Iran is arming Taliban, U.S. envoy claims
NCfan
Posts: 945
Iran is arming Hezbollah which is trying to overthrow the government in Lebanon. They are in bed with Syria, which assasinated the President of Lebanon. They are arming and training insurgents in Iraq. They are arming and training the Taliban in Afghanistan. They kidnapped a bunch of uniformed British servicemen not too long ago. They are manufacturing nuclear materials that can be used in weapons.
Joe Lieberman recently said we should strike Iran, and I'm starting to agree....
AP
PARIS - A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan — the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
“It’s a country that’s trying to flex its muscles, but in a way that’s injurious to the interests of just about everybody else in the world,” he said. “I think it’s a major miscalculation.”
In Afghanistan last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, but stopped short of blaming the government itself.
Iran’s possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.
General, Blair weigh in
In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to “an advanced Western military” in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.
“In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist.
Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.
Burns also criticized Iran’s perceived intransigence over its nuclear program, which many Western powers fear masks a plan to build weapons — though Iran says its intentions are to generate energy.
Burns insisted new U.N. Security Council measures were needed “so that the Iranians don’t have business as usual.”
Third U.N. resolution sought
“We will have to move forward at the Security Council for a third ... resolution in a matter of weeks,” he said.
The council imposed sanctions on Iran on Dec. 23 for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment despite U.N. demands, and modestly increased the sanctions March 24 when Tehran stepped up its enrichment program.
“We believe that beyond (the third resolution), Europe and the Asian countries and Middle Eastern countries will have to adopt even harsher sanction measures outside the Security Council,” Burns added.
Many have sought new sanctions after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran’s enrichment program was expanding — and its warning for the first time that its knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear activities was shrinking.
The prospect of council action appeared more likely after a senior Iranian envoy abruptly canceled talks Monday with the head of the IAEA.
Joe Lieberman recently said we should strike Iran, and I'm starting to agree....
AP
PARIS - A senior U.S. diplomat accused Iran on Tuesday of transferring weapons to Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan — the most direct comments yet on the issue by a ranking American official.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
“It’s a country that’s trying to flex its muscles, but in a way that’s injurious to the interests of just about everybody else in the world,” he said. “I think it’s a major miscalculation.”
In Afghanistan last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, but stopped short of blaming the government itself.
Iran’s possible role in aiding insurgents in Iraq has long been hotly debated, and last month some Western and Persian Gulf governments charged that the Islamic government in Tehran is also secretly bolstering Taliban fighters.
General, Blair weigh in
In an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill said Taliban fighters are showing signs of better training, using combat techniques comparable to “an advanced Western military” in ambushes of U.S. Special Forces soldiers.
“In Afghanistan it is clear that the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from ... elements of the Iranian regime,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in the May 31 edition of the Economist.
Iran, which is also in a dispute with the West over its nuclear program, denies the Taliban accusation, calling it part of a broad anti-Iranian campaign. Tehran says it makes no sense that a Shiite-led government like itself would help the fundamentalist Sunni movement of the Taliban.
Burns also criticized Iran’s perceived intransigence over its nuclear program, which many Western powers fear masks a plan to build weapons — though Iran says its intentions are to generate energy.
Burns insisted new U.N. Security Council measures were needed “so that the Iranians don’t have business as usual.”
Third U.N. resolution sought
“We will have to move forward at the Security Council for a third ... resolution in a matter of weeks,” he said.
The council imposed sanctions on Iran on Dec. 23 for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment despite U.N. demands, and modestly increased the sanctions March 24 when Tehran stepped up its enrichment program.
“We believe that beyond (the third resolution), Europe and the Asian countries and Middle Eastern countries will have to adopt even harsher sanction measures outside the Security Council,” Burns added.
Many have sought new sanctions after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report that Iran’s enrichment program was expanding — and its warning for the first time that its knowledge of Tehran’s nuclear activities was shrinking.
The prospect of council action appeared more likely after a senior Iranian envoy abruptly canceled talks Monday with the head of the IAEA.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
NCfan wrote:.
Joe Lieberman recently said we should strike Iran, and I'm starting to agree....
But what would that really accomplish, besides quickly escalate the whole thing into a huge regional war?
I just don't see the chance of any positive outcome in bombing Iran whatsoever...My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln0 -
Ha yea sure lets strike Iran. Thats genius. Another no win situation.
Do you plan on entering the military there after??
Iran is no Iraq my friend. They can actually, ya know, strike back militarily.
We are arming Shiite militia's in Iraq now - what are your thought on that"Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago"- Stephen Colbert0 -
I think it's time to invade Iran....
It should be fairly easy...I'm thinking we'll be greeted as liberators and showered with lollipops and candy...the evidence is clear...Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns makes a slam dunk case....
I say we spread freedom like peanut butter on warm toast....0 -
so its ok for them to be training and equipping people to kill our soldiers? and please, Iran doesnt stand a chance against us. no army does.FredFlintstone wrote:Ha yea sure lets strike Iran. Thats genius. Another no win situation.
Do you plan on entering the military there after??
Iran is no Iraq my friend. They can actually, ya know, strike back militarily.
actually we are arming sunni's too. I bet you didnt know that.FredFlintstone wrote:We are arming Shiite militia's in Iraq now - what are your thought on that
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_61122080 -
inmytree wrote:I think it's time to invade Iran....
It should be fairly easy...I'm thinking we'll be greeted as liberators and showered with lollipops and candy...the evidence is clear...Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns makes a slam dunk case....
I say we spread freedom like peanut butter on warm toast....
I can feel the sarcasm here but invading is not the answer. dropping bombs on some camps near the Iraq border? sounds good to me0 -
jlew24asu wrote:so its ok for them to be training and equipping people to kill our soldiers? and please, Iran doesnt stand a chance against us. no army does.
ok, so we launch some air strikes and then they flood their military into Iraq, and we eventually defeat the Iranian military.... then what? we have a huge power vacuum in the region with two large countries without governments.My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln0 -
blackredyellow wrote:But what would that really accomplish, besides quickly escalate the whole thing into a huge regional war?
I just don't see the chance of any positive outcome in bombing Iran whatsoever...
I don't know, I don't want to fight with them either.... but WTF ya know? How are we supposed to do anything over there with them interfering? They have no more right to interfere in other people's lives than America does.
At least what we are trying to bring to the table is positive. They are just trying to bring more fire-brand Islam to the Middle East.0 -
The Military Industrial Complex's wet dream.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:The Military Industrial Complex's wet dream.
Yep that's what it all comes down to isn't it? Let's not do what's right becuase somebody can turn a profit...0 -
NCfan wrote:I don't know, I don't want to fight with them either.... but WTF ya know? How are we supposed to do anything over there with them interfering? They have no more right to interfere in other people's lives than America does.
At least what we are trying to bring to the table is positive. They are just trying to bring more fire-brand Islam to the Middle East.
Your usage of 'positive' definitely requires a certain perspective...one that not too many people living in that region share.If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde0 -
jlew24asu wrote:I can feel the sarcasm here but invading is not the answer. dropping bombs on some camps near the Iraq border? sounds good to me
he he...I can't get nothing past you, jlew....;)
Honestly, I don't support any sort of confrontation with Iran...why? you may ask...answer: I don't see it being productive...
also, I'm skeptical of anything this current administration (and any future administration) and their use of "intell"...
just because some random undersecretary makes a statement that Iran is arming fighters doesn't make is so...0 -
Abookamongstthemany wrote:Your usage of 'positive' definitely requires a certain perspective...one that not too many people living in that region share.
Yeah, I'm sure freedom of religion, sufferage, higher standard of living resulting from a free-market economy, etc... that's just my ethnocentricity speaking isn't it?0 -
NCfan wrote:I don't know, I don't want to fight with them either.... but WTF ya know? How are we supposed to do anything over there with them interfering? They have no more right to interfere in other people's lives than America does.
At least what we are trying to bring to the table is positive. They are just trying to bring more fire-brand Islam to the Middle East.
you say positive...they say negative...
you say Iran and the US shouldn't interfere....yet you support the US interfering...
I say, sign up...and get your butt to the border of Iraq/Iran...and have at it...spread those "positve" feelings will bullets and bombs...0 -
I wonder what people in Russia are typing when discussing who is arming the "rebels" in Chechnya.
Oil, oil, oil! You've changed your place in this world!0 -
NCfan wrote:Yeah, I'm sure freedom of religion, sufferage, higher standard of living resulting from a free-market economy, etc... that's just my ethnocentricity speaking isn't it?
after this:NCfan wrote:They have no more right to interfere in other people's lives than America does.
interesting....0 -
NCfan wrote:Not sure what point your trying to make...
ok...you say Iran nor the US has a right to interfere other people's lives, yet you support the notion of implementing freedom of religion, suffrage, higher standard of living resulting from a free-market economy, etc to the region...
or did I read that wrong...?0 -
inmytree wrote:ok...you say Iran nor the US has a right to interfere other people's lives, yet you support the notion of implementing freedom of religion, suffrage, higher standard of living resulting from a free-market economy, etc to the region...
or did I read that wrong...?
Yeah, I didn't say we had no right to interfere. I said Iran has no more right than we do to interfere. I said that becuase people will say, the US does not have the right to interfere in other people's lives. Okay, so let's say we leave. Does anybody think Iran will then just keep to themselves becuase the US is gone? Are they going to disband Hezbollah? Are they going to shut off funds to Syria? Are they going to stop arming groups in Iraq? I highly doubt it.
I justify our actions in the Middle East becuase of that logic. If we leave, Iran is gonna make things 10 times worse over there. So we need to stay and exert our influence.0 -
NCfan wrote:Yeah, I didn't say we had no right to interfere. I said Iran has no more right than we do to interfere. I said that becuase people will say, the US does not have the right to interfere in other people's lives. Okay, so let's say we leave. Does anybody think Iran will then just keep to themselves becuase the US is gone? Are they going to disband Hezbollah? Are they going to shut off funds to Syria? Are they going to stop arming groups in Iraq? I highly doubt it.
I justify our actions in the Middle East becuase of that logic. If we leave, Iran is gonna make things 10 times worse over there. So we need to stay and exert our influence.
ok...that's cool...I happen to disagree...
I'm pretty sure they used the same kind of arguments to stay in Viet Nam, too...
How about this, we focus all of our energy on Energy Independence...that way we can leave the region, forever, with our money, and they can go fuck themselves and their oil...?0 -
inmytree wrote:ok...that's cool...I happen to disagree...
I'm pretty sure they used the same kind of arguments to stay in Viet Nam, too...
How about this, we focus all of our energy on Energy Independence...that way we can leave the region, forever, with our money, and they can go fuck themselves and their oil...?
yeah, I'm on board with that one!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help