To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Iraq and Iran

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Iraq and Iran

By Noam Chomsky at Dec 20, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
It's pretty clear that the major Shiite parties have pretty close links with Iran. The Badr brigades, which control large parts of the south were trained there. A majority of the influential clerics come from there (including Sistani). And links in general (trade, others) are becoming closer, it appears. I don't think that Iran is "pulling the strings," but the relationships are likely to grow. That's part of the reason why a sovereign and partially democratic Iraq could be a nightmare for Washington, which has been working hard to prevent it. Could get worse from their point of view. The Shiite population in Saudi Arabia, door, is in the area of SA's largest oil concentrations, and might be encouraged -- probably already has been -- to resist the harsh repression to which they have been subjected and take some control of their fate, maybe also linking to the Shia complex that seems to be emerging. And it could get still worse, from Washington's point of view. How the US would react depends very much on the popular mood here. That's the problem we should be facing. Speculation is idle.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (48)

Person

syiah and sunni

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 28, 2006 22:37 PM

There are also plans by al zarqawi in connection with Al-Qaeda with a purspose of creating the civil war so that the whole of Iraq will be in turmoil. Al-Zarqawi does want not the sunni to be involved in the political system or in democracy in Iraq. He does not want the syiah (shite) to complacent with rule of power.

They want Iraq to be in civil war so that the sunni can be united and fight the shite who is colloborating with the US. The shite has planned this since US occupy Iraq. They had work with US. Sistani has planned all the way so the Shite will be in power and united with Iran. 

Can the Americans see this? 

Reply this comment

Person

Chomsky's hypocrisy

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 11, 2006 22:16 PM
While Muslim Imams around the world issue fatwas calling for the beheading of the Danish cartoonists, and editors of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons of Muhammed, where is the libertarian Chomsky? To recall, in 1980 Chomsky wrote a piece defending the right of a Nazi-sympathising Holocaust-denier, Faurisson, to publish his Holocaust-denial. Chomsky authorised Faurisson to use the piece as he wished, and Faurisson added the piece as a preface to his Holocaust-denying book. Despite various apologetic statements about Faurisson that Chomsky wrote in that piece that went beyond any “freedom-of-speech” issues (for instance denying that as far as he knew there was anything “anti-semitic per se” in the book), Chomsky and his clones take the official position that he was just taking a stand on free speech and against censorship. Today we are witnessing the greatest challenge to free speech in our times, and one wonders why the silence from Chomsky. Is it that, as Larissa MacFarquhar argued in a profile of Chomsky in the New Yorker, that Chomsky is a bully (she cites cases of him bullying students), hence prefers a cowardly “libertarian” defense of anti-semites since there are only 13 million Jews in the world, but 1.5 billion Muslims? Or is it just his craving for popularity that explains both his ostensible defense of Faurisson's free speech and his silence on Islamic fanaticism now?

Reply this comment

Person

Nope Israel is not the first..

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 06, 2006 17:34 PM
i try to have this posted many time but did not succeed.. Pangaea, for what does this matter, The British seem to been doing covert bombing in Iran, Iran has complained to the UN..

Reply this comment

Person

Wow

By Kissenger, Clark at Feb 06, 2006 02:34 AM

 

Too much information at one time.  I think I need a rest.

 

http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 22, 2006 09:01 AM
I would say the War against Hitler , tremendously brought down the British. Also it is very much possible that because of the War a lots of money flew to the US. Of course, If is say that obese and fat rich british men spent to much money entertaining whores,,,It caused the collapse of this empire, people would think that I must be joking.. ( hey, I am joking!)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 22, 2006 04:28 AM
The UN already receives very little funding from the US, but it's probably a valid point nevertheless. I agree with you Wood, the Empire may look strong from the outside, but in reality it is not as it's main fundament is the economic hold over the world. Cut this artery, and the Empire bleeds to death. This view of the invulnerability of the Empire was one of the reasons why the British Empire was able to sustain itself over so many years in for example India. Gandhi tried to get the people to understand that this was not correct. With time they understood this, and rose up to protest. This, coupled with other factors, brought the Brittish Empire to its knees. This will also happen to the US Empire with time. A consumer boycott of its products will only shorten its hold of the world, as will its wars as it enrages more and more people, and encourages them to stand up. A consumer boycott is hurtful to the US economy, but a global boycott by nations would be a lot more harmful. If the UN isn't fixed (e.g. by removing the veto), it is perhaps time to revive the NAM. Most of South-America would be willing to join, and perhaps Russian and China, and large parts of the Arab nations. That's a pretty big powerhouse if you ask me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 20, 2006 18:59 PM
Vwood , I agree the UN should do as you describe, but it won't. The UN is afraid to loose contributions against starvation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 20, 2006 11:38 AM
Pangaea, You are correct about this. Government and military might are like protective coverings over the economic infrastructure of a country - indeed over the world. The military is no longer there to protect the people, nor is the government, but instead there to insure its national economic interests (i.e., corporations). These economic interests represent the soft under-belly of the capitalist system. Its strength is in fact also its greatest weakness. In today's world you can't win by striking out at the government or the military of the Empire, you must find a way to put fear into its belly by attacking its wallet and denying its ability to consume (remember, the Empire is a giant consumer now, no longer a producer). The UN should impose ecomomic sanctions and the debt-ridden countries of the world should stand up as one and refuse to pay their debts. These actions would create international monetary chaos, and the US (as well as the G8) would be brought to its knees. If the countries of the world were united in this, they could take control of the world from the Empire.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 20, 2006 08:55 AM
Pangaea,Cheney just dismissed the threat saying Bin Laden cannot afford video.(lol) This is a really stupid statement. Tell you why. Today you get video even on cell phones. I think Cheney was frustrated; no video, no Bin Laden people to be analyzed, no Laden to be found. Here is a man (Bin Laden) whom eluded entire armies for the past 4 years, not only survived the search and any attempts on his life;[quote](This alone by Christian standards would constitute a MIRACLE if there is such thing as Christian standards) [/quote] Laden emerge well trough Hell and what he say is truly more than an insult. Actually this is worst than an insult, Bin Laden find the way of describing on a cue the military situation of US soldiers under mines in Iraq in a better way than it is reported by journalists like Robert Fisk. This does suggest Bin Laden visit Iraq at will at the very least.. Yes, Pagaea the man seem to know the extent of the screw up when he goes on to lectures the US to the extend of comparing the criminality of Bush to Saddam. This morning there were a link front page from Noam Chomsky (I answered the post with style)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 20, 2006 04:46 AM
If this actully is Bin Laden, and not some CIA plot, it is quite remarkable. The man is an extremist and terrorist, and yet he talks more truths than the US president. What does that say about Bush? The White House utter the default line: "We don't negotiate with terrorists". Roughly estimated, about 5,000 people are dead because of Al Qaida operations across the world. That is of course 5,000 too many, but a relatively small number nevertheless. Just in Iraq the US has killed at least 600,000 people through the supreme crime of state-terrorist wars towards a non-threatening country and its population. That is 120 times as many as Al Qaida have killed worldwide. Perhaps the rest of te world should utter the default US line too, or at least think about it. Cut off trade with the US, stop selling oil to them etc. Quite simply embark on economic sanctions like the ones that broke the Apartheid regime in South-Africa. This especially aimed at war-profiteers like the US militarily industrial complex, but also war-profiteers from other countries. Perhaps I am naíve, but I think that would work. They don't care about polls, demonstrations or democracy, but hit them economically and they sure as hell will pay attention. It's the way the capitalist world works. Call it a "market reaction" if you will, towards CEOs, presidents, PMs, and corporations that will gladly slaughter people just to make a buck.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 20, 2006 04:07 AM
Actually this should be Bin Laden full text Also Bin Laden still seem to hate Saddam Hussein..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 20, 2006 03:42 AM
Today Yahoo news reported elaborate threats from Osama Bin Laden click and given to the though that Bin Laden seem to like to target New York, Id be very afraid to live there.. I am glad you are not living in Iran nor in NYC, in insight, even if I am wrong, I would request to evacuate NYC..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 19, 2006 04:50 AM
Ouch, i have just googled something, I aint sure about the accuracy but there is no SMOKE without fire.. but this could had more casualities should a conflict happen Chinese missiles redesigned by Iran Information origins look strange! This information look scary! This information seem accurate

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 19, 2006 03:40 AM
That backs up our claims yes. 102 F-16s can make a lot of damage.
[T]he US gov't is PAYING half, or US$2.2bn
Is this what the US calls "aid" then? Who is it "aid" for? Israel(is)? Not long-term as all hell can break out if they use the things. Arab countries in the region? Obviously not as they'll be on the receiving end of the bombs. Or the US weapons industry? Now there's a thought... I'm sure the CEO and owners of Lockheed Martin et al are very happy to receive $2.2bn in subsidies, but I doubt Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis or Lebanese will be very happy about it. Not US taxpayers either for that matter. Time will tell what happens. Looks like the next step is the Security Council, meaning the US and the EU are using the Iraq recipe: strangling the country economically. I'm sure the US are planning bombing raids as well, but as Iran can actually defend itself atm, that is a risky business as they don't want to lose planes and pilots. Glad I'm not living in Iran...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 19, 2006 02:34 AM
Pangaea, there see to have some technology backing up your/ my theory.. US MADE F 161 jets Israel had such planes ready 5 years ago..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 18, 2006 08:36 AM
The Iranian prezident is a bit spooky on his attempts to deny the Holocaust existed, he does have a point that we shouldnt create a palestinian holocaust to avert one, funny that,[censored} it seem that every country has its lePen, Robertson and al Israel right to exist must be recognized, too many people died for this. Also I think that if the Iranian prez continue yapping like he does someone inside his own group of people will get get him before the Israelis

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 17, 2006 21:26 PM
I actually think the US got more or less what it wanted, a dragged out war between two Arab nations, crippling both.
I say the likelihood of an attack are greater coming from Israel than from the US (Cyranoo)
I agree with this. If there is an attack on Iran, I doubt it will be a full-scale attack like the one we saw against Iraq. It will probably be air-raids where mainly Israeli forces (US planes though) bomb Iranian defensive facilities, and the nuclear technology plants, perhaps taking out vital infrastructure as well, as also happened in Iraq in the 1990s, such as the energy and water sectors. The US will provide intelligence and perhaps bomb as well. If Iran are trying to get nuclear weapons it will take them at least 10 years by CIAs estimates. The US won't be in a hurry to attack them full-scale. It could come some years into the future though, when Iran are weak enough to provide a swift US victory. Btw pretty disastrous that the media has hardly touched the US attack on Pakistan. This was a military attack against Pakistan killing tens of people. This is the kinda things that should be taken to the security counsil. This was an actual attack against another country. Iran's words towards Israel are just words, not bombs. That is a HUGE difference.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 17, 2006 00:24 AM
pangaea sorry you are right, Iran did not win war against huseein my statement was inaccurate.. I should had measure my words and say Hussein and the US did not succeeed their military objectives..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 16, 2006 22:19 PM
oops pangea inaccurate is a big word i said : [quote]In the eyes of ( Shia) Iran, it won the war against Saddam [/quote] The rest you say I agrees with excepted that the US is not eager to attack Iran right now since their "lack of success" in Iraqi elections now. I say the likelihood of an attack are greater coming from Israel than from the US; of course I am only trying to predict, I could "fortunately" be wrong since it could by all mean have no attack on Iran at all..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 16, 2006 20:59 PM
As I mentioned above I don't think the US will attack Iran now, simply because Iran has the capability to sustain an attack longer than the US would like. But make no mistake, if the US attacks Iran, there can only be one victor. The US spends about 50% of the world's total military expenses. They will beat Iran militarily, but the expenses will be too high. Your view on the Iran-Iraq war isn't accurate. The war pretty much ended with a stalemate. There was no victor, both countries lost heavily, both economically and in fallen soldiers and civilians. The US did probably support Iraq the most, but they also supported Iran quite a lot. They were interested in a dragged out war, so when one of the parties got the upper hand, they provided weapons and intelligence to the losing party. As intentioned this prolonged the war, and put both countries back a lot financially. The oil industries in both countries were badly hurt for instance. Besides, to attack Iran would be even more stupid than Iraq. Not even the media will be able to overlook the oil factor, and the entire Arab world will get on the US' ass. It will not be pretty, and it will perhaps be a neverending campaign in both Iraq and Iran. The US public will not be so easy to fool this time around.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 16, 2006 08:42 AM
If there is agression against Iran, I say if, this could escalated into a bloody mess. We do have to remember that Iran won against Hussein amid the enormous support from the US. The US has air superiority but Iran is a country that can give a fight, it has conventional missiles and it is only 800 kilometers from close range Israel.. I could not assume an attack from the US right now since the US is currently under attack from Iraqis at this moment..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 16, 2006 07:30 AM
[quote] it's pretty clear that the major Shiite parties have pretty close links with Iran. The Badr brigades, which control large parts of the south were trained there. A majority of the influential clerics come from there (including Sistani). And links in general (trade, others) are becoming closer, it appears. I don't think that Iran is “pulling the strings,” but the relationships are likely to grow. That's part of the reason why a sovereign and partially democratic Iraq could be a nightmare for Washington, which has been working hard to prevent it.[/quote] Actually, Mr Chomsky is right given the last election, you could say that the US entirely fucked-up with the removal of Saddam Hussein mainly because the way the Iraqi government is designing itself ( amid the US presence) is exactly the way The Ayatollah Komeini wanted fo Iraq 20 years ago when Hussein attacked Iran on behalf of the US. In the eyes of ( Shia) Iran, it won the war against Saddam but it had not been able to remove him from power. The Irony is when the US ate its only friend ( Hussein) in Iraq, it lost Iraq.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 14, 2006 09:20 AM
Iran seem to be the 'primary' concern of today. I would believe that agression acts would be committed under the cover of occult propagandas such as pre-emptive attacks. I wouldnt be surprised that the first air-attacks be commenced by Israel, to be followed by the US whom will try to be perceived as the Helper ( to borrow the words of calico) The US will possibly try the most cohercive way to force the UN join the agression by threatening to withdraw aid to to the poor. A lots of lots of muslims will die..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 11, 2006 15:34 PM
"In my mind, Iran has learned the lesson of North Korea, namely that if one has nukes they are a far less likely target of a future Coalition invasion and much more likely to see the Coalition instigate talks." In my opinion, this is part of the story, but I think the fact that Iran has a big (to my knowledge) conventional army is perhaps just as important. Remember there is no proof that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons. As Chomsky has pointed out, it is the enormous conventional army of North Korea that is the biggest reason why the US has not attacked them yet. And of course they lack huge natural reserves, as Iraq and Iran has. There are three criteria for qualification when it comes to a US threat (1) Big natural reserves the US are interested in (2) Weak military so the US can get a quick win with few casualties (3) A rogue leader to oust Iraq qualified on all three criterias. Iran on 2; (1) and (3). North Korea only one; (3). If they attack Iran it won't be a full-scale assault I think, as it's too risky and will cost too much militarily, economically and politically. I think it's more likely they'll follow the Iraq route in the 90s, namely air-attacks here and there to knock out their defences, and then a full-scale attack in the future when Iran are weak enough to provide a quick and complete victory within weeks or months. Likely with an economic boycott preceding the attack, either unilaterally or preferably multilaterally through the UN system.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Xenovatis, Dimitris at Jan 11, 2006 01:45 AM
Yeia sas everyone! Before I say anything let me express my sincere admiration for Professor Chomsky whose books I have been reading since high-school! On the subject of Iran, a point that comes to mind is the manipulation of some of Iraq's Shia groups by Tehran with the express aim of providing a credible threat to aver any Coalition intervention in the completion of Iran's nuclear weapons program. In my mind, Iran has learned the lesson of North Korea, namely that if one has nukes they are a far less likely target of a future Coalition invasion and much more likely to see the Coalition instigate talks. The current difficulties the Coalition is facing in Iraq, considerably strengthen Iran's hand in the above respect. See you!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 08, 2006 02:13 AM
# Dominance I now understand why mr christie says that Saddam Hussein was merely a proxy.. I now agree that the war in Iraq was the extention of an obscure policy..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 07, 2006 01:08 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 06, 2006 17:20 PM
Yes it is rather strange diplomacy before the Gulf War. I can see one reason why the US liked Saddam mainly the war against Iran but two reasons why the US would dispose of their friend.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War #1. Hussein stance on Israel ( is he anti-semite or just pro-palestinian?) #2.The nationalization of oil Q. why does the subject of israel and the occupied territories suddenly rises now?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 05, 2006 23:33 PM
July 25th 1990 the US Ambassadeur in Baghdad told Hussein that they would be neutral in the Iraq-Kuwait row, they weren't interested in Arab-Arab conflicts. This may have been interpreted by Hussein as a tacit understand from the US that an attack would be okay by Washington. Partly because of their stand on the reunification of Germany, and partly due to the history of Kuwait (it was part of Iraq before Britain divided it up due to the oil reserves). A week later Iraq attacked Kuwait, and less than 6 months after that, the US attacked Iraq. It could have been a trap for Hussein, but I guess we'll never know. As the Gulf War progressed and Iraq got beaten, there was mass uprisings in Iraq. If it wasn't for the US Hussein would have been ousted. They didn't allow this I assume because they didn't have a guy ready to replace Saddam. A new Iran was the last they wanted, so keeping Hussein was a better option. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War, War Plan Iraq by Milan Rai, and various Chomsky writings.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 03, 2006 09:45 AM
oopsie, my apologies, I misquoted mr christie: It was suggested that the overtrowing of saddam hussein was an extention of a an imperial prerogatives.. instead of just pruning . do you have reasons to believ that there wer plans to remove saddam hussein before the gulf war happened ?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Jan 03, 2006 09:10 AM
Pangaea, this is really interesting scenario, I sure wishes Chavez and Venezuela brothers and sisters be safe from any threat coming from the North. The tough of having poor defensless people being a target of bombs coming from space is really frightening. Mr Christie wrote : Iraq is that Saddam was a proxy and what is occuring now is direct rule. In that light, overthrowing Saddam is in fact an extension, not a pruning, of imperial prerogatives. This is a very interesting, mainly, it asserts a pruning of imperial prerogatives over a long period of time. Nonetheless, thanks to no small extent the sacrifices of Iraqis across ethno-religious boundaries and across tactics (both violent and non-violent), some major US initiatives have been blocked, prolonged US presence is increasingly unpalatable to the US, and free elections and a constitution were won. Yes, those elections and that constitution beg some questions, I say it can be very difficult to try to interpret the vote of this election, Iraq is till under insurgency against an occupying power. mr.christie, Its not sure neo-liberalism will run Iraq, I am not sure Iraqis would vote for party which has the back-up of the US or the back-up of any foreigner countries responsible for the bombing of their cities and their childrens. Monsieur, 100,000+ dead Iraqis and the insurgency is not finished.. Mr Christie how long do you anticipate the US occupation of Iraq to last ?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 02, 2006 20:31 PM
I agree with this, and it is an alarming issue. IF Bush and his cronies succeed in this, I think Bush will be seen as a great precident. Reagan was a war-president as well, and fought his own "War on Terrorism", and he's seen as a great precident. But this is not really important. It is however important that we in the peace movement try to prevent this happening. I am not American myself, but I urge Americans to fight this development, as it's a very important one. This goes right back to the Monroe Doctrine and the PNAC papers, and is central for the White House planners. It is a battle the world cannot afford to lose.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Jan 02, 2006 12:09 PM
The US is actively working to provide a technological base for its military, believing that the answer to controlling the world lies not in military numbers but in the means to target anywhere in the world anytime with devastating effect. This is why they are pursuing space weaponry at such an alarming rate. They intend to develop weapons (including tactical nuclear capability) that can deliver precise attcks anywhere. Once they have accomplished this, it will be time to take off the gloves (and the mask calling all this the promotion of democracy throughout the world) and be quite aggressive about bringing the world into line. With the excuse of the War on Terror and the lack of a credible opposing superpower, Bush has succeeded in turning the foreign policy strategy from one promising an overwhelming deterrent against aggressors to one delivering pre-emptive action against could-be/would-be aggressors. This is a very important shift. I'm not saying they will be successful in this great venture, but I am saying that Iraq and Afghanistan are only stepping stones in a much greater plan.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Honningsvåg, Per-Stian at Jan 02, 2006 10:17 AM
We all know the invasion and following occupation is illegal by international law, but so is the creation of a new Iraqi constitution. I know Chomsky sais the election process is a victory for non-violent resistance in Iraq, but I haven't seen any info on what's been going on to pressure the US occupiers to accept this. Either way, it is illegal by international law for an occupying power to simply nullify its constitution and laws. Not even the Nazis did this. If there is anything good coming from this war it is that the US military will be locked up in Iraq, meaning they can't oust Chavez or anybody else they don't like in South-America. At least not as easy as they could if they weren't busy fighting Iraqis in Iraq. It can also mean the start of the end of the US empire, which has to be a good thing. We see democracy and respect for human rights spreading across South-America, and the US is in fury about it. So much for "spreading democracy and freedom across the World", eh?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Dec 30, 2005 07:36 AM
Frederic Christie, I agree with your post, it does appear that the US has problem having their elite getting elected. I recently dowloaded a movie on the attack of fallujah using bitorrent, the journalist is some japanese guy whom I forgot the name. and my impression was that the city was rendered a parking lot.. Thus i cannot expect any good from this war..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Dec 29, 2005 20:46 PM
my apology for the abusive language; I was just trying to create an analogy. After reflection, I would had re-edited the text to a more polite content but the BLOG does not allow me to correct. I just recalled that on halloween nite, a neighbor whom support the american intervention, made the comment of calling the muslim religion, a fucked up religion, arabs; a shit people and a bunch of terrorists and because I disagreed, he called me stupid. we were soon gonna excahnges blows until his wife butted in.. There were no open discussion tha was sustainable with him, I was the bad guy for disagreeing with his opinion. Now i dont like religions but if people want to live in religious states that their choice to make. my daughter plays with muslims and the muslims kids did not look like they were terrorist to me.. ( I do like arabs with turbans better than texans with cowboys hats (lol)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Dec 29, 2005 19:31 PM
Ben I give you the best example of reverse intervention. I am a canadian and I'd hate cowboy's ridiculous fucking hats, I hate cowbows yee haah country music, red necks, fascists and republicans ' jesus loving texans, fucking americans with policies that disrupt world peace ( hey Johnny, loose the fucking hat ) and as a peace loving french-canadian, I believe that the principal export the US does IS TERROR because the US export more bullets and bombs than CARS. Then fed up, one day i decide that your democracy is too flawed because it is always electing warmongering leaders and I decide to invades your country because of its history of gruesome violence and reform your flawed democracy , I come and bomb New York with mini-nukes and then I expect you as an american to like me and VOTE for my reforms. Then fed up, one day i decide that your democracy is too flawed because it is always electing warmongering leaders and I decide to invades and reform your flawed democracy, I come and bomb New York with mini-nukes and then I expect you as an american to like me..

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Dec 29, 2005 19:04 PM
Its not democracy itself that Iraqis would be unable to survives, its the US interference, it is the war and suffering imposed. The last time I checked the US borders were contained between mexico and canada; Badgad was not a province of Texas. It is not to the US to dictates Iraqis or arabs what to do. The US cannot control Iraq, it can only maintain violent conflict hoping that one day Iraqis are fed up to suffer and sign up peace. The same trick is use upon palestinians. A new constitution ? The US could had just donated its own obsolete US constitution ( since your president does not even respect it ) instead of forcing Iraqis to make a new one. this could have save time. If i understood , the US electoral process was flawed with the election of Bush; considering the number of complaints; seem that Iraqis inherited flaws.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Dec 29, 2005 16:49 PM
BenParsons said:"Surrounding countries have serious and viable claims to much of Iraqs territory, and the individual ethnic groups within Iraq would likely be much stable with independant states as opposed to the current nationalist construct of Iraq." Not certain I agree here, at least not fully. What countries? The entire Middle East has a long, long history of ehtnic groups being overrun and and boundaries redrawn with whatever current Empire was in power - Babylonia, Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, Turkish, Greek, Roman, Muslims, Ottoman, British, American, you name it - so whose boundaries are you talking about? And who has rights to these lands? Where are the real boundaries? Who should govern? Let me make a radical suggestion here. Perhaps all foreign powers should just get out and let these folks sort out their own issues among themselves. In the end they will still have oil to sell, and we will purhase it. They'll be happier. We'll be happier.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Ralston, John at Dec 29, 2005 07:39 AM
It is my belief that since Iraq was simply drawn on a map by British planners in the early part of the 20th century, that the country itself is unnatural, illegitimate, and largely incapable of sustaining a long term democracy. Surrounding countries have serious and viable claims to much of Iraqs territory, and the individual ethnic groups within Iraq would likely be much stable with independant states as opposed to the current nationalist construct of Iraq. I contend that countries that were not organically formed through some sort of domestic political process-- which may or may not contain civil violence-- will be fraught with violence and instability (in the absense of a military dictatorship) until the natural borders are let to be drawn, and some sort of pallatable political arragement takes form for all (domestic) parties concerned.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Ralston, John at Dec 29, 2005 07:15 AM
Perhaps ordinary Iranians do not care- per se Iraq was invaded by the US. However having 150 000 troops from the largest military machine on earth (as well as your largest enemy) in your border certainly irks the Iranian leadership. Iran has a huge interest in having its western neighbor be both friendly, and not a springboard for a potential US invasion some time in the future. Iranian agents have clearly infilitrated Iraq to carry out a number of tasks, both supplying materiel to Shitte uprisings (which unlike the Sunni uprisings, have been extremely fruitful), as well as influencing local elections by providing an inflow of oranizational expertise as well as capital for favoured Shitte candidates. What Iran is seeking to avoid, is having another US client state on its border, something analagous to a secular or otherwise US controlled Israel, threatening both Iranian domestic security, as well as the gulf in general.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Legalmedia, Cyranoo at Dec 28, 2005 07:27 AM
I am afraid I will have to rejoice with Professor Chomsky on the new democracy in Iraq, I am given to the tough that the only GOAL the US wanted to create in Iraq is total chaos. Generally speaking I believe the US government wanted a general mass grave for whoever set foot in Iraq. WAr, Civil war and murder is the only ruling law in Iraq and nobody, no nations will be able to touch the oil over there. My theory is that the US knew it would never be able to control Iraq, it would do what it did with Vietnam, it would deny this country any chance of success by just destroying it. It is difficult to quantify how many people will die in Iraq due to this war for the next 25-50 years but the world will remember this infamy. With the invasion , and destruction of Iraq, a free oil market democracy was averted with the fall of Saddam Hussein, continued British and American banks control the price of oil and make profit.. If you measure success by the level of destruction , death body and war brought upon the iraqi word; GWB is completely right, it is a complete success. I do disagree with ben parsons, It is very doubtful Iranian want anything to do with Iraq, most of them consider the US invasion there a merited "punishment" for the iran-iraq war and truly don't care. what they certainly don't want is getting an invasion and their country being put under a civil war like in Iraq.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Ralston, John at Dec 26, 2005 07:08 AM
The Iranians are smart to be interfering in Iraqi affairs. So long as the materiel can flow into Iraq, the United States will always give the Iraqis a good a reason to fight them. So long as the US is tied up with 50 000+ troops in Iraq, they will pose no viable threat to the Iranians. Any threat of invasion is laughable to the Iranians so long as the US continues to get in embarassed in Iraq-- not that I think the US would actually invade Iran, I suspect the US would do a cuban style terrorist campaign within Iranian borders, carried out by local malcontents.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Areo64, Zaid at Dec 26, 2005 06:31 AM
I understand your point and thank you for making it. I hope in the near future that the Muslim world can begin to seal the fractures created in it by centuries of foreign domination. We don't want to be such a divided people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Victor_wood, Vwood at Dec 25, 2005 14:28 PM
Zaid The division between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds alluded to is not based so much on religious differences (as the media would like us to believe), but upon economic reasons. The areas predominantly settled by each of these represent three distinct areas of Iraq, each with its own economic strengths (or weakness). Of course, in the end, our old friend, oil, is at the heart of the disagreements. Both the Kurds and the Shias want to protect what they see as theirs, and the Sunnis, having Baghdad as the seat of Iraq's government and commerce, see their share of the oil riches in jeopardy, so they want a unified Iraq. The Kurds need protection from Turkey, so they desire a federated Iraq with legitimate international credentials that can stave off the aggressive practices of Turkey. So it all comes down to the Shias, who own 60% of the vote, and a lot of oil, and who also would benefit from a federated Iraq with international credentials to protect their oil.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Areo64, Zaid at Dec 21, 2005 05:07 AM
I am currently reading Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East, and I am slowly trying to understand the complex relations between the different groups in that part of the world. Being a Pakistani American Muslim, there is much I think I understand about the Muslim world -- but I seek to learn more. One thing many muslims around me have noticed is that the West always divides us. I was sitting at a friend's house with a Pakistani, an Egyptian, and an Iranian. All three agreed that before the war against Iraq, there was little mainstream division between the Shi'a and the Sunni. These divisions have been exacerbated and almost created by the media and our own government in the wake of this war. I know that the Shi'a have been resurging since the Islamic Iran came about and the suppression of Shi'a in parts of Iraq, but I still see no real division between us. I never ask if a fellow Muslim is Shi'a or Sunni; it is a non matter. "gpower," you talk of civil war between "factions." No such thing exists outside of extremist circles in that part of the world. Shi'a and sunni intermarry and the Kurds have even been enticed to join in multicultural organizations outside of their practical Kurdistan. The Federation of Workers Council and Union in Iraq, whose President I have seen speak, has recruited Shia, Sunni, and Turkmen in their large unions. They've only had problesm with Kurds pulling out of their oil union in Kirkuk.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Bbroun01, Gpower at Dec 21, 2005 03:13 AM
The Iranians and Turks are chomping at the bit to exert influence in Iraq. I can't see how the imposition of democracy will prevent the inevitable civil war between the three factions, i.e., Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. How can Turkey be kept at bay from attacking the Kurds? US invasion let the genie out of the bottle. Kurdistan will come into exitence or there will be an immense slaughter of Kurds dwarfing the thirty thousand already killed by Turks. Kurds control the oil in northern Iraq and are in the majority in southeastern Turkey where the Tigris and Euphrates begin. Israel is already training Kurds with US knowledge. We are all in for a long night on this one.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Iraq and Iran

By Brothernumbertwo, Rudy at Dec 20, 2005 20:16 PM
We mustn't forget that there is a revolution fermenting in Iran. Over the past eight years, the population was gently reverting to its formally Western ways. Now their leader has banned Western music and is trying to reimpose the theocracy on the masses. The Iranian influence in Iraq is trying to impose the same theocracy. It is done by way of the gun, not the heart. The population will never buy it long term. I saw a pundant on CNN once commenting on the Shia's have managed to be the majority population wherever there is oil. Strange.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (48)

Loading_border