Political Question about the middle east.

psalover · 01-07-2007, 11:09 AM

I know that there is a lot going on in the middle east, but with regaurds to Iran. Why is there such an itchy finger to go to war there? and my most important question. Why started this hatetred for Iran? Since the 80's we have fought Iran from Helping Suddam in the Iran Iraq war, to present. When did the conflict with Iran and the U.S. really start?

Hapag-Lloyd · 01-07-2007, 11:33 AM

The way I see it, Iran is a regional middle power that had been kept at bay by the threat Iraq used to pose - the Iranian leaders knew from experience that a war against Iraq can not be won.

After the US invasion, Iraq had no more military power whatsoever, causing Iranian ambitions to rise. The US military is (according to the Iranian leaders, anyway) too busy with the situation in Iraq, so Iran has no US intervention to fear.

gospodin · 01-07-2007, 01:24 PM

The Iranian-US relationship was destroyed by Khomieni in 1979, after many years of US interference in Iran. When the Shah of Iran was in power, we looked the other way while he abused his people, so that we could get cheap oil and sell him weapons. Iran still possesses a squadron of F-14s that they could never operate, because the targeting systems were removed by US technicians leaving the country after the fall of the government. The US was even in the process of supplying the Shah with the most sophisticated destroyers in the world at that time (the Kidd class destroyers were absorbed into our Navy, they were better even than the ones we had). After the showdown with the US over the Embassy Hostage Crisis (which Carter tried to end by sending that horrible f*ckup rescue disaster), Reagan made Iran one of the pariah nations, and broke off any diplomacy with them. They tried to force Iraq into a so-called Islamic Union, went to war, and guess who supplied Saddam with some of his weapons? Ta-dahh, the US and Russia (Russia because they fear the Muslims, and were afraid of uprisings in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgizstan). Iran has hated us ever since, blaming their failure to conquer Iraq on US interference. This episode with Iraq now shows Iran how fickle the West is, and they distrust us even more. We cannot broaden the conflict by charging into Iran looking for THEIR WMDs without #1, bringing the whole Middle East down around our heads, #2, We're stretched too thin now, and #3, the Iranians are a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqis, because they've gotten in tight with China, and the terrain is not good for tanks in many places. Plus they've been training for a US invasion for decades, and have some fairly decent equipment (no match for ours, but a lot of it...mostly Chinese made).

psalover · 01-07-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

The Iranian-US relationship was destroyed by Khomieni in 1979, after many years of US interference in Iran. When the Shah of Iran was in power, we looked the other way while he abused his people, so that we could get cheap oil and sell him weapons. Iran still possesses a squadron of F-14s that they could never operate, because the targeting systems were removed by US technicians leaving the country after the fall of the government. The US was even in the process of supplying the Shah with the most sophisticated destroyers in the world at that time (the Kidd class destroyers were absorbed into our Navy, they were better even than the ones we had). After the showdown with the US over the Embassy Hostage Crisis (which Carter tried to end by sending that horrible f*ckup rescue disaster), Reagan made Iran one of the pariah nations, and broke off any diplomacy with them. They tried to force Iraq into a so-called Islamic Union, went to war, and guess who supplied Saddam with some of his weapons? Ta-dahh, the US and Russia (Russia because they fear the Muslims, and were afraid of uprisings in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgizstan). Iran has hated us ever since, blaming their failure to conquer Iraq on US interference. This episode with Iraq now shows Iran how fickle the West is, and they distrust us even more. We cannot broaden the conflict by charging into Iran looking for THEIR WMDs without #1, bringing the whole Middle East down around our heads, #2, We're stretched too thin now, and #3, the Iranians are a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqis, because they've gotten in tight with China, and the terrain is not good for tanks in many places. Plus they've been training for a US invasion for decades, and have some fairly decent equipment (no match for ours, but a lot of it...mostly Chinese made).

I read that initially that the hostages we not going to be taken, but at last minute it happened. I also red that the reason they went into the Embassy was because the U.S. was protecting the Shah, and would not give him back to the people of Iran. He was here from cancer treatment. when they took over the Embassy, thr republicans who initially were his friends in the 70's turned against him when he was no longer in power. He finally left the U.S. and took refuge in Panama where president Torrijos of Panama didn't like his politics, but gave refuge to a lot of political refugee's. Finally the Shah went back to Egypt.

Kinda shows what backstabbers we really are.

I also read that OPEC was started to protect the oil rich states from the west's robbing and pilaging. The Gas inbargo of the 70's was because Nixon supported Isreal by giving them what ever Isreal needed in the Yom Kippur war against Egypt, and Syria.

Carter although srewing up by sending in troops during the Embassy Hostage negotiations, stated in the 70's that we needed to get away from the dependency of ALL oil. We needed to invest in Alternative fuels. He also added Solor Pannels to the roof of the White House, which Reagan immediatly removed when he took office.

Pretty sad that these politicians are beholden to the oil comapnies, and companies like Haliburton KBR, and Bechtel. Reagan,Bush Sr., and Jr., George Shultz, Casper Weinberger,Cheney. They are all politians that have something to do with these big corps.

JFK'ER · 01-07-2007, 02:01 PM

It started when Khomeni went back on his word due to political pressure from students. The Carter administration had actually asked permission from Iran to operate on the Shah. Khomeini gave his blessings. Some students found out, took over the embassy and Khomeini caved in to the students rather than be over thrown. After that the US gave its full support to Iraq, even more so when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed back in '82 &'83 with Iranian moral and financial support. Then came the hostage debacle/Iran/Contra. Now, one of the original students who took over the embassy in '79 is president of Iran and has advocated the elimination of Israel and the absorbtion of Al-Queda. One must remember however that this is the government, a very right wing fringe. Most Iranian citizens may not agree with US and Israeli policy but the last thing they want is a war. This is one of the few times I agree with Bush in that Iranian citizens want to live in peace with the world.

Santos · 01-07-2007, 02:13 PM

If US wants to loose another war it must go to Iran. I hope they take the Iraq as an example. Like someone said above: there is a war that can´t be won.

I really hope US won´t fight there because the consequences will be...

samee380 · 01-07-2007, 02:30 PM

Well i think USA will be taught a good lesson by the muslim countries in the next 10-30 years, like Russia did when they invaded afghanistan for along time but left at the end waste of time and costed Russia alot and destroyed them

The USA dont understand that muslims in iraq and afghanistan will keep fighting all they life (like they did with Russia) against the USA and they will no longer be super power

gospodin · 01-07-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samee380

Well i think USA will be taught a good lesson by the muslim countries in the next 10-30 years, like Russia did when they invaded afghanistan for along time but left at the end waste of time and costed Russia alot and destroyed them

The USA dont understand that muslims in iraq and afghanistan will keep fighting all they life (like they did with Russia) against the USA and they will no longer be super power

I'm afraid you may be right about the cost of this whole mess to the US. The people of Iraq aren't a whole lot different than anyone else, they just want to be left to live their lives the best way they can. The fanatics, the radical religious mullahs, and those with a grudge against their neighbors and the US invasion forces are the ones costing the US, and you will never eliminate that faction. They will drain the US with incessant guerrilla warfare, sabotage and outright terrorist attacks...costing us trillions and tens of thousands of lives. This whole debacle was poorly planned, did not have the support of either the UN or our allies, and is putting us in the position of becoming a rogue nation ourselves in isolating us from our allies. The only thing we've accomplished positively is the elimination of Saddam, but has all this been worth it? I love America, but it's getting harder and harder to support our actions around the world. Let's hope 2008 gives us a better government.

KRASAIRIL62 · 01-07-2007, 03:42 PM

I still think that what America (with help of Europe of course) did against Iraq is most awfull! But HEYYYY who am i??? Starting a war against country who supposed to have chemical weapons while they didn't! America is losing this war and if they don't stop they will loose more military lives because the people in Iraq aren't going to stop fighting! What did the army reached???? Yeahh the end of a lot human lives! It sounds very hard but if America really wants to stop the Muslims than the only thing that will help over there is atomic weapons!

Now the rumors are there that Israel wants to attack atomic installations in Iran.... i really hope that they won't do it because Israel is going to loose it and i'm already feeling sorry for those poor people who are living in Israel!

gospodin · 01-07-2007, 04:52 PM

We won't nuke the Arabs because we need their oil. Not only that, but if we did, that would definately set the world against the US, since we're still the only nation to use nukes against another nation, even if we felt it was justified. If the Israelis go to Iran and destroy their nuclear enrichment facilities, you are going to see one unholy uprising in the Middle East. We just need to leave, find an alternative fuel source, and let the Middle East return to the Middle Ages where they were when we first found oil there. Let them live in tents, cook over campfires and ride camels like the fundamentalists want. Just leave the rest of the world alone. In a perfect world....oh, well.

psalover · 01-08-2007, 06:41 PM

There is an author from the 60's who wrote about this. Arnold Toynbee wrote two books "The World and the west" and "Civilization on Trial" I have not read these, but I hear they are really good. Looking for copy's now.

Planecrazy · 01-08-2007, 11:47 PM

When you think of all of the out of work Soviet KGB masters of the "hit" we should hire them to go after the radicals. All of a sudden a grain of polonium is mixed in their hummas and nobody knows who did it!

It sure would be a lot cheaper.

LOT 737-300 · 01-09-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samee380

Well i think USA will be taught a good lesson by the muslim countries in the next 10-30 years, like Russia did when they invaded afghanistan for along time but left at the end waste of time and costed Russia alot and destroyed them

The USA dont understand that muslims in iraq and afghanistan will keep fighting all they life (like they did with Russia) against the USA and they will no longer be super power

I wouldn't say that the Soviets going into Afganistan was a invasion, but rather than a liberation. I remember watching this video on the Afgani civil war and they showed how things were like when the Soviets stepped in. Women were given rights, people were allowed to use modern technology, and most arts (such as music) were allowed. When I saw and heard this, this is the first thought that got into my mind "Why does this sound familiar?" The video was at the same time making the Soviets sound evil though, even though it said that the US funded OBL to get the Soviets out of there (They made the US look like heros for that, don't you just love doubletalk and doublethink?) So, if there was no US funding in that war, I don't think that OBL would be alive today let alone Al Quida, and if they would be, it would be at a much smaller magnatude. I really think that the Cold War was about two countries who could've been allies, but becaues of some overzelous people in both Washington (such as senator McCarthy) and Moskva (Such as Josef Stalin) that a great political friendship was broken. I think Soyuz 19/ Apollo 18 was really a sign of what should've been. Also, its proof that as long as the Islama-facists have good hard cash in their hands, they'll continue to cause terror. Its like the US news networks, they like to make people live off of fear, no matter how they do it. Basically, the whole Cold War was really about two countries slitting their own wrists rather than each others (I have a joke that it was really China who won the cold war, not the US or the USSR, at least Economically.) Thats my whole version of it anyways.

As for Iran, I remember a FOX News lady managed to go into the Countryside of Iran and give a report from there. She tried to talk some politics, but they just didn't care about it, even though they did mention that their prez made a promise for natural gas for them, though there has been no sign of it as of yet. They just want to live their lives, just like any other people that are concidered "civilized". Though there are some cultural differences. Such as the woman of the house was married at 13, and the reporter, who was 38 was not (this difference suprised both of them.) Really I think that outside of Iranian Politics, no one wants a war.

gospodin · 01-09-2007, 07:56 PM

Problem with the US and the Soviet Union being pals wasn't just ideology. The USSR was basically a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime totally at odds with the notion of free speech and personal liberties. The Soviets needed to control their citizens in order to run their country as the select few saw fit. The people of the US, up to 9/11, would never have stood for crackdowns on personal liberties...though now we're seeing those freedoms slowly eroded, but that's another story. With the great difference in philosophies and governments, both the US and the Soviets would always be both distrustful and competitive in garnering allies. It was like having two BMOCs on the same campus...doesn't work out too well. The attitudes of Russia and the US now haven't really changed all that much, especially with Putin trying to regain lost Soviet glory, trying to make what is essentially a third-world country back into the first-world ranks. Russia is an outstanding nation, and has made significant contributions to the world and science, but they can't seem to pay for anything, or update their crumbling infrastructure. Hopefully, the opening up of the Siberian oil fields and mining for minerals will begin to rebuild Russia, and not go for re-arming themselves, which is looking more and more likely. Which will put us back at odds with each other.

JFK'ER · 01-09-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

Problem with the US and the Soviet Union being pals wasn't just ideology. The USSR was basically a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime totally at odds with the notion of free speech and personal liberties. The Soviets needed to control their citizens in order to run their country as the select few saw fit. The people of the US, up to 9/11, would never have stood for crackdowns on personal liberties...though now we're seeing those freedoms slowly eroded, but that's another story. With the great difference in philosophies and governments, both the US and the Soviets would always be both distrustful and competitive in garnering allies. It was like having two BMOCs on the same campus...doesn't work out too well. The attitudes of Russia and the US now haven't really changed all that much, especially with Putin trying to regain lost Soviet glory, trying to make what is essentially a third-world country back into the first-world ranks. Russia is an outstanding nation, and has made significant contributions to the world and science, but they can't seem to pay for anything, or update their crumbling infrastructure. Hopefully, the opening up of the Siberian oil fields and mining for minerals will begin to rebuild Russia, and not go for re-arming themselves, which is looking more and more likely. Which will put us back at odds with each other.

Wrong! The problem was the USSR was against religion and capitalism and were competing with us and other western nations in spheres of influence. I would say that our alliances with Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran (before Khomeni), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Chile, China, Taiwan, Korea, etc were not oversights on out part in the human rights violations departments. They made us money.

gospodin · 01-09-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK'ER

Wrong! The problem was the USSR was against religion and capitalism and were competing with us and other western nations in spheres of influence. I would say that our alliances with Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran (before Khomeni), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Chile, China, Taiwan, Korea, etc were not oversights on out part in the human rights violations departments. They made us money.

No, not wrong, just not the whole story. Yes, the Soviets were atheist, but only because they felt that religion would weaken their hold on the people. If people worship the State instead of God, that would be satisfactory. They were against capitalism in word only. The people could not engage in capitalism, but the upper echelon indulged heavily in Western treats and practices. Corruption was rampant in the USSR, and they had their Mafia even then. I did mention competition, though. The fact that we favored corrupt and inhumane governments as well as those with good governments only meant we were trying for the whole ball of wax, trying to put the US brand on the world. Also, the US could be just as corrupt as anybody, no denying that. But who would you rather have backing you, and being Big Brother to the world, the US or the old Soviet Union? We have our faults, but I vote the US.

JFK'ER · 01-09-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

No, not wrong, just not the whole story. Yes, the Soviets were atheist, but only because they felt that religion would weaken their hold on the people. If people worship the State instead of God, that would be satisfactory. They were against capitalism in word only. The people could not engage in capitalism, but the upper echelon indulged heavily in Western treats and practices. Corruption was rampant in the USSR, and they had their Mafia even then. I did mention competition, though. The fact that we favored corrupt and inhumane governments as well as those with good governments only meant we were trying for the whole ball of wax, trying to put the US brand on the world. Also, the US could be just as corrupt as anybody, no denying that. But who would you rather have backing you, and being Big Brother to the world, the US or the old Soviet Union? We have our faults, but I vote the US.

If I lived in a country like East Germany or El Salvador I would say living in **** is living in **** no matter what color flag is stuck in it. If I was president of one of those countries I wouldn't care, I have someone who is giving me **** loads of cash because I am telling the world I'm their friend.

gospodin · 01-09-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK'ER

If I lived in a country like East Germany or El Salvador I would say living in **** is living in **** no matter what color flag is stuck in it. If I was president of one of those countries I wouldn't care, I have someone who is giving me **** loads of cash because I am telling the world I'm their friend.

Yeah, true, but we're talking about governments, not the people. Supposedly, the people elect their governments, but many nations don't have that luxury. If I was president of some dirt-poor third world crapheap, and I had a rep from the US or USSR shove a butt-load of money in front of me, they'd be my friend. If I was corrupt, the people wouldn't see a dime, and I could use it to improve MY standard of living. The US has used the time-tested method of buying friends and influencing people for a long time, but you know what? That's mostly what these rotten dictatorships want from us. They don't care if we're righteous, powerful or technologically sophisticated, they want money or weapons. And we give it to them to secure another area away from "Bad Influences", and to get something in return: oil, minerals, a port or just cheap coffee. But it benefits America, and our people don't question where it comes from, because face it, El Salvador or Berkina Faso or South Africa are too far away to be concerned with, and the average Joe couldn't find it on a map to save his life. The Soviets wanted the same things, but mainly for the priviliged, and to deny that nation's benefits to the US.

tdh8192 · 01-12-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samee380

Well i think USA will be taught a good lesson by the muslim countries in the next 10-30 years...

Oh, yeah? And what lesson might that be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

The Iranian-US relationship was destroyed by Khomieni in 1979...

Maybe from our (the US) point of view. For the Iranians, maybe when we overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 who the Iranians elected as their prime minister. Isn't it ironic that some 50+ years later we want democratically-elected governments in the Middle East?

gospodin · 01-12-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdh8192

Maybe from our (the US) point of view. For the Iranians, maybe when we overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 who the Iranians elected as their prime minister. Isn't it ironic that some 50+ years later we want democratically-elected governments in the Middle East?

The problem with Mossadegh was he wasn't a friend of the US, and was leaning toward the Soviets during a critical period in world history. We were just winding-up the Korean War, and the bigheads in Washington felt the current government in Iran had all the potential of being another war zone, with the USSR eyeing a warm-water port in a crucial area. That was more than the US could stand, so having the Shah, a corrupt but powerful leader in the Middle East, as our friend was just what everybody (except maybe the average Iranian, and the Sovs, of course). All that oil was nice, too. And maybe the Shah wouldn't be so bad, if we just turned a blind eye to his human rights violations, and what the SAVAK was doing. We just prop up the ol' Shah, give him some badassed toys, and he'd make the Middle East safe for, well, not democracy, but for the US, which was ok, since it wasn't the Commies.

01-07-2007, 02:01 PM	#5
JFK'ER Uber Spotter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Brooklyn, NY Age: 43 Posts: 198	It started when Khomeni went back on his word due to political pressure from students. The Carter administration had actually asked permission from Iran to operate on the Shah. Khomeini gave his blessings. Some students found out, took over the embassy and Khomeini caved in to the students rather than be over thrown. After that the US gave its full support to Iraq, even more so when the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed back in '82 &'83 with Iranian moral and financial support. Then came the hostage debacle/Iran/Contra. Now, one of the original students who took over the embassy in '79 is president of Iran and has advocated the elimination of Israel and the absorbtion of Al-Queda. One must remember however that this is the government, a very right wing fringe. Most Iranian citizens may not agree with US and Israeli policy but the last thing they want is a war. This is one of the few times I agree with Bush in that Iranian citizens want to live in peace with the world. __________________ I blame Cuomo.

01-07-2007, 02:13 PM	#6
Santos South American collector Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Brazil Age: 36 Posts: 2,753	If US wants to loose another war it must go to Iran. I hope they take the Iraq as an example. Like someone said above: there is a war that can´t be won. I really hope US won´t fight there because the consequences will be... __________________ Wish list in 1:400 scale: 1) BETA DC-8-70F (dedicated to Celso please) 2) PANAIR DO BRASIL DC-8 reg.# PP-PDS 3) VARIGLOG MD-11F & B727-100 / 200F 4) VARIG Caravelle 5) TRANSBRASIL 727-100 6) RIO-SUL 737-500 old colors Thank you Aeroclassics for the VARIG Coronados!

01-07-2007, 02:30 PM	#7
samee380 Master Collector Join Date: May 2006 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne Age: 19 Posts: 797	Well i think USA will be taught a good lesson by the muslim countries in the next 10-30 years, like Russia did when they invaded afghanistan for along time but left at the end waste of time and costed Russia alot and destroyed them The USA dont understand that muslims in iraq and afghanistan will keep fighting all they life (like they did with Russia) against the USA and they will no longer be super power __________________ Models For Sale: http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/modeldatabase/mycollection/sale-4607.html Email me samee380@aol.com

01-07-2007, 03:42 PM	#9
KRASAIRIL62 Russian model collector Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Otherside of the pond, Europe!! Posts: 729	I still think that what America (with help of Europe of course) did against Iraq is most awfull! But HEYYYY who am i??? Starting a war against country who supposed to have chemical weapons while they didn't! America is losing this war and if they don't stop they will loose more military lives because the people in Iraq aren't going to stop fighting! What did the army reached???? Yeahh the end of a lot human lives! It sounds very hard but if America really wants to stop the Muslims than the only thing that will help over there is atomic weapons! Now the rumors are there that Israel wants to attack atomic installations in Iran.... i really hope that they won't do it because Israel is going to loose it and i'm already feeling sorry for those poor people who are living in Israel! __________________ *NEED IT* ........ *KRASAIR IL-86!!!* www.lesmills.com Last edited by KRASAIRIL62; 01-07-2007 at 04:06 PM.

01-07-2007, 04:52 PM	#10
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,225	We won't nuke the Arabs because we need their oil. Not only that, but if we did, that would definately set the world against the US, since we're still the only nation to use nukes against another nation, even if we felt it was justified. If the Israelis go to Iran and destroy their nuclear enrichment facilities, you are going to see one unholy uprising in the Middle East. We just need to leave, find an alternative fuel source, and let the Middle East return to the Middle Ages where they were when we first found oil there. Let them live in tents, cook over campfires and ride camels like the fundamentalists want. Just leave the rest of the world alone. In a perfect world....oh, well. __________________ Steve The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

01-07-2007, 11:09 AM	#1
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,881	Political Question about the middle east. I know that there is a lot going on in the middle east, but with regaurds to Iran. Why is there such an itchy finger to go to war there? and my most important question. Why started this hatetred for Iran? Since the 80's we have fought Iran from Helping Suddam in the Iran Iraq war, to present. When did the conflict with Iran and the U.S. really start?

01-07-2007, 11:33 AM	#2
Hapag-Lloyd Insane Collector Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 2,353	The way I see it, Iran is a regional middle power that had been kept at bay by the threat Iraq used to pose - the Iranian leaders knew from experience that a war against Iraq can not be won. After the US invasion, Iraq had no more military power whatsoever, causing Iranian ambitions to rise. The US military is (according to the Iranian leaders, anyway) too busy with the situation in Iraq, so Iran has no US intervention to fear. __________________ THIS SPACE 4 RENT!!!

01-07-2007, 01:24 PM	#3
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,225	The Iranian-US relationship was destroyed by Khomieni in 1979, after many years of US interference in Iran. When the Shah of Iran was in power, we looked the other way while he abused his people, so that we could get cheap oil and sell him weapons. Iran still possesses a squadron of F-14s that they could never operate, because the targeting systems were removed by US technicians leaving the country after the fall of the government. The US was even in the process of supplying the Shah with the most sophisticated destroyers in the world at that time (the Kidd class destroyers were absorbed into our Navy, they were better even than the ones we had). After the showdown with the US over the Embassy Hostage Crisis (which Carter tried to end by sending that horrible fckup rescue disaster), Reagan made Iran one of the pariah nations, and broke off any diplomacy with them. They tried to force Iraq into a so-called Islamic Union, went to war, and guess who supplied Saddam with some of his weapons? Ta-dahh, the US and Russia (Russia because they fear the Muslims, and were afraid of uprisings in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgizstan). Iran has hated us ever since, blaming their failure to conquer Iraq on US interference. This episode with Iraq now shows Iran how fickle the West is, and they distrust us even more. We cannot broaden the conflict by charging into Iran looking for THEIR WMDs without #1, bringing the whole Middle East down around our heads, #2, We're stretched too thin now, and #3, the Iranians are a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqis, because they've gotten in tight with China, and the terrain is not good for tanks in many places. Plus they've been training for a US invasion for decades, and have some fairly decent equipment (no match for ours, but a lot of it...mostly Chinese made). __________________ Steve The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....*

01-08-2007, 06:41 PM	#11
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,881	There is an author from the 60's who wrote about this. Arnold Toynbee wrote two books "The World and the west" and "Civilization on Trial" I have not read these, but I hear they are really good. Looking for copy's now.

01-08-2007, 11:47 PM	#12
Planecrazy Senior Collector Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 490	When you think of all of the out of work Soviet KGB masters of the "hit" we should hire them to go after the radicals. All of a sudden a grain of polonium is mixed in their hummas and nobody knows who did it! It sure would be a lot cheaper.

01-09-2007, 07:56 PM	#14
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,225	Problem with the US and the Soviet Union being pals wasn't just ideology. The USSR was basically a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime totally at odds with the notion of free speech and personal liberties. The Soviets needed to control their citizens in order to run their country as the select few saw fit. The people of the US, up to 9/11, would never have stood for crackdowns on personal liberties...though now we're seeing those freedoms slowly eroded, but that's another story. With the great difference in philosophies and governments, both the US and the Soviets would always be both distrustful and competitive in garnering allies. It was like having two BMOCs on the same campus...doesn't work out too well. The attitudes of Russia and the US now haven't really changed all that much, especially with Putin trying to regain lost Soviet glory, trying to make what is essentially a third-world country back into the first-world ranks. Russia is an outstanding nation, and has made significant contributions to the world and science, but they can't seem to pay for anything, or update their crumbling infrastructure. Hopefully, the opening up of the Siberian oil fields and mining for minerals will begin to rebuild Russia, and not go for re-arming themselves, which is looking more and more likely. Which will put us back at odds with each other. __________________ Steve The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: