Former commander of IRGC : KSA behavior is like Iraq behavior before attacking Iran

[Full Moon]

Lol so the West is the one pushing you to war with Iran? The West is also the one pushing you to fight For your Interests in Yemen? The West is also the one to push you to go against the muslim brotherhood and support the Egyptian government right?
The West is also the one pushing you to engage in sectarian proxy war with Iran in the region?

I don't feel like getting silly today. But you ought to remember that both the UK and the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of a secetarian goverment afterwards was the main reason for supercharging secetariansim to a very high level (in the ME). It was also both the UK and the US that created the state of Israel which is an exclusive jewish state, a project that was nothing but a religious war aimed to vacuum certain land from its own indegouns people on purly religious basis. How many terrible consequences has this led the world too? It was also the US and the other nations holding the veto right who have been seeing the medieval style cleansing in Syria wihout at least imposing no fly zones, or safe zones for civilians.

 

[OldTwilight]

Mike you do know that divide and conquer is a well documented strategy adopted by Anglosaxians in many historical instances?

Don't except honesty from him

 

[mike2000 is back]

I don't feel like getting silly today. But you ought to remember that both the UK and the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of a secetarian goverment afterwards was the main reason for supercharging secetariansim to a very high level (in the ME).

For your first point, I don't think creating a sectarian government in Iraq was the U S and U.K government intention. Our intention was to stabilise the country after we evicted Saddam. It's true that we made some very very silly decisions by totally dismantling the Baathist regime/government of Saddam. It was the worse thing we could do. I think we should have maintained the regime(even though it was led by minority Sunnis) since they knew how to keep the people in check by coercion,force, fear or brutality. As much as I despise such methods, I do think that sometimes in some countries it's necessary to keep the country united and to maintain peace and stability(however shallow that might be. ). So yes we made a mistake on this point.
However, many will also say we did good by dismantling the baathist regime altogether, and giving power to the Shias who are the majority in the country(democracy they say).So depends on who you ask. For the Shias they got the best deal and are happy with our actions against Saddam and his regime others are not that happy since they got the bad end of the deal. Lol. At the end of the day you can't make everyone happy, but you can't blame us for the sectarian nature of the Shias government led by Maliki we democratically installed after Saddam. Just like you can't blame Iran or Russia for Assad's brutal action against his own people.

Don't except honesty from him

Lol I'm always honest to my best ability.
You are not happy we toppled your biggest enemy/nemesis and stumbling block in the region? . Without our invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam, Iran wouldn't be able to exert such influence and further it's Shiite supremacy proxy war with KSA in the region like it does today. That's another fact.

It was also both the UK and the US that created the state of Israel which is an exclusive jewish state, a project that was nothing but a religious war aimed to vacuum certain land from its own indegouns people on purly religious basis

Israel has had its state on and off throughout history in the region. Before there was even anything like Great Britain. I don't see why they don't deserve a state anymore than you deserve one.
Using your logic we also created your country and many other Arab states by breaking up the Ottoman Empire , we shouldn't have done that then using your logic. Lol so why pick on ISRAEL(even though I know that as a muslim you are obliged/expected to do just that. Lol )? . You can still unite with Turkey though, if you still want to be under their tutelage/rule.

 

[SubWater]

Guys I don't know why but unlike @OldTwilight I have good feeling about some MBS activities inside Saudia.

If he is, what he show to people.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Mike you do know that divide and conquer is a well documented strategy adopted by Anglosaxians in many historical instances?

The Muslims beat the Anglo-Saxons in the field of division.
Right now they are just sitting in amazement of the self created mayhem of the Muslims.

I don't feel like getting silly today. But you ought to remember that both the UK and the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of a secetarian goverment afterwards was the main reason for supercharging secetariansim to a very high level (in the ME). It was also both the UK and the US that created the state of Israel which is an exclusive jewish state, a project that was nothing but a religious war aimed to vacuum certain land from its own indegouns people on purly religious basis. How many terrible consequences has this led the world too? It was also the US and the other nations holding the veto right who have been seeing the medieval style cleansing in Syria wihout at least imposing no fly zones, or safe zones for civilians.

Why mention the US, when it is the Russians which are vetoing resolutions on Syria?
There has been several attempt on resolutions by the West.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It was also the US and the other nations holding the veto right who have been seeing the medieval style cleansing in Syria wihout at least imposing no fly zones, or safe zones for civilians.

So you wanted us to intervene in Syria and topple Assad for his brutal slaughter of his own people, but I know people from the middle East and how they like blaming all their ills on the West. Even if we did that and things turned sour you people will also be the first to blame us for the situation the country would have found itself with post Assad. So blame the West if they intervene blame them if they don't. We intervened in Iraq and you are blaming us for the country's and region situation, now you are blaming us for not intervening in Syria? How does that work?

 

[Full Moon]

For your first point, I don't think creating a sectarian government in Iraq was the U S and U.K government intention. Our intention was to stabilise the country after we evicted Saddam. It's true that we made some very very silly decisions by totally dismantling the Baathist regime/government of Saddam. It was the worse thing we could do. I think we should have maintained the regime(even though it was led by minority Sunnis) since they knew how to keep the people in check by coercion,force, fear or brutality. As much as I despise such methods, I do think that sometimes in some countries it's necessary to keep the country united and to maintain peace and stability(however shallow that might be. ). So yes we made a mistake on this point.
However, many will also say we did good by dismantling the baathist regime altogether, and giving power to the Shias who are the majority in the country(democracy they say).So depends on who you ask. For the Shias they got the best deal and are happy with our actions against Saddam and his regime others are not that happy since they got the bad end of the deal. Lol. At the end of the day you can't make everyone happy, but you can't blame us for the sectarian nature of the Shias government led by Maliki we democratically installed after Saddam. Just like you can't blame Iran or Russia for Assad's brutal action against his own people.


Lol I'm always honest to my best ability.
You are not happy we toppled your biggest enemy/nemesis and stumbling block in the region? . Without our invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam, Iran wouldn't be able to exert such influence in the region like it does today. That's another fact.


Israel has had its state on and off throughout history in the region. Before there was even anything like Great Britain. I don't see why they don't deserve a state anymore than you deserve one.
Using your logic we also created your country and many other Arab states by breaking up the Ottoman Empire , we shouldn't have done that then using your logic. Lol so why puvk on ISRAEL? . You can still unite with Turkey though, if you still want to be under their tutelage/rule.

It is not an unusual scene in many US cities to see war veterans begging for money (some are just fake, some are genuine). The bigger question on Iraq is not the management of the country after the invasion, but the "decision to invade". Now you may wanna say democracy, or removing a dictator to help people. Remember the story of veterans I just mentioned.

The US is the last place where one would find a free lunch. They won't spent like a trillion dollar b/c they simply want some Iraqi Muslims to "secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity". They simply want the ME to be kept busy with medieval religious wars and to end up being dismantled far than what it has already been. Israel will also have less to worry about for 30-40 years to come.

 

[Sina-1]

The Muslims beat the Anglo-Saxons in the field of division.
Right now they are just sitting in amazement of the self created mayhem of the Muslims.



Why mention the US, when it is the Russians which are vetoing resolutions on Syria?
There has been several attempt on resolutions by the West.

You should read up the meaning of divide and rule:
the British used the strategy to destroy the harmony between various religions and use it for their benefits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

I don't know any instance of this method by ME countries being used to segregate other ME states. What you are probably aiming at is to take advantage of sectarian division in order to create organized armed groups in other countries.

The only historical instance which come in mind is during Persian Hellenic wars where Iran implemented divide and rule between various Hellenic states.

 

[Full Moon]

So you wanted us to intervene in Syria and topple Assad for his brutal slaughter of his own people, but I know people from the middle East and how they like blaming all their ills on the West. Even if we did that and things turned sour you people will also be the first to blame us for the situation the country would have found itself with post Assad. So blame the West if they intervene blame them if they don't. We intervened in Iraq and you are blaming us for the country's and region situation, now you are blaming us for not intervening in Syria? How does that work?

I have never asked for a land invasion for Syria, I was talking about no fly zones, or safe zones. Seeing Asad's jets and helicopters throwing bombs on civilians for years is way too intolerable. NATO or the US air force could patrol the Syrian sky to at least reduce the damage by say %50. Turkey, KSA, the UAE could have been asked to help too by financing some of these purely protective operations.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I don't feel like getting silly today. But you ought to remember that both the UK and the US invasion of Iraq and the creation of a secetarian goverment afterwards was the main reason for supercharging secetariansim to a very high level (in the ME). It was also both the UK and the US that created the state of Israel which is an exclusive jewish state, a project that was nothing but a religious war aimed to vacuum certain land from its own indegouns people on purly religious basis. How many terrible consequences has this led the world too? It was also the US and the other nations holding the veto right who have been seeing the medieval style cleansing in Syria wihout at least imposing no fly zones, or safe zones for civilians.

"Sectarian government"... yeah, I bet you hate it that the Shia oppressing government of Saddam is gone.

 

[mike2000 is back]

I have never asked for a land invasion for Syria, I was talking about no fly zones, or safe zones. Seeing Asad's jets and helicopters throwing bombs on civilians for years is way too intolerable. NATO or the US air force could patrol the Syrian sky to at least reduce the damage by say %50. Turkey, KSA, the UAE could have been asked to help too by financing some of these purely protective operations.

I agree to some extent. However, even if we did that, I'm 200% sure people in the region will still be blaming and criticising the West for not going further.
You remember we did impose a nobfly zone in Iraq during the first gulf war as Saddam was bombing , gassing and massacring his people who rose up against him(mainly Kurds and Shias), but people in the region still blame the West for doing that( imperialism) and for not going further. lol

 

[Full Moon]

"Sectarian government"... yeah, I bet you hate it that the Shia oppressing government of Saddam is gone.

That's not the point Amir. Replacing one very oppressing government with another one (irrespective of the direction) was simply disastrous. Saddam's oppression was more like Stalin type of madness, more than being purely sectarian. Al Malki's one was an 8th century type of sectarian madness, which caused the merger of Iraqi Ba'ath with Al Qaida resulting eventually in ISIS. I know what the Iraqi Ba'ath's slaughterhouse governance model is. Trust me, ISIS is just covered with Iraqi Ba'ath's finger prints all over its flag and actions.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I agree to some extent. However, even if we did that, I'm 200% sure people in the region will still be blaming and criticising the West for not going further.
You remember we did impose a nobfly zone in Iraq during the first gulf war as Saddam was bombing , gassing and massacring his people who rose up against him(mainly Kurds and Shias), but people in the region still blame the West for doing that( imperialism) and for not going further. lol

No fly zones are just preparation for war, to weaken the enemy. That's why while everyone says it took a month to defeat Saddam I say 12 years, cause the West was constantly attacking Iraq from 1991 up to 2003.

The US already set up a no fly zone of sorts in Syria, over SDF areas. That is why there is a race to defeat ISIS in eastern Syria, because if the Americans win the race they can block off Iranian supply flights.

That's not the point Amir. Replacing one very oppressing government with another one (irrespective of the direction) was simply disastrous. Saddam's oppression was more like Stalin type of madness, more than being purely sectarian. Al Malki's one was an 8th century type of sectarian madness, which caused the merger of Iraqi Ba'ath with Al Qaida resulting eventually in ISIS. I know what the Iraqi Ba'ath's slaughterhouse governance model is. Trust me, ISIS is just covered with Iraqi Ba'ath's finger prints all over its flag and actions.

Comparing Maliki and Abadi's government with Saddam's is ridiculous, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups were already there before Maliki. It's not the fault of Iraqi Shia that the Baath were sore at losing power and the Wahhabi groups like Al Qaeda wanted to seize upon the discontent of extremist Sunnis to create havoc.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You should read up the meaning of divide and rule:
the British used the strategy to destroy the harmony between various religions and use it for their benefits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

I don't know any instance of this method by ME countries being used to segregate other ME states. What you are probably aiming at is to take advantage of sectarian division in order to create organized armed groups in other countries.

The only historical instance which come in mind is during Persian Hellenic wars where Iran implemented divide and rule between various Hellenic states.

That is not what I am talking about.
The Muslims in ME are not induced to split by external forces.
They split up and fight between themselves spontaneously.

 

[Full Moon]

The Muslims beat the Anglo-Saxons in the field of division.
Right now they are just sitting in amazement of the self created mayhem of the Muslims.



Why mention the US, when it is the Russians which are vetoing resolutions on Syria?
There has been several attempt on resolutions by the West.

You are right it wasn't the US vetos. However, the US knows how to neutralize the Russian and Chinese votes when it seriously wants to. So far, the Russians and Chinese are fully aware of their own limitations compared to the US political and economic versatility. At the end of the day, the Russians are nothing but scared rabbits in front of "a serious and a willing US". This has been the case at least ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union.