Real men go to Tehran

Indianfighter Iran is being increasingly viewed as a threat by other muslim states let alone Israel and America. It has been increasingly active in trying to persuade shi'ite minorities in the Gulf states to engage in subversive activities

America will probably have the tacit support of the other Arab states.

I believe the Egyptians will send some of their army to help America control the situation in Iraq in the event of an airstrike or other rapid attack.

India will probably enagage in a game of ritual hand-washing whilst Russia will try to get the best possible deal from the Americans before agreeing.

I believe any attack will happen in the next 3 months

Egyptians will send their army to Iraq???!!!

do you have any valid links for this?

I doubt Egypt would send their troops to Iraq. That can cause a huge revolt in the country since most of the public actually support the Iraqi insurgents.

PLA-MKII said:

Egyptians will send their army to Iraq???!!!

do you have any valid links for this?

Click to expand...

Here you go

from Al-Quds Al Arabi

The London-based al-Quds al-Arabi remarked that Cheney, who it said was known for his hostility toward Arabs and Muslims, came to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to use them to serve U.S. schemes on Iran's nuclear program, Iraq and regime change in Syria. The independent Palestinian-owned daily said in a front-page commentary that Cheney wanted Cairo and Riyadh to lead an Arab front criminalizing the Iranian regime. It added Saudi Arabia already began "executing these instructions" when it focused on Iran's nuclear program during the recent Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Abu Dhabi, and with Saudi calls on Iran to abandon its nuclear plants on the grounds that radiation threatens the safety of the Gulf. It predicted the Saudi role may develop in the future to actually finance military operations against Tehran. Regarding the Iraqi issue, it went on to say, Cheney was seeking from his Egyptian and Saudi allies Arab and Muslim forces to replace the U.S. and British troops and to pressure the Arab Sunnis in Iraq to participate in the political process "by force," as well as fighting the jihadis. The paper said while the two Arab countries have started working in that direction by employing the Arab League to ensure Arab Sunni participation, the next step is to prepare for an Arab-Muslim force to go into Iraq. On the Syrian-Lebanese issue, it argued, the U.S. administration clearly wants to change the regime in Syria and the first step is using Saudi and Egyptian efforts to disarm the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah group and the Palestinian refugee camps. "It is clear the Saudi leadership totally adopts the American plan against Lebanon and Syria," it opined, saying Saudi Arabia used its media to highlight the rebellion of former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam against Damascus. But Cairo seems reluctant to support the U.S. plan against Syria due to popular pressure, it said. "The American vice president wants to use the two largest Arab countries in serving America's future wars against Iran and perhaps Syria," the paper insisted

Click to expand...

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Cheney will Ask Mubarak for Egyptian Troops for Iraq: al-Zaman
Will Cairo counter Tehran?

Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney will meet Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday. Al-Zaman ("The Times of Baghdad") says that its sources in Cairo tell it that Cheney will ask that Egypt be ready to send troops to Iraq if the situation there calls for it.

There has been no official acknowledgment of any such talks on either side, so it is a little speculative. But I think the reports are at least plausible, and are worth thinking about seriously.

Iraqi politicians have repeatedly said that they might accept troops from other Muslim countries, but not from any direct neighbors. Egypt might therefore in principle be acceptable to them. The problem is that the government of Iraq is dominated by Shiites and Kurds, who are fighting Sunni Arabs. The Egyptians are Sunni Arabs, and will be suspected in Baghdad of sympathizing with the guerrilla movement. Still, if it were a matter of avoiding civil war or being taken out and shot by Zarqawi, perhaps the Shiite and Kurdish leaders could accept Egyptian troops out of desperation.

Mubarak would certainly be happy to crack down on Muslim radicals such as the Zarqawi group, just as he has virtually destroyed the al-Jihad al-Islami and the al-Gama'ah al-Islamiyah in Egypt itself.

The wording of the Al-Zaman article suggests that Cheney is angling with Mubarak for a contingency plan, in case things go very badly indeed when the US withdraws its troops. In other words, the Bush administration is going on hands and knees to Cairo because it is very, very desperate and very, very worried.

Al-Zaman says that Cheney will also talk to Saudi Arabia about the issue. Since Saudi Arabia is a neighbor, and anyway doesn't have much of an army, presumably Cheney would be asking Riyadh to fund the Egyptian/ Arab peacekeeping force in Iraq. Saudi Arabia had played a similar role in funding the Syrian peacekeepers in Lebanon in the 1970s and after.

Click to expand...

and yet more

According to the Iraqi press, Cheney was expected to broach the possibility of Egypt’s sending troops to Iraq--as a last resort--along with other units from countries in the Arab League. Cheney is expected to raise the same idea in Saudi Arabia.

The thinking is that Egypt can be drawn into a confrontation with Iran because of its close proximity and because Egypt's leaders would be happy to come down hard against any Shiite radicals working out of Iran and bent on causing trouble in Egypt. This all comes from Juan Cole, the Mideast expert who teaches at the University of Michigan and keeps a Web page.

The Iraqi government might agree to such a deal in the end run. Egypt has longstanding friendly relations with people in the Iraq guerrilla movement and might have some sway with them. In addition, helping the U.S., which gives it $2 billion in aid, would be a plus, and there is always the possibility of Egypt and the U.S. completing some sort of free-trade arrangement that would open the U.S. to Egyptian goods.

Click to expand...

Like i said something BIG is in the works

Egyptian troops, Saudi funding and Iraqi Sunni support to tie down the pro-Iranian shi'ites in Iraq during an American attack...might just work.

Free Asia great for the US if Egypt got involved military.

I have not read or your links excuse me if i re highlight any of your statements.

SO the US is planning to reoccupy Iraq, if Egypitian troops invade iraq thats what it would be seen by the Iranians. Most of the shiates incl secular shites will do the same.
Then they have to replace government with who sunnis then causing the majority resentment.
Whats next asking Saddam Hussien to come back to power. lol just joking.

This respected Pakistan academic in Britain argues for the long term for the nation to remain united if both the sunnis and shiaites united and expelled the US. if America attacks iran this might in my opinion save Iraq from being broken up, the sheer anger might re focus anger away from each other. thats my opinion, i am taking an historical prespective, in the past for a country to unite they needed a common enemy, look at the United Kingdom.

Migleader said:

do you realize the instant india becomes too powerful, the u.s will treat it like an enemy?

Click to expand...

Indianfighter said:

The largest and oldest democracies are natural allies. USA did not attack Japan or Germany. It wont do so for India.

Click to expand...

Indianfighter, even though you say many smart things, this comment is fabulously ignorant. America MUST impose its culture on the world. India definitely does not share America's culture, even though the political system is nominally the same. Look at your own avatar pic: does that look western to you?

To America, India is easily as foreign a culture as China. If America was not so threatened by China's rise, Indian civilization too would be viewed with suspicion and must be contained.

Indianfighter said:

As for Iran's request to trade oil in Euros, it has the sovereign right to do so.
It need not trade according to US consumption patterns, because the US i unlikely to be its major trading partner.

Click to expand...

But the whole point of that oil bourse article is that America would never permit this "sovereign right" as you put it. There either must be war or the imperial currency tax will collapse.

Quoted by Roger604
_________________
Indianfighter, even though you say many smart things, this comment is fabulously ignorant. America MUST impose its culture on the world. India definitely does not share America's culture, even though the political system is nominally the same. Look at your own avatar pic: does that look western to you?
_________________
White House celebrated the Hindu festival of Diwali in 2004. In acordance with Hindu custom, the White-House was decorated with lights.
Source:


Washington does not oppose Israeli rabbis, or Japanese Buddhists. It has no reason to oppose Hindu Pandits.

Quoted by Roger604:
_______________________
To America, India is easily as foreign a culture as China. If America was not so threatened by China's rise, Indian civilization too would be viewed with suspicion and must be contained.
_______________________
Its not a question of civilization, but the regime that is in power.

The day a Tiananmen Part-II brings a fully democratic, human-right adhering, free, fair government in China, Washington and the western world will cease to have any qualms with China.

Quoted by Roger604:
_______________________
But the whole point of that oil bourse article is that America would never permit this "sovereign right" as you put it. There either must be war or the imperial currency tax will collapse.
_______________________
USA cannot have a choice in permission of the "sovereign right.", because economic freedom is taken care of in the western world.

The ultimate challenges before the world today are:

0] Collapse of the Soviet Union (achieved).

1] Overthrowing Kim-Jong Il's regime in North Korea and integrating it with the democratic, capitalist South Korea.

2] Withdrawl of held teritories from Palestine by Israel, and creation of an independent Palestinian state.

3] Resolution of Chechen dispute.

4] Resolution of Taiwan dispute, with China recognizing it as a sovereign state.

5] Resolution of border disputes between India and China (granting of independence to Tibet).

6] Resolution of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

Once these issues are resolved, only capitalist forces shall be at dominance, and the market economy shall take care of "economic hegemonies", such as pegging the exchange rates to the US dollar.

The day a Tiananmen Part-II brings a fully democratic, human-right adhering, free, fair government in China, Washington and the western world will cease to have any qualms with China.

Click to expand...

I bet you're praying everyday that the CCP will collapse, huh? Well, you know what, it won't, in a foreseeable future. Reason? Chinese are more concerned with political stability and economic development than human rights and freedom right now. And incase you haven't realized, China has just recently (past 5 years or so) dropped the tax on farmers, and has began carrying out democracy in some small villages and towns with actual voting. This is a big step for CCP, if the CCP keeps on making changes like this, we'll have a free, fully democratic, human-right adhering, free, fair government in China in no time at all. So why risk thousands of lives in an attempted revolution? Sorry, but it just can't happen.

And also, to believe that if China has a free government means China will improve relations with the US, is simply false. You see, US just can't have another superpower to counterbalance her. Similar ideologies doesn't mean friendship. Remember the Sino-Soviet Split. Both were Marxist, except one was incorporated with more Russian culture in it, and one was incorporated with more Chinese culture in it. Look what happened. The US will never rest until they are sure they are the world's sole superpower. When India becomes too strong, and China becomes weak again (not in the foreseeable future), then India will become the US's enemy, because the US has no more use for India (China is weak again, presumably). Recently, the US is going around the world looking for enemies, and it only cares to make allies is to deterrent the enemies that it hasn't defeated (or can't defeat) yet. It's all about who wants to be the superpower, it's not about political systems, or culture.

The ultimate challenges before the world today are:

0] Collapse of the Soviet Union (achieved).

1] Overthrowing Kim-Jong Il's regime in North Korea and integrating it with the democratic, capitalist South Korea.

2] Withdrawl of held teritories from Palestine by Israel, and creation of an independent Palestinian state.

3] Resolution of Chechen dispute.

4] Resolution of Taiwan dispute, with China recognizing it as a sovereign state.

5] Resolution of border disputes between India and China (granting of independence to Tibet).

6] Resolution of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

Once these issues are resolved, only capitalist forces shall be at dominance, and the market economy shall take care of "economic hegemonies", such as pegging the exchange rates to the US dollar.

Click to expand...

You do realize that if you ask a typical Chinese, then the first on the list will be to get China strong again, right? The point is, it really depends on your POV.

A possible POV from a N. Korean.

0) Collapse of the US.

1) Overthrowing Japan and South Korean regimes.

2) Sure, but I guess a N. Korean couldn't care less.

3) Resolution to the Chechen issue with crushing the rebels.

4) Resolution of the Taiwan issue, as Taiwan is peacefully, or by other means, given back to China.

5) Resolution of Indian-Chinese border disputes, with all claims of land by the Chinese given back to them. Either by diplomacy or war.

6) Resolution of the Kashmir issue, with India giving back all the land Pakistan claims to be theirs.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, you don't decide world issues. You decide what you believe are world issues. As Mao said before, "You have your way of fighting wars, I have mine". So please, all of you that are partaking in this, cool down. Don't be so self-righteous.