Iranian leader works to end US-Gulf ties - Yahoo! News

Given Bush and Cheney's track record, along with Rice, for being arrogant, invading an Arab nation which did not provoke and threatening two others, siding blindly with Israel while they illegally occupy two Arab nations, I think this time the Arab world may turn totally against us and unite.

What do you see as the outcome of this effort?

Oh, I seriously doubt that the Arab Persian Gulf nations would want to exchange US military protection in the Persian Gulf region with Iranian military protection.

And I say this because those nations have a far greater fear of Iran's hardliners who wish to export their form of government by meddling in the politics of their nations than any fear of the US meddling in the politics of their nations.

Of course, the US has military bases in those nations. But, the US also supports the very same people who hold power in those nations...however authoritarian those people in power may be.

On the other hand, the hardliners in Iran firmly believe that all predominately muslim nations throughout the world must adopt an Iranian-like form of government. In fact, such an ideology is written in their constitution:

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse "This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world."

Iran

Thus, if those people in power in the Arab Persian Gulf nations would like to stay in power and govern their nations under the same form of government they currently have, they have a better chance of maintaining that status quo situation by siding with the US, militarily speaking, than by allowing Iran's hardliners any significant opportunity at meddling in their affairs.

(With regards to Israel, to the winner of a war goes the spoils. This has generally been the standard throughout human history...whether you agree with this concept or not.)

Do you know who are among the richest people in my area? The Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Native American tribes. Why? Becasue most tribes in America have been given the right to run privately owned casinos. Not to say taking the land from the Natives here was the right thing to do but lets face it, It was the English that came here first.
In addition, comparing actions taken by nations centuries ago to actions taken by a supposedly just and democratic nation, really doesn't holds no water. I mean are we not past the etty crap of invading for profit? Using your logic we could compare the actions taken by the Romans!
Plus I think Sally was referring to it as an illegal occupation because of the lies furnished to build up to the war, not the actual occupation. Illegal it is.

I agre with this statement.


As for Israel, they were not invaders, they were imigrants that have gained power, though War crimes and from religious support by other Nations, the US included. They have taken over someone elses country and no one stopped them when they were doing this. The Palistenians did get the shaft since 1917 when they were suppose to get there own country after the fail of the Turkish Empire. Prophecies in the Bible, and the Christian need to help them happen, is the reason why this was allowed, IMO.

These are certainly good observations and can tested by the US military action in Iraq, or even the US military action in Vietnam.

A population cannot be 'given' a form of government that is not supported by the population in general as long as that population is not willing to fight for the benefits of 'given' form of government. Support for government the local population is unwilling to fight for must be propped up by military action of the 'giver'.

If any population in the middle east prefers it's current form of government, it must be willing to fight to maintain status quo. Or, if the population is unwilling to support the government, the government then must rely on US military support to maintain it's power.

I think it's fair to say the Arabs took over Israeli territory long before, and it wasn't theirs to take. Perhaps they should give back Medina. The Jews only took it back.

When it comes to land squabbles in the middle east, everyone has their own particular start date. Saddam Hussein actually claimed Medina, Saudi Arabia for Iraq based on Babylonia's control of the land 1500 years before Abraham.

All of this may be true, but the same could be said to some extent of the forming of the United States...and, perhaps, of the formation all nations in the Western Hemisphere.

And, I'm sure you are aware that this history isn't a solution to today's Israeli-Palestinian issue.

And, it could be argued that had the Arabs won the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, there might possibly be Jewish refugee camps in the world today instead of Palestinian refugee camps...or far worse.

Perhaps the Arabs aught to have accepted the 1947 UN partition plan since, doing so, we might not be having this discussion today.

It is actually quite ironic that, even with Iran's "theocracy," Iran's structure of government is arguably the most democratic form of government in the Middle East today outside of Israel and, possibly, today's Iraq.

Go figure...