Iranians Eager for Hussein to fall

[Alex Moon]

From the LA Times (Requires registration, but free.)

TEHRAN -- Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise.

Those who fought in Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s and those for whom that war is little more than a childhood memory equally want to see Hussein's regime toppled. Few doubt that he is dangerous, armed with terrible weapons and a bane to the region.

"The day Saddam Hussein is arrested, killed or exiled, Iranians will pass out sweets in the streets," said Mehdi Ansari, a newspaper vendor. His clapboard kiosk on Vali Asr, Tehran's main boulevard, does brisker business these days as Iranians follow the latest twists in the U.N. inspection effort that they expect will eventually lead to war.

This enthusiasm for a campaign against Hussein is rare in the Middle East, where the prevailing belief holds that the U.S. is targeting Iraq to control its oil and ensure Israel's security. America's Arab allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fear that war with Baghdad will further radicalize their already deeply anti-American populations. Iraq has historically been Iran's most serious rival for regional influence. Eight years of war drained Iran's economy and left deep wounds that still have not healed. The slaughter of tens of thousands of young Iranian men by Hussein's forces produced a grim culture of martyrdom that the country is still trying to shake.

At least 300,000 Iranians were killed in the war, and more than half a million were wounded.

However, the depth of Iranian antipathy for Hussein predates both the war and the Islamic Revolution of the late 1970s.

Iranians and Arabs are ethnically and culturally distinct, and a prejudice against Arabs has run through Iranian history for centuries. After the Iranian national soccer team lost a game to Iraq in 1977, the shah wept openly before fans at Tehran's Azadi Stadium.

Because Iranians speak Persian instead of Arabic and identify with a culture that predates Islam, most of them do not have the emotional ties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that reinforce the anger Arabs feel toward the United States, which they see as Israel's sponsor. Iranians do not sleep and rise with televised images of Palestinian suffering, as Arabs throughout the region do.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iranians watched with satisfaction as a U.S.-led coalition routed Hussein from Kuwait. Where there is ambivalence about a new U.S.-led war against Iraq among ordinary Iranians, it often stems from a revulsion at the potential human cost rather than animosity toward the United States.

Azzam Rahimi, a 45-year-old homemaker, lost her son in the Iran-Iraq War and comes to Tehran's Behesht-e Zahra cemetery every week to visit his grave.

"Look at all these dead young men," she said, nodding down a seemingly endless stretch of slender gravestones of soldiers killed in the war. "They're all here because of war. If there had been no war, so many young men wouldn't be lying under the dirt."

But Iranians are also well aware of the implications of a new war for themselves. If Washington moved to disarm Hussein by force, the result would be the third war the U.S. has fought on Iran's borders in 12 years.

Some Iranians, particularly the young, say they would actually welcome a U.S. presence in Iraq because it would increase pressure on both their country's conservative Islamic regime and the fractured reformers who oppose it. The regime's efforts to portray the U.S. as the "Great Satan" have failed to sway young people, who are a clear majority of Iranians. About 70% of the country's 70 million people are younger than 30.

Young people in particular associate the U.S. with the opportunities and freedoms that Iran, with its sluggish economy and stern moral code, lacks. They believe that better relations with the U.S. would revitalize Iranian life and help the country shed its pariah status.

According to a poll conducted in September, 75% of Iranians support dialogue with the U.S., and some believe that a long-term U.S. military presence next door could accelerate the process of change in Iran.

Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran.

The fantasy that the U.S. could swoop in and remove Iran's hard-line regime, as it did the Taliban in Afghanistan and threatens to do to Hussein, bespeaks the depth of frustration at the pace of internal reforms.

When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.

"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"

The last paragraph is particularly interesting.

[AdmiralKanos]

That last paragraph is not surprising. During Gulf War 1, many Iraqis openly celebrated the American attack and hoped that their forces would come sweeping into Iraq to depose Hussein. Many of them even rose up against him, believing George Bush Sr's promises that they would receive American support and a bright future. Of course, we all know how that turned out, but perhaps the Americans have learned to keep their word this time.

[Alex Moon]

That last paragraph is not surprising. During Gulf War 1, many Iraqis openly celebrated the American attack and hoped that their forces would come sweeping into Iraq to depose Hussein. Many of them even rose up against him, believing George Bush Sr's promises that they would receive American support and a bright future. Of course, we all know how that turned out, but perhaps the Americans have learned to keep their word this time.

The way I see it, with the removal of the dicatorial regimes in Afganistan and Iraq, the Iranian government would find itself without a major threat to rally it's people behind. Once that happens, they're gonna start sweating.

[Darth Fanboy]

The Clerics more than the government, I think Bush was stupid to call Iran evil because there is a lot of support being suppressed there.

[Mr Bean]

Many of them even rose up against him, believing George Bush Sr's promises that they would receive American support and a bright future. Of course, we all know how that turned out, but perhaps the Americans have learned to keep their word this time.

We listened to the UN after all we need Colalition before we can do anything on this planet and the Coalition is always right

[Stuart Mackey]

That last paragraph is not surprising. During Gulf War 1, many Iraqis openly celebrated the American attack and hoped that their forces would come sweeping into Iraq to depose Hussein. Many of them even rose up against him, believing George Bush Sr's promises that they would receive American support and a bright future. Of course, we all know how that turned out, but perhaps the Americans have learned to keep their word this time.

The way I see it, with the removal of the dicatorial regimes in Afganistan and Iraq, the Iranian government would find itself without a major threat to rally it's people behind. Once that happens, they're gonna start sweating.

As things are now in Iran the government is slowly moving towards democratic reform, the only thing between a open and faster programme of reform is the clerics, judiciary and the army.

[Stuart Mackey]

Many of them even rose up against him, believing George Bush Sr's promises that they would receive American support and a bright future. Of course, we all know how that turned out, but perhaps the Americans have learned to keep their word this time.

We listened to the UN after all we need Colalition before we can do anything on this planet and the Coalition is always right

And the practical reality that you needed Saudi and arab support back then.

[Mr Bean]

And the practical reality that you needed Saudi and arab support back then.

Or what?
They invade?
Seriously though
We had enough Military Might in the Middle East to March out way through to both Iran and the Gates of Jerisiulum if we wanted

But thats besided the point, The point is we listen to our Allies who only wanted a Temporary solution instead of a permant one and here we are twelve years later because of it

[Stuart Mackey]

And the practical reality that you needed Saudi and arab support back then.

Or what?
They invade?
Seriously though
We had enough Military Might in the Middle East to March out way through to both Iran and the Gates of Jerisiulum if we wanted

But thats besided the point, The point is we listen to our Allies who only wanted a Temporary solution instead of a permant one and here we are twelve years later because of it

yeah right, and do you know what the political ramifications would have been if you had? you get september 11 eleven years earlier, and god knows what else Christ on his cross at what point will you Americans realise that there are consequences for your actions? you actually think that these nations are just going to lie back and think of Allah?

[Mr Bean]

yeah right, and do you know what the political ramifications would have been if you had? you get september 11 eleven years earlier, and god knows what else

With No Funding, And no Safe zones to hide in outside of Afghanstan would be quite hard to succesfuly stage large scale 9/11 style attacks

Christ on his cross at what point will you Americans realise that there are consequences for your actions?

By Wong man, when do you not get the fact that I was mearly point out what was militarly achivable, not nessarly a good idea, Just as I can point out the fact that we can say, if the next time a Bank Robber holes up in a Bank, Instead of Surronding the place with Cops we could instead Pound the Bank Flat with 155mm Howizters

I'm point out what we can do not what we should do you did you miss that little point of fact?

[Enlightenment]

Or what?
They invade?

Have fun fighting a war with most of your theater logistics base in enemy hands....

Next time, think before posting

[Rubberanvil]

Or what?
They invade?

Have fun fighting a war with most of your theater logistics base in enemy hands....

The U.s. military had at least somewhere around 50,000 to 100,000 people in Saudi Arabia when the ground war started and ended. More than enough to buy time for the rest of the U.S Military and her remaining allies to come back to Saudi Arabia.

[Sea Skimmer]

Or what?
They invade?

Have fun fighting a war with most of your theater logistics base in enemy hands....

Next time, think before posting

Considering those are all in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar , nations which strongly favor the US, or afloat. And that the US has been moving equipment and bomb stocks out of Saudi Arabia for the last YEAR, I don't think that will be an issue.

[Enlightenment]

And that the US has been moving equipment and bomb stocks out of Saudi Arabia for the last YEAR, I don't think that will be an issue.

We're talking about Gulf War II, not the soon-to-be-started Gulf War III.

[Mr Bean]

We're talking about Gulf War II

There was enough Ordinance on Hand for several weeks of actions, Second our Carriers were right offshore, We could pound flat anything they attempted


Your forgeting exactly how many troops and support personel we had in the area at the time of GW II

[Clone Sergeant]

My main concern with this war is the reaction of the muslim world to having a Western country occupy a muslim nation. The terrorists were already pissed just because of military bases in Saudi Arabia. They are going to go fucking nuts when we occupy when we actually take over an entire country and by force of all things. They will be thinking it's the crusades all over again.

We will probably see an escalation of terrorist attacks against the U.S. itself and American citizens abroad. We can no longer pretend that the terrorists can't hurt us. The empty lot where the Twin Towers used to be has proven that. And we can't pretend that we beat Al Qaeda and their threat is gone, because we didn't, regardless of the rhetroric of the Bush Administration. Al Qaeda has merely dispersed and has become even harder fight. And it doesn't matter if Bin Laden really is dead because his message of hate lives with his followers and they would fight even harder for a Bin Laden the martyr.

I think the real war will not be against tanks and fighter/bombers in the desert, it will be against chemical and biological weapon attacks in American cities.

Bush is deliberatly looking to escalate a situation that can still be resolved through more peaceful means. For the first time in history, the United States is openly instigating a war(at least officially), it could at least be one that makes sense. We have yet to see the "smoking gun" that proves Iraq is a threat. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world we have a Kim Jong II who is a far worse dictator who will soon have nuclear missiles that can actually hit us, and what do we do against him? We say diplomatic means must be explored. To be quite honsest i'm far more concerned with North Korea than Iraq. That damned missile shield will never work so that is no assurance.

Really guys,if the oil was in N Korea instead of Iraq the troops would be in South Korea not Kuwait and Turkey, nukes be damned.

[Mr Bean]

They are going to go fucking nuts when we occupy when we actually take over an entire country and by force of all things. They will be thinking it's the crusades all over again.

What more can they do? They are already willing to strap expolsives to their body and go on Sucided attacks

We have yet to see the "smoking gun" that proves Iraq is a threat.

A repeated Demostrated Willingness to use any method nessary to win? The fact he has used WMD in the past? The Fact he has attempted to get Nukes before and is currently rebuilding sites where Nuclear Research went on, EVEN AS THE INSPECTORS ARE IN HIS COUNTRY!
The Mobile Laboritres which have yet to be visted by the Inspectors and from Blix is own admission does not plan on visiting
The Missing tonnage of WMD that where Inspected and marked for Destruction in 97
The huge Missing Tonnage of Chemical and Bio-weapon precursers(Used in Production of WMD) which were shiped to Iraq in the late 80s and never found by any Inspectors, The large Shipments of Precursers sent from Germany two years ago.
The Testing of New Long Range Missles that where better than anything he's had before and a clear Violation of the 91 Treaty that ended the War, Much like Hitlers Production of the Panzer Divisions where a clear violation of the Treaty of Verisci(sp?) which Forbid Germany from Rebuilding its Army/Navy and Air-force

What more do you want CS?

Really guys,if the oil was in N Korea instead of Iraq the troops would be in South Korea not Kuwait and Turkey, nukes be damned.

Not often I have to say this but CS, You are a Fool, If Oil was in South Korea we would be fucked
Know why?
If we Invad, North Korea will win
Very simple thing and is very true

[Darth Wong]

They are going to go fucking nuts when we occupy when we actually take over an entire country and by force of all things. They will be thinking it's the crusades all over again.

What more can they do? They are already willing to strap expolsives to their body and go on Sucided attacks

That's just in Palestine, and that's against their occupiers, not against the US. Many of the 9/11 hijackers didn't even realize it was a one-way mission. Remember the widespread fear caused by those two DC-area snipers? Two ass-clowns with a Bushmaster? There is plenty of room for things to get worse.

[0.1]

Since you were so nice to open up the point, Clone Sergant, what would you do about NK and Iraq? I think that's a fair question, since you brough up this issue. Let's call you the president of the U.S. right now. What do you do?

I realize that you probably won't answer, no one else that have whined about the idea of containment has managed to define it yet or address a scenario for it. It's just a question that's ignored over and over since those who endorse containment obviously just use the catch phrase and have no idea what they're talking about. But there is always the off chance that you could have a reasonable and well thought out answer. So, I'm waiting...

[Clone Sergeant]

They are going to go fucking nuts when we occupy when we actually take over an entire country and by force of all things. They will be thinking it's the crusades all over again.

What more can they do? They are already willing to strap expolsives to their body and go on Sucided attacks

We have yet to see the "smoking gun" that proves Iraq is a threat.

A repeated Demostrated Willingness to use any method nessary to win? The fact he has used WMD in the past? The Fact he has attempted to get Nukes before and is currently rebuilding sites where Nuclear Research went on, EVEN AS THE INSPECTORS ARE IN HIS COUNTRY!
The Mobile Laboritres which have yet to be visted by the Inspectors and from Blix is own admission does not plan on visiting
The Missing tonnage of WMD that where Inspected and marked for Destruction in 97
The huge Missing Tonnage of Chemical and Bio-weapon precursers(Used in Production of WMD) which were shiped to Iraq in the late 80s and never found by any Inspectors, The large Shipments of Precursers sent from Germany two years ago.
The Testing of New Long Range Missles that where better than anything he's had before and a clear Violation of the 91 Treaty that ended the War, Much like Hitlers Production of the Panzer Divisions where a clear violation of the Treaty of Verisci(sp?) which Forbid Germany from Rebuilding its Army/Navy and Air-force

What more do you want CS?

Has he actually used them against American troops or our allies? Everyone seems to underestimate Saddam's intelligence. He knows what will happen if he ever actually used those weapons against an American ally or any other nation in the region for that matter. The first gulf war taught him that. Saddam is all about survival actually using WMD against us will not do that. He knows we will turn Iraq into a parking lot if he did ever use them. Saddam can and is being contained. He has not made any aggressive moves against his neighbors since the war. With a heavy prescence of weapon inspectors and troops in the area he will not be able to ramp up production to a scale capable of being a real threat to us or his neighbors

Really guys,if the oil was in N Korea instead of Iraq the troops would be in South Korea not Kuwait and Turkey, nukes be damned.

Not often I have to say this but CS, You are a Fool, If Oil was in South Korea we would be fucked
Know why?
If we Invad, North Korea will win
Very simple thing and is very true[/quote]

At least I'm a fool who can read. I said if the oil were in NORTH Korea. Bush doesn't give a flying fuck about North Korea because it won't help him in the short term by bolstering the economy after his idiotic tax plan. Even if Kim Jong II is far more dangerous than Saddam in the long run to American interests. North Korea will in the near future have the means to attack this country and Iraq will not. Al Qaeda does not count because Saddam and Bin Laden HATE each other. One is secular the other a fundie psychopath. I feel attacking Iraq is a waste of resources better spent getting N. Korea to back down especially after Bush's moronic "axis of evil" rhetoric put them on edge them in the first place.

[The Janitor]

I live next to an Iranian guy & he doesn't give a shit what happens to Iraq. He hates the Mullah's that rule his country but he wouldn't go so far as to say they are part of an 'axis of evil' (then again Cuba is in there & no-ne but cuban refugees from Miami believe Cuba should be part of the axis).

The Iranian is studying dentistry, that's cool however involves slightly less drug abuse than i would condone in a career!

[Mr Bean]

Has he actually used them against American troops or our allies?

So you want Bodybags before you take action eh? Alright he has used them aginst his enemies, We are his biggest Enemies, simple train of logic here, Our goal is to remove him from power at the least and we don't mind if we do so by turning him into a Red Mist, We devolped a class of bombs specificily for killing him in any Bunker in Iraq
We threaten his position and we threaten his life, and you don't think he won't use them?

He has not made any aggressive moves against his neighbors since the war.

And you call devolping new Missles with much longer rangers not agressive? Pursing Nuclear Weapons as not agressive? I guess he's making them as a birthday gift for the Sultains of SA

With a heavy prescence of weapon inspectors and troops in the area he will not be able to ramp up production to a scale capable of being a real threat to us or his neighbors

There are few troops in Iraq, There are less than Fifty Inspectors in Iraq, There are quite alot around him but may I point out those folks are Reservists? We must go to war or pull them out within the next five months, Unless you want to re-enable the draft, most of our Miltary Might is Concerated around Iraq at the Moment and we can't keep in there forever(Logicitly without a huge increase in funding we can't afford to keep them there longer than a year)

The Insepctors agian are there to verify that Saddamn has Disarmed and has no WMD at all ( ) Saddam is supposed to show them where all his WMD are, they are not there to look according to Resoultion 1441
Furthermore if Saddam wants to play Hide and Go seek with the Insecptors, the frank answear is, we don't have enough of them to go around, Unless you want to pull the Inspectors out of other Countrys we monitor we have a very little pool of folks to draw from

I said if the oil were in NORTH Korea. Bush doesn't give a flying fuck about North Korea because it won't help him in the short term by bolstering the economy after his idiotic tax plan.

First how is the Tax Cut Idioitc?

North Korea will in the near future have the means to attack this country and Iraq will not

Yes and guess what? There's nothing we can do about it except Apply Internatial Pressure and hope the Starving Popluas Revolutes aginst the Goverment

Like I said, We can do nothing at all in North Korea Militarty, We will loose aginst the NK Army and we will loose badly, This rather limits your options don't you think?

[0.1]

Come on CS, don't let me down, I'm still waiting for a course of action from you. Don't disappoint me like so many others who are terrific with catch phrases, but has no substance behind anything they say other than parroting stuff they hear on TV.

I'm sure that even Bean would respect you much more if you put up something even modestly intelligent. I mean I don't want other people to label you as one of those not so rare people who shoots off his mouth and can't back it up with anything substantive other than rhetoric.

[Clone Sergeant]

Since you were so nice to open up the point, Clone Sergant, what would you do about NK and Iraq? I think that's a fair question, since you brough up this issue. Let's call you the president of the U.S. right now. What do you do?

I realize that you probably won't answer, no one else that have whined about the idea of containment has managed to define it yet or address a scenario for it. It's just a question that's ignored over and over since those who endorse containment obviously just use the catch phrase and have no idea what they're talking about. But there is always the off chance that you could have a reasonable and well thought out answer. So, I'm waiting...

Both Iraq and NK are ruled by power hungry dictators. But which of the two is a greater threat? NK has or will have the means to threaten the physical United States to attack. Iraq does not. And likely will not.

With my priorites known, actually invading NK is not a first option so i will go to the bargaining table. First, I will be in a better position to negotiate since I will not have earlier made speeches defaming the current regime as being part an axis of evil reminscent of Axis powers of the early 20th century. Even if they are part of an " axis of evil" I cannot let them know I may think that way. Instead of cutting them off from the rest of the world I would support efforts to increase trade and communication between the US, S. Korea and N. Korea. You have to give them incentive to cooperate, perhaps increased food aid and or trade. I doesn't matter how big our guns are. No nation in the world will accept being told what to do by a foreign power. You have to make them want to do what you want.

As for Iraq. Weapons inspectors and a heavy troop prescence in the region will keep him in line. You can't say it hasn't worked because he hasn't made aggressive moves since 91 against his neighbors. And even if he has the weapons he isn't dumb enough to actually use them against his neighbors. And for "freeing" the Iraqi people. If they want change they can fucking overthrow Saddam themselves. It's their country. The U.S. Military isn't a goddamned police force. When they get a revolution going we will send them support in arms and supplies. The united states should not use military power to bring about regime change(at least not overtly). It will turn us into a bully into the eyes of other nations, hurting our standing amongst them. And no nation in this world today can operate alone even us . We will eventually have to turn to our allies

[phongn]

Really guys,if the oil was in N Korea instead of Iraq the troops would be in South Korea not Kuwait and Turkey, nukes be damned.

So you're saying that we'd invade any country for their oil regardless of their military?