mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (01/25/86)
Piotr Berman writes: > Not necessarily. First, Iran remains a non-Arab state. > Second, the current good services may be well-remembered in the future. > The future government need not to be Khomeinistic, and even Iran's > opposition does not Iraq to win. Do you know something that I don't? 1. What "good services"? Isn't this an opportunity for Khomeini to get more arms? For him, to do a "service" for Israel would go against everything he says. 2. What "future government"? Do you know of anybody's plans to change Iran's government? > The true situation is that nobody wishes any side of this conflict to > prevail. The domination of either of those unsaviory regimes would > be very dangerous. Iraq leaders dream about unification of the Golden > crescent: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and oil-producing > Iranian Khuzestan. A defeat of Iran would make it plausible. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Iraq existed for many years before the war and it wasn't that terribly dangerous and Iran's armed forces aren't exactly praiseworthy. > Supplying spare parts for military aircrafts is not equivalent to > arming the terrorists. Also, Abu Nidal used to be Iraq's protege. > To deal with nice guys only, Israel would need to relocate to Scandinavia. > It is not Israel's fault that not only her adversaries, but also > adversaries of adversaries support terrorist. 1. Israel has supplied arms not just "spare parts for military aircraft". 2. "It is not Israel's fault". Should I feel sorry for Israel? Israel is aiding a regime which supports terrorism. Somehow this is justified because it achieves some political goals NOT because Israel approves of terrorism! I am not judging anybody here but if this is OK then why is terrorism bad when "Israel's adversaries" support it? Farzin Mokhtarian