Iraqi PM visits Iraqi Hezbollah and wears their uniform

[Trench Broom]

Anything Iran touches turns into death and economic disaster. Shame Iraq seems to be another lemming Arab country willing to walk off a cliff for the Mullahs of Tehran.

 

[QWECXZ]

Aside from Iraqi Kurds, they'l give you one answer, the internal conflict takes the shape of identity politics because the installed democratic system rewards identity politics, its a tool to the seat of rule, it doesnt help that all regional actors entered into the vacuum and picked sides.

The US installed a system that amplifies and strives on differences and conflicts, it maintained a military and political presence through management of these conflicts and through this presence ensures that the system continue to work as intended... plain old divide and conqure.

There is no sovereignity, rest assured if the US ever manages to acheive regime in Iran, you will suffer a similar fate.

The US patriotism is manufactured and not based on any inherited identity, it is strong as long as the machine applying they glue is strong, absent that they would be killing each other like they did in their early days.

I understand your point and I agree with you. The US turned Iraq into a mess and opened the way for Iranian influence in Iraq. There's no doubt about that. We could've never had such influence in Iraq as long as Saddam was in power. And Saddam kept Iraq unified. True. And if the Iranian regime falls, we will have a worse fate than you.

However, it wasn't Iranians who danced on the streets of Baghdad when the US coalition toppled Saddam. You did. It wasn't Iranians that handed over Mosul to ISIS. You did. You may validly argue that Iran cemented its presence by creating militant groups. But why did people join those groups? Because they were tired of the US invasion of Iraq. Iran just used the anti-occupation sentiments to improve its presence in Iraq, considering the fact that many of the people exiled by Saddam lived in Iran and were pro-Iran, including some Kurdish authorities.

But realistically, Iran has had good influence over Iraq too. We stopped the annexation of the Kurdistan autonomic region without military confrontation. Had you lost it, you would've never got it back. We stopped the ISIS from invading more cities in Iraq and helped you defeat them. We stopped Iraq from turning into a Saudi backyard. We are reducing the American influence over Iraq. We rebuilt shrines in Iraq which help you attract tourism. We have provided security for major Shi'a events, etc.

 

[Naram_Sin]

I understand your point and I agree with you. The US turned Iraq into a mess and opened the way for Iranian influence in Iraq. There's no doubt about that. We could've never had such influence in Iraq as long as Saddam was in power. And Saddam kept Iraq unified. True. And if the Iranian regime falls, we will have a worse fate than you.

However, it wasn't Iranians who danced on the streets of Baghdad when the US coalition toppled Saddam. You did. It wasn't Iranians that handed over Mosul to ISIS. You did. You may validly argue that Iran cemented its presence by creating militant groups. But why did people join those groups? Because they were tired of the US invasion of Iraq. Iran just used the anti-occupation sentiments to improve its presence in Iraq, considering the fact that many of the people exiled by Saddam lived in Iran and were pro-Iran, including some Kurdish authorities.

But realistically, Iran has had good influence over Iraq too. We stopped the annexation of the Kurdistan autonomic region without military confrontation. Had you lost it, you would've never got it back. We stopped the ISIS from invading more cities in Iraq and helped you defeat them. We stopped Iraq from turning into a Saudi backyard. We are reducing the American influence over Iraq. We rebuilt shrines in Iraq which help you attract tourism. We have provided security for major Shi'a events, etc.

Kindly consider that I never criticized Iran for establishing a precense in Iraq, all nations flooded into Iraq, Isis itself is a bastard of many fathers, follow the trail and you,l get to the common regional actors.

Iran does have a positive effect on Iraq, if not for Iran, Baghdad would probably be the LGBT capital of the middle east, Isis (and a certain nation backing it
) would have annexed Mosul in the north, the kurds would have encroached even more lands and influence.

Unfortunately, due to its inherent nature, any Iranian influence is bound to increase the polarity in Iraqi society, the Iraqi sunnis view Iran as an existential threat.

Regardless, the Iraqi state was destroyed, it was miserably ruled during Sadam but now there isnt even one, we now have 2 lines of thought acting on the ground, those who are seeking to submit to the US either for material gains or false hopes promised, and those who are against, most of whom aligned themselves with Iran, be it on ideological basis or simply to push a common foe.

As for people cherishing the fall of Sadam, the previous regime was ruthless, illogical, unwise and caused great misery to the Shia population, who were happy to see him go, but the common man is unwise, they could not see what was waiting for them.

 

[Trench Broom]

Kindly consider that I never criticized Iran for establishing a precense in Iraq, all nations flooded into Iraq, Isis itself is a bastard of many fathers, follow the trail and you,l get to the common regional actors.

Iran does have a positive effect on Iraq, if not for Iran, Baghdad would probably be the LGBT capital of the middle east, Isis (and a certain nation backing it
) would have annexed Mosul in the north, the kurds would have encroached even more lands and influence.

Shia, eh?

 

[QWECXZ]

Kindly consider that I never criticized Iran for establishing a precense in Iraq, all nations flooded into Iraq, Isis itself is a bastard of many fathers, follow the trail and you,l get to the common regional actors.

Iran does have a positive effect on Iraq, if not for Iran, Baghdad would probably be the LGBT capital of the middle east, Isis (and a certain nation backing it
) would have annexed Mosul in the north, the kurds would have encroached even more lands and influence.

Unfortunately, due to its inherent nature, any Iranian influence is bound to increase the polarity in Iraqi society, the Iraqi sunnis view Iran as an existential threat.

Regardless, the Iraqi state was destroyed, it was miserably ruled during Sadam but now there isnt even one, we now have 2 lines of thought acting on the ground, those who are seeking to submit to the US either for material gains or false hopes promised, and those who are against, most of whom aligned themselves with Iran, be it on ideological basis or simply to push a common foe.

As for people cherishing the fall of Sadam, the previous regime was ruthless, illogical, unwise and caused great misery to the Shia population, who were happy to see him go, but the common man is unwise, they could not see what was waiting for them.

I know. Unfortunately, there's a dilemma here. People of countries in the Middle East that are better educated tend to be more pro-West because let's face it, they dominate science and technology. Iraqis fell for the false promises of the Americans because Iraq was an advanced country and people had high living standards. So they were prone to American propaganda and thought Americans were honest in promising democracy to them. On the other hand, Afghanistan which suffered from bad conditions managed to resist against Americans far better than Iraq which was a lot better equipped compared to Afghans. Iraqis just handed over Iraq to the invaders.

The Americans were only interested in securing Iraqi resources after toppling Saddam. Security of Iraq wasn't one of their main concerns and they underestimated Iran's potential for growing in Iraq. But you are right. The problem is the inherent nature of the Middle East. We have no way but to ignore it and proceed with our plans without giving a thought about their opinions and dissatisfaction.

Shia, eh?

In case you don't know, almost 70% of Iraqis are Shia. If you have a problem with that, you can go kill yourself. He might very well be an atheist or an agnostic person though. Supporting Iran has nothing to do with that.

 

[Naofumi]

He might very well be an atheist or an agnostic person though.

And you're an atheist too I suppose?

 

[QWECXZ]

And you're an atheist too I suppose?

I am agnostic.

 

[Naofumi]

I am agnostic.

So, Iranian regime gets support from non-religious people too? Is there any article/essay/study on this?

 

[QWECXZ]

So, Iranian regime gets support from non-religious people too? Is there any article/essay/study on this?

I don't know if there's any study or survey on this, but I know that many Iranian atheists and agnostics support the foreign policies of the Iranian regime. And personally I believe that the number of Iranian non-religious people who support the foreign policies of the regime is growing rapidly, particularly after the nuclear deal failed and Trump took an anti-Iran stance.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

your problem is that firstly, you blame everyone for your mistakes, and second and most importantly. You are not a historical country. You were created by the British. Your only solution is to either split Iraq into 3 or 4 smaller nations. Or hunt down and kill every single Kurd and every single Iran and US, sympathizers in the most brutal civil war in the history of mankind and just hope it works.

US invaded in 2003. You have had 17 years since then to rebuild. Look how fast we rebuilt after the revolution. And yes it is comparable because all our competent people fled to the west, those who decided to stay got executed, then we fought an 8 year long bloody war against the west, while being embargoed and sanctioned which we still are.

Comparing the 1979 revolution with..

a combination of 1991 war, sanctions, several more bombings, 2003 invasion and ISIS in 2014 is quite a joke. The war did not start in 2003, and it did not end in 2003. It never ended, it sparked in 2006-2008 (known as the surge) and exploded in 2014. It started in 1991 for your info. Iran has not been through what Iraq went through, your last war was in 1988. The US could have done the same to you back then, what was Iran capable of in 1991? Iraq was able to stop you.

Seems like you have an issue with me stating the general public's opinion.

 

[QWECXZ]

Comparing the 1979 revolution with..

a combination of 1991 war, sanctions, several more bombings, 2003 invasion and ISIS in 2014 is quite a joke. The war did not start in 2003, and it did not end in 2003. It never ended, it sparked in 2006-2008 (known as the surge) and exploded in 2014. It started in 1991 for your info. Iran has not been through what Iraq went through, your last war was in 1988. The US could have done the same to you back then, what was Iran capable of in 1991? Iraq was able to stop you.

Well, our oil production was reduced from 5 million barrels per day in 1979 to fewer than 2 million barrels per day after the war. Our refineries had been destroyed. The Iraq-Iran war cost us over 500,000 people, mostly aged between 18-25. The economic loss surpassed 1 trillion dollars. Saddam's wide use of chemical weapons against Iran cost us more than 50,000 lives and more than 100,000 injured people. And we were under worse sanctions than you after the war. The US sanctions on Iran started in 1980s. I believe Iran has been through far worse than Iraq.

Iraq didn't stop us. Iraq attacked us because it thought that the Iranian army had been dismantled after the revolution and we were facing chaos all over the country, including separatists in Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Sistan. Tens of our military commanders and generals either had been killed by the revolutionaries or had fled the country in fear for their lives. The US had stopped providing us spare parts or maintenance for our weapons after the Embassy Siege Crisis. You used chemical weapons en mass and the US used its veto power in the UNSC to stop resolutions condemning your use of chemical weapons. You had the support of both the Soviets (your strategic partners) and the US (our #1 enemy at the time) as well as the money supplies and military aids from the Arab League who hated Iran because of Pan-Arabism and fears of the Iranian 1979 revolution. And yet, not only you failed to achieve your declared goals (1- annexing Khuzestan, 2- invading the 3 Islands, 3- stopping the Iranian revolution), but we liberated our occupied territories after 2 years and launched offensive campaigns against Iraq until the last day of the war. No offense to Iraq, but had the war been fought equally without the US, the Soviet and the Arab League supports for Iraq, we would've invaded Baghdad in no time.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

US has national unity. Nationalism and patriotism is strong in US. The same for Iran. Iraq however has no national unity and if you ask 5 Iraqis, what Iraqi nationalism is. You will get 5 different answers.

There's no official definition of when a country is 'real', as ultimately they're all artificial.

Iraq by language including dialect, historical region and people are neither part of Persia, Arabia, the Levant or Anatolia. Excluding the Kurds (whom are Iranians to start with), the population is united and identifies with the same identity and refuses separation. This is why despite all the religiously ignited civil wars of the past decade, the country did not separate. There is no such will among anyone.. except for the Kurds. It's not because of Iran's intervention as you like to pull it.

This makes Iraq as 'real' as any other regional entity, such as Egypt, Arabia, Persia etc. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE etc. are another thing to discuss however as they do not share that much differentiation between themselves and the rest of (Saudi) Arabia.

The only difference between an Iraqi from the South and from the Mid-North is the Islamic sect, and that was not relevant till Iran's 1979 revolution sparked a religious wave throughout the region.

Well, our oil production was reduced from 5 million barrels per day in 1979 to fewer than 2 million barrels per day after the war. Our refineries had been destroyed. The Iraq-Iran war cost us over 500,000 people, mostly aged between 18-25. The economic loss surpassed 1 trillion dollars. Saddam's wide use of chemical weapons against Iran cost us more than 50,000 lives and more than 100,000 injured people. And we were under worse sanctions than you after the war. The US sanctions on Iran started in 1980s. I believe Iran has been through far worse than Iraq.

Iraq didn't stop us. Iraq attacked us because it thought that the Iranian army had been dismantled after the revolution and we were facing chaos all over the country, including separatists in Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Sistan. Tens of our military commanders and generals either had been killed by the revolutionaries or had fled the country in fear for their lives. The US had stopped providing us spare parts or maintenance for our weapons after the Embassy Siege Crisis. You used chemical weapons en mass and the US used its veto power in the UNSC to stop resolutions condemning your use of chemical weapons. You had the support of both the Soviets and the US as well as the money supplies and military aids from the Arab League. And yet, not only you failed to achieve your strategic goals (1- annexing Khuzestan, 2- invading the 3 Islands, 3- stopping the Iranian revolution), but we liberated our occupied territories after 2 years and launched offensive campaigns against Iraq until the last day of the war. No offense to Iraq, but had the war been fought equally, we would've invaded Baghdad in no time.

The US (not UN) sanctions on Iran were not as heavy as the UN sanctions on Iraq 1991-2003.

And Iran has not been through worse at all, it was not bombarded by the US including all its allies. You didn't get a no-fly zone or cruise missiles throughout the 90's, did not get a ground invasion as last and you did not have your government overthrown.

As for the last, Iran is larger than Iraq with a much larger population. Had Egypt joined us you'd be doomed as well.

You couldn't do much to Saddam's Iraq of 1988 which was the largest at its time, the US and its allies destroyed that completely. Now apply the same level of force they used against Iran instead and consider what would've happened. Then you'd indeed be in a far worse state.

The point here however is something else.

 

[Aramagedon]

Same day and even time ! 9/11/2001 - 9/11/2015 - 14 GMT:

 

[Aramagedon]

Jewish freemasonic satan worshipping signs:

 

[QWECXZ]

The US (not UN) sanctions on Iran were not as heavy as the UN sanctions on Iraq 1991-2003.

And Iran has not been through worse at all, it was not bombarded by the US including all its allies. You didn't get a no-fly zone or cruise missiles throughout the 90's, did not get a ground invasion as last and you did not have your government overthrown.

As for the last, Iran is larger than Iraq with a much larger population. Had Egypt joined us you'd be doomed as well.

You couldn't do much to Saddam's Iraq of 1988 which was the largest at its time, the US and its allies destroyed that completely. Now apply the same level of force they used against Iran instead and consider what would've happened. Then you'd indeed be in a far worse state.

The point here however is something else.

The US did attack our navy and shot down our passenger plane over the Persian Gulf. Didn't they? And do you know why? Because we had destroyed the Iraqi naval power and planned to cut off your oil exports through the Persian Gulf. Other Arab countries helped you export your oil using their tankers, which eventually forced us to respond to that. That started the Oil Tanker war between Iran and the USA during the last year of the Iraq-Iran war.

The Iraqi army grew so fast because both the US and the Soviet Union were arming you against Iran. If it weren't for the Iraq-Iran war, your army would've never become as large as it was. I'm sure you know that better than me. The French gave you Mirage-F1s without you paying for them. We had Iraqi POWs who spoke different Arabic dialects. Egyptians, Somalians, Moroccans, Yemenis. You had help from all Arab countries. Both financially and militarily. Only Syria and Algeria supported Iran while Lebanon and Libya had a neutral policy.

Your country after the war had enormous debts and you couldn't pay back the money for the weapons they had given you. That's why Saddam attacked Kuwait. Saddam thought that Arabs had fooled him and he very well knew that he couldn't pay back for all the support he had received during the war.

We have been under worse sanctions than Iraq in 1990s since 2009. If I'm wrong, correct me. But what kind of sanctions did you get that haven't been imposed on us yet?