U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
From the font page of CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.
It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.
Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country.
It's a paradox possible only because the United States considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.
Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
This doesn't suprise me that much. The US has always followed the failed philosophy of my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Good thing it worked during the early '40s. And the Revolution...
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
It worked great with the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, the Mujehadeen in Afghanistan, narco-terrorist in Latin America during the 80's, etc...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Point is, it isn't the horrifying philosophy you tried to make it out to be. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the fence that can be used to satisfy both sides of the argument. Maybe if we'd have tried to fight the Russians at a time when we were already each on the battlefield, and lost, we wouldn't have had to even worry about any of the examples you've provided.
I'll take my chances with history.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Its getting past bloody ridiculous already...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So siding with a terrorist organization simply because we have a common enemy is sound foreign policy to you? I see nothing wrong with siding with France during the Revolution or with Russia during WW II, but siding with terrorist is something completely different. We are supposed to waging a war against terrorism the last time I checked or do we put that on hold when it is beneficial to us.
I view maintaining a natural buffer between the Soviets and the oil fields of the Middle East a good thing. Sometimes issues run deep. A lot deeper than worrying about who we were forced to take sides with when certain outcomes to conflicts around the world directly affect our national interests. We've made deals with the devil many times. Often times those decisions come full circle and we find ourselves having to deal with them years later. It is the ultimate irony. I don't believe foreign policy is something that can be looked back upon and chastized because we didn't follow one particular train of thought each time we were faced to make a decision throughout history. Each issue is different and must be dealt with in the best possible manner deamed fit at the time. The enemy's enemy argument, to me, is simply a byproduct of the actions we take. Naturally, in any ring of allies, at some point there will be nations who are friends with some, and enemies of others. That's why I don't envy being President, ever.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I see your point but knowing what we know now, after dealing with the mujehadeen and how that turned out, you would think we would not repeat the same mistgake.
Also Like I mentioned, we are fighting a war against terrorism, so why the hell are we associating ourselves with an organizatiuon we deem as terrorists. Not just associating them but using our valuable militray assests and tax dollars to aid them. You can defend our foreign policy all you want but there is no way in hell anyone can possible find this acceptable.
Well hindsight is 20/20... And, there within lies your point.
I really get tired of trying to figure out the government anyway. It makes my nose bleed.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
or maybe if we hadnt felt compelled to turn russia into a nuclear enemy based on abstract ideology and had been willing to treat them as the allies they were, we wouldnt have had to worry about any of those examples either.
anyhow, at 1 min 18 secs
Bush:
"Part of our doctrine is if you harbor a terrorist...you're equally as guilty as the terrorist."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQDdu04AILg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Our governmenr knowingly harbors terrorists right in our own country. Just look up Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles.
ssshh mammasan. that is an inconvenient truth you should have already forgotten. or even better, not even been aware of.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What are our OBVIOUS intentions in Iran?
Regime change.
The Russians were wary of us at best. The same is true for us of them. Our governments were completely different. Our societys may have been capable of coexistence, but our figureheads would have never managed; and they didn't. Communism is something we would have never felt comfortable with, let alone be friendly to it. We each were developing nuclear technologies at the same time. The only difference being that most of our technology was gained through the knowpower of castoff German scientists and those who defected, while the Russians merely gained it through spying on us while we were trying to end the war in the Pacific. Afterwards, there were two great powers with vastly different national interests. Nuclear capabilities were merely a byproduct of wartime technological advancements. I hardly see it as any kind of alienation we were responsible for. That's just my opinion.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Walmart, Bigmacs and (cough) regime change...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")