US stirring up ‘Iranophobia’ to boost arms sales to Arab nations – Tehran

[simple Brain]

You totally took the opposite meaning from my statement, I just wanted to say that if we are into criticizing KSA/Arabs than Iran is not a saint either. When two mullahs are fighting each other they are at their lowest and really a bad omen for everyone especially neighbors. Arabs being Arabs I expect more from Iran but till now they were only a source of disappointment (hint: look how Farsi speaking people have diminished in our country)

Nop, what I wrote was after carefully understanding your statement, and now that you have explained completely different meaning of what you were trying to say previously, let me also clarify you something. I never said Iran is a Saint, what I was trying to say is that despite we have religious differences we have with Iran, Iran never try to impose there thinking upon us either forcefully or in a more diplomatic and friendly way. You have to understand that the Saudis have spent Billions in Pakistan just to spread their words of interest in our communities, and we as a Nation always forget that the importance of Makkahtul Mokaramah and Madinahtul Monawarah is not because of the Al-Saud Family (Naozobillah) but a fraction of importance of Al-Saud family is because of Makkahtul Mokaramah and Madinahtul Monawarah.
Our Muslim world is divided because of these two I agree, but believe me I have lived with Saudis and Iranians as well, and my experience is that you can negotiate with Iranians with an ease, but you cannot get to the heads of Saudis even if you die in a process. The damage that the Saudis caused to the Muslim world is unbelievable, you will be amazed to know that.
And never expect more from any Nation, everyone has there own strategic interests, you have to understand and realize and also accept that no one will listen to you if you try to impose your thinking.

 

[ssethii]

Nop, what I wrote was after carefully understanding your statement, and now that you have explained completely different meaning of what you were trying to say previously, let me also clarify you something. I never said Iran is a Saint, what I was trying to say is that despite we have religious differences we have with Iran, Iran never try to impose there thinking upon us either forcefully or in a more diplomatic and friendly way. You have to understand that the Saudis have spent Billions in Pakistan just to spread their words of interest in our communities, and we as a Nation always forget that the importance of Makkahtul Mokaramah and Madinahtul Monawarah is not because of the Al-Saud Family (Naozobillah) but a fraction of importance of Al-Saud family is because of Makkahtul Mokaramah and Madinahtul Monawarah.
Our Muslim world is divided because of these two I agree, but believe me I have lived with Saudis and Iranians as well, and my experience is that you can negotiate with Iranians with an ease, but you cannot get to the heads of Saudis even if you die in a process. The damage that the Saudis caused to the Muslim world is unbelievable, you will be amazed to know that.
And never expect more from any Nation, everyone has there own strategic interests, you have to understand and realize and also accept that no one will listen to you if you try to impose your thinking.

Saudis can put $$$ on the table, what does Iran bring to counter it? Iranian influence in the region after the revolution has only declined. They have more to loose if they choose to be hostile towards Islamabad. Stop being apologetic towards them and it's only in your mind that holy places are equated with the government while dealing with the kingdom or do you believe that our foreign policy is run from some Saudi-funded madrassa in Pakistan?

 

[Cthulhu]

Saudis can put $$$ on the table, what does Iran bring to counter it? Iranian influence in the region after the revolution has only declined. They have more to loose if they choose to be hostile towards Islamabad. Stop being apologetic towards them and it's only in your mind that holy places are equated with the government while dealing with the kingdom or do you believe that our foreign policy is run from some Saudi-funded madrassa in Pakistan?

Geopolitically speaking, Why should we be hostile towards Islamabad?

 

[mike2000 is back]

By starting two major wars?

Well, you are looking at things from a simplistic angle. It's not that simple.
It's true Saddam was a brutal dictator (like Assad), however, under Saddam Iraq had one of the most powerful military in the middle East(outside Israel). The wars Saddam fought in the middle East I.e invasion of Iran, invasion if Iraq, and firing of scud missiles at Israel etc. Were conventional wars and as such easier to control/come to a peace agreement or negotiation. Iraq was united and ubder his firm grip, as such no militant groups could operate freely there .
However, the situation we now have is a coubtry and region where militant groups(both Shiite and sunni) , Terrorist groups, rebel groups, religious groups etc are all vying for control backed by foreign and regional powers. In this situation such conflicts are usually harder to control or negotiate for a peace agree/compromise than when dealing with a united head of state/country(especially when that country isn't ruled by religious/ideological leaders ).
So yes I conveyed that under Saddam the region would have been more peaceful and controllable than today. There wouldn't be so many Shiite and sunni sectarian conflict raging on in the region

 

[AmirPatriot]

Well, you are looking at things from a simplistic angle. It's not that simple.
It's true Saddam was a brutal dictator (like Assad), however, under Saddam Iraq had one of the most powerful military in the middle East(outside Israel). The wars Saddam fought in the middle East I.e invasion of Iran, invasion if Iraq, and firing of scud missiles at Israel etc. Were conventional wars and as such easier to control/come to a peace agreement or negotiation. Iraq was united and ubder his firm grip, as such no militant groups could operate freely there .
However, the situation we now have is a coubtry and region where militant groups(both Shiite and sunni) , Terrorist groups, rebel groups, religious groups etc are all vying for control backed by foreign and regional powers. In this situation such conflicts are usually harder to control or negotiate for a peace agree/compromise than when dealing with a united head of state/country(especially when that country isn't ruled by religious/ideological leaders ).
So yes I conveyed that under Saddam the region would have been more peaceful and controllable than today. There wouldn't be so many Shiite and sunni sectarian conflict raging on in the region

He kept stability in Iraq in the short term. But his brutality towards Kurds invited the formation of the KRG which is the home of numerous Kurdish militant groups. His persecution of Shias stocked sectarian tensions so that when majority rule finally arrived, a minority of the Sunnis population was radicalised.

And whatever level stability he kept, he was not peaceful in any meaning of the word. Far too many people have died because of him to say he kept the peace.

 

[mike2000 is back]

He kept stability in Iraq in the short term. But his brutality towards Kurds invited the formation of the KRG which is the home of numerous Kurdish militant groups. His persecution of Shias stocked sectarian tensions so that when majority rule finally arrived, a minority of the Sunnis population was radicalised.

And whatever level stability he kept, he was not peaceful in any meaning of the word. Far too many people have died because of him to say he kept the peace.

True to some extent. However, we have to look at it from another point if view. I agree with everything you said about him and what he did. However, I still maintain that despite all this , it was still a situation that could be controlled and reasoned with more easily than the situation we have today.
Western powers for example could negotiate a cease fire with Saddam or easily contain him like we did by kicking him out of Kuwait. Even the first gulf war we fought against him such wars have a predefined end/conclusion after one side is defeated , but with the spread of these radical sunni/Shiite militias groups and terror groups in the region how do you negotiate,contain, or eliminate these threats completely? It's simply impossible since it's not a country we are dealing with, and it's also more of an ideology, as such it can't be defeated militarily , since you strike it in one area it simply reappears in another, and it's easily spread through internet and through their members etc. So it's like a vicious never ending cycle. Lol

So yes I still believe Saddam even though he was a murderous brutal tyrant who deserved nothing less than he got(just like his other Tyrant brother Assad in Syria), but the region will still have been better off with him at the helm of Iraq. Iran for instance won't be so overstretched getting so involved in the region with its proxies(which will have been a good thing if you look at it from another angle, as this could have helped the Ayatollahs to turn their focus internally) since he was a major balance to Iranian involvement in the region.

 

[Yaseen1]

i think saudis will loose their land to israel or isis if war break between two countries and u.s will bomb saudi lands like Syria with excuse of bombing isis so another Syria like situation will happen

 

[simple Brain]

Saudis can put $$$ on the table, what does Iran bring to counter it? Iranian influence in the region after the revolution has only declined. They have more to loose if they choose to be hostile towards Islamabad. Stop being apologetic towards them and it's only in your mind that holy places are equated with the government while dealing with the kingdom or do you believe that our foreign policy is run from some Saudi-funded madrassa in Pakistan?

What is it with you? Do you even hear yourself? Read all your comments once again and also my replies to you, and than get back to me if you understand what exactly do you want me to write that could satisfy you.

 

[Big Tank]

Saudis can put $$$ on the table, what does Iran bring to counter it? Iranian influence in the region after the revolution has only declined. They have more to loose if they choose to be hostile towards Islamabad. Stop being apologetic towards them and it's only in your mind that holy places are equated with the government while dealing with the kingdom or do you believe that our foreign policy is run from some Saudi-funded madrassa in Pakistan?

Why would Iran be hostile to Islamabad. Stop influencing a growth of hatred for no reason. In fact kids like you have no change over the relations between the two.

 

[Hrk19]

its good,it keeps iran in check
i mean we all know how trustworthy they can be when they fired on our borders not long after they said they want to work with us.
bottom line,never trust iran.
Saudi is atleast a big source of remittances to pakistan

 

[Haris Mansoor]

call it whatever suits your agenda but a top of the line cannot be labeled as junk.

Not junk by itself but will not be used or in other words Arab countries Cannot use it and thus these top of the line will become junk one day without being used

That damn alliance is managed by USA to wage a war inside Muslim world. Israel favors it LOL. Worship Trump!

Thumbs up for that part.....