nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
considering the number of rogue nations & groups the US & Israel have given &
sold weapons to, Iran's possible contribution of weapons to the Taliban is a literal
drop in the bucket.
sold weapons to, Iran's possible contribution of weapons to the Taliban is a literal
drop in the bucket.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I am inclined to doubt that Iran is actively arming the Taliban in any way at all. maybe once in a while some somewhat civilian sympathizer may get a missile or two out to the Taliban, but its certainly not government policy. We had the same play it again Sam charges regarding Iran arming insurgents in Iraq, lots of Bush administration beating the drums, over basically nothing. Face the facts, if Iran wanted
to aid either Iraqi or Afghan insurgents in a big way, with the high quality arms Iran does possess, the US and Nato occupations in both countries would become basically untenable in a matter of weeks or
months.
And there is that other way to look at it, it may be all well and fine to aid insurgencies half way around the world, but no wise country wants a civil war raging on one of its borders. And one of the reasons that Pakistan is less than happy with the USA, the US was supposed to deliver a stable Afghanistan, and after seven years of too few resources committed, Pakistan now has an expanded civil war raging on its Western Border.
to aid either Iraqi or Afghan insurgents in a big way, with the high quality arms Iran does possess, the US and Nato occupations in both countries would become basically untenable in a matter of weeks or
months.
And there is that other way to look at it, it may be all well and fine to aid insurgencies half way around the world, but no wise country wants a civil war raging on one of its borders. And one of the reasons that Pakistan is less than happy with the USA, the US was supposed to deliver a stable Afghanistan, and after seven years of too few resources committed, Pakistan now has an expanded civil war raging on its Western Border.
The justification for the invasion of Iraq was based on carefully constructed lies supporting a decision which had already been made. Without moderating factors like Blair I doubt the US would have bothered giong to the UN or collecting allies or making any excuses or justification at all - they would have just gone in. I think everyone accepts that now.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
That's bullshit. The CIA provided funding and training for individual mujahidin fighters who eventually joined or became the Taliban a decade later. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the CIA had anything to do with "The Taliban" during the 1990's -- after they formed.
In fact, that may be one of their biggest mistakes...
Either way, Jpeyton is an idiot.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Actually, no, it doesn't.
Jpeyton's statement implies CIA complicity or involvement with the group itself. An accurate statement -- one that avoids said implication -- requires clarification/caveats:
"The CIA provided funds and/or training to some individual fighters who later joined or helped form a group called The Taliban."
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,405
- 14,799
- 146
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
As palehorse alleges, " Kata?ib Hizballah... considered by some of us -- warfighters -- to be the most dangerous group in Iraq... look it up."
And taking palehorse up on his offer, I did do some looking, yes there is some evidence of some small scale Iranian involvement, but its also driven by underground groups and I see no evidence that there is any large scale Iranian governmental involvement. I still stand by my statement, if Iran wanted to, it could simply simply flood both Afghanistan and Iraq with the high quality weapons it has, and the Nato and US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be untenable in very short order. Iran is not flooding the zone with weapons, something they could easily and legally do, and if a few rogue groups manage to smuggle
some Iranian weapons in, its no evidence of Iranian governmental involvement. Especially since such weapons are available on the black market arms inventories of the world, as well as Russian, US made, and Korean made weapons.
But in any country, the USA especially, there are always fringe groups that work at their own ends. And given the palehorse point, its the rough general equivalent of saying US policy is driven by David Duke, Blackwater, or the Pollard family. And even if palehorse is in denial about it, US meddling paved the way for the the rise of Saddam Hussein and the rise of the Taliban. And a too largely simple military response to terrorism, has been a giant failure, because after all the the resources used in the so called "war against terrorism", we have managed to create more new people who are now alienated enough at the USA to use terrorists means, than we have killed so far. Its not just my contention, that is the consensus conclusion of our own NIE.
Its not that a military response against terrorism is not called for, its the fact that we do not use other means to reduce the appeal of terrorism, and instead make it the preferred tactic. And I have to somewhat view blaming Iran, blaming Pakistan, and blaming terrorism, as mostly smokescreens to deflect blame away from poor and inept US leadership and policies. Policies that may result in very small temporary gains, at the same time it results in huge long term set backs. And even up to the day of 911, the GWB administration was as thick as thieves with the Taliban, trying to negotiate a pipeline deal while paying a good part of the Taliban government's salaries.
By in large, IMHO, the US and Nato are more really trying to fight the very anarchy and corruption they imported into Iraq and Afghanistan, and as long as we are fighting the wrong root cause, we cannot hope to start to win.
And taking palehorse up on his offer, I did do some looking, yes there is some evidence of some small scale Iranian involvement, but its also driven by underground groups and I see no evidence that there is any large scale Iranian governmental involvement. I still stand by my statement, if Iran wanted to, it could simply simply flood both Afghanistan and Iraq with the high quality weapons it has, and the Nato and US occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be untenable in very short order. Iran is not flooding the zone with weapons, something they could easily and legally do, and if a few rogue groups manage to smuggle
some Iranian weapons in, its no evidence of Iranian governmental involvement. Especially since such weapons are available on the black market arms inventories of the world, as well as Russian, US made, and Korean made weapons.
But in any country, the USA especially, there are always fringe groups that work at their own ends. And given the palehorse point, its the rough general equivalent of saying US policy is driven by David Duke, Blackwater, or the Pollard family. And even if palehorse is in denial about it, US meddling paved the way for the the rise of Saddam Hussein and the rise of the Taliban. And a too largely simple military response to terrorism, has been a giant failure, because after all the the resources used in the so called "war against terrorism", we have managed to create more new people who are now alienated enough at the USA to use terrorists means, than we have killed so far. Its not just my contention, that is the consensus conclusion of our own NIE.
Its not that a military response against terrorism is not called for, its the fact that we do not use other means to reduce the appeal of terrorism, and instead make it the preferred tactic. And I have to somewhat view blaming Iran, blaming Pakistan, and blaming terrorism, as mostly smokescreens to deflect blame away from poor and inept US leadership and policies. Policies that may result in very small temporary gains, at the same time it results in huge long term set backs. And even up to the day of 911, the GWB administration was as thick as thieves with the Taliban, trying to negotiate a pipeline deal while paying a good part of the Taliban government's salaries.
By in large, IMHO, the US and Nato are more really trying to fight the very anarchy and corruption they imported into Iraq and Afghanistan, and as long as we are fighting the wrong root cause, we cannot hope to start to win.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
So many assumptions... I've finally realize that i should forgive your eternal ignorance on this subject given your complete lack of access to factual information. That said, I guess my biggest problem with you is that you never caveat your statements and admit to your total lack of said access and information. You always try to sell the grossest assumptions and inaccurate assessments as fact, and you always try to make it sound as though you're some sort of authority on these subjects. When, in fact, you know next to nothing beyond what you're able to gleem from Google, CNN, and the NYT.
The bottom line is that your assumptions are completely wrong. The Iranian government itself has played a larger role in Iraqi instability than you'll ever know. I'll just have to leave it at that.
Those who read our opposing views can decide for themselves whether or not to believe the layman, you, or the professional, me...
There is no need to play blame games, and I do not believe that is the intention when information like this is posted. The facts stand for themselves as facts, nothing more. In this case, the fact of the matter is that the Iranian government has been actively and intentionally undermining our efforts, on many fronts, since day one -- and they've done so regardless of ideological or religious differences they might have with the recipients of their low-level support.
Iran certainly and intentionally does so at a lower level, and to a lesser extent, than they actually could if they were to go "all in." The reason is that their strategic goals do not require such an overt commitment to undermining our efforts. Their entire goal is to keep us bogged down and preoccupied -- weakened. The longer we stay that way, the more time they have to maneuver into a stronger position both regionally and globally. As we did with the Soviets, they will walk the fine line between tacit and covert support for our enemies for as long as it takes to strengthen their positions. It's in their best interests to see us fail, but they'll never come right out and say that, or do anything so outlandish that it would result in true global condemnation.
You can play down their role all you wish, and you can continue to naively believe that their government has nothing at all to do with the efforts. Meanwhile, thankfully, your ill-informed opinion matters little... and real decisions -- those involving life and death -- are made by people who actually know wtf they're talking about. Seriously, thank gawd for that!
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,405
- 14,799
- 146
Here's one question that never gets answered satisfactorily...
Why do the "coalition" troops permit the Afghans to continue to grow and process opium?
Since that money ends up financing the Taliban, (who once had opium growing nearly stopped) it'd seem like providing financial support for those farmers who are trying to make a living by growing opium would be a better option than permitting them to continue to do so.
Stopping the opium trade would have multiple benefits
1) It would eliminate one major source of Taliban funding (by the Millions of $$$)
2) It would put a serious dent in Europe's heroin supply
I don't know it the land would support a different type of crop for the farmers or not, but stopping the growing of opium would certainly seem to be beneficial.
Why do the "coalition" troops permit the Afghans to continue to grow and process opium?
Since that money ends up financing the Taliban, (who once had opium growing nearly stopped) it'd seem like providing financial support for those farmers who are trying to make a living by growing opium would be a better option than permitting them to continue to do so.
Stopping the opium trade would have multiple benefits
1) It would eliminate one major source of Taliban funding (by the Millions of $$$)
2) It would put a serious dent in Europe's heroin supply
I don't know it the land would support a different type of crop for the farmers or not, but stopping the growing of opium would certainly seem to be beneficial.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
First palehorse starts with, " So many assumptions... I've finally realize that i should forgive your eternal ignorance on this subject given your complete lack of access to factual information."
Then palehorse makes a pile of very dubious assumptions about almost everything. Quick to condemn any possible Iranian involvement, but totally in favor of the USA's non existent right to do the same in furthering our national interests. US meddling that usually results in anything but a favorable to the USA long term result.
I suppose its like the blind man and the elephant story, we can choose to concentrate on what we want to see.
And while the military approach can seem the shortest route between two points, it seldom works out that way, as the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan show us all.
And if palehorse wishes to employ double and triple standards, I suppose he is free to do so, but I try to employ the same standards to judge. If we, the American people, stopped some of our own perhaps well intentioned but still morally bankrupt meddlers from messing around in other countries affairs, we would be far better off today. And no, sending in our military later to cure those past blunders, end up curing nothing.
And yes, the extent of Iranian involvement is important, being a 1/4% in is vastly different than being 100% in by a factor of 400. But seemingly in the mind of some, there is no difference. And why do I suspect,
the next Darth Cheney goal would have been an Iranian invasion, had Iraq not turned into a giant unmanageable problem of GWB&co's own making. The fact that Iran gets some benefits from the US being tied up in Iraq, does zero to show Iranian complicity. Coffin makers profit from death, its no reason to advocate they are causing those deaths. And if Iran had provided even a a few percentage points of aid to Shia insurgents, it would still have been enough to make the US occupation of Iraq untenable years ago.
That is another lesson we can learn from past US policy, when we backed Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, and Iran was left defenseless and begging the world for the arms to defend themselves, Iran
developed their own home grown arms industry, and unlike Saddam Hussein in 2003, they are no paper tigers any more.
But cheer up, now the USA may have to help militarily in Mexico, as narco terrorists threaten to give us a Mexican civil war on our Southern border. Narco terrorists funded by the USA's endless consumption of illegal drugs.
Then palehorse makes a pile of very dubious assumptions about almost everything. Quick to condemn any possible Iranian involvement, but totally in favor of the USA's non existent right to do the same in furthering our national interests. US meddling that usually results in anything but a favorable to the USA long term result.
I suppose its like the blind man and the elephant story, we can choose to concentrate on what we want to see.
And while the military approach can seem the shortest route between two points, it seldom works out that way, as the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan show us all.
And if palehorse wishes to employ double and triple standards, I suppose he is free to do so, but I try to employ the same standards to judge. If we, the American people, stopped some of our own perhaps well intentioned but still morally bankrupt meddlers from messing around in other countries affairs, we would be far better off today. And no, sending in our military later to cure those past blunders, end up curing nothing.
And yes, the extent of Iranian involvement is important, being a 1/4% in is vastly different than being 100% in by a factor of 400. But seemingly in the mind of some, there is no difference. And why do I suspect,
the next Darth Cheney goal would have been an Iranian invasion, had Iraq not turned into a giant unmanageable problem of GWB&co's own making. The fact that Iran gets some benefits from the US being tied up in Iraq, does zero to show Iranian complicity. Coffin makers profit from death, its no reason to advocate they are causing those deaths. And if Iran had provided even a a few percentage points of aid to Shia insurgents, it would still have been enough to make the US occupation of Iraq untenable years ago.
That is another lesson we can learn from past US policy, when we backed Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran, and Iran was left defenseless and begging the world for the arms to defend themselves, Iran
developed their own home grown arms industry, and unlike Saddam Hussein in 2003, they are no paper tigers any more.
But cheer up, now the USA may have to help militarily in Mexico, as narco terrorists threaten to give us a Mexican civil war on our Southern border. Narco terrorists funded by the USA's endless consumption of illegal drugs.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
You'll have a hard time convincing me that the Mujahedeen fighters are anything less than what has evolved into the Taliban (with the help and support of SA).
You're technically correct but then again, so is SNOGZINN.
Truth is somewhere in between.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Iran doesn't need to be invaded, what it needs to know though is that it COULD be invaded.
That's what the whole nuclear dilemma is all about.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
umm, that's because I'm an American, not an Iranian. They too have every "right" to do it, but that doesn't mean I have to support or condone it when they do it. As Americans, supporting the double-standard, in our own favor, makes complete sense. After all, their "meddling" results in the very real death of Americans. Therefore, condoning it, ignoring it, or downplaying its significance, is unforgivable. The fact that its expected, or a tit-for-tat, does not make it right, or any less dangerous.
off-topic.
None of that changes the fact that Iran is "meddling in" -- undermining -- our war efforts.
Stop trying to quantify an issue you know very little about -- perhaps by no fault of your
own, as Google is your only source...
off-topic.
off-topic.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
My problem is the implication that we had anything to do with intentionally supporting the Taliban itself. After all, there were plenty of Muj we trained and supported who did not eventually join the Taliban or their extremist allies, and we did not facilitate or support the creation of the actual Taliban during the 1990's.
I simply want to ensure that those implications are avoided...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Now the palehorse revisionist history denial point is " My problem is the implication that we had anything to do with intentionally supporting the Taliban itself. After all, there were plenty of Muj we trained and supported who did not eventually join the Taliban or their extremist allies, and we did not facilitate or support the creation of the actual Taliban during the 1990's.
I simply want to ensure that those implications are avoided..."
Which exactly misses the point, those idiots, we the American people, have permitted to meddle in others affairs, may have never intended those long term stinking results, even while being blinded by their roar of the crowd I can make things better thinking, we can still draw a straight line between between our decision to arm terrorists, Ossama Bin Laden, the creation of Al Quida, and the creation of the Taliban, and 911. Had we not made that initial mistake or controlled it better, 911 would not have occurred. The other blunder we can trace 911 to is faking satellite data in the build up to gulf war one. It panicked the Saudis enough to allow basing of US troops on Saudi soil, not that big of a deal to us, but it was a deadly insult to Ossama Bin Laden and many of his fellow Wahabists.
And its still like the drunk hitting a schools bus and killing the lot, you have to know driving drunk is risky, and regardless of your good intentions, we still get the long terms results regardless of the good initial intentions. Its not like the drunk got in his car and deliberately decided to hit a school bus. The point being, its was the end result and can't be taken back.
And now if we listen to the same mistakes made in the 1980's, we are laying the ground work for even worse results, as seven years in Afghanistan run by palehorse type thinking is already amply showing us.
I simply want to ensure that those implications are avoided..."
Which exactly misses the point, those idiots, we the American people, have permitted to meddle in others affairs, may have never intended those long term stinking results, even while being blinded by their roar of the crowd I can make things better thinking, we can still draw a straight line between between our decision to arm terrorists, Ossama Bin Laden, the creation of Al Quida, and the creation of the Taliban, and 911. Had we not made that initial mistake or controlled it better, 911 would not have occurred. The other blunder we can trace 911 to is faking satellite data in the build up to gulf war one. It panicked the Saudis enough to allow basing of US troops on Saudi soil, not that big of a deal to us, but it was a deadly insult to Ossama Bin Laden and many of his fellow Wahabists.
And its still like the drunk hitting a schools bus and killing the lot, you have to know driving drunk is risky, and regardless of your good intentions, we still get the long terms results regardless of the good initial intentions. Its not like the drunk got in his car and deliberately decided to hit a school bus. The point being, its was the end result and can't be taken back.
And now if we listen to the same mistakes made in the 1980's, we are laying the ground work for even worse results, as seven years in Afghanistan run by palehorse type thinking is already amply showing us.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
WTF does any of that have to do with the fact that Iran's meddling leads directly to the death of my allies and fellow countrymen, or my subsequent objections to said meddling based on the love I have for those allies and countrymen!??
Iran may have every "right" or "reason" to do what they're doing -- from their own perspective -- but I also have every right and reason to condemn and despise them for it.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Can't let that BS pass.
There were plenty of UN resolutions stating tha Saddam was not in compliance.
E.g., see UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which, in part, states:
Here's a letter from Bill Clinton remarking upon the same thing:
Saddam has/had a long history of non-compliance; assertions such as yours to the contrary are easily and readably proven revisionist and false.
Fern
Fair enough.
It would have better to state that the CIA trained some future members of the Taliban.
Just as some of our policies (recruiting fundamentalist muslim fighters to the area) probably didn't help either.
S&M
Gotta love the same lame shit being flung around, over and over. The missile in question is of Russian manufacture, and has been exported to over 30 countries-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-14_Gremlin
But the few found in Afghanistan must have been supplied by teh Ebil Iranian Gubmint, Right? Right! Of Course!
That's profoundly dimwitted, not surprising considering the level of idiocy fostered by the Bush Admin wrt anybody on their hit list.
LL is right- if the Iranians were truly meddling on a governmental level, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan would be much worse. That's obvious in ways truly profound, putting the lie to assertions to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-14_Gremlin
But the few found in Afghanistan must have been supplied by teh Ebil Iranian Gubmint, Right? Right! Of Course!
That's profoundly dimwitted, not surprising considering the level of idiocy fostered by the Bush Admin wrt anybody on their hit list.
LL is right- if the Iranians were truly meddling on a governmental level, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan would be much worse. That's obvious in ways truly profound, putting the lie to assertions to the contrary.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter