26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeI wish these idiots in my government would stop with the meddling already.
Will the west never learn that this naive 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic is almost always counter-productive.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17170.htm
However, I suppose it's the most practical way to deal with the fact (if it is indeed a fact) of Iranians doing the same kind of thing in Iraq. We can play that game too, and we're good at it and have far more resources than Iran. I just wish we'd do less of it.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe difference, though, is that (assuming it is true) Iran is funding people/groups with which it has a common ideology.
I wish these idiots in my government would stop with the meddling already.
However, I suppose it's the most practical way to deal with the fact (if it is indeed a fact) of Iranians doing the same kind of thing in Iraq. We can play that game too, and we're good at it and have far more resources than Iran. I just wish we'd do less of it.
The US just seems to be funding anybody at all - from left-wing Kurds to all sorts of Sunni groups.
Anybody would think the US didn't actually want stability in the region.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeI think that 1)if we're going to occupy Iraq/provide security for the government/whatever you want to call it, and 2)Iran is secretly funding irregulars who kill our troops, then this isn't so bad. If we're going to be in Iraq, we'd better do it right, and the only way to challenge under the table sneaky hostile acts as Iran is allegedly doing is to do the same thing right back.
The difference, though, is that (assuming it is true) Iran is funding people/groups with which it has a common ideology.
The US just seems to be funding anybody at all - from left-wing Kurds to all sorts of Sunni groups.
Anybody would think the US didn't actually want stability in the region.
I'm not in favor of us being there, but I'm also not in favor of letting Iran kill our troops even if via covert means with deniability.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEven if we accept all that, I'm not even sure that 'doing the same thing right back' is the best way to counter this.
I think that 1)if we're going to occupy Iraq/provide security for the government/whatever you want to call it, and 2)Iran is secretly funding irregulars who kill our troops, then this isn't so bad. If we're going to be in Iraq, we'd better do it right, and the only way to challenge under the table sneaky hostile acts as Iran is allegedly doing is to d ...[text shortened]... so not in favor of letting Iran kill our troops even if via covert means with deniability.
This might be a short term pain for Iran, but longer term it just adds more loonies with guns to a mix which is already volatile enough.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Redmike...which is why American troops shouldn't be there.
Even if we accept all that, I'm not even sure that 'doing the same thing right back' is the best way to counter this.
This might be a short term pain for Iran, but longer term it just adds more loonies with guns to a mix which is already volatile enough.
However, Iran has to live next to those loonies. Americans don't.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeFirst thing first. Anybody who buys into the moral equivalency arguement has a morality that is irrepairably broken. Terrorists target civilians. Those trying to use chlorine gas on civilians in Iraq for example, are terrorrists.
Will the west never learn that this naive 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic is almost always counter-productive.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17170.htm
These Iranian groups are attacking military targets. These men employ proper guerrilla tactics.
These men are not terrorists.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkOne person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist....
First thing first. Anybody who buys into the moral equivalency arguement has a morality that is irrepairably broken. Terrorists target civilians. Those trying to use chlorine gas on civilians in Iraq for example, are terrorrists.
These Iranian groups are attacking military targets. These men employ proper guerrilla tactics.
These men are not terrorists.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Merk"The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation..."
These Iranian groups are attacking military targets. These men employ proper guerrilla tactics.
These men are not terrorists.
That's proper guerrilla tactics is it?
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeI didn't call them freedom fighters either. They're guerillas.
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist....
Terrorists target civilian, guerrillas target military. A persons point of view plays no role here. This is not Israel/Palestine, this is night and day.
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by Merkso groups which attack targets such as the pentagon or Iraqi army recruits are guerillas, rather than terrorists.
I didn't call them freedom fighters either. They're guerillas.
Terrorists target civilian, guerrillas target military. A persons point of view plays no role here. This is not Israel/Palestine, this is night and day.