They are no more threat than, say, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
How is Israel a threat to other Arab countries? They have the nukes.. they have the air force.. they have an effective army... They could have laid waste to everyone of their Arab neighbors decades ago. And they've never officially threatened to wage a war of eradication upon ANY Arab country (not even the Palestinians)..
In fact, the only time they've waged war is in response to either outright acts of aggression, or when economic aggression (blockade) has been committed against them..
Saudi Arabia? Well, what can we say? We've supported them because it worked to our advantage to do so in an era of US/Europe vs Warsaw Pact. It was the same reason we supported the Shah. But I'm certainly not fond of the Saudis and their "faustian bargain" with their Wahabbi clerics. They are the head of the snake with regard to militant Islam, but it's obviously better to pressure them than to wage a war against all of Islam, should we overthrow them (who would we replace them with, except maybe the Hashemites).
Hizbo was a state within a state in Lebanon, since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
And before that it was the PLO... (which was the reason the Israelis went into Lebanon in the first place). All with Syrian complicity.. But now it's Iran and Syria supporting Hizbullah.. Syria supports them because it destabilises Lebanon and assists their long-standing claim to sovereignty over the Lebanese, while Iran sees them as a Shi'a stronghold that permits them to wage a proxy war against Israel. And where was the Arab world as the Syrians occupied Lebanon for decades? No where to be seen..
So what is the US policy in Lebanon? Only that it remain a sovereign, and preferably democratic state. Our only involvement there has been at the request of the UNSC. I hardly see that as a policy that should be opposed by ANYONE, let alone the majority of the Arab world. If any western power has an agenda there, it would have been France under Chirac (I'm not sure Sarkozy shares this same policy).
I do not believe so, Iraqis are nationalist and they are taking advantage of the Iranians to fight the Americans.
They have been in the past. But the last 10 years of Saddam's regime saw the return of tribalism (flavored with Salafism) and oppression of the Shi'a. I don't deny that the Dawa party of Iraq didn't help in maintain nationalist policies (being supported by Iran). However, Saddam was quite aggressive in his persecution of the Shi'a (and Kurds) and sought no reconciliation.
What are the American interests in Iraq?
Threefold. Initially it was the upholding of UNSC directed, and binding, cease fire and disarmament resolutions against Saddam's regime, as punishment for his blatant agression against Kuwait.
Secondly, the establishment of an accountable, and preferably democratic government, which it was believed, would secure Iraq's plentiful oil reserves for the consumption of the global economy (not just the US). And in exchange, we would pay for that oil and make the average Iraqi much better off than before. This is obviously still a work in progress, waiting primarily for the "oil law" that we've been pushing for passage through the Iraqi government.
Thirdly, to dismantle any Al Qai'da related groups within Iraq and to terminate that government's support for Terrorism. I've shown you that, in 1993, Saddam ordered his intelligence director to reach out to Arab terrorist groups for the purpose of attacking American interests "in Arab lands", including Somalia. This was an outright declaration of war against the US, as well as a violation of the UNSC cease fire, which forbade Iraqi involvement with terrorist groups. Thus, it in the DIRECT interest of the US to prevent Iraq from supporting terrorist networks, whether directly, financially, or by providing training and logistics.
The dealingss and wheeling in the region amongst the parties and the superpowers are at the expense of Lebanon and the Lebanese people.
This is clearly BS. The international community has STRONGLY SUPPORTED Lebanese independence for DECADES now.. Only this support has prevented the Syrians from annexing Lebanon back into "Greater Syria"..
So how can that be at the "expense" of the Lebanese? Had we done nothing, Lebanon would have ceased to exist as a country. If anyone's foreign policies are at the expense of the Lebanese, it's those of Syria and Iran. You need to grasp that concept. I know my Lebanese brother-in-law does.
Of course, there are lots people that suffered when the regime changed back than, and lot people found relief. The Iranian regime came a long way since inception.
Came a long way? Or merely adopted the same oppressive securtiy state that they accused the Shah of having instituted? There is NO WAY that Iran is better off now than it was under the Shah, no matter how oppressive he was. I know this from the many Iranian people I've known, now living in exile in the US and elsewhere, as well as the reports we're seeing coming from Iran right now.
Now, now Hawk, if the US did want a war with Iran, Saddam would have not planted those made in USA mines. However, it does not make it right.
Please document where the US sold mines to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, please document where the US, under official policy, directly supplied offensive weaponry to Saddam in violation of congressional prohibitions? Biological samples, supposedly provided as medical related material does not count, nor would intelligence related materials. We share those with most countries that ask (when it meets our combined interests).
Iraq's weaponry was Soviet, French, and S. African. Their mines were Soviet. If anyone possessed US equipment, it was the Iranians. We sold the Shah close to 2 million landmines between 1969 and 1978.
So please just stop this perpetual BS being spewed about the US having armed Iraq.. It's a lie. We didn't and it clearly is demonstrated by the lack of any observable US inventories in Iraq's arsenal. Almost all the Iraqi weapons we see are Soviet bloc. That's why we've gone to great pains to buy AK-47s for Iraq's CURRENT police and army, since they are familiar with the weapons (and they are far cheaper to purchase.. ;0)
Hawk |
