Anyone Think Irans President was close with Saddam Hussein?

macgyver06

Im not saying he was or that i htink he was.... im wondering what some thoughts on here are about the two's relationship.

He said today, Iraq and Iran will be brothers...

Is this a new idea or is this an old Iraq/Iran Tradition?

catefrances

hussein was too paranoid to have been close to anybody.

g under p

catefrances wrote:

hussein was too paranoid to have been close to anybody.

You got that right, he even had Saddam doubles to help with his security.

Peace

tybird

You generally don't get close with the dictator that used chemical weapons on your troops.....now it's okay to talk with Iraq and Iran unity....since the wicked witch is dead.

even flow?

As close as Chretien and Bush?

Kel Varnsen

tybird wrote:

You generally don't get close with the dictator that used chemical weapons on your troops.....now it's okay to talk with Iraq and Iran unity....since the wicked witch is dead.

Not to mention the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is Shia where as Saddam and his people were Sunnis.

meme

macgyver06 wrote:

Im not saying he was or that i htink he was.... im wondering what some thoughts on here are about the two's relationship.

He said today, Iraq and Iran will be brothers...

Is this a new idea or is this an old Iraq/Iran Tradition?

Totally... and Saddam was best buddy with Osama, of course. So yes, now we absolutely have to go after the Iranian guy and then we'll be safe!

Heineken Helen

macgyver06 wrote:

Im not saying he was or that i htink he was.... im wondering what some thoughts on here are about the two's relationship.

He said today, Iraq and Iran will be brothers...

Is this a new idea or is this an old Iraq/Iran Tradition?

It's doubtful he was ever as close to Saddam as the Bush family used to be with Saddam

somebodyelsessky2020

i believe he had homosexual relations with him.

meme

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

i believe he had homosexual relations with him.

duh... he is from Iran. They have no homosexuals there.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

umm, didnt they try to kill each other a couple of decades ago?

Cosmo

macgyver06 wrote:

Im not saying he was or that i htink he was.... im wondering what some thoughts on here are about the two's relationship.

He said today, Iraq and Iran will be brothers...

Is this a new idea or is this an old Iraq/Iran Tradition?

...
Remember 1980 to 1988? There was a War in Iraq back then, too. Only it was Iraq vs. Iran.
...
Iran is Shi'ite (although Persian)... Iraq is majority Shi'ite by about 60%.
It is in the Shi'ites best interests to form a Shi'ia bloc because the Shi'ites are the minority in the whole of the Middle East.
The Shi'ites now rule Iraq, thanx to the removal of the Sunni, Saddam Hussein.
Iran: Shi'ite... Iraq: 60%+ Shi'ite and now in control of Iraq.
...
Do the math and come up with your own conclusions.

tybird

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is Shia where as Saddam and his people were Sunnis.

That 'doth present some problems.

Kel Varnsen

Cosmo wrote:

...
Remember 1980 to 1988? There was a War in Iraq back then, too. Only it was Iraq vs. Iran.

Which from what I have heard and read was one of the most vicious wars in recent history. Both sides doing things like using children as first wave attackers and sending people running across mine fields as minesweepers.

Ahnimus

I'm willing to give Ahmanutjob the benefit of the doubt and guess he's not such a bad guy, he might be delusional, but I wonder if he's the liar the U.S. media makes him out to be.

The fact that the U.S. media mistranslated the statement "wipe Israel of the map" and so on. I still think he is delusional and seriously indoctrinated in some bad philosophy, but who isn't, right?

I'm betting all-in that if he was American, he'd be given the benefit of the doubt, but since he's Iranian he's an instant demon.

Cosmo

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Which from what I have heard and read was one of the most vicious wars in recent history. Both sides doing things like using children as first wave attackers and sending people running across mine fields as minesweepers.

...
It was Medeval Warfare using machine guns and chemical burning agents. The Iranians would launch 'Human Wave' attacks on Iraqi machine guns. These human waves were often only armed with bayoneted rifles with no ammunition or swords.
And those 'Stock Piles of Iraqi Chemical Weapons' that the Bush supporters hail as proof and justification for the Iraqi invasion? They were buried there during that war.
Why? Because the inept, incompetent Iraqi military soldiers manning artillery batteries were too fucking lazy to reload the unspent munitions back on the trucks and it was easier to simply bury them.
It was basically a War between Dumb and Fucking Dumber.

tybird

Cosmo wrote:

...
It was Medeval Warfare using machine guns and chemical burning agents. The Iranians would launch 'Human Wave' attacks on Iraqi machine guns. These human waves were often only armed with bayoneted rifles with no ammunition or swords.
And those 'Stock Piles of Iraqi Chemical Weapons' that the Bush supporters hail as proof and justification for the Iraqi invasion? They were buried there during that war.
Why? Because the inept, incompetent Iraqi military soldiers manning artillery batteries were too fucking lazy to reload the unspent munitions back on the trucks and it was easier to simply bury them.
It was basically a War between Dumb and Fucking Dumber.

Didn't both sides have troubles getting airplane replacement parts because they were flying jets not from their "at-the-time" superpower buddy....In other words, the Iranians were flying U.S. planes while the Iraqis were flying Soviet planes, and by that time they had switched dance partners. Is that right or I am off in left field?

Cosmo

tybird wrote:

Didn't both sides have troubles getting airplane replacement parts because they were flying jets not from their "at-the-time" superpower buddy....In other words, the Iranians were flying U.S. planes while the Iraqis were flying Soviet planes, and by that time they had switched dance partners. Is that right or I am off in left field?

...
You're right. the Iranians still have some F-14s left over from when we were sleeping with the Shah of Iran. The Iraqis had Soviet MiGs... or maybe YAKs.. I forget. Went the Ayatollah took over nad that whole hostage thing started, we bailed on the F-14 and sided with Iraq. The Soviets didn't want to do business with Hussein any more, so they sided with Iran. We sent Iraq some Dassault Mirages via our NATO partnership with France, as not to rile the Israelis... like they didn't know we brokered the deal.
We fuck around and fuck around in that place and still... people don't understand why they hate us. We keep switching sides and making friends with enemies and vice versa.

somebodyelsessky2020

meme wrote:

duh... he is from Iran. They have no homosexuals there.

i know. but i think it had something to do with the ass for oil program.

beachdweller

Saddam was a muslim secularist, which is as bad as being a non-muslim

g under p

Cosmo wrote:

...
You're right. the Iranians still have some F-14s left over from when we were sleeping with the Shah of Iran. The Iraqis had Soviet MiGs... or maybe YAKs.. I forget. Went the Ayatollah took over nad that whole hostage thing started, we bailed on the F-14 and sided with Iraq. The Soviets didn't want to do business with Hussein any more, so they sided with Iran. We sent Iraq some Dassault Mirages via our NATO partnership with France, as not to rile the Israelis... like they didn't know we brokered the deal.
We fuck around and fuck around in that place and still... people don't understand why they hate us. We keep switching sides and making friends with enemies and vice versa.

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, you have written a very interesting book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. Can you take us back in time and talk about the relationship, the secret dealings, between these three countries?

TRITA PARSI: Israel has for a very long time been a critical factor in America's formulation of a policy vis-à-vis Iran. But what's really interesting is that the influence of Israel has gone in completely different directions, if we just go back fifteen years. During the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian Revolution, in spite of Ayatollah Khomeini’s many, many harsh remarks about Israel, far, far worse than what anything Ahmadinejad has said so far, Israel at the time was the country that was lobbying the United States to open up talks with Iran to try to rebuild the US-Iran relations, because of strategic imperatives that Israel had. Israel needed Iran, because it was fearing the Arab world and a potential war with the Arabs.

After 1991, ’92, that's when you see the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations, because that's when the entire geopolitical map of the Middle East is redrawn. The Soviet Union collapses. The last standing army of the Arabs, that of Saddam Hussein, is defeated in the Persian Gulf War. And you have an entirely new security environment in the Middle East, in which the two factors, the Soviets and the Arabs, that had pushed Iran and Israel closer together suddenly evaporate. But as their security environment improves, they also start to realize that they may be ending up in a situation in which they can become potential threats to each other. And that's when you see how the Israelis shift 180 degrees. Now the Israeli argument was that the United States should not talk to Iran, because there is no such thing as Iranian moderates.

And ever since, the Israelis and the pro-Israel interest in the United States have lobbied to make sure that there is no dialogue or there’s no rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And the Iranians have done similar things. They have undermined every US foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that they feared would be beneficial to Israel. So the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations come after the Cold War, not with the revolution in 1979.

There's much more on this subject from the interview The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Could Ahmadinejad be playing a game like Saddam Hussein, where if it is clear he doesn't have nuclear weapons, he's weaker, the US would be more likely to attack? He looks at the example of North Korea, where they do have nuclear weapons, and now the US is just pursuing a diplomatic option?

TRITA PARSI: I think there's a combination of two. On the one hand, I think a lot of his statements and his behavior is aimed to be a deterrent against the United States. He's acting confident, and he's talking about the United States not being able to attack. This is a way of saying that the US can't do it, and if you do it, you will face a tremendously difficult situation. So he's doing this partly, too, as a deterrence. It has the negative impact of scaring the daylights out of a lot of people, including a lot of Iran's neighbors that are now gravitating towards the United States's position, because they are very fearful of what Ahmadinejad may be capable of doing.

At the same time, I do believe that, to a certain extent, but not fully, he has actually convinced himself that Iran is in such a strong position, the United States is in such a weak position, that it can't do it. But I think it's a combination of these two. And I think it's important to keep in mind that most of the belligerence that he's doing is probably for the purpose of deterrence, not necessarily as an offensive strategy.


AMY GOODMAN: Iran's role in Iraq?

TRITA PARSI: I think the Iranians have played a game in Iraq in which they basically have invested in every potential faction in Iraq, making sure that whoever comes up on top is going to be a player who has strong relations with Iran, because it's in Iran’s hardcore national interest to make sure that Iraq never again becomes a hostile state, so they never have to experience the eight-year war that they had with Iraq in the 1980s. So, again, I think we're seeing a policy by the Iranian government there that is quite independent of whether Ahmadinejad is in power or not. It's probably something that another Iranian government would be pursuing, as well, at least under this regime that we're having in Iran right now.

And I think the only way for the United States to be able to find a way out of Iraq is not only to talk to the Iranians, but really include all of the other neighbors of Iraq into the process, giving these neighbors not only a stake in the outcome, but also a stake in the process itself. We have a tremendous amount of problems with what the Saudis are doing in Iraq and also what the Jordanians are doing. We're not talking about that at all. On the contrary, we’re just focusing on Iran's role.

Peace

macgyver06

meme wrote:

Totally... and Saddam was best buddy with Osama, of course. So yes, now we absolutely have to go after the Iranian guy and then we'll be safe!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

freaky picture...and perspective...

http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=copyof102597458a857295bpv2.jpg