[Winstonm]

Quote

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007



America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime is accused of repressing minority rights and culture
In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

I guess we must hate them for their non-freedom.

[mike777]

"....America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme...."

Perhaps Iran can fund militant ethnic separatists groups in America to pile pressure on the USA regime to give up its nuclear programme. Or to get the UK, China or France to give up its nuclear programme. I assume those countries have some militant ethnic separatist groups.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

"....America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme...."

Perhaps Iran can fund militant ethnic separatists groups in America to pile pressure on the USA regime to give up its nuclear programme. Or to get the UK, China or France to give up its nuclear programme. I assume those countrires have some militant ethnic separatist groups.

I thought a recent quote from Iran President A. (never can remember how to spell his name) was insightful when he said Iran would give up their nuclear enrichment program if the U.S. did so as well. I guess quid pro quo doesn't go over well in Washington D.C.

U.S. sponsored terrorism is rightful regime change in a justified war; Iran sponsored terror is an evil war of ideologies that must be stopped at all costs.

Israel is nuclear but Iran is not, yet Iran must be stopped from catching up - from an Iranian perspective, this is somewhat stifling is it not?

What is the problem with allowing Iran to develope its nuclear capability within the frameworks of U.N. oversight? There would certainly be time later to turn the country into glass if the nuclear capacities became weapon-grade.

[mike777]

Heck I am worried that worrying about nukes is again refighting the last war.

What about nanobots, AI, Plague, etc?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 25 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

U.S. sponsored terrorism is rightful regime change in a justified war; Iran sponsored terror is an evil war of ideologies that must be stopped at all costs.

now you got it... you're a team player, keep up the good work

Quote

Israel is nuclear but Iran is not, yet Iran must be stopped from catching up - from an Iranian perspective, this is somewhat stifling is it not?

it depends, i guess, on what you personally believe... israel has had the bomb for years and has not used it, in spite of what some might call provocation... in your view, would iran be as reticent about using nukes if they had them?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 25 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 25 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

U.S. sponsored terrorism is rightful regime change in a justified war; Iran sponsored terror is an evil war of ideologies that must be stopped at all costs.

now you got it... you're a team player, keep up the good work

Quote

Israel is nuclear but Iran is not, yet Iran must be stopped from catching up - from an Iranian perspective, this is somewhat stifling is it not?

it depends, i guess, on what you personally believe... israel has had the bomb for years and has not used it, in spite of what some might call provocation... in your view, would iran be as reticent about using nukes if they had them?

I wish I knew that answer, but I don't. Still, I think a country has the right to develope non-weapon grade nuclear energy as long as there is cooperation with U.N. inspections - however, I fear Israel and the U.S. would not even agree to that.

I only point out these aspects because my personal history of dealing with conflict has shown that each side gives an honest, but biased description of their complaint, while genuine truth tends to fall somewhere in the middle.

[mike777]

"Still, I think a country has the right to develope non-weapon grade nuclear energy "


Winston are you saying any country does not have the right to develop Nukes? Which do or do not have these rights and how do the noncountries get these rights?

[pbleighton]

"Winston are you saying any country does not have the right to develop Nukes? Which do or do not have these rights and how do the noncountries get these rights?"

Personally, I think that either:
1. No country has the right to develop nuclear weapons, or
2. Every country has the right to develop nuclear weapons

I prefer 1, but unfortunately it isn't applicable to our universe. I'm left with 2.

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

"Still, I think a country has the right to develope non-weapon grade nuclear energy "


Winston are you saying any country does not have the right to develop Nukes? Which do or do not have these rights and how do the noncountries get these rights?

What I am saying is that the world's nuclear powers have agreed to this - but couldn't oversight limit the threat of Iran ever developing enough capacity (which with oversight would have to be done secretly) to be a serious world nuclear threat, and even if they managed to secretly develope some small amount of capacity they could be dealt with after the fact instead of making a judgement before the fact of what they will or will not do?

Kind of like presumed innocent until proven guilty - I seem to remember ideas of that type were once a part of the U.S. landscape, but that was many moons ago in a land far, far way.

[mike777]

Winston you seem to say Might makes right.


Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman. Let India or China or France do it if they want the job. Heck India and China are right there. Both countries have tens of millions of Muslims. Why are we sticking our noses in another country's business, sigh, again.

What do the Democrats say on this issue? I assume they are against war. Have they at least presented a nonbinding bill to vote on?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

Winston you seem to say Might makes right.


Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman. Let India or China or France do it if they want the job. Heck India and China are right there.

I am not saying might makes right - I know for a fact it does. Good thing, too, else we'd have seen Truman in fetters at Nuremberg.

I am not arguing from a "perfect world" scenario - I am trying to take the world as it is and determine under those current rules sane arguments - not always easy in a seemingly insane world.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Feb 25 2007, 10:12 AM, said:

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.
.

What I've always said...this isn't a battle between good and evil, just between democracy and Shar'ia. While there are 'rules' to warfare, if they're willing to violate them, we shouldn't mind pushing back.

[pbleighton]

"What do the Democrats say on this issue? I assume they are against war."

Why would you assume that?

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 25 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman. Let India or China or France do it if they want the job. Heck India and China are right there. Both countries have tens of millions of Muslims. Why are we sticking our noses in another country's business, sigh, again.

Why the USA, of course.....

Those other countries have either learned their lessons or know too much about the region to get involved......especially if the US is willing to take it on the chin. I have to laugh when they refer to the "coalition" forces.....

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman.

You're abosultely right. We should stop be the world's policeman, and take the view of all other nations when they became the most powerful militarily in the world, from Great Britain to the Huns to the Arabs Caliphates to Rome to the Byzantine Empire.

I can't remember any nation, when finding themselves clearly the strongest militarily in the world, rolling over on their backs as much as we do. Can you really imagine late 18th century Great Britain being satisfied to be 'World Policemen'.

Who are YOU to say that we can't nuke our enemies and potential enemies, and force the rest of the world to kowtow or face nuclear annhilation? Do you think the Romans would have hesitated?

I say, if you don't like what we're doing, come and get us. You know where we live.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2007, 06:59 PM, said:

I say, if you don't like what we're doing, come and get us. You know where we live.

Big words from someone who posts under an anonymous ID and doesn't provide any contact information...

One would hope that folks might have learned something from Bush's "Bring Them On" idiocy a few years back. Bellicose posturing is no substitute for a foreign policy. Even Teddy Roosevelt understood the necessity to "Speak Softly"

[Al_U_Card]

Coming from someone who can take "belligerence" to the next level, I find that I must heartily agree with you, Richard. Past mistakes cannot justify current actions. Learning is a process by which success determines the outcome and not the justification.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Feb 26 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Quote

Who appointed the USA as the world's policeman.

You're abosultely right. We should stop be the world's policeman, and take the view of all other nations when they became the most powerful militarily in the world, from Great Britain to the Huns to the Arabs Caliphates to Rome to the Byzantine Empire.

I can't remember any nation, when finding themselves clearly the strongest militarily in the world, rolling over on their backs as much as we do. Can you really imagine late 18th century Great Britain being satisfied to be 'World Policemen'.

Who are YOU to say that we can't nuke our enemies and potential enemies, and force the rest of the world to kowtow or face nuclear annhilation? Do you think the Romans would have hesitated?

I say, if you don't like what we're doing, come and get us. You know where we live.

You know, there are some naive folks who believe that if we progress a little over the nationalistic policy making of the 18th/19th century, get states to play by some rules among each other etc., we end up having a more stable and peaceful world which ends up benefitting everyone.
(Those folks claim that things have changed a little since then, mentioning words like "globalization" and point out that even enemies such as US and Iran actually do a lot of trading with each other.)

But of course many in the US thankfully know that how naive these folks are, and can point out how easily the US can deal with a problem like Iraq all on their own, sweep out the old leaders, establish a new democracy and even get a positive domino effect on all neighboring countries.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 26 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

Big words from someone who posts under an anonymous ID and doesn't provide any contact information...

Hmmm? Send me an email at jtfanclub@yahoo.com. I'll be glad to provide you with my address and phone number, if you desire.

My point was not that I was personally big and powerful, but that for a nation that is so very powerful, we have shown an enormous amount of restraint.

Quote

One would hope that folks might have learned something from Bush's "Bring Them On" idiocy a few years back.  Bellicose posturing is no substitute for a foreign policy.  Even Teddy Roosevelt understood the necessity to "Speak Softly"

Well, sure, and it was partly tongue in cheek. But only partly.

It's not the U.S.'s fault when we do some thing to benefit us, any more than it's my 'fault' that I got a promotion and somebody else didn't, or for that matter I bid and made a contract and nobody else did. If it benefits us to play the "world's policemen", then why shouldn't we do it? The real question is, if our playing world's policemen isn't benefiting you, why aren't you doing something about it?

As far as who appointed us, a majority of Americans, combined with a majority of the people we elected. The really egotistical thing is that you guys think you deserve to vote on what we Americans do.

Quote

You know, there are some naive folks who believe that if we progress a little over the nationalistic policy making of the 18th/19th century, get states to play by some rules among each other etc., we end up having a more stable and peaceful world which ends up benefitting everyone.

Well sure, but that's still self-interest. The question on the table wasn't "should the U.S. be the world's policemen", but "who appointed the U.S. as the world's policemen", which implies that if we should be enslaved by any little country who objects to our actions. Who are you to appoint us to anything?

[mycroft]

In other words, quoting myself:

2) I'm Canadian, which means that there are Americans (not meaning anyone here, but there are Americans) who say "you don't live here, you can't know, it's not your problem, go away." Now those people want the best of both worlds - they want to be the Only Superpower, able to affect the rest of the world with their actions and use that to their advantage, but also telling rest of the world that what happens in the Only Superpower doesn't matter to them. They haven't called me a wog, yet, but it's only a matter of time...

Michael.