Comments on: Iran and Pakistan

By: j green

j green — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:18:19 +0000

For your information, B. Hussein Obama is leading McCain with the deceased, canine, and feline vote. McCain can’t seem to make a connection with them. My George and Max indicate they will vote for Obama, also, if they can get doggy treat welfare.

By: adam poorshed

adam poorshed — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:19:16 +0000

We should cut to the chase and tell it the way it is:
The USA considers _Mullah-Iran a great asset in the ME. This smoke screen of ” US wanted to do something but somehow ended up unable to” has dissipated long time ago and the view is very clear now. The USA will destroy all the countries surrounding Iran while publicly talking war with Iran.
The USA needs Iran as the mail destabiliser of the ME.
If and when Iran decides not to become a menace to its neighbors, it will be destroyed by the USA.

All Iran has to do is chill out and enjoy the spoils of two wars that were foughts for Iran’s glory: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Make no mistake about it: the last two wars were designed to give Iran the influence Iran craved and the USA craved on behalf of Iran.

By: a Duoist

a Duoist — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:39:36 +0000

We do not pursue an aggressive policy into Iran because the Iranian government has successfully raised the stakes for any intervention, regardless of how small or how it was provoked.

Since we are morally corrupt, we are naturally inferior; this is the public superiority of a theofascist’s subconscious worry about his inferiority.

So long as we continue to mis-identify the nature of the threat, we will continue to merely react to Iran’s moves.

By: Kourosh

Kourosh — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:41:56 +0000

Apparently we are waiting to make sure IRI can get her hand on the dirty bomb, and situation with Russia become so bad that we can’t do anything about IRI even if we want to. Today Russia blocked the efforts in UN against IRI and we can predicts it will get even worst. US have had many opportunities to shake things up in Iran, but none was used. In the past many demonstrations were conducted against Khomeinists in Iran, but with no reflection in Western media and no support from the Western governments. When Carter wanted to change the government in Iran, Western media including BBC were in charge of daily propaganda against the regime. What happened today in Pakistan, is very similar to what happened in Iran in 1978-79, where terrorists bombed and burned hotels and Cinemas including Hotel ShahAabs in Esfahan, and Cinema Rex in Abadan where score of people were burned to death. Those of us who follow the news and history, realize there were no such bombing and burning anywhere or at least not in this scale before Khomeinie come to power with the help of Stalinists and Marxists come. The old left still is taking revenge from the capitalists.

By: Ira Zad

Ira Zad — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:33:55 +0000

I think this is in part due to the change of guards in Pakistan from Musharraf(US ties) to Zardari, the late Benazir Bhutto’s husband(British ties). US is trying to re-establish its hegemony in Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. A detached, “independent”, and US-controlled Vaziristan is not beyond imagination in the future if this thing goes into operation stage.

As for Iran, it is every bit the appeasements of Condi Rice and Bob Gates(‘yellow Bob’) who think confronting Iran will be dangerous to their legacies. President Bush has been reduced to their sub-ordinate and follower, and has become very small on Iran policy.

The flip-side of this argument is that, understandably, Bush does not want to attack Iran now, but wait until Nov. 4th– If pro-Islamist Hussein Obama and Euro-stooge Biden get elected, then the probability of an Iran strike(Israelis would most likely initiate it)goes up astronomically with the timing of the strike between election day and January 20th, 2009.

By: enscout

enscout — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:00:45 +0000

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which we cannot allow to fall into the hands of terrorists. If Pakistan’s gov’t fails – and it is failing – the situation there immediately becomes critical for the ME. The threat to Israel and the new Iraq may be existential.

Iran, so conventional thinking now goes, does not yet have nukes. So we think we can put off any incursions until we are certain they do.

By: Mr. Huehls

Mr. Huehls — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:07:01 +0000

The excursion into Pakistan was into an area outside the governments’ control. You might say it’s the “wild wild west” to refer to the history of the U.S.. It’s a place the biggest meanest guy says what the law is. The legitimate government of Pakistan is unstable and ineffective, and it is in a state of flux. Anything can happen. We would like Pakistan to move pro-western but lack the hegemony to move it. In the mean time Wahabist radicals are using the lawless part of Pakistan as a safe haven for hit and run tactics against the powers that be in Afganistan and the Pakistani Government can’t or won’t police them. We’ve started to.

Iran on the other hand has a majority population under 35 years old that is largely pro-western. We want to keep them that way. The rulers are by and large in-place by corruption. The majority of the people do not like them and want regiem change. They will get it too, if a legitimate election is ever held. The current Iranian Government may well be overturned soon.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:03:35 +0000

Attacks on Pakistan can be rationalized as not really attacks on Pakistan itself, but rather on a lawless quasi-independent frontier region. Attacks inside Iran would be going through the looking glass, and there is a powerful inertia among the foreign policy/diplomat class (hardly a warrior class) to preserve the status quo, and maintain the fiction that anyone can be influenced with soft cooing over tea and crumpets.

By: Ardsgaine

Ardsgaine — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:00:35 +0000

Pakistan has essentially abdicated its sovereignity over Waziristan. They can’t have it both ways. Either they own the area in which case they need to be in there clearing out the Taliban, or they don’t in which case they need to turn a blind eye while we do the job for them.

By: j green

j green — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:51:42 +0000

My personal opinion on Pakistan is as follows.

The criticism was that
Pakistan wasn’t doing everything gainst the terrorists who raid into Afghanistan and ran across the border.

Sound familiar? The Iranians use the same tactics.

The difference here is that Pakistan is an ally in a very delicate balance, and I actually think Musharraf did whatever he could–that was politically tolerable domestically in Pakistan–on the war on terror. The limitations to what he did were due to his internal situation. And now, we are raiding across the border into Pakistan.

How does this reconcile with what we know to be hapening with Iran? That regime is doing nothing–actually they are doing something:they are perpetrating the acts. Why can’t we raid across their border in legitimate self-defense but we violate an ally?