Iraq vs. Iran what's this about?

[misskitty]

Iraq ad Iran are neighbors. Yet they seem to truly dispise one another. What is this hatred based on? Why are they so passionate about it? What started it?

~Kitty

 

[pattylou]

You'll learn tons about this at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Here's just a small sample:

"Although the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 was a war over dominance of the Persian Gulf region, the roots of the war go back many centuries. There has always been rivalry between various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and Persia (Iran).

More precisely, the origins of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 go back to the question of sovereignty over the resource-rich province of Khuzestan. Khuzestan, home to Iran's Elamite Empire, was an independent non-Semitic speaking kingdom whose capital was Susa. Khuzestan has, however, been attacked and occupied by various kingdoms of Mesopotamia (the precursors of modern Iraq) many times."

... and it continues with much more detail.

I really encourage you to check the link. Wikipedia does a great job linking all the sources of information within the articles - you'll surf around at the site and in fifteen minutes know more than you ever though possible about the area.

 

[SOS2008]

Perhaps an even more interesting question would be what is the relationship now, and what will it be going forward?

 

[misskitty]

Do you think they have cooled off enough to be civilized with one another? Also, has there been anything in the news about how Iraq feels about the Iranians having nuclear materials?

~Kitty

 

[Lisa!]

What has happened recently that you say "Iraq vs. Iran"?

 

[misskitty]

Its not really so much as reently happened. I was thinking about the Iraq/Iran war in the 80's and I remember something a history teacher of mine had said that it traces back much further than the 1980's. In attempting to think of a title for my thread I just put Iraq vs Iran. I don't know much about it other than they aren't fond of one another and they've been arguing on and off over the years.

~Kitty

 

[Lisa!]

They're not fond of one another because it's dangerous for US and countries which support US. You can study more about middle-east history and then you'll see most of wars and problems happen there. And if you study a lot you'll find out US and other powerful countres have never a nutral role in these war. They always support 1 of the side which were involved in the war.
Anyway you can't say there must be some problems btw them yet because we have lots of other examples that 2 countries were each other enemies but now everything has finished.

 

[misskitty]

They were feuding well before the U.S. and other world countries came into the picture. As Pattylou said earlier, they were fighting back into Mesopotamian times. That is well before our history. I was wondering why they have been arguing and fighting for so long. I doubt their feud from that time has anything to do with the U.S.

~Kitty

 

[edward]

Iran Saddam trial

Watch out for this one. The USA encouraged Saddam to use chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 1980's war.

The first chemical Saddam used was a concentrated pesticide (methylisocyanide). It was manufactured in Bophal India at a plant owned by Union Carbide. [It will be difficuult if not impossibe to find a link to this as it happened so long ago.] Other chemical agents were soon to follow.
And the purchase of the chemicals by Iraq was accomplished through loans guaranteed by the USA.

The latest news is that when Saddam goes on trial for war crimes, Iran wants the USA to be charged as an accomplice.

 

[solutions in a box]

Watch out for this one. The USA encouraged Saddam to use chemical weapons against the Iranians during the 1980's war.

The first chemical Saddam used was a concentrated pesticide (methylisocyanide). It was manufactured in Bophal India at a plant owned by Union Carbide. [It will be difficuult if not impossibe to find a link to this as it happened so long ago.] Other chemical agents were soon to follow.
And the purchase of the chemicals by Iraq was accomplished through loans guaranteed by the USA

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/February95/94.txt.html

The link above is very interesting. It is from the U.S. Department of justice and appears to be ordering the U.S. Department of commerce to repay loans that Iraq has defaulted on.

The American taxpayers are picking up the tab as usual.

 

[solutions in a box]

"The Commerce Department approved at least $1.5 billion in exports with possible military applications from U.S. companies to Iraq, and the Agriculture Department administered a U.S.-goverment-guaranteed loan program that provided billions to Iraq. Thanks largely to the first George Bush, American taxpayers unwittingly co-signed for much of the loan money, and the government had to make good on these loans when Iraq later defaulted. Almost all of the transactions were legal under U.S. and international law at the time, even when the transactions either had direct military or dual-use (civilian and military) applications. Over and over again, the deals were encouraged and even abetted by the U.S. government, even after American officials had proof that Iraq was using chemical weapons to kill Iranian troops and subdue Kurdish uprisings. In fact, the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration even provided Hussein's regime with militar y intelligence during his bloody eight-year war with Iran."

This link supports the total loans. I would imagine most people know about this one.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps an even more interesting question would be what is the relationship now, and what will it be going forward?

Good point. Especially since the most popular and influential man in Iraq right now, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is an Iranian.

 

[edward]

Whatever happens you can bet your boots the U.S. taxpayers will pay for it.

 

[arildno]

It's effective for any type of dictatorship to have an external enemy (preferably a neighbour) who everyone agree is a lot worse than the brutal leaders in their own country.
It stabilizes a dictatorship internally.

 

[Smurf]

I think the current Iraqi government tactics are quite clever. Since Iran is getting nuclear weapons Iraq has to be friendly with the US, so they'll protect them. But instead, they're using the US's current occupation to move away from the US and snuggle up to Iran, so that when the US does pull out, they won't need them anymore because they would have, hopefully, been on friendly terms with Iran for a while.

This allows them to move away from the states, and take care of themselves. Quite clever since the US is stuck there no matter what for the time being.

 

[Art]

I think the current Iraqi government tactics are quite clever. Since Iran is getting nuclear weapons Iraq has to be friendly with the US, so they'll protect them. But instead, they're using the US's current occupation to move away from the US and snuggle up to Iran, so that when the US does pull out, they won't need them anymore because they would have, hopefully, been on friendly terms with Iran for a while.

This allows them to move away from the states, and take care of themselves. Quite clever since the US is stuck there no matter what for the time being.

Iran and Iraq are both comprised mainly of shi'ite muslims as opposed to most of the middle east which are Sunni. Now the Shi'ites are in charge in Iraq (following the overthrow of the Ba'athist Sunni gov't) it seems perfectly natural that they would have close ties with Iran. I'm surprised the American gov't didn't forsee this very dangerous (for them) eventuality when they put together their plans to remove Sadam from power??

This rivalry / hatred between the Sunnis and Shi'ites is also why the foreign insurgents are targeting the Shi'ite civilian population.

 

[Smurf]

Iran and Iraq are both comprised mainly of shi'ite muslims as opposed to most of the middle east which are Sunni. Now the Shi'ites are in charge in Iraq (following the overthrow of the Ba'athist Sunni gov't) it seems perfectly natural that they would have close ties with Iran. I'm surprised the American gov't didn't forsee this very dangerous (for them) eventuality when they put together their plans to remove Sadam from power??

It does seem quite silly that they wouldn't predict that. It's kind of funny, you know, that the Media was protraying the Sunni's as the bad guys and Shi'ites as good guys for so long, and not it looks like the US is really starting to claw at Iran. Goes to show the US really doesn't care about the history and ethnics of the area, it's all politics.

This rivalry / hatred between the Sunnis and Shi'ites is also why the foreign insurgents are targeting the Shi'ite civilian population.

I don't know about that, have there been any reports that it's mainly shi'ites (as in, not just proportional to the population numbers/density in hot areas) being killed and mainly sunni's are insurgents (I would think that, aside from those fanatical groups like Zarqawi, that it wouldn't really be a huge difference)

 

[Art]

I don't know about that, have there been any reports that it's mainly shi'ites (as in, not just proportional to the population numbers/density in hot areas) being killed and mainly sunni's are insurgents (I would think that, aside from those fanatical groups like Zarqawi, that it wouldn't really be a huge difference)

Zarqawi is the main leader of the foreign insurgents. In his statements he refers to the Shi'ites as something less than human which should be exterminated. Many of the attacks on civilians have been carried out by his followers against Shi'ite mosques.

Here is a good article detailing the current US / Iraq / Iran state of affairs;

The Iranian nightmare
By Michael Schwartz

In 1998, neo-conservative theorist Robert Kagan enunciated what would become a foundational belief of Bush administration policy. He asserted, "A successful intervention in Iraq would revolutionize the strategic situation in the Middle East, in ways both tangible and intangible, and all to the benefit of American interests."

Now, over two years after Baghdad fell and the American occupation of Iraq began, Kagan's prediction appears to have been fulfilled - in reverse. The chief beneficiary of the occupation and the chaos it produced has not been the Bush administration, but Iran, the most populous and powerful member of the "axis of evil" and the chief American competitor for dominance in the oil-rich region. As diplomatic historian Gabriel Kolko commented, "By destroying a united Iraq under [Saddam] Hussein ... the US removed the main barrier to Iran's eventual triumph."

The rest of this piece is at http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH11Ak01.html

 

[edward]

I don't see how either the Iranians or the Iraqis could ever trust the United States. In the 1980's Iran Iraq war, The U.S. government was selling arms to Iran , (despite an embargo) while loaning money to Iraq so they could buy weapons.

I am sure that they haven't forgotten this.

 

[Lisa!]

They were feuding well before the U.S. and other world countries came into the picture. As Pattylou said earlier, they were fighting back into Mesopotamian times. That is well before our history. I was wondering why they have been arguing and fighting for so long. I doubt their feud from that time has anything to do with the U.S.

~Kitty

You're talking about that time? It's not strange because every king's wanted to develope his country at that time like other countries. And you know Iraqis are Arab but Iranian aren't. And perhaps it caused some problems for them. It's strange if you think they'res till fighting because they were fighting 200 years ago.

 

[The Smoking Man]

There are a couple of things that are sort of 'bothersome' about this thread:

One thing is the projection of nationalistic tendancies onto the middle eastern people.

They are not divided in the same way we are.

They divide on religious grounds and have little, if any, afiliation to their country of origin.

The other is not so much this thread but what has happened within the news.

Two months ago, if you had done (and I did) a search on the words Iran and Iraq, you would have received dozens of news items related to the fact that Iraq had been in heavy negotiations with Iran, that the Iraqi Foreign Minister had made multiple diplomatic visits, that Iraq had entered into talks to limit terrorism with the aid of Iran and about another dozen stories.

What I see now is, more or less, 'the big lie' taking shape.

Almost every story is about bombs and arms arriving from Iran.

So ... like what happened to the good relations that were brewing between the two countries?

I think I'll go and check Al Jazeera and see if there isn't something that is missing from this story.

 

[Lisa!]

Smurf, what are you saying is really strange since Iran isn't allowed to do uraniom enrichment. Iraq government is close to US because they have the power in Iraq. They didn't take the power from Sadam to leave it to Iraqi and they leave Iraq. I don't know why US do nothing about India, Pakistan and Israel. And more strange is that nobody says nothing about US' nuclear weapons since they use theses weapons in every war. Don't forget that it was US to use them in world war II. Anyway I think theses weapons are dangerous and no country should be allowed to have them esp. those countries who interferes to other countries.

Iran and Iraq are both comprised mainly of shi'ite muslims as opposed to most of the middle east which are Sunni. Now the Shi'ites are in charge in Iraq (following the overthrow of the Ba'athist Sunni gov't) it seems perfectly natural that they would have close ties with Iran. I'm surprised the American gov't didn't forsee this very dangerous (for them) eventuality when they put together their plans to remove Sadam from power??

This rivalry / hatred between the Sunnis and Shi'ites is also why the foreign insurgents are targeting the Shi'ite civilian population.

I don't think the hatred btw them would be true yet since all muslim are in trouble after sep. 11th.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think I'll go and check Al Jazeera and see if there isn't something that is missing from this story.

Well, that's interesting.

While you have been waffling over Iran, Pakistan just successfully test fired it's first nuclear cruise missile.

You remember Pakistan, don't you? ... American ally and home of the guy who supplied Korea, Libya and half the other rogue nations in the middle east with the instructions and materials to make nukes!? You know ... the one who was pardoned the day after he admitted it!?

You know ... the country Bin Laden is living in.

You know ... Where the Taliban originated!

Get the feeling bush is saying 'look over here ... the light is better!'

If this was a Twilight Zone, I'd swear the Pakistanis would have a book that said ... To Serve Americans.

 

[Lisa!]

Well, that's interesting.

While you have been waffling over Iran, Pakistan just successfully test fired it's first nuclear cruise missile.

You remember Pakistan, don't you? ... American ally and home of the guy who supplied Korea, Libya and half the other rogue nations in the middle east with the instructions and materials to make nukes!? You know ... the one who was pardoned the day after he admitted it!?

You know ... the country Bin Laden is living in.

You know ... Where the Taliban originated!

Get the feeling bush is saying 'look over here ... the light is better!'

Interesting. So nuclear weapons and Bin Laden aren't bad if you have a good relationship with US!

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, that's interesting.

While you have been waffling over Iran, Pakistan just successfully test fired it's first nuclear cruise missile.

You remember Pakistan, don't you? ... American ally and home of the guy who supplied Korea, Libya and half the other rogue nations in the middle east with the instructions and materials to make nukes!? You know ... the one who was pardoned the day after he admitted it!?

You know ... the country Bin Laden is living in.

You know ... Where the Taliban originated!

Get the feeling bush is saying 'look over here ... the light is better!'

If this was a Twilight Zone, I'd swear the Pakistanis would have a book that said ... To Serve Americans.

No no no.

The problem is bombs and explosives being smuggled into Iraq from Iran. And...uh...Oh yea, the Iranians will have nukes in the next decade, and everyone knows that the Ayatolahs want to nuke the west!

And Saddam didn't smuggle his WMD into Syria, he must have smuggled them into Iran! It must be so. Bush will spend a couple hundred billion dollars and thousands of American soldiers lives to prove it.

 

[outsider]

I know guns and nukes and bombs are fun... i was once a kid too... but i know they are dangerous...

I would not own a gun unless I felt threatened.

My friend's gun may relieve me of having to have my own gun (just like powertools). I just have to stay friends with him and lend him my powertools, I guess.

So technically, he who has the gun has the power... with great power comes great responsibility... when you abuse your powers, people talk revolution... there's a fine line between love and hate. (i'm getting sick of these cliches too)

There has yet to be proof of WMD anywhere in Iraq. But they have friends nonetheless, and so the burden of proof is upon the Bush Admin. (I will stop saying America as America has little to do with what is happening over there.)

Anyone who has been involved with the police will know that the police should not act unless they have substantial proof or evidence of a crime. One cannot shoot unless a weapon is drawn. O well, I guess that's how the law works in Texas...

 

[Smurf]

Interesting. So nuclear weapons and Bin Laden aren't bad if you have a good relationship with US!

No Nuclear weapons arn't bad if you have them. It's only when you're in the process of trying to get them that they're bad. Otherwise the US would be twice as bad as second place on account of how many they have.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No Nuclear weapons arn't bad if you have them. It's only when you're in the process of trying to get them that they're bad. Otherwise the US would be twice as bad as second place on account of how many they have.

This is why most countries try to keep it a secret until they actually have a warhead.

When you have a warhead you stop being a target and become a 'negotiator'.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Perhaps the administration will try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear ambitions, by giving them conventional arms. Maybe appease them with a couple of thousand of missiles and rockets and stuff - all secretly, of course. And use the profits to fund mercenaries to terrorize* Venezuela and overthrow Hugo Chavez. They still got Powell and Poindexter and the whole crew, so why not?

*we'll call them "freedom fighters"

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, what are you saying is really strange since Iran isn't allowed to do uraniom enrichment. Iraq government is close to US because they have the power in Iraq. They didn't take the power from Sadam to leave it to Iraqi and they leave Iraq.

It seems to me that the iraqi government wants the USA out as much as the terrorists, but the Iraqi government knows that without the US they would probably be toppled within a week. It's a matter of necessity, and really the USA can't do much about it short of declaring war on the new *democratic* iraqi government they started. Once Iraq decides they don't need the states any more they're going to kick them out.

I don't know why US do nothing about India, Pakistan and Israel.

Two thins.
1. India has nukes, Pakistan has nukes and Israel is their *****.
2. .. What do you expect them to do exactly?

And more strange is that nobody says nothing about US' nuclear weapons since they use theses weapons in every war.

Every war? You mean depleted uranium? There's a thread on that somewhere, you should read up on it.

Don't forget that it was US to use them in world war II. Anyway I think theses weapons are dangerous and no country should be allowed to have them esp. those countries who interferes to other countries.

Hey, you're not getting any argument from me.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Perhaps the administration will try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear ambitions, by giving them conventional arms. Maybe appease them with a couple of thousand of missiles and rockets and stuff - all secretly, of course. And use the profits to fund mercenaries to terrorize* Venezuela and overthrow Hugo Chavez. They still got Powell and Poindexter and the whole crew, so why not?

*we'll call them "freedom fighters"

Here's a thought.

Kidnap Blair, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and stage a 'Xander Zone' drop into Venezuela wearing only a thong and a hunting knife.

Then transmit the location via Al Jazeera.

If you think about this, it actually solves quite a few problems.

 

[Smurf]

Then transmit the location via Al Jazeera

So the US army can go pick them up?

 

[The Smoking Man]

So the US army can go pick them up?

You mean those 150,000 pissed off guys in Iraq?

What are the chances?

(Besides, they can't even find a 6'6" Saudi called Bin Laden.

 

[Lisa!]

Please, clear upsth for me: who said Iran was trying to get Nuclear weapons? Bush or his friends who started a war against Iraq because he said there were Nucklear weapons in Iraq?
Anyway, I'm tired of seeing theses titles "X vs. Y".

No Nuclear weapons arn't bad if you have them. It's only when you're in the process of trying to get them that they're bad. Otherwise the US would be twice as bad as second place on account of how many they have.

Are you kidding?

 

[Smurf]

Well, it's a nice thought, but really TSM, they would have choppers in their picking them up in on time! (then again... if we're going to be realistic I guess we never would've dropped them there at all would we?)