Welcome to PatsFans.com

Republican legacy: Iran will become a superpower

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    I've been saying for years that the dishonest war Bush launched on Iraq only accomplished one thing: Took out Iran's biggest enemy, allowing Iran to build up its own military force and consolidate its political power. Now that we're leaving Iraq, which is the only sane choice, the evidence of Iran's growing influence is increasing. Iran's ascendency is a direct result of Republican policy. Sure, the Dems could have stood up to the Republicans, but the fact is the Republicans structured the game so that opposing military interventionism was opposing the troops, a piece of nonsense only the liberals dared to challenge. ... at least the Iranian government is socially conservative (anti-abortion and anti-gay)--that should cheer some people up.

    Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Immunity Issue Scuttled Deal, Says Iraq PM

    Washington has long worried that Iranian meddling in Iraq could inflame Sunni tensions with Iraq's Shiite-led government and set off a chain reaction of violence and disputes across the Mideast.

    In an interview released Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Tehran has "a very good relationship" with Iraq's government, and that this relationship will continue to grow.

    "We have deepened our ties day by day," Ahmadinejad said in an interview broadcast Saturday with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.

    Turkey Looks to Iran for Support in Crackdown on Kurdish Rebels | Europe | English

    Iran's foreign minister visited Turkey Friday as Turkish armed forces continue their military incursion against the Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, in northern Iraq, after the rebels killed 24 Turkish soldiers Wednesday. Ankara is looking for support from its neighbors, but regional tensions are complicating Turkey's battle against the Kurdish militants.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi’s visit to Ankara comes as Turkish armed forces continue their offensive against the PKK in neighboring northern Iraq. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in a press conference with his Iranian counterpart, said the two countries have agreed to collaborate in fighting the PKK and its Iranian wing, the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan, or PJAK.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2011
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    145
    Ratings:
    +307 / 4 / -2

    First and foremost, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

    When politicians vote yes for something, agree with, or support a policy or action, it is on them. Not the other party. When a politician lacks principles, and votes for what he or she percieves to be the better politics of the day, they have no one to blame but themselves. True leadership means sticking to your core principles and convictions, even when they aren't popular. That's a simple fact of life.


    Iran will never be a superpower. Ever.


    So I take it you prefer that we invade Iran and topple its government since it's such a danger? Maybe you would have supported an invasion of Iran instead of Iraq at the time? I didn't think so.


    The intent in Iraq, or the main reason for toppling Saddam post 9/11, was geopolitical change in the middle east. For decades the powers that be knew that was the best way to alter the existing landscape of the region. Whether you and I, or anyone else agrees with that policy, or thinking, is a separate issue. In undertaking regime change in Iraq, the powers that be hoped to spur a desire by the people in the surrounding nations for a freely elected, democratic system for themselves. Whether or not the recent citizen, or rebel uprisings in places like Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, etc. or the violent anti government protests in Syria, Iran and assorted other countries in the middle east have been emboldened by what's gone on in Iraq is arguable at the very least. Only time will tell whether or not the current movement to topple government from within is a net positive, or a net negative. One thing I will say, is that if Syria falls, Iran won't be too far behind it.
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,853
    Likes Received:
    84
    Ratings:
    +188 / 3 / -10

    I don't Patters realizes that no country can become a super power without our permission.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    They're on track. Their influence is expanding rapidly. As long as they don't stir up trouble, it will be difficult to justify an attack against them. The hope is that there's still enough democracy in place that a more liberal government will eventually get in, but I'm not optimistic.

    Check your history. Iraq under Saddam was a strong enemy of Iran, and there was a mutually debilitating balance of power. We should not have invaded Iraq, and certainly not Iran. Our best hope in the region now is that they economically develop and thus become more liberal. As people feel safer, they tend to get more liberal. Perhaps you'll experience that someday yourself.

    That's awfully sweet, but a bit naive. I think the intent was to protect our oil supply. I do not think we are particularly enthusiatic about democracy in that part of the world. Look at the Republican reaction to the Arab Spring. They are clearly unnerved by the possibility of democracy, given the strong resentment against the US and the power of religious conservatives in the electorate. Let's not forget that the current regime in Iran was democratically elected through a system that was considered reasonably fair. But, nonetheless, I think it's cute that you see Bush's aim as sort of a liberal do-gooder aim.

    I hope your charming idealism is correct. But, of course, Syria is Baathist, and really has nothing at all to do with Iran. Iran would not care if Syria fell, since Syria is not a natural ally. Now that we defeated Iraq, Syria is the last of the fairly secular regimes in the ME.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2011
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,853
    Likes Received:
    84
    Ratings:
    +188 / 3 / -10

    Again, you have nothing to worry about since no country can become a super-power without our consent. See India & Pakistan.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,008
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +187 / 7 / -23

    Does China have our consent???

    Did Russia have our consent???
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,630
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Well if OWS doesn't work out perhaps attacking Iran will be something to help the re election campaign.
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Sadly, that is how politics works, but frankly Obama's moderate positions give him only a tenuous hold on the left and the right wouldn't like him unless he starved the poor, imprisoned the Hispanic population, give women who have abortions life imprisonment, and bombed China.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,630
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13


    The right would be happy if enforced immigration laws and stopped the funding of killing babies in the womb, got rid of Obama care and balanced the budget.

    Following Bush's foreign policy isn't enough.
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,998
    Likes Received:
    283
    Ratings:
    +566 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Obama turtled on the base issue ... too bad really. As for patters initial reason for the thread i agree ... It is natural really the Iraq would join hands with Iran based on common interests - how could the Bush people not see this?
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +329 / 6 / -8

    Because we were going to be all like greeted as liberators shawww.
  12. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,333
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +120 / 0 / -4

    #75 Jersey

    Iran will be a nuclear power for sure, but a superpower? Pshaw.
  13. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,398
    Likes Received:
    248
    Ratings:
    +352 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    Gosh....whatever happened to "jobs, jobs, jobs?"

    Or isn't that the right's main objective anymore?

    (Not that I ever believed it was.)
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,008
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +187 / 7 / -23

    Because they chose not to see this.. they were completely focused on the whole Axis of Evil thing.. they did not account for much of anything else.
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,008
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +187 / 7 / -23

    Guessed you missed the headline that illegal immigration is down, deportations are up.. despite many immigration judgeships being vacant, the Republicans have prohibited many judges from being appointed. Imagine if the US was dealing with a full compliment of justices to expedite these matters???

    All of this despite the message that Reagan sent to Mexico, that is was ok to immigrate here as we will give you amnesty....

    Despite the silence of illegal immigration when Bush 1, Clinton and Bush II were presidents, because cheap labor was good for the economy then..

    More right wing talking points that mean absolutely nothing..

    BTW the right so loves babies, but they do not love babies when the grow up to be soldiers.. then they become fodder for the neo cons, life is situationally cheap in the neo con world.
  16. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Patters, a couple of observations an this loosely ties to my post in the "All troops out by Dec 31 thread".

    1. While it was clearly a R president in power when our country invaded Iraq, the way our political system works is that the power lies in the Senate and HoR. With that being the case, I think your thread should be more accurately titled "US As***le Politican's Legacy..." as clearly the vote in the congress crossed party lines in support.

    The vote was 77-23 in the Senate for going to war and and 296-133 in the HoR.

    In my world, a world that views our modern day pols as nothing more than shills for their corporate backers, I call a spade a spade, and thus the "legacy" belongs to those who voted for it, D and R.

    2. What would be the better situation from your POV? Did you think Saddam was a person worthy of leaving in his position as head of Iraq? It seems his actions through the years clashed with the values of yourself, and most sane human beings for that matter.

    Should he still be in office? Would he be if we hadn't taken him out; would the Arab Spring had flowed to Iraq as it did to many other countries in the area? Who knows. What we do know is we did invade; for whatever the hell the reasons were, and we took him out. By doing that, yes you could argue that it created a relationship with a country, that absent of Saddam being gone, would have never happened. TO say that because of that, now Iran is or will become a superpower is laughable at best.

    A superpower is defined at Wikipedia as "A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a great power."

    Beyond maybe a few of its close neighbors, who will Iran be projecting power on to? From my chair they cant even project power over the entirety of their own country and people.

    Superpowers generally have aspects of their countries which put them above others in the "superpower" scale. Generally these are made up of Political, Geographic, Cultural, Military, Economic and Demographic traits. Beyond maybe Geographic, what does Iran really have going for it that would allow it to become this "Superpower"?

    I don't see many countries saying to themselves "damn, if we could only be like Iran we would be ok".

    In closing, we can certainly discuss the pros and cons of how we are leaving Iraq, and if the way we are leaving it may add to Iran's influence in Iraq and the area, but your OP is disingenuous and or hyperbole IMHO.
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Drewski, the war was orchestrated by Bush using lies and misinformation. If indeed there had been solid evidence that Saddam had WMDs and if containment truly was a failure, the case for war would have been stronger. But, if you think back to the time, the evidence of nuclear material being smuggled into Iraq was based on badly forged documents and a lot of the evidence came from Iraqi groups that had an economic interest in overthrowing Saddam, i.e., those who lost property under Saddam. Bush and the Republicans led the war efforts. The Democrats don't have a lot to be proud of, but the responsibility clearly rested with White House and its allies. To the extent there was opposition to the war, it was mostly by liberal Democrats.

    As far as Saddam goes, he was a threat to the west primarily because he was a Baathist. Prior to the first war on Iraq, Iraq was probably the most secular, advanced, and egalitarian of the Middle Eastern states (other than Israel). It had by and large equality for women, had a very good educational system, and had perhaps the best health system in the ME. It also had a thriving economy. (That's not to say that Saddam was a good man, but for most of the population life was not that bad.)

    But, Baathists believed in a greater ME (one big powerful state) and favored socialism. The west historically has always sought to break up their enemies into small powerless states. That's why Germany was first to embrace the war when Yugoslavia broke up. That's why when the French left Morocco they recognized Mauritania and provided aid to the Western Sahara. While I can understand the reasoning of the west, the reality is that people only become more civilized as their nations do well and a healthy middle class develops. (Think about our country, where so much of the anger comes from the poor and struggling middle class, not those of us who live in relative economic comfort.)

    We should have continued containment with Saddam, while working towards helping his economy heal without allowing him to build up his military. Their oil resources would have allowed this. Eventually, if Iraq's middle class returned to his pre 1990 state, Saddam's grip on power would have weakened, and besides he was already getting up there in years.

    But, war sets people back. When people are scared, they turn to God, they give their government carte blanche (Wasn't Bush's approval rating like 90% after 9/11?), and they become angry. The war on Iraq was unnecessary, and I think in the long run the Iraqi people will not look favorably upon the US. There were too many women and children who died, too many jobs lost, too few jobs, and the victimization of minorities seems to be continuing unabated.

    If Iran manages to do enough to prevent the Christian nations from rationalizing war on them, then Iran will succeed in wielding more and more influence. Their influence in ME has grown significantly since we defeated Saddam, and now our ally Turkey is turning on Israel and embracing Iran to some degree. No doubt, Iran is a difficult nation, and the best hope is that they are still democratic enough to elect someone better than the current crew of leaders. I do wonder about the so called plot in the US. To me it seems like nonsense that a country like Iran wouldn't bother with, but that enemies of Iran might try to use in the same way they used lies against Saddam.

    Will Iran become a superpower? Not anytime soon. But, of the countries in that part of the world, it is fairly well positioned, given it's ability to negotiate between Chechnya and Russia, it's improving ties with Turkey, it's oil wealth, it's strong educational system, the large number of Muslims in several European countries, its current military strength, and the implications of such a war (if not strongly justified) on our relations with other Muslim countries around the world. A war on Iran would probably be very difficult.

    Just because I have to say it or the righties will take what I wrote out of context. Iran and Saddam's Iraq were awful nations, and the defeat of those nations would not be a loss for civilization. But, sadly, what you leave behind in defeating a nation does not guarantee peace in the future. In fact, if we sabre rattle against Iran, we will likely push Iraq into Iran's camp more quickly.

    Last edited: Oct 23, 2011
  18. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +42 / 0 / -1

    No Jersey Selected

    Patters, Im not arguing for the war. It was based on lies, or at the very least crap intelligence that was cherry picked to "prove" a thought process. The point to my post was A, there were Democrats, including a majority in the Senate (29-21 in favor) who voted to go to war. Was it driven by Rs, sure, I didnt state other wise. But those 29 D Senators have to "own" this one too. B, you said Iran would become a superpower. That wont happen, period. Not because we wont let them (which if it came down to it we wouldnt) , but to become a superpower, a country has to have a "brand" it can sell to its own people and to the world at large. Iran, outside of oil and a great history (Persia) has next to nothing to sell to anyone. Will us leaving Iraq in the way we are going to make it better for Iran to influence Iraq (with Saddam gone)? For sure it will, we removed the only true obstacle that existed. But to say they will all the sudden become a superpower and that is the Rs fault is crap plain and simple.
  19. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,761
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    We agree. I said as much, but to the extent you had serious opposition to the war it came from liberals, and the driving force behind the war were Republicans. The sad thing in this country is that when a president goes to war (and this happened under Clinton too), the Congress feels compelled to support that effort lest they be accused by the right-wing of being unpatriotic.

    I never said Iran will "suddenly" become a superpower, but they are a highly educated, well organized nation, with a strong military and a lot of native scientists. By taking Iraq out, we have allowed them to focus on their military development rather than on a dangerous Iraq that was constantly threatening them.

    They are far from becoming a superpower, but are one of the major powers in the world by some counts:

    Global Firepower - 2011 World Military Strength Ranking

    As they continue to build strategic alliances and the demand for oil increases, their power is likely to continue to grow.

    The reason we are apparently leaving Iraq is because Iraq won't give our troops immunity if they are charged with certain kinds of crimes that could arise if troops are put in harm's way. No doubt, Iraq's refusal to do that is a sign of Iran's growing influence in Iraq.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>