Iran declares victory over the USA

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Usa
In summary: I'm not writing that well, but hopefully you get my point.In summary, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a warm and ceremonious welcome in Iraq, marking the first full state reception for any leader since the U.S. invasion in 2003. This visit solidifies the ties between the two neighbors, both of which have Shi'ite majorities, and is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and defiance against the United States. Ahmadinejad's motorcade also took the notoriously dangerous airport road, eschewing the usual security measure of a helicopter trip. However, the claims made by some that the U.S. is going bankrupt
  • #1
fourier jr
765
13
The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there! What could be more humiliating than this?! :rofl:

Iran leader's Iraq visit eclipses US, Arab ties

Sun Mar 2, 2008 7:08am EST
By Mohammed Abbas

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.

<snip>

Ahmadinejad's motorcade took Iraq's notoriously dangerous airport road to Talabani's palace at the start of his two-day visit, eschewing the helicopter trip usually taken by other visiting dignitaries as a security measure.

Bush's last visit in September 2007 was to a desert airbase in Anbar province in Iraq's west. He flew in unannounced to ward off insurgent attacks and the visit was over in a few hours.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL02355657
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
fourier jr said:
What could be more humiliating than this?! :rofl:

Having the guy who got us into this as President?

We will be paying the price for Bush's follies for the rest of my life, however Halliburton and its investors are doing extremely well. The people who started this war didn't lose, but America did.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
fourier jr said:
The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq
Neither of those is true.
...and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there!
We're handing Iraq over to Iranian control? Huh?

Do you have a point to discuss here, or is this just a random America-bash?
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Neither of those is true.

Explain.
 
  • #5
Well to be honest, the US economy is far from bankrupt and Iraq is far from lost. Although a win is a little but of a stretch; they certainly achieved what they set out to do, where they messed up was in the engame, ie it seems that there wasn't a plan after the war.

To be honest, I actually look at this as quite positive, Iran establishing relations with Iraq, putting aside former differences. But maybe I'm seeing the event through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.
 
  • #6
Poop-Loops said:
Explain.
Explain what?

Btw, I missed one: the title is also not true.
 
  • #7
Schrodinger's Dog said:
To be honest, I actually look at this as quite positive, Iran establishing relations with Iraq, putting aside former differences. But maybe I'm seeing the event through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.
There is an interesting possibility there, of Iran becoming friends with a pro-US government. And there is as much danger for Iran as for us. This visit was a shot in the proxy-war Iran is waging against the US in Iraq. Having a pro-US country on their border would be double-bad for Iran. Besides the physical security risk, the political risk of a functional and prosperous democracy right next door for their people to be jealous of would be very bad for Iran.
 
  • #8
fourier jr said:
The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy! & with 150000 American soldiers watching helplessly right there!
Firstly, as Russ indicated, I have not heard any claims of victory on the part of Iran.

Secondly, the US is not going bankrupt, but the $200 billion/yr for the war is a serious drain in the US treasury.

Thirdly, the US government is not handing Iraq to Iran, rather it appears that the US government is not interfering in Iraqi foreign affairs, as is appropriate. It is up to the Iraqi government to conduct its affairs, and that means establish trade and stable relationships with all its neighbors. I suspect that Iraqis will want to be Iraqis first, rather than be controlled by US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or whomever.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
There is an interesting possibility there, of Iran becoming friends with a pro-US government. And there is as much danger for Iran as for us. This visit was a shot in the proxy-war Iran is waging against the US in Iraq. Having a pro-US country on their border would be double-bad for Iran. Besides the physical security risk, the political risk of a functional and prosperous democracy right next door for their people to be jealous of would be very bad for Iran.

What about having a pro-Iran government in Iraq that the US can't do anything about?
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Explain what?

Never mind. If you can't figure that out, I think it's safe to ignore what you have to say on the issue. Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
 
  • #11
Iran and the US aren't "longtime enemies," as the article states. In fact, the youth in Iran have favorable views of the US. I'm very optimistic aobut our future relations with Iran. My views come mostly from the many, many Iranians I have met, who tend to be over-represented in the sciences (and damn good scientists, as well).

I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking. Iraq has a large ****e population; of course they can be expected to have close ties to Iran.
 
  • #12
Everything I've read/heard about Iran tells me the populace is fairly liberal. It's almost like a case of the US in the 50's, where the "adults" projected one image, but in reality most people were somewhere else.

Just another case of people in power having more say than the people who actually elected them.
 
  • #13
lisab said:
Iran and the US aren't "longtime enemies," as the article states. In fact, the youth in Iran have favorable views of the US. I'm very optimistic aobut our future relations with Iran. My views come mostly from the many, many Iranians I have met, who tend to be over-represented in the sciences (and damn good scientists, as well).

I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking. Iraq has a large ****e population; of course they can be expected to have close ties to Iran.

:rofl::rofl:

I didn't know there was a profanity filter here at PF! I didn't mean "****e," I meant Shi'ite!
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
Neither of those is true.

from the Australian:
Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'

Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | February 28, 2008

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The former World Bank vice-president yesterday said the war had, so far, cost the US something like $US3trillion ($3.3 trillion) compared with the $US50-$US60-billion predicted in 2003.

Australia also faced a real bill much greater than the $2.2billion in military spending reported last week by Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston, Professor Stiglitz said, pointing to higher oil prices and other indirect costs of the wars.

Professor Stiglitz told the Chatham House think tank in London that the Bush White House was currently estimating the cost of the war at about $US500 billion, but that figure massively understated things such as the medical and welfare costs of US military servicemen.

The war was now the second-most expensive in US history after World War II and the second-longest after Vietnam, he said.

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," he said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
fourier jr said:
The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq, and now they hand over Iraq to their sworn enemy!

Peter Wilson said:
Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'

THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

So, who doesn't know the difference between a slowdown and going bankrupt, Stiglitz, Wilson, Fourier jr, or me?
 
  • #16
THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
The sub-prime mortgage crisis had to do with sloppy and possibly illegal lending practices, and is complete independent from the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

The report in the Australian seems to be a case of sloppy journalism.

The US envolvement in Iraq is entering its 5th year and the cost is less the $1 trillion at the moment, but it certainly will increase the longer the US maintains 150,000 troops and 10's of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.


For the record, I vehemently disagree with Bush and Cheney's policies. Both have shown a callous disregard for human life.
 
  • #17
Astronuc said:
Firstly, as Russ indicated, I have not heard any claims of victory on the part of Iran.

Secondly, the US is not going bankrupt, but the $200 billion/yr for the war is a serious drain in the US treasury.

Thirdly, the US government is not handing Iraq to Iran, rather it appears that the US government is not interfering in Iraqi foreign affairs, as is appropriate. It is up to the Iraqi government to conduct its affairs, and that means establish trade and stable relationships with all its neighbors. I suspect that Iraqis will want to be Iraqis first, rather than be controlled by US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or whomever.

One should not forget that the name of the country; Iran, is derived from the term Aryan.

And that the Arabs and Persians have not been good friends for about 1500 years.

and that it's only now that it is convenient that they are both Muslim countries, and the great country to the west is apparently weakened, that they should become friends.

Now that it is known(not that it wasn't 30 years ago), that Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, one would think that there has been some poker playing going on for a while.

Unfortunately, the US populous is still intellectually ahead of the game.
 
  • #18
Astronuc said:
The sub-prime mortgage crisis had to do with sloppy and possibly illegal lending practices, and is complete independent from the Bush administration's policy in Iraq.

The report in the Australian seems to be a case of sloppy journalism.

The US envolvement in Iraq is entering its 5th year and the cost is less the $1 trillion at the moment, but it certainly will increase the longer the US maintains 150,000 troops and 10's of thousands of mercenaries in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.


For the record, I vehemently disagree with Bush and Cheney's policies. Both have shown a callous disregard for human life.

Actually, it's over a trillion dollars if you count all the "hidden" costs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
 
  • #19
OmCheeto said:
Now that it is known(not that it wasn't 30 years ago), that Iran sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, one would think that there has been some poker playing going on for a while..

I'll say: US & UK teamed up to depose the democratic government of Iran (prime minister) Because of his refusal to supply oil concessions favourable to the UK, and installed the Shah (puppet monarchic dictator/despot) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran" [Broken]. Since Iran isn't exactly poverty stricken despite our best attempts, I don't think it'll be that bothered by a prosperous democracy on its doorstep. After all at least it's government was chosen by popular consent, even if it isn't exactly a democracy.

Still the hypocrisy of the ME never ceases to amaze me. Seems to be: create the problem then go in and clean it up every time, unbefrickinglievable. Give Iran nuclear power stations (US) and enrichment technology (Europe) And then moan at it when it enriches Uranium, which it is entitled to do under the NPT, then claim its working towards/has nukes (a lie more or less as they had no idea, and CIA believes it canceled its weapons program in 2003) So now it has sanctions only for not being open about its enrichment, not for a breach of NPT. To be frank if Iran is working against the US it only has itself to blame. I give up trying to predict what rich statement is going to come from the US government next, when we getting a new president again? I wonder if Gordon Brown is going to be the same sort of toady as TB?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Poop-Loops said:
Actually, it's over a trillion dollars if you count all the "hidden" costs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7092053.stm
One of the figures in that article shows projected costs to 2017, so it's hard to discern what has been the cost with what will be the cost. I was reflecting on direct costs, so it's true that indirect costs push the overall cost above $1 trillion - most of which has yet to be paid by US taxpayers. Ostensibly, it's difficult to say what the projected costs will be because the US will presumably be an ongoing target of those who will want to retaliate for the war in Iraq.

The price of all has had an upward pressure anyway from the growth of Chinese and Indian economies (not to mention the rampant and irresponsible speculation on the oil trading markets), but the threat to Iraqi oil supply has probably put a greater pressure on the price of oil. As for lost investment, continued sanctions would have held down investment in Iraq.
 
  • #21
Ahmadinejad didn't just visit Iraq:

Iraq signs insurance MoU with Iran
MENAFN - 03/03/2008

(MENAFN) The Central Insurance of Iran and National Republic Insurance of Iraq signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in Baghdad, IRIB reported.

Under terms of the MoU, the two parties will make preparations for developing cooperation in the insurance industry.
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093187645

Ahmadinejad in Baghdad tells U.S. to quit Iraq
Mon Mar 3, 2008 3:51pm GMT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a historic visit to Baghdad on Monday to tell the United States to get out of Iraq and the region, saying its presence there had brought only destruction and division.

"We believe the powers that came over the seas traveling thousands of kilometers, these powers should leave this region and hand over the affairs to the people and governments in the region," Ahmadinejad said in translated remarks.

"People have not seen anything from the foreign presence in this region but more destruction and division," he added.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called on the United States, Iran's long-time enemy, to withdraw its more than 150,000 troops in Iraq, saying their presence is to blame for sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL13118420080303
 
Last edited:
  • #22
What better way to defeat two enemies (Iran and apparently Iraq) than to have them unite?
 
  • #23
Poop-Loops said:
What better way to defeat two enemies (Iran and apparently Iraq) than to have them unite?

I spoke too soon. It looks like there were other agreements that got signed:

Ahmadinejad ends "historic" visit, hails Iraq ties

www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-04 05:46:57

BAGHDAD, March 3 (Xinhua) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday wrapped up his two-day "historic" visit to Iraq, during which he hailed the brotherly ties with the former foe and lashed out at the United States.

The visit is part of the campaign of the Iranian president to scuttle the U.S. attempt to prevent Iran from spreading influence in Iraq and other neighboring countries.

Ahmadinejad was given a red-carpet welcome by his Iraqi counterpart Jalal Talabani.

After their talks, Ahmadinejad described his trip as a "new chapter" in the history of bilateral relations and voiced his support for "a developed, powerful and united Iraq."

Talabani, for his part, offered to expel Iranian rebels based in Iraq.

Ahmadinejad also met Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at his office in the heavily fortified Green Zone -- an area widely regarded as a major symbol of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Maliki said through the landmark visit the Iranian leader expressed "a strong desire to boost the relations and push forward common interests."

The two neighboring countries fought an eight-year bloody war in the 1980s, which cost about one million lives. After the fall of the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein toppled by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the two Shiite governments have been moving closer.

Many leading Iraqi Shiite politicians sought refuge and support from Iran during the rule of Saddam, including Maliki.

Earlier in the day, Ahmadinejad told reporters that the two sides signed seven agreements, covering areas like trade, customs and transport.

"This was a great step toward better relationship between the two countries," said Ahmadinejad, the first Iranian president to visit Iraq since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Analysts said by helping the Iraqi Shiites consolidate control, it would be easier for Tehran to keep its influence here.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/04/content_7711133.htm
xinsrc_4720305040626718238426.jpg
 
  • #24
fourier jr said:
What about having a pro-Iran government in Iraq that the US can't do anything about?
That outcome is something the US has been aware of for a long time - after all, it got most of its (mis)intelligence on Iraq from Shia exiles, many of whom had been living in Iran and developing close ties with the Ayatollah! Sadly, at the time they were so myopically focused on removing Saddam, that the necessary caution appears not to have been taken.
 
  • #25
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Still the hypocrisy of the ME never ceases to amaze me. Seems to be: create the problem then go in and clean it up every time, unbefrickinglievable. Give Iran nuclear power stations (US) and enrichment technology (Europe) And then moan at it when it enriches Uranium, which it is entitled to do under the NPT, then claim its working towards/has nukes (a lie more or less as they had no idea, and CIA believes it canceled its weapons program in 2003) So now it has sanctions only for not being open about its enrichment, not for a breach of NPT. To be frank if Iran is working against the US it only has itself to blame. I give up trying to predict what rich statement is going to come from the US government next, when we getting a new president again? I wonder if Gordon Brown is going to be the same sort of toady as TB?

The US National Intelligence Estimate stated (best guest) Iran was working on a weapon until '03. If someone knows they (the NIE) actually had 'no idea' I'd like to know how. Iran http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf", somewhat unusual in that body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
If the following is true:

The Internet has become enormously popular among the Iranian youth. Iran is now the world's fourth largest country of bloggers.

How come I've never corresponded with an Iranian?

Is the above quote a lie?
 
  • #27
Maybe they don't care much for English? My mom goes to Polish websites and forums.

You know, there ARE other languages on the internets.
 
  • #28
Yes. But I think there should be some dialogue between the US and Iran. Even if it's just two people.

Sho ma chatori! (Farsi for que pasa :wink:)
 
  • #29
OmCheeto said:
Sho ma chatori! (Farsi for que pasa :wink:)

I meant REAL languages. Not made up ones. :grumpy:

Like Klingon.
 
  • #30
fourier jr said:
What about having a pro-Iran government in Iraq that the US can't do anything about?
Dunno, what about it?
 
  • #31
Poop-Loops said:
Never mind. If you can't figure that out, I think it's safe to ignore what you have to say on the issue. Thanks for clearing that up. :smile:
The OP made simple, straightforward claims of fact that are straightforwardly wrong. But they make implications that depending on what you think is implied may or may not be true (which is soooo useful :rolleyes:). But it is tough to know since that requires some guesswork. Though if you like inuendo, that's a great post. But in any case, claims require evidence. For example, if someone claims that "Iran declares victory over the USA", the claim should include the direct quote where the Iranian leader made that declaration. This should be so obvious as to not require explanation. But sometimes...

Glad to be of service. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
lisab said:
I found the writer's tone sounded biased, even mocking.
I did also note that. There was so much wrong with the OP I wasn't sure how far we could get with a real discussion of the subject though.
 
  • #33
fourier jr said:
from the Australian:
If you have anything that directly supports your point, please do highlight it. For example, unless I missed it, the word "bankruptcy" does not appear in that article.
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
The OP made simple, straightforward claims of fact that are straightforwardly wrong. But they make implications that depending on what you think is implied may or may not be true (which is soooo useful :rolleyes:). But it is tough to know since that requires some guesswork. Though if you like inuendo, that's a great post. But in any case, claims require evidence. For example, if someone claims that "Iran declares victory over the USA", the claim should include the direct quote where the Iranian leader made that declaration. This should be so obvious as to not require explanation. But sometimes...

Glad to be of service. Good luck.

See? This is what I meant.

The OP said:

"The US is going bankrupt in order to be defeated in Iraq"

You said:

"Neither of those are true."

So I asked you to explain those things, since it seems we are going bankrupt and we are losing in Iraq. You apparently had no clue what I was talking about, so I concluded it's best to ignore you. Now you're trying to I don't even know what, since nothing I said ever pertained to the title of this thread, only a single sentence you replied to, which you still haven't addressed.
 
  • #35
mheslep said:
The US National Intelligence Estimate stated (best guest) Iran was working on a weapon until '03. If someone knows they (the NIE) actually had 'no idea' I'd like to know how. Iran http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf", somewhat unusual in that body.

Er no, any country is allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT, provided it is for non weaponry purposes. Iran is the only country that is exempt from this, it has it's own NPT, and this is not because it is enriching, it's more to do with political maneuvering.

Now I say Iran should be open about it's enrichment thus ending the need for it to be sanctioned. But to be frank with the politics that is around now, only non-enrichment would ensure this, despite this not being a part of the NPT treaty, albeit a sticking point. Obviously at one point, when German et al engineers and technicians gave them the technology to enrich Uranium, it was ok for them to do so, now for some reason I'm not quite sure about, it isn't. If they were working towards nukes, it seems that the US has gone an arse about face way of achieving sanctions, albeit deserved but for the wrong reasons.

It is fairly sanctioned but not for breaches of the NPT as regards enrichment, it is sanctioned because of it's desire to do so in a less than open manner. That is its only breach of said treaty, if you don't believe me I suggest you read the terms of the treaty to which Iran was a signatory.

It's a little bit more than just it's lack of opacity. But the effect is much the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What does it mean for Iran to declare victory over the USA?</h2><p>Iran declaring victory over the USA means that they believe they have achieved their goals and have come out on top in a conflict or dispute with the United States.</p><h2>2. What led to Iran declaring victory over the USA?</h2><p>The specific circumstances that led to Iran declaring victory over the USA may vary, but it could be the result of a military conflict, diplomatic negotiations, or other actions taken by both countries.</p><h2>3. Is Iran's declaration of victory over the USA legitimate?</h2><p>The legitimacy of Iran's declaration of victory over the USA can be debated and may depend on one's perspective. It is important to consider both sides of the conflict and the evidence supporting Iran's claim of victory.</p><h2>4. How does the USA respond to Iran's declaration of victory?</h2><p>The response of the USA to Iran's declaration of victory may vary depending on the situation. It could involve diplomatic efforts to address the conflict, military actions, or other forms of response.</p><h2>5. What are the potential consequences of Iran declaring victory over the USA?</h2><p>The potential consequences of Iran declaring victory over the USA could include further tensions between the two countries, changes in diplomatic relations, and potential impacts on global politics and security.</p>

1. What does it mean for Iran to declare victory over the USA?

Iran declaring victory over the USA means that they believe they have achieved their goals and have come out on top in a conflict or dispute with the United States.

2. What led to Iran declaring victory over the USA?

The specific circumstances that led to Iran declaring victory over the USA may vary, but it could be the result of a military conflict, diplomatic negotiations, or other actions taken by both countries.

3. Is Iran's declaration of victory over the USA legitimate?

The legitimacy of Iran's declaration of victory over the USA can be debated and may depend on one's perspective. It is important to consider both sides of the conflict and the evidence supporting Iran's claim of victory.

4. How does the USA respond to Iran's declaration of victory?

The response of the USA to Iran's declaration of victory may vary depending on the situation. It could involve diplomatic efforts to address the conflict, military actions, or other forms of response.

5. What are the potential consequences of Iran declaring victory over the USA?

The potential consequences of Iran declaring victory over the USA could include further tensions between the two countries, changes in diplomatic relations, and potential impacts on global politics and security.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top