Iraq Helping Iran Avoid Sanctions

[howardroark]

Saddam would have never done this. This is the result of our own interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-iraq-helping-iran-get-around-economic-sanctions/

Iraq has been helping Iran skirt economic sanctions put in place because of its nuclear program, using a “network of financial institutions and oil-smuggling operations” to keep money flowing, according to a report in the New York Times.

In some cases, Iraqi officials turn a blind eye to trade with Iran, while some in the government — including those close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — actually profited from it, the Times reported. In one instance, Iraq permitted the Iranians to use Iraqi airspace to get supplies to Syria. After President Barack Obama called al-Maliki to complain, the Iranians flew a different route.

“Maliki’s government is right in the middle of this,” one former senior American intelligence official told the Times.

Read more: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-iraq-helping-iran-get-around-economic-sanctions/

[tu_holmes]

Yes... Iraq was a fuckup... I think most people know that.

I remember saying back when they went in that the people there NEED a Saddam and we are MUCH better for it.

Everyone said it was stupid to go into Iraq and a very small group of Hawks didn't give a shit and had the power to make it happen. Possibly the worst Presidential decision in the past 30 years to be honest.

[Fury]

Yes... Iraq was a fuckup... I think most people know that.

I remember saying back when they went in that the people there NEED a Saddam and we are MUCH better for it.

Everyone said it was stupid to go into Iraq and a very small group of Hawks didn't give a shit and had the power to make it happen. Possibly the worst Presidential decision in the past 30 years to be honest.

Muslim-dominated countries in general need Saddams. The only thing those people listen to is violence and brute force.

Sharia Law is incompatible with democracy.

[tu_holmes]

Muslim-dominated countries in general need Saddams. The only thing those people listen to is violence and brute force.

Sharia Law is incompatible with democracy.

100 percent correct!

If we had a Saddam in Iraq, Iran, Egypt... While those individual people may be "oppressed", the world as a whole would be a much better place.

Some people can't handle democracy.

[Kazan]

Middle East alliances go to the guy willing to pay the most.

[240 is Back]

why the heck are we still there? 

sadaam dead.  no WMD.   it's a civil war with a few outbursts.  Once we leave, the police will settle the bad guys down with way more brutality than we can.

[a_ahmed]

100 percent correct!

If we had a Saddam in Iraq, Iran, Egypt... While those individual people may be "oppressed", the world as a whole would be a much better place.

Some people can't handle democracy.

Oh really?

For your information these secular dictators opposed islam and muslims, opposed shari'ah. We muslims support it, you know nothing of it.

So the world would be a better place if a part of the world larger than the west is oppressed? Great logic.

And who brought about this oppression? You did? Who brought about these wars? You did and you are?

Iran? 1953? Iraq-Iran war? Who put saddam in power? Who destroyed iraq? Who destroyed Libya? Who destroyed afghanistan (russia and US) who is destroying Syria? Who is supporting the genocide of palestinians?

Maybe if for once you did not promote falsehood, oppression, injustice and widespread corruption the world would have peace. Until then you are the handy work of satan, you are doing the handy work of satan. You call yourself peacemakers when you are the ones border line starting world war 3. You are deaf, dumb and blind.

It's only 'democracy' when you impose puppets and bomb countries. But when the people chose for themselves, thrive and grow it is not democracy because you are afraid to lose the worldly status and power that you sinisterly hold even if it means the death of millions for you to achieve your goals.

And yes, there has been more than a million people that have died thanks to your meddling and warfare, countless countries destroyed in just the last ten years. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, now Syria, you are HOPING to fight Iran, the whole of the muslim world.

WHen the muslims stand up, you try to step on them and bomb them. You say that muslims only understand violence? What a sick demented mind you are. IT seems you are the one that DESIRES war and destruction upon mankind not the other way around. You are the true terrorist, terrorizing the world. From as little as kicking down doors while innoscent people sleep in their own homes in their OWN LAND to dropping your MOAB for fun and show.

You are SICK and demented and it will be your own downfall, you will have the whole of mankind against YOU, not the muslims or Islam, even though you spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in the media to slandering Islam and Muslims. You are the ultimate loser.

Shame on you for everything, especially for the death, destruction and corruption you cause!

[tu_holmes]

Actually. I know exactly what I said.

Look around that area now and tell me that Saddam was worse?

Bullshit.

They did oppose the Muslim faith and to be honest the lives of people around the world were better for it.

I would think this exact same thing if it were the Carholic faith running things. That's why the Spanish Inquisition occurred. Any government who has its faith as its central figure and not the will of the people will always be worse.

The Tsars of Russia. The Prussian and Ottoman Empires. All ruled by "divine right".

Complete crocks of shit.

[Kazan]

^
The civilized world has moved on

[tu_holmes]

even though you spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in the media to slandering Islam and Muslims. You are the ultimate loser.

Shame on you for everything, especially for the death, destruction and corruption you cause!

This is the part I like... Either the left wing media is excusing the Muslims or it's not... Apparently there is some disagreement over which direction these billions and billions of dollars are getting spent.

Oh... and I think the US propped up many a Muslim leader right up until the Muslim leaders started bombing people for no reason.

Shame on the United States... SHAME on the western world for opening it's borders to ALL faiths only to have that hospitality met with suicide bombers and death.

[syntaxmachine]

100 percent correct!

If we had a Saddam in Iraq, Iran, Egypt... While those individual people may be "oppressed", the world as a whole would be a much better place.

Some people can't handle democracy.

I think this view is wrongheaded from a purely pragmatic point if view (in other words, it is wrong even if we put moral considerations on ice). Saddam consistently launched aggressive wars on his neighbors, threatened the continued flow of oil by mining the Gulf and attacking neutral shipping, harbored terrorists, and used WMD on civilian populations. Nobody would be better off if the entire Middle East were like this.

[tu_holmes]

Your view is wrongheaded from a purely pragmatic point if view (in other words, it is wrong even if we put moral considerations on ice). Saddam consistently launched aggressive wars on his neighbors, threatened the continued flow of oil by mining the Gulf and attacking neutral shipping, harbored terrorists, and used WMD on civilian populations. Nobody would be better off if the entire Middle East were like this.

I am not saying it's the best answer for anything, but you have to admit that the area certainly isn't BETTER without Saddam.

[syntaxmachine]

I am not saying it's the best answer for anything, but you have to admit that the area certainly isn't BETTER without Saddam.

What precisely is it you think is worse than before?

I think the current situation is better for U.S. security interests because the invasion was a non-proliferation success and established a friendly government. I think the global economy is better off because there is no longer a psycho's regime atop all that oil. The Iraqi people are probably better off as well, because despite all the death far less have died this decade than the last several, and because now they at least have a chance at forging a better future than would have been possible under Saddam.

Also, I think it is fair to say that even if the situation isn't better than it was when Saddam was in power, nonetheless it is better than it would have been had he stayed in power. In other words, regardless of how those 23 years of Saddam's rule were for the region, the current situation is preferable to an alternate future where the world had to endure his hijinks for another 20+ years, after which he would hand off power to a son for more of the same.

[tu_holmes]

What precisely is it you think is worse than before?

I think the current situation is better for U.S. security interests because the invasion was a non-proliferation success and established a friendly government. I think the global economy is better off because there is no longer a psycho's regime atop all that oil. The Iraqi people are probably better off as well, because despite all the death far less have died this decade than the last several, and because now they at least have a chance at forging a better future than would have been possible under Saddam.

Also, I think it is fair to say that even if the situation isn't better than it was when Saddam was in power, nonetheless it is better than it would have been had he stayed in power. In other words, regardless of how those 23 years of Saddam's rule were for the region, the current situation is preferable to an alternate future where the world had to endure his hijinks for another 20+ years, after which he would hand off power to a son for more of the same.

I disagree... Iraq always kept Iran at bay in the area. Saddam curbed Muslim extremism.

There's hijinks and shenanigans and there's out and out evil.

Saddam was no fool... The only reason why he was on the US's bad side was because of the attack on Kuwait... We couldn't let that happen.

Notice how Libya had a nice dictator and now it's got the Muslim Brotherhood? Same in Egypt... Each of these countries is fundamentally worse for the safety and security of the world than they were under their dictators.

[240 is Back]

Saddam was no fool... The only reason why he was on the US's bad side was because of the attack on Kuwait... We couldn't let that happen.

It appears we gave them permission to invade - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts

[a_ahmed]

"Nice dictator" who the fuck are you to talk about the rest of the world. I lived in Libya although I was a christian at the time. Libya was a beautiful country but Gadaffi was no saint.

You Americans are such hypocrites... thats why the world doesnt give a rat's ass about you nor do you have ANY credibility left. You're no better than the nazis, its your way or no way.

[tu_holmes]

"Nice dictator" who the fuck are you to talk about the rest of the world. I lived in Libya although I was a christian at the time. Libya was a beautiful country but Gadaffi was no saint.

You Americans are such hypocrites... thats why the world doesnt give a rat's ass about you nor do you have ANY credibility left. You're no better than the nazis, its your way or no way.

What the fuck are you talking about?  I don't give a rats ass about the rest of the world, so the feeling is mutual there.

I don't want us involved in ANYTHING outside of the USA period. I would have left Saddam alone, I'd leave North Korea alone, I'd fucking leave Iran alone too.

And I'd sit back and say, "If you do anything to harm anyone in the United States or it's allies, I'll wipe you off the face of the earth. You will be a footnote in a history book."

That's it... You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone... END OF STORY.

But really... the Muslim extremists don't want that. They want a reason to be angry... They want a reason to hurt people... All so they can claim it's because of the evil west.

You think if the US brought EVERY troop home from that area that all of a sudden there would be nothing but peace?

Bullshit.

Go spit that ignorance to someone who hasn't lived as long as I have... There's a couple of 10 year olds around who might believe it.

Oh... and obviously I didn't mean fucking Gaddafi was a nice person... It was just a phrase.

[syntaxmachine]

I disagree... Iraq always kept Iran at bay in the area.

Notice how Libya had a nice dictator and now it's got the Muslim Brotherhood? Same in Egypt... Each of these countries is fundamentally worse for the safety and security of the world than they were under their dictators.

1. Iran's current regime hasn't launched a single war nor supported a single terrorist act against the homeland; what is there to "balance" against? Plus, due to their size and privileged geographic position they are a natural regional power. You can't balance against such natural tendencies forever -- and it is very costly to try.

2. What exactly is worse about the situations in Libya and Egypt? I am open-minded about the matter but I think specific examples of how things have gotten worse -- and are liable to get worse still -- would be helpful. It seems to me it is too early to tell. And, even if things are worse in these cases, this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether the situation in Iraq has also worsened since Saddam's fall.

[tu_holmes]

1. Iran's current regime hasn't launched a single war nor supported a single terrorist act against the homeland; what is there to "balance" against? Plus, due to their size and privileged geographic position they are a natural regional power. You can't balance against such natural tendencies forever -- and it is very costly to try.

2. What exactly is worse about the situations in Libya and Egypt? I am open-minded about the matter but I think specific examples of how things have gotten worse -- and are liable to get worse still -- would be helpful. It seems to me it is too early to tell. And, even if things are worse in these cases, this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether the situation in Iraq has also worsened since Saddam's fall.

1. They actively support Hezbollah who actively attack Israel.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood has had their candidates win elections in both Libya and Egypt... That will not be a positive. Also, I do understand that the US had very minimal involvement there, but yet we seem to be involved somehow to both the minds of some people in the US and the south east asian community as well.

[syntaxmachine]

1. They actively support Hezbollah who actively attack Israel.

Well, it is debatable whether Israel's security is essential to our own. I'd say 'not' since, in a counterfactual scenario where Israel never existed or otherwise ceased to exist, the American homeland would be just as safe.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood has had their candidates win elections in both Libya and Egypt... That will not be a positive. Also, I do understand that the US had very minimal involvement there, but yet we seem to be involved somehow to both the minds of some people in the US and the south east asian community as well.

It is possible to work with Islamists, as our extensive cooperation with the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia makes all to clear. Plus, I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood has done anything adverse to American security interests thus far. We'll just have to wait and see.

[a_ahmed]

lol so its not democracy when muslims vote for muslims.

FUnny.. you guys are a bunch of slime balls. The US will crumble soon enough and it will not be because of them evil mozzlemz but because of your own idiotic hopeless mendling in the world's affairs while your country crumbles and sinks deeper and deeper. You are falling for the traps of the elites who actually want the US to crumble, the US economic failure is organized and planned. You're just frickin pawns. What pisses me off is how you damage the world and kill millions and get away with it. By God, everyone will have their justice if not in this world in the next for all the actions that have been done by ppl and to ppl.

[tu_holmes]

lol so its not democracy when muslims vote for muslims.

FUnny.. you guys are a bunch of slime balls. The US will crumble soon enough and it will not be because of them evil mozzlemz but because of your own idiotic hopeless mendling in the world's affairs while your country crumbles and sinks deeper and deeper. You are falling for the traps of the elites who actually want the US to crumble, the US economic failure is organized and planned. You're just frickin pawns. What pisses me off is how you damage the world and kill millions and get away with it. By God, everyone will have their justice if not in this world in the next for all the actions that have been done by ppl and to ppl.

Nobody said it wasn't democracy... Obviously it is.

However, if that democracy means to do harm to the US or it's allies, it will be dealt with.

There is no next world, so you can go ahead and keep talking that nonsense ALLLLL day long... There are plenty of people who believe there is, but I sure ain't one of them.

[a_ahmed]

And you ask why you are hated? Look what you say.

You deserve not a bit of remorse for anything that happens to you. If you go there to kill muslims, even christians who are arabs, if you do, good for you you will die and rot in hell for it. I feel no remorse for what you say. And if you're a chicken hawk who talks tough about a nation thousands of miles away, you're just as pathetic.

America has no credibility and is no different than the once nazi nation of germany.

[tu_holmes]

And you ask why you are hated? Look what you say.

You deserve not a bit of remorse for anything that happens to you. If you go there to kill muslims, even christians who are arabs, if you do, good for you you will die and rot in hell for it. I feel no remorse for what you say. And if you're a chicken hawk who talks tough about a nation thousands of miles away, you're just as pathetic.

America has no credibility and is no different than the once nazi nation of germany.

What did I say?

You obviously do not read very well... As I said and HAVE ALWAYS said... I would pull every single troop back to the US out of that area and I would simply say to the entire world... I have no desire to be involved in your problems... but if you attack the US or it's allies, you are done.

How is that hawkish? I have NO desire to be in that area of the world... or anywhere else in the world that is not the US.

So what the fuck are you talking about?

Let me guess... you are somehow determining that because I do not give a shit about that desert that I want to destroy people?

I do not... I was against going to Iraq 100%... Ask anyone.

If you think I'm some kind of hawk, then it shows how delusional you are... Plus, you don't comprehend English very well.