Right, Putin was fairly elected, just like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Russia is our friend, just like Iran is.
Posted on 09/11/2006 3:11:30 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The United States contends that Iran's intention is to acquire nuclear weapons, and that Russia has been secretly providing a boost to Iran's nuclear-arms program.
"Even though the ostensible purpose of Russian assistance to Iran's nuclear infrastructure is for civilian applications, we assess that such support enhances Tehran's ability to support a nuclear weapons development effort," CIA analysts wrote in an unclassified report to Congress in 2002. ...
"Russia says: 'Do not expect us to follow your line; we'll be part of the transatlantic community when it suits us.' It's the new Russia foreign policy," said Sarah Mendelson, an expert on Russia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "They are increasingly unreliable."
Russia's stake in Iran is not limited to commercial interests, noted Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.
"Russia believes Iran will be the most important and influential country in the gulf region, (and) it wants good relations with such a country," Einhorn said. If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, he said, "surely Russia would prefer to be a friend of a nuclear-armed Iran."
The Carnegie Endowment's Perkovich pointed to another aspect influencing Russia's reluctance to support the U.S. push to stop Iran's nuclear program: Moscow enjoys America's discomfort.
"They look at the United States, they say, 'They're arrogant, we call them a hegemonic power, and the one real problem to them is nuclear proliferation. And if we solve nuclear proliferation for them, they will enjoy their hegemony over the entire world,' " Perkovich said.
Instead, blocking Washington's effort on Iran is "a great way for the Russians to tweak the Bush administration at a time when they are much weaker than during the Cold War," said Roby Barrett, an expert on Iran and nuclear proliferation at the Middle East Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Right, Putin was fairly elected, just like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Russia is our friend, just like Iran is.
Please, powers that be, get the message. Iran is Russia's puppet; "Islamofascists" are just their "go to guys."
Are you suggesting that Putin was not? Then who would win in the honest elections? Zyuganov? Khodorkovsky? Yavlinsky?
I am curious what is your opinion. And whom would you want?
I think that when push comes to shove Russia is in fact our friend. I think this because Putin is not stupid, and he knows that Communism can co-exist with Capitalism, but nothing can co-exist with Iranian style Islam.
And this is a big mistake. Shia Islam as history proves is not expansive. To a large extent this is a branch of Islam more or less located there where the Persians are. Shia Islam is more open to learning and much more stable than Sunnis, especially Wahabis.
Christian Armenians were neighbors of Persians for millenias, before Islam and later. They got wiped out by Westernized Sunni Turks.
Americans can afford wishful thinking and willful indifference to the differences within Islam, since they are separated by the oceans. Russians cannot afford such luxury as they have to live next to this area.
Sure, the Ayatollahs are the "good" muslims. They promote "learning and stability." All their dhimmis are treated with the greatest tolerance and mercy.
The fighting with Shiites took place when Israeli troops entered souther Lebanon. The last time and years before when the Hezbollah came into existence.
If you reject my claim that Shia Islam was not engaged in significant conquests, PROVE it. It is so easy to find historical facts and falsify my claim. I challenge you!
Sure, the Ayatollahs are the "good" muslims. They promote "learning and stability."
Ayatollahs are usually older people who advanced slowly through the Shia hierarchy and system of learning (which includes elements of philosophy and general knowledge. They are more like Catholic cardinals - by nature they will tend to be more stable and conservative. Wahabis are more like Puritan Congregationalists where the most zealous young men can become leaders.
All their dhimmis are treated with the greatest tolerance and mercy.
There are churches open in Iran, in Syria and in Lebanon. There are ZERO churches in your beloved Saudi Arabia and almost none in Turkey. It would be interesting to do such test: you go to Saudi Arabia and display the Cross and New Testament in public. Then you will have idea if all Muslim countries are the same.
Historically, maybe, but when Putin is offered the Koran, his choices will be either to submit to Islam or side with Western civilization. I'm betting that he, or any future Russian president, will chose the latter. Islam cannot co-exist, not only with non-Muslims, but not even among its own sects.
Not maybe.
but when Putin is offered the Koran, his choices will be either to submit to Islam or side with Western civilization. I'm betting that he, or any future Russian president, will chose the latter.
Of course, but it is Sunni radicals, especially Wahabis who offer such "choice" to the world.
Islam cannot co-exist, not only with non-Muslims, but not even among its own sects.
Islam is as diverse as Christianity. Even within English/American Protestantism you have revolutionaries like Cromwell Puritans who attempted to extirpate Catholic Irish and pacifist Quakers.
Shi'a Islam is as dangerous to Infidels as Sunni Islam. The belief that it is not is simply one more mechanism for holding out hope that it's not Islam, it's just this brand of Islam, which can be "extremist" or "radical" Islam (carefully undefined) or "Wahhabi" Islam or "Wahhabi Salafist" Islam, or "islamofascism" --just season to taste. But Infidels show up on that list of Unclean Things that Shi'a clerics keep. Khomeini and his successors, and assorted ayatollahs and hojatols, are not fans of Infidels. How could they be? Sunni and Shi'a alike read the same Qur'an, with the same bloodcurdling passages. They read (largely) the same Hadith and take as their model the same Muhammad, his life spelled out in the same Sira. Their paths diverged in 661 A.D., after Muhammad had been dead for nearly 30 years. The fury, the rage, the persecution, the warfare -- all that is based on Ali and Hussein, and a whole subsequent mythology, or theology, that has nothing to do with a lessening of hatred for Infidels. - Jihad Watch
The Safavid dynasty of Shiite Islam conquered not only Iran and Turkey, but Christian Georgia as well.
Under Shah Abbas I (1588-1626 C.E.), the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy of Iran expanded its earlier system of slave razzias into the Christian Georgian and Armenian areas of the Caucasus. Georgian, Armenian, and Circassian inhabitants of the Caucasus were enslaved in large numbers, and converted, thereby, to Shi’a Islam. The males were made to serve as (primarily) military or administrative slaves, while the females were forced into harems. - LINK
Then there were the Cult of the Assassins, of the Shi'ite Ismaili sect, but they were probably good guys too, right?
Conquered Turkey? You exagerate. Shia Persians did control little of the land today in Turkey (around Kurdistan) but it is not much different from what Persians had long before Islam.
Compare Safavid Shia Persia in 1512
With Sassanid Persia in 610AD (just before coming of Islam)
This is about Islamofascism, not Persia. The US supported Persia before the Ayatollahs and we shall support the Persian people after they have been liberated from the evil islamic theocracy of the ayatollah fanatics. The fact is that Shiite Islam's history is just as bloody and expansive as Sunni Islam's. The Ayatollahs' are the foremost promoters of Islamic Jihad in the world today. Their "revolutionary" form of mohammedan theocracy is the very essence of political Islamism and has replaced Marxism as the main doctrine of anti-western hate.
You oversimplify. Persia never ceased to exist and clearly the Islam in Persia took different form than in Arab/Sunni lands.
Also, US supported the Shah, not Persia. Probably if Mossadeq were not replaced by Shah, the ayatollahs would not be be propelled into power.
By the way, Russia signed a treaty with Georgia in 1783, but the Russians couldn't be bothered to hold up their end of the bargain when the Shiite jihadists invaded the Christian nation of Georgia in 1795. I guess the Russians made up for it though by simply conquering and annexing Georgia themselves in the 1800's.
More "why do they hate us" crap. Mossadeq was put into power by the Shah in the first place. Where is your preference for monarchy now? All of sudden you prefer democrats to monarchs.
I guess in 1795 Russian were too busy with taking Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania from Poland. Then came the war with Napoleon etc ... Tiny and remote Georgia had to wait :)
Americans mostly have no understanding of local politics of other countries. (And vice versa.)
Islamofascists and Communists.... Two peas in a pod...
If the Chinese Communists are offered the Koran, the same thing would result.
.jpg)
To be added or removed from this list, please Freepmail me!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.