaction of the Shia in postwar Iraq, as many analysts have suggested; our big failing was to misread the reaction from our neighbours. They really don't want to give us a chance." Sounds like Iran is the escape goat of those who misled America and is actually helping with the Sadr problem. BTW, Did you know that Sistani is actually an Iranian citizen? And that Khoi, the most pro-US ayatollah who nonetheless had an office in Iran and US is now trying to capture Sadr for his murder was also Iranian? And that SCIRI which lived in Iran for 10 years before the invasion and by all accounts has close friendship with Iran is now one of the most (US) trusted factions in Iraq? So here you have all these people with ties to Iran who are actually helping to keep things calm in Iraq, and you go on choosing a native Iraqi who has never set foot in Iran as the Iranian stooge. It is not a very convincing picture. Sun Tzu