Did the invasion of Iraq benefit Iran?

[KillerPollo]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

The new Iraqi government is very friendly to Iran. Hardly a threat.

Hardly a thread but still a nuisance. kind of like the fly around your head who won't go away.

[phk]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

Threats don't sign defense pacts with you.

[John Dibble]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

Threats don't sign defense pacts with you.

Ever heard the saying "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies even closer"? Not saying that's the situation, as I don't know enough to make a real judgement, but signing a treaty or pact of some sort is a good way to diminish the level of threat another country poses. I'd say Iraq doesn't want to be threatened by Iran, and visa versa, so a defense pact would help ease tensions on both sides.

[The Duke]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

The new Iraqi government is very friendly to Iran. Hardly a threat.

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border
2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

Threats don't sign defense pacts with you.

Two words, rocket: "Molotov-Ribbentrop"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

The new Iraqi government is very friendly to Iran. Hardly a threat.

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border
2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

It has replaced one threat to Iran with another.  Whether one is greater than the other is yet to be determined.

Threats don't sign defense pacts with you.

Two words, rocket: "Molotov-Ribbentrop"

1. They're busy getting shot at- in Iraq
2. Iran has more democracy than some of their neighbors.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border

Which are tied down in Iraq with the insurgency, are not much threat to the larger Iranian army, and won't be staying much longer as it would be political suicide.

2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

How does democracy "spread"? Is a dictatorship going to change just because a neighboring country turns democratic? Hmm yes, North Korea and Burma have improved so much since their neighbors went democratic and Zimbabwe has been so affected by Botswana and South Africa. Oh wait...

The only Middle Eastern country to become more democratic since then is Lebanon, which happened for completely unrelated reasons, and in a country that was a democracy previously anyway.

[The Duke]

The threats are:

1. 140,000 US troops on their border

Which are tied down in Iraq with the insurgency, are not much threat to the larger Iranian army, and won't be staying much longer as it would be political suicide.

2. Democracy, which has already started spreading in the region

How does democracy "spread"? Is a dictatorship going to change just because a neighboring country turns democratic? Hmm yes, North Korea and Burma have improved so much since their neighbors went democratic and Zimbabwe has been so affected by Botswana and South Africa. Oh wait...

The only Middle Eastern country to become more democratic since then is Lebanon, which happened for completely unrelated reasons, and in a country that was a democracy previously anyway.

Lebanon's cedar revolution, Saudi local elections, Egyptian Presidential elections...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lebanon's cedar revolution

As mentioned, happened for completely unrelated reasons.

Saudi local elections

which are even less democratic than Iran's.

Egyptian Presidential elections...

which is still mostly a joke, much like Iran's elections.

Plus none of those were related to Iraq anyway. Saudi Arabia and Egypt know the US will never invade them, they obviously didn't think that they better make some joke reforms to give semblence of democracy or they'd be invaded. I don't see any effects from Iraq at all.

[The Duke]

Lebanon's cedar revolution

As mentioned, happened for completely unrelated reasons.

Saudi local elections

which are even less democratic than Iran's.

Egyptian Presidential elections...

which is still mostly a joke, much like Iran's elections.

Plus none of those were related to Iraq anyway. Saudi Arabia and Egypt know the US will never invade them, they obviously didn't think that they better make some joke reforms to give semblence of democracy or they'd be invaded. I don't see any effects from Iraq at all.

I know you don't believe the argument that when Arabs see voting in Iraq, they will demand it in their own countries and those governments will have to relent.  I'm going to restate that argument anyway.

Lebanon is, therefore, related to Iraq.

I disagree that Iran's elections are any more democratic than Saudi or Egypt's.

Whether they are more or less democratic than Iran's elections is irrelevant to whether the catalyst was the invasion of Iraq.

[phk]

Lebanon's cedar revolution

As mentioned, happened for completely unrelated reasons.

Saudi local elections

which are even less democratic than Iran's.

Egyptian Presidential elections...

which is still mostly a joke, much like Iran's elections.

Plus none of those were related to Iraq anyway. Saudi Arabia and Egypt know the US will never invade them, they obviously didn't think that they better make some joke reforms to give semblence of democracy or they'd be invaded. I don't see any effects from Iraq at all.

I know you don't believe the argument that when Arabs see voting in Iraq, they will demand it in their own countries and those governments will have to relent.  I'm going to restate that argument anyway.

Lebanon is, therefore, related to Iraq.

I disagree that Iran's elections are any more democratic than Saudi or Egypt's.

Whether they are more or less democratic than Iran's elections is irrelevant to whether the catalyst was the invasion of Iraq.

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Dominoe theories are always bullsh**t.

[WMS]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

[phk]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

[WMS]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

Bzzt, you totally missed the point. India is so worried about China getting influence in Burma that they compete with them in 'who can kiss up to the military regime more', Malaysia gets a hard-on every time they 'defy the West' and thus support the military regime, Thailand is too busy making money off of corrupt deals with the military regime, Bangladesh is too weak and unstable to even protect their fellow co-religionists in Burma, and all the other neighbors are as bad (Maldives, Laos). Maybe if there was someone there actually trying to topple the domino it would happen, but as long as good old left-leaning India plays the 'we don't care what your internal government is' game, not a lot can be done there.

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

[phk]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lebanon's cedar revolution

As mentioned, happened for completely unrelated reasons.

Saudi local elections

which are even less democratic than Iran's.

Egyptian Presidential elections...

which is still mostly a joke, much like Iran's elections.

Plus none of those were related to Iraq anyway. Saudi Arabia and Egypt know the US will never invade them, they obviously didn't think that they better make some joke reforms to give semblence of democracy or they'd be invaded. I don't see any effects from Iraq at all.

I know you don't believe the argument that when Arabs see voting in Iraq, they will demand it in their own countries and those governments will have to relent.  I'm going to restate that argument anyway.

Lebanon is, therefore, related to Iraq.

I disagree that Iran's elections are any more democratic than Saudi or Egypt's.

Whether they are more or less democratic than Iran's elections is irrelevant to whether the catalyst was the invasion of Iraq.

Voting in Iraq assasinated Rafik Hariri?

Aside from that, Lebanon had previously been a democracy, and still had somewhat fair elections up until then, just as fair as you could get in a country under military occupation by a foreign power. Kind of like Iraq. Lebanon had a "democracy" similar to what is currently in Iraq, and yet we're expected to believe they wanted a better one and a occupying foreign power to leave because of Iraq and not because of the assasination of an opposition leader. Uh huh.

And to argue there is no way the Cedar Revolution could've possibly happened without Iraq is just asinine.

As for Iran being more democratic than Saudi Arabia or Egypt, women can vote in Iran, and it's possible for the opposition not supported by the establishment to win as the last election proved (scary as that guy who won is.) Yet how much did Mukabarak win by again? Not to mention the regimes in both countries were very stable and there was no threat of them falling if they didn't toss in some joke reforms that absolutely no one in the countries would've demanded without Iraq.

[The Duke]

Ah, but in Iran, the women can only vote for the government that has no power.  It is a ruse, and no surprise that you bought the ruse hook line and sinker.

[J. J.]

Considering that the situation for the Iranian government changed from a regime headed by Saddam Hussein that was weak and rotting from within, to being flanked on two sides by the 'Great Satan' itself -the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not believe that they considered themselves to have benefited all that much from our ouster of Saddam Hussein -at least not initially.   

Fools like you have missed out on the fact that Chalabi is an Iranian spy. Someone should arrest him when he's in DC.

I disagree with Frodo's answer, but what does Chalabi have to do with the question?

The war was given to us by Iranian spies.

And what does that have to do with the question?

If those that provided us the intel were working for Iran, it was obviously in Iranian interests to send us into Iraq.

They outsourced thier dirty work to us.

It was Khomeini's dream in the 1980s to have Saddam overthrown and have people like Sadr, Sistani, Chalabi, Jaafari in power.

Iran is pointing an extremely powerful Shiite dagger at its Sunni neighbors now.

And again I ask, how is any relationship between Iran and Chalabi involved in Iran's comfort level.  I can understand why Iran would make Hussein "go away," but what does Chalabi have to do with it?  We wanted Hussein to "go away" as well; so what if the interests of Iran and US converge in this situation?

Well apparantly, I like to be comfortable with the people whose paycheck I'm handing out.

This sort of functions like a two-way transmission belt, relaying bogus "intelligence" on Iraq's alleged WMD to the White House and also mining U.S. secrets and passing them on to their foreign sponsors.

If you remember fraud, last year, Chalabi's generous subsidy from the U.S. government was abruptly halted.

Not only that, but his Iraqi headquarters was raided by U.S. plainclothes agents acting in concert with Iraqi government soldiers. It was alleged that the Iraqi exile leader and his group had betrayed their American patrons by supplying Tehran with vital U.S. secrets. According to several news outlets, the charge was that Chalabi had revealed to the Iranians that we had broken their internal code. 

Iran obviously has more to gain from removing Saddam and getting a pro-Iran government elected than what we do.

Conservatives obviously never give anybody this special sort of victim status to anyone besides well.. Nazis.

I'd love to see you answer the question that complain about Chalabi.  That is obviously too much to ask.

[WMS]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

And as I explained Burma doesn't work to make your case either. Try somewhere else and go argue with John Ford some more.

[The Duke]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

And as I explained Burma doesn't work to make your case either. Try somewhere else and go argue with John Ford some more.

He just doesn't understand that a government's ability to suppress democratic movements does not mean that democratic movements are not widely supported.

[WMS]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

And as I explained Burma doesn't work to make your case either. Try somewhere else and go argue with John Ford some more.

He just doesn't understand that a government's ability to suppress democratic movements does not mean that democratic movements are not widely supported.

Good point.

[phk]

You don't see the Burmese clamoring for 'democracy' when the largest 'democracy' is right next door.

Bzzt, you lose. Since 1988 they've been 'clamoring for democracy' in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi's led it, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Bzzt, you lose. Aung San Suu Kyi has nothing to do with India.

You know 'domino theories'?

You said the Burmese weren't clamoring for democracy when they clearly are, it's just that outside influences keep the regime in power.

I didn't say they were clamoring for democracy because of India, thier neighbor being one.

I was talking about 'domino theories', where democracy/communism et cetera placed in one country will cause countries around it to go that way; it doesn't work that way.

And as I explained Burma doesn't work to make your case either. Try somewhere else and go argue with John Ford some more.

He just doesn't understand that a government's ability to suppress democratic movements does not mean that democratic movements are not widely supported.

Yet you don't understand that democracy in one country is going to trigger bringing it to another.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, but in Iran, the women can only vote for the government that has no power.  It is a ruse, and no surprise that you bought the ruse hook line and sinker.

Just like the elected government in Saudi Arabia hs no power either.

Explain how Togo is still an autocratic regime when it's between two of the most democratic countries in Africa (Ghana and Benin). That has had no effect on it at all.