(Iran & North Korea) Someone is full of shit. I just realized something...

[originalpckelly]

Either old Fig Newton (Newt Gingrich) was full of shit about Iran and North Korea talking with each other, or the Iranians are full of shit for accusing us of being evil secularists.

Think about it:
Iran is a religious dictatorship.
North Korea is an ATHEISTIC dictatorship.

Something here doesn't add up, and if we are really right about Iran and NK trading weapons, it can be used against Iran's government. If not, it is a hard example of our government being full of shit.

****
Why isn't the CIA exploiting this to bring down the Iranian government from within?

[robinlynne]

1. well, remember how Saddam and Osama used to hang out?

[originalpckelly]

4. Many people don't know, Saddam was SECULAR!

OSAMA a religious fundie was hanging out with A SECULARIST?

[robinlynne]

14. I was being sarcastic.... Sadam hated Bin Laden.

But remember the neocons coming up with "proof' of the link...

[liberal N proud]

2. Since Newt is an Ass Hole, I would suspect he is full of shit.

[Mz Pip]

3. The enemy of my enemy

is my friend. Works well in this context.

We've made lots of enemies. They may not like each other, but they agree on not liking us.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[originalpckelly]

6. We could use this knowledge against the Iranian government:

"You government is full of shit. They obviously don't believe in fundamentalist Shi'a because they trade arms with the ATHEISTIC NORTH KOREANS!"

Would make a good leaflet.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Unless both are adhering to the old adage

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I just am not sure how strictly religious the Iranian government is. Would their religious proscription be stronger than their desire to harm the US? Your guess is as good as mine.

[originalpckelly]

7. The religious fundie crap is where they get the power...

if the fundies were pissed, at least we would have religious radicals with fewer weapons. Get the point?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. One thing about many fundamentalists

is that they say one thing but do another. Look at Ralph Reed, for example. He spouts the fundamentalist Christian line but then does things exactly the opposite of what he says. That's what may be happening in Iran. I know they are using fundamentalism to stir up hatred against moderate and progressive Muslims.

[originalpckelly]

9. That's not what I mean...

the followers DO believe this BS. That is the reason they follow these nuts. If we could use this obvious contradiction to get the supporters of the religious fundies to stop supporting their leaders, it could help us significantly.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. Well, right now they are shutting up dissenting voices

Sufis in Iran have been persecuted, called heretics with ties to the West. They have had their places of meeting destroyed, peaceful protestors have been arrested and tortured or even "disappeared". I am most familiar with this information, but I believe I have also read where Zoroastrians, another minority in Iran, have also been harrassed. Have you some suggestions on how these moderate minority groups can maintain themselves and try and restore sanity to the country?

[rucky]

10. Axis and Allies

he's setting the stage for WWIII

[ladjf]

11. Too bad V. Plame got outed. Her specialty was doing covert

work in the area of International WMD deals. Thanks Cheney. You have screwed you country as yet one more time, big time.

[Igel]

13. So explain to me how it is that either Ahmedinejad is a quasi-

socialist populist, or Chavez is a fundamentalist Shi'ite. Because they seem to be buddy-buddy at times.

Or was FDR really a crypto-Stalinist bent on implying Stalin's ideology in the US, with Churchill being the same camp? After all, the US, the USSR, and the UK all worked together. Gee, Stalin put millions in the GULags ... did Churchill and FDR?

But then again, Stalin and Hitler managed to sign a non-aggression pact that divvied up Poland, so they cooperated, and it means FDR and Hitler got along ... oh, shit! FDR was actually Hitler's secret mistress, with Churchill arranging for their trysts at Stalin's dacha!

Is there enough sarcasm here, or do I need to point out the obvious?

Well, just in case: When there are sufficiently strong reasons, even people that one would think are natural enemies are willing to cooperate for further their own goals, and postpone any eventual confrontation to later. Otherwise, "later" may never come.