Iran president backs 'united' Iraq (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Well looky here, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, holding hands and warmly greeting Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki in Tehran on Tuesday. Visiting with a member of the 'axis of evil' no less, and in Tehran of all places.

We all know how the Bush adminisistration hates and despises Iran and it's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hmmm, consorting with the enemy? Expressing support for a known foe who pledges to wipe out Israel? Didn't President Bush say and I quote... "you are either with us or against us"?

Hmmm, I wonder?









http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/12/iraq.iran/index.html

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president -- hosting a visit from Iraq's prime minister and expressing support for his country's beleaguered war-torn neighbor -- says the Islamic republic supports a "united" Iraq and will help the nation "establish full security," an Iranian news agency reported.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at a news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki after private talks were held on Tuesday, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported. It is al-Maliki's first visit to Iran since he became prime minister earlier this year.

"Iran will provide assistance to the Iraqi government to establish full security. We believe strengthening the Iraqi government is tantamount to promoting security, peace and friendship in that country," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

Iraq is currently in the throes of deep civil strife, enduring a persistent insurgency and an upsurge of sectarian violence this year between Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad and other cities.

American and British officials have claimed that Iran is attempting to fan the flames of insecurity in Iraq, where the government is trying to promote national unity among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds...

 

[Kandahar]

Al-Maliki is certainly no democrat; he reminds me of Vladimir Putin in many ways. And the fact that Iran is pushing for Iraqi unity really says something about that plan. Obviously partitioning Iraq is best from an American perspective, to minimize our losses to Iran.

 

[MSgt]

And yet another unintelligent thread started with a complete dismissal of the world situation. I wonder when we are going to change the name "America" to "North Mexico." You know..because we share a border and surely our politicians have shaken their politician's hands. Maybe "South Canada." This is partisan slavery at it's best. It's a pretty obvious tell - Bush had nothing to do with the article. Instead of lunging for anything that might help your partisan slavery, step back and understand the events of the globe and try starting a thread that might contribute to discussion. Ahhh forget it. I'll do it for you....

Iran and Iraq are neighbors. They will trade. They will execute diplomatic niceties. They share a common people. They share a common deep fundamental religion (despite the diversities). They will have to get along on some level.

The Iraqi government is caught between the future and the past. They live in a region full of religiously zealousy and definition. The more civilized wish to face forward, but know that doing so will result in the continuance of civil blood shed. And it isn't as if the world is in a particular hurry to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. However, they also know that clinging to the past and facing backward is not the answer to their problems. The Shi'ite leadership in Iraq recognizes that Iran's theocratic existence is on borrowed time. Ahmenadejad rescued Iran from the clutches of western culture for the Radical right and the people are not pleased. Iraqis are not in a hurry to mirror such a government. They strive for something better, but they need to be cautious and not be so quick to sell their soul to the devil. Ahmenadejad is just fishing for support and is playing politics on the international stage. (One can only imagine his smile behind closed doors when he imagined the ignorance of the world feeding into his drama as he shook al-Maliki's hand during the visit and reflecting on who will be first to bash America.) However, this doesn't absolve Iraq from having to deal with a powerful neighbor. In the mean time, Sunni in Iraq will use this to "legitimize" their hate towards Shi'ites and Iranians (Hmmmm...politics in every country can be despicable).

Iraqis are well aware that American boots will not be in their lands forever. When it is time to stand on their own, they need to feel safe. And snubbing their nose now at the future nuclear Iran (UN and EU willing) does nothing to encourage that in the future.

 

[KidRocks]

And yet another unintelligent thread started with a complete dismissal of the world situation. I wonder when we are going to change the name "America" to "North Mexico." You know..because we share a border and surely our politicians have shaken their politician's hands. Maybe "South Canada." This is partisan slavery at it's best. It's a pretty obvious tell - Bush had nothing to do with the article. Instead of lunging for anything that might help your partisan slavery, step back and understand the events of the globe and try starting a thread that might contribute to discussion. Ahhh forget it. I'll do it for you....

Iran and Iraq are neighbors. They will trade. They will execute diplomatic niceties. They share a common people. They share a common deep fundamental religion (despite the diversities). They will have to get along on some level.

The Iraqi government is caught between the future and the past. They live in a region full of religiously zealousy and definition. The more civilized wish to face forward, but know that doing so will result in the continuance of civil blood shed. And it isn't as if the world is in a particular hurry to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands. However, they also know that clinging to the past and facing backward is not the answer to their problems. The Shi'ite leadership in Iraq recognizes that Iran's theocratic existence is on borrowed time. Ahmenadejad rescued Iran from the clutches of western culture for the Radical right and the people are not pleased. Iraqis are not in a hurry to mirror such a government. They strive for something better, but they need to be cautious and not be so quick to sell their soul to the devil. Ahmenadejad is just fishing for support and is playing politics on the international stage. (One can only imagine his smile behind closed doors when he imagined the ignorance of the world feeding into his drama as he shook al-Maliki's hand during the visit and reflecting on who will be first to bash America.) However, this doesn't absolve Iraq from having to deal with a powerful neighbor. In the mean time, Sunni in Iraq will use this to "legitimize" their hate towards Shi'ites and Iranians (Hmmmm...politics in every country can be despicable).

Iraqis are well aware that American boots will not be in their lands forever. When it is time to stand on their own, they need to feel safe. And snubbing their nose now at the future nuclear Iran (UN and EU willing) does nothing to encourage that in the future.

Are we at war with Canada and or Mexico? I wasn't aware, sorry, anyway, maybe we can get al-Maliki to persuade Iran to cease from arming Hezbollah, and maybe, just maybe al-Maliki will get Iran to cease with it's nuclear ambitions, Iran and Iraq are neighbors as you so eloquently point out to me and al-Maliki surley has President Bush's interest formost in mind.

I'm sure al-Maliki knows in the back of his mind that the United States will forever protect Iraq from a hostile Iran if relations ever should get to that point just as we protect Israel from it's hostile neighbors, you see, President Bush has promised as much in speech after speech after speech.

So, in essence, al-Maliki will surley play the United States against Iran time after time, don't you agree?

It certainly seems to me that al-Maliki has started that game in progress as we speak.

Sigh, that's what I think, hope that was an intelligent enough contribution to this thread.

 

[Harshaw]

I haven't seen any evidence that the Bush Administration "hates and despises" Iran or its President. Opposed? Certainly. But that's not the same thing.

Nor is it the same thing to despise Iranian policy of arming terrorists, violently suppressing internal dissent, and the rhetoric coming from Mr. Ahmadinejad. Or is it simply being a "dittohead" to take issue with Ahmadinehad's wanting to "wipe Israel off the map," or any other country, for that matter?

And if the Bush Administration "hates and despises" Iran and its President for those things, so, too, do the other governments who share the same thoughts and are working toward the same ends as the Bush Administration?

Or is this simply another case of 1) you setting up a strawman and 2) interpreting everything you see through anti-Bush lenses?

And you have the nerve to claim that "it's all about Bush" for anyone else?

You're the most Bush-obsessed person I've ever seen.

 

[ProudAmerican]

You're the most Bush-obsessed person I've ever seen.

trust me, he has some serious competition on this site.

 

[MSgt]

Are we at war with Canada and or Mexico? I wasn't aware, sorry, anyway, maybe we can get al-Maliki to persuade Iran to cease from arming Hezbollah, and maybe, just maybe al-Maliki will get Iran to cease with it's nuclear ambitions, Iran and Iraq are neighbors as you so eloquently point out to me and al-Maliki surley has President Bush's interest formost in mind.

Why would al-Maliki try to pursuade Ahmenadejad to turn his back on Iran's twenty years quest to gain nuclear weaponry? Why would al-Maliki have President Bush's interest in mind? Why would America even see the PM of Iraq as some sort of powerful voice to be used against the extremists?

al-Maliki has Iraq's interest in mind and knows that if America and the UN can't pursuade Ahmenadejad from it's nuclear quest, then he has a zero chance. al-Maliki's interest is merely to secure his country's future within this troubled region.

I'm sure al-Maliki knows in the back of his mind that the United States will forever protect Iraq from a hostile Iran if relations ever should get to that point just as we protect Israel from it's hostile neighbors, you see, President Bush has promised as much in speech after speech after speech.

Negative. You have interpreted what has been said to an extreme position that gives you ammo for bashing. There are plenty of legitimate things to bash without doing this.

Where exactly did Bush promise protection from Iran forever? President Bush has promised that America will not forsake Iraq. This means that America will not just pull up and ship out before it is time - that's it. However, the fact is that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, and even Syria needs protection from a nuclear Iran. The Muslims in the Middle East know more about their culture than anyone and they are very aware of what they can expect from their leaders - whether it be Shi'ite or Sunni.

So, in essence, al-Maliki will surley play the United States against Iran time after time, don't you agree?

From time to time, but he isn't stupid. He is quite aware that the pulse of America wants nothing to do with Iraq and that the next administration will quite possibly do the wrong thing. Also, he has to be quite aware that as long as the Radical element remains in the lead in the Middle East, Iraq's "success" will be very Radically defined and tested - and the world is doing nothing to help.

A "free Iraq" is as welcome to the Radical element as a "free Palestine." No one knows this more than the Muslims in the Middle East who want to be free from the constriction of Islam's "true believers" (even as they hear how evil we are from those "true believers").

Sigh, that's what I think, hope that was an intelligent enough contribution to this thread.

Much better than the needless bashings. There's discussion to be had with this.