Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[SallyLightfoot]

They should let Ahmadinedjad visit ground zero. Yeah, the guy is a demagogue and an *sshole, but denying him the visit says to the Shiite world, "You are no different than Al Queda. We blame you for 9-11." I don't know about making a big wreath ceremony out of it, but he should be permitted to pay respects if he wishes.

Many people aren't aware that Iran held candle-light vigils for the victims of September 11th. Or that they observed minutes of silence during their national soccer matches. Or that they opposed the Taliban and funded the effort by the Northern Alliance to overthrow them. Or that after 9-11 they assisted us with intelligence to help overthrow the Taliban. Or that Ahmadinejad's predecessor offered a deal to the US to halt uranium enrichment and recognize Israel (a deal which we refused to consider).

Ahmadinejad is an awful public official (although not the ultimate leader of Iran nor the military), but the majority of Iranian people are not haters of the west (nor are Iranians arabs, for that matter). If Ahmadinejad would like to pay respects at ground zero on behalf of the Iranian people, I'd be ok with it.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by schwenko[/i]
Only until Iran gets the bomb..which they are actively pursuing.[xx(]
[/quote]

Not likely, although they are probably doing research in this area (btw, nuclear fission/fusion is old-hat technology dating back to the 1950's). Furthermore, there has been zero evidence of weaponization, which requires some fancy technology (detonators) and a delivery mechanism such as a long range missile (no, you can't just hand some proxy group a portable nuclear bomb).

Iran is a theocracy, whos Supreme Leader is the Ayatolla Khameni. A few years ago Khameni issued a religious fatwa against nuclear weapons. Look it up. Khameni has also publicly spoken against such a nuclear program. Of lesser importance, Ahmadinejad has stated that they have no intent to build a nuclear weapon, although as a wacko demagogue, he certainly has little credibility when he speaks.

Traditionally, in the Shiite Islam, nuclear weapons have been considered unholy. The original Fundie, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, made various religious interpretations against it and forbade it entirely. Then what changed their opinion?

Enter the US. After the kind favor of deposing the democratically elected leader of Iran and installing our own pro-western Shah stooge, we had big plans for Iran. Unfortunately, our puppetry came crashing down in the Iranian revolution in the late 70's.

After our Iran experiment blew up in our face, we did what any scornful country would do: we armed its enemies to the teeth. We helped supply Iraq with chemical weapons and nuclear technology (yep) as a means of containing radical Shiism. All of our Saudi oil friends (Sunnis, and no less tyrannical or despotic) at the time were petrified of the Iranian revolution and what it could mean to their despotic rule. When the Iraqis started using chemical weapons against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran did an about-face and decided they needed to investigate upgrading their own arsenals. Heck, the russians, pakistanis, indians and israelis had the bomb, and Saddam was headed in that direction, so they had little choice.

Bottom line: don't buy into the next round of neo-con bullshit, whereby we need to invade yet another country based upon rumours and rhetoric. If Iran gets a bomb, which is completely at odds with the current religious law which governs the land, they would likely only hold it up as a deterrent to neighboring foes and neo-colonialists, telling them to back-the-f*** off.

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>After our Iran experiment blew up in our face, we did what any scornful country would do: we armed its enemies to the teeth. We helped supply Iraq with chemical weapons and nuclear technology (yep) as a means of containing radical Shiism.[/quote]

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/who_armed_iraq.gif" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>

[eight6]

[quote][i]Originally posted by marvymarv[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>After our Iran experiment blew up in our face, we did what any scornful country would do: we armed its enemies to the teeth. We helped supply Iraq with chemical weapons and nuclear technology (yep) as a means of containing radical Shiism.[/quote]

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/who_armed_iraq.gif" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>
[/quote]

Wow, that's almost Blirish.

*edit*

Oh, forgot to add...nice touch with the color coding and explanations for each color.

[MARV]

LOL, too funny dude.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales ... _1973-1990

edit: Swampthing, thanks for the clarification on an earlier post of mine. I probably should have done that myself.

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>

[KYYX4ever]

*shudders*
good heavens, I still shudder to think that our administration could be considering invading Iran. No, please, NO !

[SallyLightfoot]

The SIPRI chart is not a rebuttal of my point. Let me explain:

First, the US unquestionably armed Iraq, both directly and indirectly during the years 1982 to 1988. There is much evidence that bears this out. Documents are available from sources, including the Reagan library, and interviews with former administration officials. The SIPRI chart of arms imports from 1973 - 2002 obscures the picture due to the inclusion of the periods 1973 - 1982 and 1989 - 2002, years during which the US exported zero arms (or a negligible amount) to Iraq.

With regard to the USSR, so prominently leading on the chart-- Iraq's arsenal was largely outfitted by the Soviets (and the eastern bloc countries, along with China). Pretty much everything from tanks and rifles to uniforms and boots. The SIPRI data is clearly supportive of that type of argument, although it's one I did not make. The argument I made was, "The US armed Iran's enemies to the teeth", and not a straw-man argument such as, "The US armed Iraq more than any other country."

Second, the SIPRI data reflects officially reported exports/sales which went directly to Iraq. As you probably know, that is not the way the illicit arms trade works. When the US publicly profess neutrality in a conflict, the underhanded way to channel support to your side is:

1. Make credit/loans available to Iraq. Pressure banks (as we did) to provide Iraq with financing, to improve its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. Have US taxpayers co-sign on 1.5 billion of that debt, which, surprise, surprise, would later default.

2. Encourage allies and partner countries to sell arms to Iraq. (Rummy even tried to broker an offer from Israel to Iraq.) Reduce barriers to this trade, such as removing Iraq from the blacklist of countries supporting international terrorism, as we did in '82. For domestic shipments, institute a "don't ask don't tell policy", allowing companies to arrange shipment of arms through intermediary countries, or to sell "dual-purpose" equipment such as trucks and helicopters which can be refitted on arrival.

3. Pressure trading partners and networks to stop arms trade with Iran. Enforce a strict policy of no military exports to Iran. Defang UN resolutions aimed against Iraq for its violation of Geneva Conventions with heavy chem weapon use.

4. Sell hi-tech gear such as AWACs planes to the Saudis, who were allies of Iraq during the war. AWACs could be used to track and relay positions of incoming Iranian planes and bombers as they crossed into Iraqi airspace. Insert CIA and covert ops into the conflict to provide battlefield intel, as well as special expertise in radar and communications jamming.

5. Green-light shipments of nascent bio-warfare technology to Iraq, as we reportedly did more than 20 times with Anthrax shipments for "research" purposes.


For more information about US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, I recommend reading the legal affidavit of Howard Teicher, the then acting US National Security Advisor.

"While a staff member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for political-military affairs. During my five years' tenure on the National Security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates... Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1413.htm

[drsevrin]

This should lighten the mood just a bit:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11666

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>The SIPRI chart is not a rebuttal of my point. Let me explain:

First, the US unquestionably armed Iraq, both directly and indirectly during the years 1982 to 1988. There is much evidence that bears this out. Documents are available from sources, including the Reagan library, and interviews with former administration officials. The SIPRI chart of arms imports from 1973 - 2002 obscures the picture due to the inclusion of the periods 1973 - 1982 and 1989 - 2002, years during which the US exported zero arms (or a negligible amount) to Iraq.

With regard to the USSR, so prominently leading on the chart-- Iraq's arsenal was largely outfitted by the Soviets (and the eastern bloc countries, along with China). Pretty much everything from tanks and rifles to uniforms and boots. The SIPRI data is clearly supportive of that type of argument, although it's one I did not make. The argument I made was, "The US armed Iran's enemies to the teeth", and not a straw-man argument such as, "The US armed Iraq more than any other country."

Second, the SIPRI data reflects officially reported exports/sales which went directly to Iraq. As you probably know, that is not the way the illicit arms trade works. When the US publicly profess neutrality in a conflict, the underhanded way to channel support to your side is:

1. Make credit/loans available to Iraq. Pressure banks (as we did) to provide Iraq with financing, to improve its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. Have US taxpayers co-sign on 1.5 billion of that debt, which, surprise, surprise, would later default.

2. Encourage allies and partner countries to sell arms to Iraq. (Rummy even tried to broker an offer from Israel to Iraq.) Reduce barriers to this trade, such as removing Iraq from the blacklist of countries supporting international terrorism, as we did in '82. For domestic shipments, institute a "don't ask don't tell policy", allowing companies to arrange shipment of arms through intermediary countries, or to sell "dual-purpose" equipment such as trucks and helicopters which can be refitted on arrival.

3. Pressure trading partners and networks to stop arms trade with Iran. Enforce a strict policy of no military exports to Iran. Defang UN resolutions aimed against Iraq for its violation of Geneva Conventions with heavy chem weapon use.

4. Sell hi-tech gear such as AWACs planes to the Saudis, who were allies of Iraq during the war. AWACs could be used to track and relay positions of incoming Iranian planes and bombers as they crossed into Iraqi airspace. Insert CIA and covert ops into the conflict to provide battlefield intel, as well as special expertise in radar and communications jamming.

5. Green-light shipments of nascent bio-warfare technology to Iraq, as we reportedly did more than 20 times with Anthrax shipments for "research" purposes.


For more information about US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, I recommend reading the legal affidavit of Howard Teicher, the then acting US National Security Advisor.

"While a staff member to the National Security Council, I was responsible for the Middle East and for political-military affairs. During my five years' tenure on the National Security Council, I had regular contact with both CIA director William Casey and deputy director Robert Gates... Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1413.htm

[/quote]

I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to any point. I guess if you weren't so poised for an argument you wouldn't have read it as such. I'm just trying to figure out what the truth is. Someone once told me that no one has a monopoly on that. I hope the same goes for morality.

In the context of your thread, and your usual political leanings, you made a pretty charged claim, that "the U.S. armed Iraq to the teeth" and I have to read that with a grain of salt when I read things like the SIPRI chart. I guess you could highlight that the U.S. armed them during the 1982-88 years but to be objective, I'm going to want to look at the big picture, at all who armed them through all the years I can look at. I'm going to have to ask myself if it's so wrong for us, is it as wrong for other nations? And if so, isn't that "wrongness" magnified by the degree of the "crime"? If I want to play the blame game, wouldn't I have to have enough blame to go around?

Being anti for the sake of being "anti" was fun in the eighties when I was a teenager but that's one part of the decade I like to laugh about.

As far as "underhanded" or "unofficial" past Iraqi support goes, I'm going to have to regard that as sour grapes inspired by some kind of sense of unrealistic perfection as to how the world operates. Political, banking and business "encouragement" or "pressure" is not exactly holding a gun to anybody's head or [i]wrong[/i]. People, nations and pretty much all institutions have choices they can make on their own. You must admit that regarding this as "arming Iraq to the teeth" is a very, very broad and flippant comparison. If you find it so constructive, feel free to throw blame if you must but make sure you have enough to go around so the rest of us see some levity.

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

[b]MM >> I'm not really trying to offer a rebuttal to any point.[/b]

In that case, I guess I misunderstood. As I interpret it, you singled-out a quote from my reply, and posted a chart (sourced from a hawkish site) which challenged that quote.

[b]MM >> I guess if you weren't so poised for an argument you wouldn't have read it as such. I'm just trying to figure out what the truth is. Someone once told me that no one has a monopoly on that. I hope the same goes for morality.[/b]

Easy there... Maybe I misinterpreted, but then again, maybe your intentions weren't exactly clear either. Besides, how does my challenging the chart lead us further away from the truth? Although maybe I was tilting at a windmill, hopefully my follow-up provided useful context for the chart with regard to US involvement in the Iran Iraq War.

[b]MM >> In the context of your thread, and your usual political leanings, you made a pretty charged claim, that "the U.S. armed Iraq to the teeth" and I have to read that with a grain of salt when I read things like the SIPRI chart.[/b]

Well make up your mind-- then your chart [b]is[/b] a specific reply. Fair enough. My statement would have been more accurate if it had not relied on the crutch-phrase "armed to the teeth." Perhaps if it instead read,"the US threw substantial support behind Iraq..." or "the US covertly backed Iraq...", or basically anything that leaves out the specific term "armed" paired with "to the teeth." Note, btw, that SIPRI defines "arm" as a military good or service, both of which we did supply to the level of hundreds of millions of dollars.

For the record, (and afaik) I was incorrect in writing that the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq (we provided bio-weapons tech). With regard to nuclear tech, it was Iran's nuclear program that we helped found. The Soviets and French were the primary nuke suppliers for Iraq. In the 80's our contribution to Iraq's nuke program was far more limited, allowing, for example, exports of dual-use equipment such as advanced computers.

[b]MM >> I guess you could highlight that the U.S. armed them during the 1982-88 years but to be objective, I'm going to want to look at the big picture, at all who armed them through all the years I can look at.[/b]

Before I get sidelined on Iraq, I want to remind that the focus of the thread is Iran. Iran was our team (and the UK's). We helped overthrow Mossadegh and install the Shah in 1953. We supported, armed and supplied Iran from 1953 through 1979. Iraq, on the other hand, was armed and supplied by our rivals the Soviets. Which explains why the US had zero or nearly zero arms exports to Iraq prior to 1982.

The big shift came after the rise of Shiite fundamentalism in 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah. At that point, the US and Israel agreed that Iran was now the larger problem. The US and Iran became bitterly opposed, culminating in the US Embassy hostage crisis. When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, we quietly rallied our allies and gulf allies to the side of our former-rival in the hopes of containing Shiite fundamentalism. By that time, Iraq's deep military infrastructure was already committed to soviet weaponry/technology. The US could not become a leading source of arms without openly meddling in the conflict. Even so, our export of dual-use equipment to Iraq lept from zero to more than 500 million. The points in my last reply enumerate the other significant steps that we took in defending Iraq militarily.

[b]MM >> I'm going to have to ask myself if it's so wrong for us, is it as wrong for other nations? And if so, isn't that "wrongness" magnified by the degree of the "crime"? If I want to play the blame game, wouldn't I have to have enough blame to go around?[/b]

I hear you, but this is deflective, run-for-cover reasoning. I'm not focused on what standard other countries follow, I'm concerned with the standards we set for ourselves. I believe that secret intervention in sovereign countries and geopolitical conflicts is wrong unless it's approved by Congress. I belive that an attitude of, "Because others are far [i]more culpable[/i], relatively, we are [i]less wrong[/i] and therefore more pardonable." This is an ethical race-to-the-bottom.

Besides, this thread is about Iran, and the reason I pointed out our overthrow of their government and support of its enemies was to provide context about why they are aggressive and bellicose about their self-determination, not to dive into a combative exchange over semantics or engage in analysis of international armaments sales.

[b]MM >> As far as "underhanded" or "unofficial" past Iraqi support goes, I'm going to have to regard that as sour grapes inspired by some kind of sense of unrealistic perfection as to how the world operates. [/b]

This is very hand-wavey and patronizing. You can let any government action off the hook with this brand of casual dismissiveness. I do not expect perfection of my government, and the US was not conceived to attain perfection in any sense. However, I do expect principle, mainly as described in the Constitution.

This gets at larger questions: What is good government? What is the purpose of government? Should government strive to do what is right, Seek the greater good, promote the individual liberties/happiness of the society it governs?

Conversely, if those questions are too aspirational, consider the following: Should government avoid evil, or strive to minimize evil that it must sometimes undertake? Should government avoid placing short-term gains above of longer-term prosperity? Should government avoid policy whereby the ends are used to justify the means?

I think the answer most consistent with the Constitution is "yes", but I respect anyone's right to disagree. If we are indifferent to these questions, well, as the saying goes: we get the government we deserve.

[b]MM >> Political, banking and business "encouragement" or "pressure" is not exactly holding a gun to anybody's head or wrong. People, nations and pretty much all institutions have choices they can make on their own.[/b]

You sound like a lawyer defending a mob boss at trial. Badly, I might add! [:)]

The actions of the US government are underwritten by the american public. The system is kind of contract which is based upon transparency, trust and accountability. The US government's role is to make sure our whole system works and conforms to the laws of our democracy. When the US government uses its resources or influence to achieve some stated end or policy objective, it is generally understood that the american public supports it. When our government uses its power to support policy which is unsupported or concealed-- as in the case of covertly supporting ruthless dictators, conducting clandestine bombing countries, overthrowing governments-- well, apart from the inconvenience of being illegal both domestically and internationally, it erodes the public trust, undermines the contract, and sets us up for potential blowback.

As Americans, decades of bad foreign policy-- saddled with serious implications for blowback-- that should raise some concern. And before we permit a secret or pre-emptive war on Iran, I believe it is worth careful consideration before we hop on this carousel ride once again.

I replied to this thread in order to dissuade people from war with Iran. I tried to provide reasonable, verifiable facts that anyone can rebut. Now maybe you didn't mean to engage in a rebuttal, but if that's the case:

(Warning: Levity! [b]Rhetorical questions ahead[/b])

[:p] Why all the deflective judo-posturing over our well-documented support for Iraq (read: Saddam Hussein) during the 80's? At the time, Jack Handey, were you "anti" for the sake of being "anti" about US policy toward Iraq/Iran?

[:p] If offered, do you intend to accept the [i]Tony Snow White House Spokesperson Award[/i] for denying or soft-pedaling several decades of bad government policies? Or is it the prized [i]Henry Kissinger Machiavelli Medal[/i] that you covet?

[:p] Is this just an Iraq thing? Is there a foreign-policy sin for which you won't carry water, or is everything our government does okay by dint of the fact that we reside at such unassailably high moral altitude compared to the rest of the world?

[:D][:D][:D]

[b]MM >>You must admit that regarding this as "arming Iraq to the teeth" is a very, very broad and flippant comparison. [/b]

The phrase may be clumsy, but I followed-up with details and clarifications which were specific. By comparison, you did not counter any of my points and instead chalked up my position to partisan politics, naivité and sour-grapes. (Well argued, counsellor!)

I admit when I'm wrong and make compromises when it's proper to do so. I've suggested some substitutes for the phrase above which improves the accuracy while retaining the original meaning. If you wish to continue to challenge my description of US support for Iraq during the Saddam era, please feel free to do so, but ultimately it remains a sideshow from my point as well as the subject of this thread.

[b]MM >> If you find it so constructive, feel free to throw blame if you must but make sure you have enough to go around so the rest of us see some levity.[/b]

(Wha? LOL!) [i]Oh, I'll make sure.[/i] [8D]

Levity? How about [b][i]elation[/i][/b] at the prospect of ending the quibbling over the statement "armed Iraq to the teeth"? [:p]

[SwampThing]

<img src="http://masbury.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg"/>

<font size="1"></font>

[MARV]

Wow. And you're calling [i]me[/i] counsellor? *whew*

I think we found the new 2nu.....[:D] I'll at least give you props for finding a new way to quote people. Probably more lengthy than the normal way but I see you like lengthy.

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

Hi marvymarv--

[:)] Well thanks for not being sore at me for my heavy-handed snarkiness. Although I realize it might take a while to read through all that....

[i]"I eviscerate because I love." -- anonymous[/i]

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Hi marvymarv--

[:)] Well thanks for not being sore at me for my heavy-handed snarkiness. Although I realize it might take a while to read through all that....

[i]"I eviscerate because I love." -- anonymous[/i]

[/quote]

If you're trying to win people's minds, try harder. If you're trying to demonstrate how obnoxious you are, you probably know you're doing a great job.

<a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/cetaceans/index.cfm">Own. Rule. All.</a>

[SallyLightfoot]

Ack! There -- I've done it. I crossed the line! [xx(]
I didn't mean to offend you personally. Sorry Marvymarv.

Most folks here are probably already familiar with my brand of obnoxiousness-- I don't need to try. I find it hard to believe I even rank with some of the folks that have (dis) graced the boards of NNNW, however.

But enough about me. I don't post here for kicks. If you disagree with the substance of something I've written per the thread topic, or you wish to elaborate/further something I've stated, please go ahead.