Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In the past months, Israel and the United States have been working together in support of PKK and its Iranian offshoot PEJAK, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon," said Pulitzer Prize-winning, Seymour Hersh.
Now if this comes to pass as true, I can understand the reasoning to some degree as to why the US would support them as the Kurdish held territories in the north are quite rich with oil and the region has been quasi stable in comparison to the rest of Iraq. However, in yet another example of how a man who could not find oil in Texas could botch something that was already so screwed up, this administration chose oil interest over strategic allies in yet another short sighted debacle.
I am curious as to how this may effect Turkey's relationship with Israel which had grown much closer in the wake of 9-11, but if this piece is accurate, it will certain strain their relations as well.
This article does a nice job summarizing how Bush has supported this group, allowed Iran supported groups to gain strength in Iraq... and also to a larger extent allowed for Iran's resurgence in strength in the entire Middle East.
Can we all just admit the administration has not a clue about what is going on in the Middle East and who we should be defining as "terrorists", who are "Good Guys" and who are "EvilDoers"?
When US forces ousted Saddam's regime from the south in early April 2003, the Badr Organization infiltrated from Iran to fill the void left by the Bush administration's failure to plan for security and governance in post-invasion Iraq.
Kurdish nationalism on the margins of Iran, however, does not weaken the Iranian regime at the center. (While the US State Department has placed the PKK—a Kurdish rebel movement in Turkey—on its list of terrorist organizations, Pejak, the PKK's Iranian branch, is not on the list and its leaders even visit the US.)
In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.
The United States cannot now undo President Bush's strategic gift to Iran. But importantly, the most pro-Iranian Shiite political party is the one least hostile to the United States. In the battle now underway between the SIIC and Moqtada al-Sadr for control of southern Iraq and of the central government in Baghdad, the United States and Iran are on the same side. The US has good reason to worry about Iran's activities in Iraq. But contrary to the Bush administration's allegations—supported by both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their recent congressional testimony—Iran does not oppose Iraq's new political order. In fact, Iran is the major beneficiary of the American-induced changes in Iraq since 2003.
Can we all just admit the administration has not a clue about what is going on in the Middle East and who we should be defining as "terrorists", who are "Good Guys" and who are "EvilDoers"?
I am guessing that Israels use of collective punishment by turning off electricity and water to the Gaza will be deemed as the good fight against terrorism as well. Even though it is in complete contradiction to the 4th article of the Geneva Convention.
Ah well, who cares about those funny looking people anyway, they didn't fly planes into our buildings, why should we support them or their government.
Pft.. of course the US does. Iran-Contra scandal was to fund guerrilla groups in Honduras and Nicaragua. We always have. We've also overthrown democracies and instituted tyrannical dictators, which caused violence leading to tens of thousands of people to die. And all that was just in the last 30-40 years.
Another great topic! I'll have to do some more reading before I can give any intelligent sounding response.
Todays resistance fighter, tomorrows terrorist and vice versa. So hard to keep track of who the current bad guys are anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marodi
Pft.. of course the US does. Iran-Contra scandal was to fund guerrilla groups in Honduras and Nicaragua. We always have. We've also overthrown democracies and instituted tyrannical dictators, which caused violence leading to tens of thousands of people to die. And all that was just in the last 30-40 years.
I can't remember if the arms sales to Iran and Iraq were to help fund the guerrilla insurgency or was our quasi covert support for the Central American insurgency a cover for the arms sales to Iran and Iraq. Maybe both... killing two birds with one stone.
again, it is hard to keep up with who the current bad guys are supposed to be. Please just send me a weekly memo.
Well, for a long time the IRA was getting quite a bit of financial support from Irish-Americans here in the USA even though it was CLEARLY a terrorist organization. Can't say as I know this for a fact, but I would bet that financial support dropped off considerably after 9-11. Somehow when terrorism strikes here at home you tend to take a lot more critical look at orgranizations like that. I find it no coincidence that shortly after that event the IRA began toning down their violence and eventually signed a peace accord amid rumors of financial distress in the organization.
Truly one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. That is the nature of asymetical warfare. If you are the underdog you resort to the tactics that work best for you in that situation. Usually that means terrorism, or something very much like it.
Truly one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist[/B
. That is the nature of asymetical warfare. If you are the underdog you resort to the tactics that work best for you in that situation. Usually that means terrorism, or something very much like it.
Ken
Or "insurgent", depending on the euphemism chosen. Excellent point Ken.
Th op hits the nail on the head. Israel started out gaining their independeance through terrorist tactics. Little has chamged when they feel driven to hammer home a point. Their latest assault on Lebenon illustrates what they do and the mentality of their government perfectly.
The USA both supports unconditionaly and turns its blind eye to Israels deeds far to often. THIS costs us our credibility in the middle east and is the sourse of much distrust and animosity from Muslems.
I have been to Israel and was well treated by them. I am not anti Israeli.. I am however anti blind eye.
The strong arm tactics they use on the palestinians do nothing but esasperate an already bad situation. Yes Israel has the right to go after terrorists who attack them. The terrorists... Not the families who live within a 50 mile radius of the suspected source..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
