Iran and Syria in secret conference

Sirotnikov · March 16, 2003, 19:51

I've just read that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad has unexpectedly landed in Tehran and since then is in a closed-doors meeting with the Iranian government.

What issues are they going over?
Probably:

Possible scenarios and outcomes of war.
Effects of war on ME power balance.
What to do with Hezballah regarding Israel (Hezballah again began firing anti-aircraft and anti-tank shells on Israeli cities).

And possibly how to use Hezballah against the US (Hezballah promised to avenge the war against american interests)
(Saddam said the same)

SlowwHand · March 16, 2003, 19:53

Piss-poor secret meeting, if you know of it, Siro.

Felch · March 16, 2003, 20:35

Israeli intelligence is rather good.

MRT144 · March 16, 2003, 20:37

DAMNIT, SLOW BEAT ME TO IT!

DuncanK · March 16, 2003, 20:43

I guess that don't want anyone to know about it because they really are the Axis of Evil

laurentius · March 16, 2003, 20:54

http://www.saunalahti.fi/sakarit/ker...a/fd55a35d.gif

Brtndr4u · March 16, 2003, 23:59

They are terrified of Democracy in the Middle East.A successful democracy in Iraq will have a domino effect on its neighbors,espically if Iraq comes out prospering and advancing as a people.It will show the rest of the Islamic countrys how to throw off ruling parties,Royal Familys and dictatorships.
They(Syria & Iran) know the MiddleEast is set to implode upon itself very soon and are weighing the possibilities of convincing the US & British of a joint transition effort without exporting democracy to Iraq's neighbors.Otherwise they will be on the outside of influence in the ME.

Kyle · March 16, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

And possibly how to use Hezballah against the US (Hezballah promised to avenge the war against american interests)
(Saddam said the same)

Some such news network did an interview with the founder/leader of Hezbollah, and he was back tracking about his US comments. Seemed a bit scared about being called on those statements on an American network.

ahenobarb · March 17, 2003, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Brtndr4u
They are terrified of Democracy in the Middle East.A successful democracy in Iraq will have a domino effect on its neighbors,espically if Iraq comes out prospering and advancing as a people.It will show the rest of the Islamic countrys how to throw off ruling parties,Royal Familys and dictatorships.
They(Syria & Iran) know the MiddleEast is set to implode upon itself very soon and are weighing the possibilities of convincing the US & British of a joint transition effort without exporting democracy to Iraq's neighbors.Otherwise they will be on the outside of influence in the ME.

You're right on target there! If I were the Syrians, I wouldn't worry too much about anything the Iranian govt. had to say, they're gonna be the first out of there. The Iranian people have turned into major democrats over the last 20 years. They've had enough of Clerical repression. Given a choice between Sharia and freedom, people choose freedom everytime.

Also, look at the language of Iranian dissent, it's always counched interms of democracy. If you're looking for democratic ripe fruit in the Middle East, Iran is it.

The problem in the middle east is oil. All you have to do is pump it out of the ground, you don't have to tap the resources of your people, educate them and prepare them for the 21st century. Drill a well and you're rich. Look at countries without these resources, Japan for instance, they tapped their people to bring them into the new century.

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 01:14

Iraq wont become a Demcracy, even though Iraqis will continue to have more freedoms than other Arabs. There certainly wont be a domino effect, because there is too much anti-US sentiment in the ME.

Ned · March 17, 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Iraq wont become a Demcracy, even though Iraqis will continue to have more freedoms than other Arabs. There certainly wont be a domino effect, because there is too much anti-US sentiment in the ME.

Why do you say that Iraq will not become a democracy?

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 01:33

Because of all the ethnic conflict. Picture the US before the Civil Rights Movement except the minorities are more violent.

Urban Ranger · March 17, 2003, 01:49

Democracy isn't simply people getting the right to vote. Democracy is the government caring for the people, doing things for them. Voting is simply a tool designed to get the government to listen to the people. If, voting notwithstanding, the government fails to listen, it's not really democracy.

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 01:55

And voting can be a tool for policies that are hostile towards minority groups.

Gods Pet Monkey · March 17, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Brtndr4u
They are terrified of Democracy in the Middle East.A successful democracy in Iraq will have a domino effect on its neighbors,espically if Iraq comes out prospering and advancing as a people.It will show the rest of the Islamic countrys how to throw off ruling parties,Royal Familys and dictatorships.
They(Syria & Iran) know the MiddleEast is set to implode upon itself very soon and are weighing the possibilities of convincing the US & British of a joint transition effort without exporting democracy to Iraq's neighbors.Otherwise they will be on the outside of influence in the ME.

I remember the same thing being said about communism and Vietnam...

Urban Ranger · March 17, 2003, 02:26

Oh yes, the Domino Effect.

The Viceroy · March 17, 2003, 08:48

The argument that Democracy can't survive in Iraq because of ethnic divisions has not played out in India . Its people (rural) are just as uneducated, village is regularly pitted against village, and yet still, they have a reasonably stable democracy. The price India pays is corruption ..

I believe that Iraq can become democratic, but it will be a fairly corrupt one, stuck with rivalries, and uneducated people getting elected (as in India) who cause trouble.

India has been a democracy for 50 years now, and long may it continue .. Iraq will join it if the western powers support its efforts, and don't abandon it to interference from other ME nations .. then the democracy will collapse.

TheStinger · March 17, 2003, 08:51

Democracy was imposed on Japan and Germany and seemed to have some success

Lancer · March 17, 2003, 10:20

UR, democracy is "government caring for the people...etc"?
BS. Democracy is the government staying out of the way of the people.

Sloth · March 17, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
UR, democracy is "government caring for the people...etc"?
BS. Democracy is the government staying out of the way of the people.

A most peculiar definition...

Ned · March 17, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Because of all the ethnic conflict. Picture the US before the Civil Rights Movement except the minorities are more violent.

Sounds like that very undemocratic South Africa.

Ned · March 17, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Democracy isn't simply people getting the right to vote. Democracy is the government caring for the people, doing things for them. Voting is simply a tool designed to get the government to listen to the people. If, voting notwithstanding, the government fails to listen, it's not really democracy.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Ned · March 17, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Democracy was imposed on Japan and Germany and seemed to have some success

Stinger, they were democratic to begin with. The government of Japan was elected. Hitler was "elected."

What we got rid of in Japan was a military that was largely independent of the elected government. In Germany, we got rid of the Third Reich.

I don't know if Iraq ever had a government elected by the whole people.

TheStinger · March 17, 2003, 10:58

Hitler contested an election and formed a government, how he became leader was certianly dodgy enough to doubt its democratic credentials

ahenobarb · March 17, 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Stinger, they were democratic to begin with. The government of Japan was elected. Hitler was "elected."

What we got rid of in Japan was a military that was largely independent of the elected government. In Germany, we got rid of the Third Reich.

I don't know if Iraq ever had a government elected by the whole people.

If your looking for democratic forms (if not substance) as a precursor to a real democracy, Saddam got 100% right?

Not that anyone believes that was a real or fair election, but Iraqis do have experience showing up at the polls. Also after the war when there is a real fair election, you can expect 90+% turnout. They will want a say in how their country is run and who runs it.

GePap · March 17, 2003, 13:01

Viceroy: India is a democracy, but has had many issues in its tome: for example, the whole indira Ghandi and son times. Ethnic strife continues, such as the anti-Sikh riots after Indira's assasination, the siege at the golden temple, and since Hindu fundamentalists hav been gaining more power, hindu-muslim clashes. And all of this in a state that has had 50 years fo dmeocracy (of a sort), plus two seperatist moveemnts , on in Kashmir, and the one that has killed more people, in the Northeast areas like Assam.

Ned is correct to say that germany and Japan had deeper democratic roots than Iraq does, plus these states lacked hte religious and ethnic divides Iraq does, and were much richer societies well into the industrialized era.

Az · March 17, 2003, 13:18

Actually, Iraq is "well into the industrialized era" as well. Many people there have skills, as engineers and technological proffesionals, unlike many arab countries, where their educated classes are mainly doctors and other unproductive stuff.

Seriously though, If the government would be de-centralized enough in terms of culture, but will have a strong glue to hold it together, I think they have a very good chance at making it happen. This does depend a lot on the actions of the US government. This is my major worry with this war, that the US government wouldn't do the right things. That's what's keeping me rather "on the fence".

Sirotnikov · March 17, 2003, 17:36

either iraq or iran will be the next real democracies in the region, in my opinion

Ramo · March 17, 2003, 18:03

Iraqi democracy would mean that the US would have many, many, many more headaches to deal with. It's not going to hapen. Iranian democracy is a real possibility, although Gulf War II might give their gov't the pretense it needs to crush the reform movement.

Quote:

Ethnic strife continues, such as the anti-Sikh riots after Indira's assasination, the siege at the golden temple, and since Hindu fundamentalists hav been gaining more power, hindu-muslim clashes.

Yep, like the recent massacres of Moslems in Gujurat. It will be very, very bad if the Hindu ultra-nationalists gain any more power...

DuncanK · March 17, 2003, 19:04

Are the Shi'ites the majority? Even if they are the most numerous they still don't have 50% of the total, right? Democracy would seem very dangerous to me. I'm picturing Yugoslavia, and I don't know that much about Yogoslavia, only that after the USSR broke up they had a lot of problems with the ethnic groups.