Iran and Syria, who both are facing pressure from the United States, said Wednesday they will form a "united front" to confront possible threats against them, state-run television reported.With the US killing their mortal Wahabi enemies, why wouldn't Assyrian and Persians feel in a position of strength? They are well aware that the recent Iraq election was nothing but a pre-determination circus, the outcome of which was dictated by the Persian terrorists. Teheran now owns a corridor of friendlies, that stretches to Jerusalem, and is legitimated by State Department largesse.
| Syrians, not Assyrians. Assyrians today are mostly Christian, and live in Iraq. Syrians are majority Allawite, and live in Syria. |
This scum should be on their wretched knees, begging for their filthy lives.
| But they're not, so it's a problem to be dealt with, without going into hysterics. It's a formalization of a relationship that's existed for awhile: Syria is to Iran as Lebanon is to Syria. |
While the Persian-Assyrian Axis spends profusely to support terror and terror preparations in Iraq and Israel, Condi is tossing rhetoric-bombs, while opposition starves in those tyrannies.
| She's using diplomatic tools, which is her job as Secretary of State. Opposition has been starving in those tyrannies for some time. Internal opposition in both countries are tools that can be used, and neither you nor I have a handle on exactly what's being done with them. It's just that the handle you don't have is bigger than the one I don't have. |
But, only sticks and stones break bones.
| That's a truism. Another truism is that you can't do everything at once, even if you'd like to... |
Finger-pointing is so scary.
| Fingerprinting can be even scarier... |
Assyrians are not "Arabs." Language does not determine ethnicity. And Aramic use is on the rise there, with the widespread local belief that Jesus Christ was an Assyrian.
Fred:
Respectfully, what would be your proposed Plan B. A Pak-Sunni had this to say in the Daily Times, last weekend, "The Bush administration is under the false impression that the elections in Iraq have heralded the era of democracy in Iraq and thus justify the Bush pre-emption doctrine. What, it seems, they cannot see is that the US has just facilitated a major transfer of power in the Arab World — from Sunnis to Shiites. Thanks to the US the Arab Shiites will now control Baghdad — the jewel in the Islamic crown — after a millennium. They did not rule over Baghdad even under the glorious Fatimid dynasty (909-1171) that governed Egypt, North Africa and Syria but had only a tenuous hold over Baghdad, briefly under the Buwayhid tribal confederation, before the Turkic Seljuks invaded and captured the city with help from the Abbasids." Semitic culture is rooted in the Tigris-Euphrates territories. Persian terrorists feel they been delivered an enormous strategic salient. When that sinks in with all Sunnis, they won't be thinking about State Department chiliastic "democracy" but obedience to some self-proclaimed ghazi (warrior-priest) will become an imperative. Inherent-slavery denial (re the Muslimutt ethos) is superceding Holocaust denial, as a force of intellectual depravity. Show me how the Middle East Democratic Intiative can possibly work, and I will get online.
| This is the third time you've posted this particular piece. The first one I responded to, the second one I dumped. I'm getting tired of arguing the same point. Sunnis, both in Iraq and in Pakistan, are rivals to the Shiites. Iranians — both Persians and other ethnic groups within Iran — have also historically been rivals to the Arabs. Today's Semitic culture is not rooted in the Tigris-Euphrates, but in Arabia, specifically the sandy part of Arabia. The Gulf Arabs have historically been more civilized, along with being richer. You'll find there are differences between the Najaf and Qom schools of Shiite thought, just as there are differences within the Sunni schools. The Najaf school has been held down for many years by the Sunni rulers of Iraq, while the Qom school isn't (or historically wasn't) as respected as the Najaf school. Persian dominance of Mesopotamia traditionally hasn't worked well, mainly because of the cultural differences between the Semites and the Medes and Persians. All those are handles for political and diplomatic exploitation. Relying on military force exclusively is a dumb idea. All jobs aren't hammer jobs; some take screwdrivers, some pliers or wrenches and some take chain saws. Just like diplomacy, military force is a tool of national policy. Diplomacy is a lot cheaper than using military means. The corpse count is usually lower, too. As I've pointed out before, we use the term "democracy" as shorthand for "liberty" or "personal freedom." There's an entire area of the world where "democracy" is occasionally given some sort of form, but liberty is still viewed as something frightening. That's ingrained in Islam, which attempts to control every aspect of life. We know here all about the illiberal aspects of Islam. We've seen it for three and a half years. The problem is defined, really. Now we're much more concerned with a solution. But solutions are dependent on constraints: we're not going to convert everyone in the area to agnosticism or Buddhism or Cao Dai. There's no tradition of participatory democracy to build on. The neighbors — virtually all of them — are hostile. We, as a civilized people, don't want to simply nuke the entire area, making a desolation and calling it peace. There are also limits to the amount of strain we want to put on our economy as we fight a worldwide war on terror. The inhabitants of the Middle East are real, actual people. I don't know if you've ever lived in another country, but even weird places like South Waziristan are inhabited by human beings. They're often goofy, their customs aren't the same as ours, they're frightened by the idea of their societies being changed by the great wide world. Killing and maiming real, live people isn't something you want to do lightly. Before it comes to that it is to everyone's advantage to explore all the other avenues that are available. That means we're probably not going to end up with results that are perfectly to our liking. But killing everyone in the area and sowing it with salt isn't a result to our liking, either. Therefore, I'd like to see the diplomatic moves continue, the international political moves continue, the covert operations continue, before we see a major military operation against Iran. Do I think it'll eventually come? Yes. Do I think dismantling Iran militarily will be much harder than taking Iraq apart was? No. But I'd be happy to see it done without a shot being (officially) fired, if that's actually possible. |