US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.

Dr_Teeth

I don't really understand where the US is coming from. Their troops are being blown up almost exclusively by Sunni insurgents. The same goes for the general populace. The Shia militias have no real need for carbombs and IEDs - they can quite happily drive around and kill Sunnis with their death squads since they are in the majority and seem to have a degree of control in the government and police force.

From what I've read, bombs=sunni deathsquad=shia, and the Sunnis sure as hell aren't getting supplied by Iran!

AbusesToilets

InFront wrote:

Sigh. The point I was making, which I don't see how you could have missed, is that countries who want to drum up support for a war (among the other things I mentioned) tend to put God on their side. hence the quote from Bush: "we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us", "God bless America", etc.

The same can be said of Iran. God is a useful tool for drumming up support for a war. That's my point.

Yeah, i get that but it's not saying anything particularly revelatory,it seems more like you were trying to paint Bush as religious fundamentalist,akin to those in Iran for instance.I'm not a fan of Bush but i'm not going to fall into the cliche of bashing him because he is a Christian.Do you think that his first consideration when presented with a situation or problem is whether or not it stricly adheres to the tenants of Christian doctrine? In the quote above i don't think he's using religion to drum up support for an invasion of Iran.I haven't seen anyone from the US government come out and say the we should invade Iran because it's the Christian thing to do.

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

What information? Supported by what evidence?

From the BBC:

"However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.

"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

"Current push for nuclear power"!

What's the problem with that then?

I have plenty of problems with Iran having nuclear power,given their current governments repeated allusions to the desire to annihilate Israel. Also seeing as they have already supplied Hezbollah with arms and material for decades and most recently in Lebanon,what exactly is hard to believe in them supplying Shi'ite fighters in Iraq? They gain from American hardship in Iraq,it keeps them from taking a harder stance against them in global affairs. For example Irans nuclear ambitions

Manic Moran

I think it's all a matter of degree and official sanction. Ahmadinejad may be quite correct when he's denying that his government has anything to do with Iraq. That's not to say that there many not be other Iranian officials involved, and I think it's naive to say there's no Iranian involvement at all.

About a year ago, there was a fair bit of discussion on American firearms boards about Steyr's decision to sell .50 cal rifles to Iran. The US expressed a preference that they wouldn't, on the basis that they had a feeling that they'd be up against them soon enough.

The things cost E15,000 each, Austria shipped 800 of them. According to today's Telegraph, a hundred have been found in Iraq. That's quite a bit of high-dollar-value equipment that doesn't just go missing, and the rifles are a hell of a lot rarer than an AK that could have come from anywhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

NTM

Hobbes

Moriarty wrote:

Link?

Saw it on Obermann when he was going over Bushs State of the Union speech. The YT link is gone (person posting it gets nuked a lot). Will dig it out again for you.

Military intelligence people not wanting to be identified. You're right, they're up to something.

Anytime a story says "Unnamed sources" it is generally bullsh!t. Also there is no reason why a government official can't give a name towards an official statement. That's why they have spokes people in each department. So as to protect those undercover.

However I did actually dig out the persons name involved. It appears that he refused to the Western Media to have his name attached to the presentation but had no problem with it being attached when going on VOI (Voice of Iraq) iraq media.

His name is Major General William Caldwell. He has already been outspoken about Iran supplying Iraq with weapons, so why refusing to put his name to this report?

No one wants to put their name to it because they know its full of crap. Same reason no one from Intel departments had anything to do with it. After the iraq WMD mess no one is going to put their head on the line with such flimsy crap.

TBH the whole thing is like a badly implemented PSYOP program.

Hobbes

The things cost E15,000 each, Austria shipped 800 of them.

Hmmm, I am pretty sure the US export laws would forbid such a shipment, even if Austrian government OK'ed it. Would be intrested to know the name of the company.

bk

Hobbes wrote:

Hmmm, I am pretty sure the US export laws would forbid such a shipment, even if Austrian government OK'ed it. Would be intrested to know the name of the company.

Steyr, one of the most famous weapons manufactures in the world and the same company who produce the excellent Steyr AUG assault rifle that the Irish defence forces use.

Hobbes

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I have plenty of problems with Iran having nuclear power,given their current governments repeated allusions to the desire to annihilate Israel. Also seeing as they have already supplied Hezbollah with arms and material for decades and most recently in Lebanon,what exactly is hard to believe in them supplying Shi'ite fighters in Iraq? They gain from American hardship in Iraq,it keeps them from taking a harder stance against them in global affairs. For example Irans nuclear ambitions

'Allusions to the desire', you really are grasping at straws with this one. You are probably referring to the misinterpreted words of President Ahmadinejad. 'Wiping Israel from the map of time' or something.

The actual quote, which rarely (or never) gets reported:

[Washington based research institute MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), gives this as the correct translation: ""'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: "I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."]

http://toirtap.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

At any rate it is obviously Israel that is the one that is intimidating Iran, not the other way round. Iran is in no position to bully. In fact Israel has made it clear it is just waiting for the nod from the US to launch 'strategic' strikes.

Supplying Hezbollah with weapons? Well, the extent to which this actually happened/happens is no doubt much less than we are led to believe. However, the US/UK supplied much more powerful weapons to Israel in the latest conflict. And lets not forget who the aggressor is, Israel.

'Irans' nuclear ambitions', this is straight out of a Bush/Blair speech. There is no evidence yet that Iran has dangerous 'nuclear ambitions', the only real voices professing they have are the ones with the most vested interests. Not to mention they are the ones conducting an illegal war in a neighbouring country, based on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE, or for the lay man, LIES.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

That was part of the problem, apparently, and the reason it came up on firearms boards.

The US has had a policy since the mid 1980s prohibiting the import for domestic sale of foreign built rifles. This, unfortunately, includes the AUG, Scout, and a bunch of other excellent systems by Steyr. (and other companies, such as H&K). The domestic US firearms market is worth millions. Steyr, reasonably enough, is out to make money. It suggested to the US that if the import ban were lifted, it might make its money in the US instead of selling to Iran. The concept of allowing AUGs back into the country would get firearm enthusiasts salivating: The few AUGs which were imported before the ban took effect currently sell for near $4000 apiece (And are 20 years old), whereas new-build ones would theoretically go for about $600. The US said no, so Steyr did what they do: Sold their firearms to a legitimate importer. There would be no great loss in US government sales, because the US tends not to buy foreign rifles anyway. Customs and Excise, and a few of the police agencies are notable exceptions, they use AUGs.

[Edit: Apparently they did get slapped with a ban: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4564698.stm]

NTM

Frederico

Moriarty wrote:

I'm sure the irony of regurgitating anti-war/whatever propaganda is lost on you too, which is the funniest part of all. Fight propaganda with.. uh.. more propaganda! Surely a formula for success if ever I've seen one.

Haha! 'anti-war/whatever propaganda'? yes, its called the truth... you know?.. you remember what that is? You aren't ever gonna hear a report like this on the news..

"Today, according to a military official, two US apache chopper pilots, angered that a bradley fighting vehicle had been attacked earlier, fired missiles on a crowd, of mostly teenagers, and an Iraqi TV crew, killing 15 of them."

Its a war, theres propaganda, but the US propaganda is so extreme at this stage that its just creating more problems than its solving. Regardless of what 'evidence' the US administration puts forward about Iran, no offence, but only the rightwing warhawks and neanderthals are gonna believe them.

Manic Moran

Haha! 'anti-war/whatever propaganda'? yes, its called the truth... you know?.. you remember what that is? You aren't ever gonna hear a report like this on the news..

"Today, according to a military official, two US apache chopper pilots, angered that a bradley fighting vehicle had been attacked earlier, fired missiles on a crowd, of mostly teenagers, and an Iraqi TV crew, killing 15 of them."

The US routinely destroys equipment which it cannot recover. The AH-64 shot down in the initial invasion took a Tomahawk missile and an airstrike after the Tomahawk missed. Similarly, an Abrams, was destroyed by Americans during the Thunder Run after being immobilised by an RPG. The concept isn't new, a number of M1s for example were deliberately shot at by other American tanks to destroy them during the 1991 conflict.

NTM

Victor

Hobbes wrote:

I wonder how they got around the US export laws? Basically shipping stuff to a controlled country would get your export/import license to the US revoked, huge fines/possible jail time and added to the "Do not supply" list.

I presume the rifles were 100% Austrian and needed no American parts.

philologos

Akrasia wrote:

it's more lies.

The huge concern is that the U.S. are building up an attack force in the persian gulf with which to start world war 3

Indeed. I think that if the USA invade Iran, it will cause their allies in Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Syria among other nations to attack also, and possibly involve Israel in the mix and then the rest of the Arab world could potentially intervene. It is a recipe for disaster imo.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

Yeah, i get that but it's not saying anything particularly revelatory,it seems more like you were trying to paint Bush as religious fundamentalist,akin to those in Iran for instance.I'm not a fan of Bush but i'm not going to fall into the cliche of bashing him because he is a Christian.Do you think that his first consideration when presented with a situation or problem is whether or not it stricly adheres to the tenants of Christian doctrine? In the quote above i don't think he's using religion to drum up support for an invasion of Iran.I haven't seen anyone from the US government come out and say the we should invade Iran because it's the Christian thing to do.

Didn't he say God told him he was doing the right thing in Iraq?

FYI

nacho libre wrote:

Didn't he say God told him he was doing the right thing in Iraq?

Mr Blair told show host Michael Parkinson: The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing according to your conscience."

He said: "I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

When asked if he had prayed to God on the matter, he replied: "I don't want to go into that... you struggle with your own conscience about it... in the end, you do what you think is the right thing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4773124.stm

Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

bk

Jakkass wrote:

Indeed. I think that if the USA invade Iran, it will cause their allies in Lebanon (Hizbullah) and Syria among other nations to attack also, and possibly involve Israel in the mix and then the rest of the Arab world could potentially intervene. It is a recipe for disaster imo.

You are right, if the USA invade Iran, the rest of the Arabic world would likely join in on the side of the USA!!!!

You see Muslim politics is complicated, the Arabic Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are mostly Sunni Muslim and they mostly hate Shiite Muslims as represented by Iran. This is a hatred going back over a thousand years. They would love to see the US or Israel nuke/invade Iran.

That is why when Israel recently invaded the Lebanon, there was little complaint or condemnation from the Arabic states, because Israel was attacking Shiite Muslims who were supported by Iran and the Arabic nations hate them even more then they hate Israel.

InFront

That's not true. There is no big hatred "going back over a thousand years". That kind of division has been created artifically in recent years, and only really in Iraq.
Sunni power in Iraq was created to bring a leader to power and sustain him there, it doesn't really say anything about the rest of the world.

That is why when Israel recently invaded the Lebanon, there was little complaint or condemnation from the Arabic states, because Israel was attacking Shiite Muslims who were supported by Iran and the Arabic nations hate them even more then they hate Israel.

Again, that isn't correct. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300168.html

And when it comes to Israel, I would read more into the political interests of saudi as opposed to their personal religious beliefs. The Sunni-Shia thing is a red herring.

Manic Moran

The Arabs don't consider Iranians to be Arabs. Although until Iraq/Kuwait no modern Arab state had ever invaded another Arab state, they had little objection to the Iranians being invaded a decade earlier as they were considered Aryans.

Again, that isn't correct

You will note that the article makes reference to the initial Saudi response to the incident being to condem Hizbullah. There is no automatic 'they are muslim, we must be on their side' stance.

NTM

InFront

Manic Moran wrote:

The Arabs don't consider Iranians to be Arabs. Although until Iraq/Kuwait no modern Arab state had ever invaded another Arab state, they had little objection to the Iranians being invaded a decade earlier as they were considered Aryans.

What's that got to do with Shi'ite or Sunni Islam?

You will note that the article makes reference to the initial Saudi response to the incident being to condem Hizbullah. There is no automatic 'they are muslim, we must be on their side' stance.

Saudi initially criticised Hizbollah because of their special relationship with the USA.
They also aren't huge fans of Hizbollah in Saudi because Hizbollah are reformists and would like to create a 'soft' Egyptian model of state Islam.

It was nothing to do with Shi'ite Islam, it's a strange conclusion to draw because it was facing up to domestic (Sunni) outrage against Israel's war, that Saudi then took a tougher stance against it, as per the article.

Suggesting that Sunnis hate Shias more than Israel is pretty odd conclusion imo. It exaggerates the difference between Sunnis and Shias, and creates a sense of division when it just isn't there.

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

'Allusions to the desire', you really are grasping at straws with this one. You are probably referring to the misinterpreted words of President Ahmadinejad. 'Wiping Israel from the map of time' or something.

The actual quote, which rarely (or never) gets reported:

[Washington based research institute MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), gives this as the correct translation: ""'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: "I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks."]

http://toirtap.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

At any rate it is obviously Israel that is the one that is intimidating Iran, not the other way round. Iran is in no position to bully. In fact Israel has made it clear it is just waiting for the nod from the US to launch 'strategic' strikes.

Supplying Hezbollah with weapons? Well, the extent to which this actually happened/happens is no doubt much less than we are led to believe. However, the US/UK supplied much more powerful weapons to Israel in the latest conflict. And lets not forget who the aggressor is, Israel.

'Irans' nuclear ambitions', this is straight out of a Bush/Blair speech. There is no evidence yet that Iran has dangerous 'nuclear ambitions', the only real voices professing they have are the ones with the most vested interests. Not to mention they are the ones conducting an illegal war in a neighbouring country, based on FAULTY INTELLIGENCE, or for the lay man, LIES.

You look at Iran and see a put upon state desiring peace.I look at them and see a state that's sponsored terrorism for the past 2 decades and which has declared a desire to get rid of the state of Israel and which is now pursuing a nuclear capability.Not something that gives me a warm and fuzzy.

As for supplying Hezbollah,why is it no doubt much less than we are led to believe? Because that view suits your world view?Isreal is really intimidating the hell out of Iran alright,what with it not attacking it or threatening to destroy it.It's said it would consider a strike to knock out it's nuclear facilities,before Iran has the chance to develop nuclear weapons.Would i agree with a strike? No,i think it would be a bad.destabilizing action.But i can understand the Israeli stance.Am i against a country developing nuclear power?Generally no,but i'm not comfortable with a country with a regime like Irans having the capabilities towards producing nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah

Hezbollah has also received Iranian-supplied weaponry, including 11,500 missiles already in place in southern Lebanon. 3,000 Hezbollah militants have undergone training in Iran, which included guerilla warfare, firing missiles and rocket artillery, operating unmanned drones, marine warfare, and conventional war operations.[12]

Mahmoud Ali Suleiman, the Hezbollah operative captured in August 2006 by the IDF for his role in the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, admitted during his interrogation that he received weapons-training and religious instruction in Iran. He told his interrogators that he rode in a civilian car to Damascus, from where he flew to Iran. Other than the Russian-made Katyusha, Hezbollah's reported artillery cache is entirely Iranian-made.[13]

On August 4, 2006, Jane's Defense Weekly, a defense industry magazine, reported that Hezbollah asked Iran for "a constant supply of weapons to support its operations against Israel" in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The report cited Western diplomatic sources as saying that Iranian authorities promised Hezbollah a steady supply of weapons "for the next stage of the confrontation".[14]

Iran long denied supplying Hezbollah with weapons,[15][16] despite persistent reports to the contrary.[17][18][14][19] However, "Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the 'Intifada conference,' told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi'ite militia, adding that Hezbollah has his country's blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon".[20] The Israel Defence Forces regard Hezbollah as virtually an arm of the Iranian armed forces; a senior Israeli defence official told Jane's Defence Weekly that "we should consider that what we are facing in Lebanon is not a militia but rather a special forces brigade of the Iranian Army."[21]

Similar claims and denials regarding supply of weapons have been made with respect to Syria[22][15][23][24][25]

bk

InFront wrote:

Suggesting that Sunnis hate Shias more than Israel is pretty odd conclusion imo. It exaggerates the difference between Sunnis and Shias, and creates a sense of division when it just isn't there.

Not really, it is interesting to note, that despite Israel having nukes for the last 30 years, that no other Muslim country strived to build their own nukes.

Now that Iran looks like they are getting nukes, there have been rumours that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are thinking of getting their own nukes.

This goes to show that despite public utterances (anti-Israel sentiment is of course very popular in the Muslim world amongst the general public), most of the Muslim world leadership don't really fear Israel and realised that as long as you let Israel alone, Israel won't bother you.

But most of the Arabic Muslim world really does fear and hate Iran. It isn't just a Shia/Sunni split, it is also a racial split, Arabians generally look down on and consider inferior people of Persian descent (most Iranians).

Of course having said all that, non of that justifies the US invading Iran. I'm just pointing out that Muslim politics is far more complicated then most people realise.

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

You look at Iran and see a put upon state desiring peace.I look at them and see a state that's sponsored terrorism for the past 2 decades

You could almost replace "Iran" with "USA" there. Except not really, because the USA have been sponsoring terrorism for longer than that.

i'm not comfortable with a country with a regime like Irans having the capabilities towards producing nuclear weapons.

I'm more uncomfortable with the only country who have ever killed civilians with nuclear weapons (USA) having them.
I think Iran should have nuclear power. An Iran with nuclear power wouldn't give it nuclear weapons, but it might scare Israel. That might give Israel the kick it needs, because Israel fears a powerful Iran who might stand up for the Palestinians.

Originally posted by bk
Not really, it is interesting to note, that despite Israel having nukes for the last 30 years, that no other Muslim country strived to build their own nukes.

Pakistan? They have cruise missiles too. And Saudi were talking about nukes long before Ahmadinejad, when they were getting along well with Iran.

Originally posted by bk
But most of the Arabic Muslim world really does fear and hate Iran. It isn't just a Shia/Sunni split, it is also a racial split, Arabians generally look down on and consider inferior people of Persian descent... I'm just pointing out that Muslim politics is far more complicated then most people realise. (most Iranians).

Not really, nothing very complicated and nothing that indicates a Sunni-Shia split, or an Arab-Aryan split. I'm not sure why you would come to this conclusion. Just a few years ago under Khatami, Saudi and Iran were getting on really well under the ME rapprochement. This is simply not about a split in Islam, nor racial differences.

bk

InFront wrote:

Pakistan? They have cruise missiles too. And Saudi were talking about nukes long before Ahmadinejad.

Yes, I was thinking of the middle east.

InFront wrote:

Not really, nothing very complicated and nothing that indicates a Sunni-Shia split, or an Arab-Aryan split. I'm not sure why you would come to this conclusion. Just a few years ago under Khatami, Saudi and Iran were getting on really well under the ME rapprochement. This is simply not about a split in Islam, nor racial differences.

Well you might be interested to note, that not so long ago Israel and Iran had an excellent, friendly relationship, with Israel actually supplying weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

There is a very interesting article about Iran-Israel relationships here:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/israel_2974.jsp

It is also interesting to note that most Arabic nations have formed friendly diplomatic and economic relationships with Israel, in particular Egypt, where many Israeli people now regularly holiday in!!!!

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

You look at Iran and see a put upon state desiring peace.I look at them and see a state that's sponsored terrorism for the past 2 decades and which has declared a desire to get rid of the state of Israel and which is now pursuing a nuclear capability.Not something that gives me a warm and fuzzy.

Your argument style begins badly. The first sentence is considered a 'strawman'. Israel is the country who has made the most combative statements against Iran, not the other way around. Israel is the nuclear power, it is also the one holding an entire population as prisoners, it is responsible for the deaths of over 1000 people in Lebanon last year alone. Iran may be ran by an oppressive regime, but it is not the regional aggressor.

Lets not forget who stands behind Israel.

AbusesToilets wrote:

As for supplying Hezbollah,why is it no doubt much less than we are led to believe? Because that view suits your world view?Isreal is really intimidating the hell out of Iran alright,what with it not attacking it or threatening to destroy it.It's said it would consider a strike to knock out it's nuclear facilities,before Iran has the chance to develop nuclear weapons.Would i agree with a strike? No,i think it would be a bad.destabilizing action.But i can understand the Israeli stance.Am i against a country developing nuclear power?Generally no,but i'm not comfortable with a country with a regime like Irans having the capabilities towards producing nuclear weapons.

You waste an awful lot of time with this cut and paste too. Towards the end of the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon, cars and buses loaded with fleeing civilians were bombed by Israelis, the constant media stream drew attention not to this, but to the fact arms were coming in from Iran and Syria. Again, weapons were flowing in through Scotland on their way to the IDF, but this was not news. The fact is, we are led to believe, the menace of 'official enemies' is greater than that posed by 'our allies'.

AbusesToilets

InFront wrote:

You could almost replace "Iran" with "USA" there. Except not really, because the USA have been sponsoring terrorism for longer than that.


I'm more uncomfortable with the only country who have ever killed civilians with nuclear weapons (USA) having them.
I think Iran should have nuclear power. An Iran with nuclear power wouldn't give it nuclear weapons, but it might scare Israel. That might give Israel the kick it needs, because Israel fears a powerful Iran who might stand up for the Palestinians.

The US has played it's political games in the past, no doubt about it and i'm not a big fan of their often short-sighted approach to international relations. However the issue is about Iran supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq who are responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians on a near daily basis.Based on their actions last year in supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon plus the evidence from Iraq that's coming out,i would regard it as likely that the Iranian military is supplying materials and training to insurgents in Iraq.Do i have rock solid evidence?No,but then again i'm not on the ground doing intelligence work,i can only rely on past precedence and what is put forth in the media to base my opinions on.That and my personal biases,which as i'm sure you can deduce would be more pro-US than yours no doubt.


As to your point about not trusting the US with nukes,well there's been over 60 years of the US not using nuclear weapons in times of war,or threatening to use them in a first strike situation.Their use in WW2 arguably saved millions of lives by ending the Pacific war and preventing a possible Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have had quite the negative impact on many aspects of modern society.So i'd be quite a bit more trusting of the US when it comes to nuclear technology than i would be of the Iranians

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

the issue is about Iran supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq

Getting back to what other posters are talking about, and bringing sectarianism into it: If you were Iran, a Shi'ite state, would you want a strong Shi'ite state next to you? Or would you want a weak Shi'ite state with powerful Sunni insurgents next to you? The desire for a strong pro-iran (read: Shia) state is a desire for a political ally as opposed to a traditionally pro-Saddam, anti-iran (read: Iraqi Sunni/ resistance-insurgent) state who will still be angry about the first gulf war.
Ahmadinejad is many things, but one of them is 'very intelligent'. The sooner the trouble ends in Iraq, the sooner the Shias get power, and the notion of splitting up the country gets done away with. Why would Iran supply Iraqi Sunni/ resistance-insurgents? Forget about the what the media tell you about the Iran link, what does your own brain tell you?

As to your point about not trusting the US with nukes,well there's been over 60 years of the US not using nuclear weapons in times of war,

If you want to talk in terms of clean slates, or put that forward as important, then there's also the Iranian slate of an eternity of having never ever used nuclear weapons, not sixty years ago, not sixty thousand years ago.

1945 wasn't very long ago.

So i'd be quite a bit more trusting of the US when it comes to nuclear technology than i would be of the Iranians

Nuclear technology or nuclear weapons? Iran does need nuclear power, it should be allowed to have it.
With its fossil fuels, its a case of the oyster hunter's wife not being able to afford to wear a pearl necklace.

RedPlanet

I can't understand why anyone would believe just about anything the Bush administration says today.
But being the case that there are people who do, and i caught a glimpse on the tely of a couple mortars displaying a date of "2007"; it makes me wonder why nobody thought of questioning this so called "evidence".
Iran is an islamic state and observes the Islamic calender, which of course means it's not "2007" there, so i just have to doubt they'd put that year on the holy mortars they manufacture. :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Victor wrote:

I presume the rifles were 100% Austrian and needed no American parts.

Thats true, but the export laws are quite strict. So for example if Factory A supplied metal to Factory B who in turn made Screws that sold to Wholesaler C, the first guy in the chain could loose their export/import license if C was on the list as not to be supplied with anything.

Manic Moran wrote:

The Arabs don't consider Iranians to be Arabs.

My guess is that the Iranians don't consider that either tbh. Arab is generally thrown around as a catch all phrase by the Western Media to lump anyone from the Middle East. The same way People from Japan are referred to as Asians, or Asians referred to as Orientals.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

The US has played it's political games in the past, no doubt about it and i'm not a big fan of their often short-sighted approach to international relations. However the issue is about Iran supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq who are responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians on a near daily basis.Based on their actions last year in supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon plus the evidence from Iraq that's coming out,i would regard it as likely that the Iranian military is supplying materials and training to insurgents in Iraq.Do i have rock solid evidence?No,but then again i'm not on the ground doing intelligence work,i can only rely on past precedence and what is put forth in the media to base my opinions on.That and my personal biases,which as i'm sure you can deduce would be more pro-US than yours no doubt.


As to your point about not trusting the US with nukes,well there's been over 60 years of the US not using nuclear weapons in times of war,or threatening to use them in a first strike situation.Their use in WW2 arguably saved millions of lives by ending the Pacific war and preventing a possible Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands which would have had quite the negative impact on many aspects of modern society.So i'd be quite a bit more trusting of the US when it comes to nuclear technology than i would be of the Iranians

hasn't the last 4 years taught you anything?

no doubt you would be quick to dismiss the allegations in this article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm
yet anything America says is to believed without question.