PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Iran supplying arms rockets to Taliban


HonestChieffan
03-09-2011, 10:07 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12694266

Obama needs to give a prime time speech.



Hague fury as 'Iranian arms' bound for Taliban seized

The rockets are thought to have a much greater range than current Taliban weapons
The foreign secretary has condemned Tehran's "completely unacceptable" behaviour after British Special Forces seized a shipment of suspected Iranian arms intended for the Taliban.

The 48 rockets are understood to have been intercepted in Nimruz Province, in southern Afghanistan, on 5 February.

UK officials say technical analysis showed they had come from Iran.

William Hague said Iran's actions were at odds with its claim to "support stability and security in Afghanistan".

The rockets are understood to have a much greater range than the weapons currently available to Taliban insurgents.

It is believed that both UK and Afghan troops were involved in the operation to intercept them in Nimruz, which borders Iran.

'Extremely concerned'
Mr Hague said: "This is completely unacceptable. It is not the behaviour of a responsible neighbour.

"It is at odds with Iran's claim to the international community and to its own people that it supports stability and security in Afghanistan."


“These rockets represent a step-change in the lethal impact of weaponry infiltrating Afghanistan from Iran”


The foreign secretary said technical analysis and the circumstances of the seizure left him in "no doubt" the weapons came from Iran.

"I am extremely concerned by the latest evidence that Iran continues to supply the Taliban with weaponry - weapons clearly intended to provide the Taliban with the capability to kill Afghan and Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] soldiers from significant range."

He said the British Ambassador in Tehran had raised the issue with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "This confirms my often repeated view of the dangers that Iran poses not only through its nuclear programme, but its continuing policy of destabilising its neighbours.

"Supplying weapons to help the Taliban kill Isaf soldiers is a clear example of the threat they pose."

Mark Sedwill, Nato senior civilian representative to Afghanistan, said all of the country's neighbours had an obligation to prevent weapons falling into insurgent hands.

"These rockets represent a step-change in the lethal impact of weaponry infiltrating Afghanistan from Iran," he added.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to stop enriching uranium until it can be established that its intentions are peaceful. The US believes it aims to build nuclear weapons.

Mr Hague said the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency "provides further evidence" of why the international community should be concerned about Iran's nuclear programme.

He said: "The report comprehensively outlines the many areas where Iran is failing to comply with its international obligations.

"Iran continues to enrich uranium in defiance of numerous UN Security Council and IAEA Board Resolutions, and has consistently failed to answer questions about possible military dimensions of its programme."

And he continued: "This needs to change. Iran should not think that recent events in the Middle East have distracted the world's attention away from its nuclear programme."

BigMeatballDave
03-09-2011, 11:38 PM
Don't really care. We supplied weapons to Taliban 20some yrs ago.

Chocolate Hog
03-09-2011, 11:43 PM
Don't really care. We supplied weapons to Taliban 20some yrs ago.

This.

LiveSteam
03-10-2011, 12:51 AM
Not just any weapon either. The Stinger missile.

RubberSponge
03-10-2011, 02:27 AM
Pfft, 20yrs ago. How about right now.

We give funding by proxy to the Taliban by providing billions in taxpayer funds, in the name of foriegn aid to Pakistan. Who undoubtably give some, if not all of that money to the Pakistan ISI, who created the Taliban and still allow them a safe haven to roam freely across the border of Afghanistan to kill US soldiers.

The day we reverse the decision started by the Bush adminstration to pump billions iin taxpayer provided funds into Pakistan all in the name to fight the War on tError, then I'll now we are really serious about fighting the War on Terror.

Cheater5
03-11-2011, 05:02 AM
Yes of course! Because hindsight is brilliantly clear, and if only the window-licking idiot President Bush would have spent his time building a time machine to travel into the future and see that his greatest ally in the region (Pervez Musharraf) would be ousted from Pakistan, subsequently leading to the erosion of his base for operational depth in an isolated Afghanistan (while enabling the freedom of maneuver of the Taliban), instead of planning, preparing, and executing 9/11 all within the first eight months of his Presidency- everything would be...wait.

Yes. And who really cares anyway?... WE deserve it. Well, not WE per se because nay a 'citizen' so bravely posting on this board has ever decided to so bravely put their name on the line and step one foot in Afghanistan. But you are all entitled to have other people do that for you.

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 06:35 AM
Yes of course! Because hindsight is brilliantly clear, and if only the window-licking idiot President Bush would have spent his time building a time machine to travel into the future and see that his greatest ally in the region (Pervez Musharraf) would be ousted from Pakistan, subsequently leading to the erosion of his base for operational depth in an isolated Afghanistan (while enabling the freedom of maneuver of the Taliban), instead of planning, preparing, and executing 9/11 all within the first eight months of his Presidency- everything would be...wait.

Yes. And who really cares anyway?... WE deserve it. Well, not WE per se because nay a 'citizen' so bravely posting on this board has ever decided to so bravely put their name on the line and step one foot in Afghanistan. But you are all entitled to have other people do that for you.

Wow. You really don't don't know the politics of the region if you think Musharraf and Pakistan is our greatest ally in that region. Ever heard of India?

So, Ft. Benning. I bet I can still find my way around that post like the back of my hand. Bet I wouldn't miss a beat making it out as far as Hastings range even after a few years of not being there.

But you have to wonder, does our greatest ally say such things as this 1 week after 9/11?

I have done everything for Afghanistan and Taliban when the entire world is against them. I have met about twenty to twenty five world leaders and talked to each of them in favor of the Taliban. I have told them that sanctions should not be imposed on Afghanistan and that we should engage them. I have been repeating this stance before all leaders but I am sorry to say that none of our friends accepted this.

Even in this situation, we are trying our best to cooperate with them. I sent Director General ISI with my personal letter to Mullah Umar. He returned after spending two days there. I have informed Mullah Umar about the gravity of the situation. We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and Taliban. This is my earnest endeavor and with the blessings of Allah I will continue to seek such a way out

or this...

What I would like to know is how do we save Afghanistan and Taliban. And how do we ensure that they suffer minimum losses

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 06:36 AM
We give funding by proxy to the Taliban by providing billions in taxpayer funds

We're also allowing Afghanistan's lucrative heroin trade to continue.

War on drugs meets War on terror. LMAO

National healthcare is going to be awesome. :thumb:

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:39 AM
Don't really care. We supplied weapons to Taliban 20some yrs ago.

:spock:

Don't really care? You realize these weapons are being used against Americans, don't you? Wow.

And btw, we never supplied weapons to the Taliban.

This.

Pathetic.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:40 AM
Not just any weapon either. The Stinger missile.

Incorrect.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:45 AM
Pfft, 20yrs ago. How about right now.

We give funding by proxy to the Taliban by providing billions in taxpayer funds, in the name of foriegn aid to Pakistan. Who undoubtably give some, if not all of that money to the Pakistan ISI, who created the Taliban and still allow them a safe haven to roam freely across the border of Afghanistan to kill US soldiers.

The day we reverse the decision started by the Bush adminstration to pump billions iin taxpayer provided funds into Pakistan all in the name to fight the War on tError, then I'll now we are really serious about fighting the War on Terror.

True, but overly simplistic (not to mention, unnecessarily and inappropriately partisan). Our Pakistan policy is obviously less than perfect, but it's not all that clear what should be done about it. Don't you think that the Obama administration would be quick to reverse the "decision started by the Bush administration" if they thought it would be an effective policy change?

patteeu
03-11-2011, 07:49 AM
Wow. You really don't don't know the politics of the region if you think Musharraf and Pakistan is our greatest ally in that region. Ever heard of India?

So, Ft. Benning. I bet I can still find my way around that post like the back of my hand. Bet I wouldn't miss a beat making it out as far as Hastings range even after a few years of not being there.

But you have to wonder, does our greatest ally say such things as this 1 week after 9/11?



or this...

At the time those statements were made, the Taliban, while not our friends, were not our enemies. If they had been willing to turn bin Laden and company over to us, we wouldn't have invaded. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the power and/or the inclination to do so.

Radar Chief
03-11-2011, 08:24 AM
Yes. And who really cares anyway?... WE deserve it. Well, not WE per se because nay a 'citizen' so bravely posting on this board has ever decided to so bravely put their name on the line and step one foot in Afghanistan. But you are all entitled to have other people do that for you.

Appreciate your service and agree with the rest of your post but you shouldn’t assume so much.
I’m a veteran of the first gulf war and this board is literally packed with veterans that have served in both times of war and peace, through conflicts before, including and following Afghanistan.
Just because we’ve got a couple of numb nutz on this topic don’t assume that represents the entire board.

ForeverChiefs58
03-11-2011, 08:53 AM
Don't really care. We supplied weapons to Taliban 20some yrs ago.

This.

I wouldn't mind seeing both of you get your ass kicked.

You don't care if the weapons are used against our forces?

The world is much different than 20 years ago ass hats.

ForeverChiefs58
03-11-2011, 08:57 AM
Yes of course! Because hindsight is brilliantly clear, and if only the window-licking idiot President Bush would have spent his time building a time machine to travel into the future and see that his greatest ally in the region (Pervez Musharraf) would be ousted from Pakistan, subsequently leading to the erosion of his base for operational depth in an isolated Afghanistan (while enabling the freedom of maneuver of the Taliban), instead of planning, preparing, and executing 9/11 all within the first eight months of his Presidency- everything would be...wait.

Yes. And who really cares anyway?... WE deserve it. Well, not WE per se because nay a 'citizen' so bravely posting on this board has ever decided to so bravely put their name on the line and step one foot in Afghanistan. But you are all entitled to have other people do that for you.


What do you mean "WE deserve it"? Our troops deserve to be killed?

patteeu
03-11-2011, 08:59 AM
What do you mean "WE deserve it"? Our troops deserve to be killed?

He's sarcastically mimicking the people he's criticizing.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 09:06 AM
And btw, we never supplied weapons to the Taliban.



Pathetic. .Critics of U.S. foreign policy consider Operation Cyclone to be substantially responsible for setting in motion the events that led to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It is also probable that some Taliban presently fighting the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan were in fact trained, equipped, or funded by the U.S. or its allies during the 1980s, at which time they were more commonly referred to as "freedom fighters.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 09:17 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing both of you get your ass kicked.

You don't care if the weapons are used against our forces?

The world is much different than 20 years ago ass hats.GFY I obviously care about our troops. My dad served 4 tours in Viet Nam.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 09:21 AM
:spock:



And btw, we never supplied weapons to the Taliban.Splitting hairs? I know the Taliban didnt exist in the 80s, but dont think for one second a lot of these fighter didnt eventually become the Taliban.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm, train, and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. [1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 09:23 AM
.

The Taliban didn't exist when we were supplying arms to Afghan mujahideen.

Operation Cyclone ended in 1989. The Taliban didn't exist until 1994. Saying that some of the people who benefitted from US aid during Operation Cyclone later joined or helped form the Taliban is quite different than saying that we supplied weapons to the Taliban.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 09:25 AM
GFY I obviously care about our troops. My dad served 4 tours in Viet Nam.

It's far from obvious. See below:

Don't really care.

I'm sure your dad would be proud. :shake:

patteeu
03-11-2011, 09:32 AM
Splitting hairs? I know the Taliban didnt exist in the 80s, but dont think for one second a lot of these fighter didnt eventually become the Taliban.

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm, train, and finance the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. [1] Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

It's not splitting hairs, it's correcting the distortion you presented by your case of blurring distinctions. If the Taliban didn't exist when we were providing weapons, then we didn't provide weapons to the Taliban. It's really pretty simple to tell the truth.

If a few members of a violent street gang happen to be veterans of the US armed forces, we wouldn't say something stupid like "the US government provides training to street gang members" unless we were trying to give a false impression.

BigMeatballDave
03-11-2011, 09:40 AM
It's far from obvious. See below:FUCK YOU!
That is CLEARLY not what I was talking about.

I forgot. You think our Federal government is infallible. We do nothing wrong.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 09:48 AM
**** YOU!
That is CLEARLY not what I was talking about.

I forgot. You think our Federal government is infallible. We do nothing wrong.

Not clearly at all. In fact, it seemed that you clearly didn't care:

Don't really care.

If you want to clarify now, fine. Don't blame me for the confusion though.

Donger
03-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Don't really care. We supplied weapons to Taliban 20some yrs ago.

:spock:

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 11:25 AM
True, but overly simplistic (not to mention, unnecessarily and inappropriately partisan). Our Pakistan policy is obviously less than perfect, but it's not all that clear what should be done about it. Don't you think that the Obama administration would be quick to reverse the "decision started by the Bush administration" if they thought it would be an effective policy change?


The only effective policy change that can be made with Pakistan is give the money and military support to India instead.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:32 AM
The only effective policy change that can be made with Pakistan is give the money and military support to India instead.

Something tells me that there are some serious potential pitfalls with that plan.

go bowe
03-11-2011, 11:32 AM
FUCK YOU!
That is CLEARLY not what I was talking about.

I forgot. You think our Federal government is infallible. We do nothing wrong.geeze man, lighten up...

as far as pat thinking the federal government is infallible he only thinks that when a republican is in office... o:-) o:-) o:-)

go bowe
03-11-2011, 11:34 AM
The only effective policy change that can be made with Pakistan is give the money and military support to India instead.oh good, drive pakistan into the waiting arms of china, india's main adversary...

good plan... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:36 AM
geeze man, lighten up...

as far as pat thinking the federal government is infallible he only thinks that when a republican is in office... o:-) o:-) o:-)

:)

Cave Johnson
03-11-2011, 11:40 AM
Well, that's it.

Fire up the tanks and humvees, boys, we're going to Tehran.

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 11:40 AM
At the time those statements were made, the Taliban, while not our friends, were not our enemies. If they had been willing to turn bin Laden and company over to us, we wouldn't have invaded. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the power and/or the inclination to do so.

And Pakistan could have and presently could do better to use the money and support we give them for the reasons we give it to them. And not allowing the Taliban fairly unfettered safe passage into and out of Afghanistan and refuge in the tribal areas to re-arm and re-group. With help largely coming from within their own government and military.

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Something tells me that there are some serious potential pitfalls with that plan.

Well of course there is, with China mainly.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:46 AM
And Pakistan could have and presently could do better to use the money and support we give them for the reasons we give it to them. And not allowing the Taliban fairly unfettered safe passage into and out of Afghanistan and refuge in the tribal areas to re-arm and re-group. With help largely coming from within their own government and military.

That would be nice.

patteeu
03-11-2011, 11:49 AM
Well of course there is, with China mainly.

In addition to (a) possibly destabilizing the situation between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India and (b) losing the partial support we get from Pakistan with respect to Afghanistan and the Taliban.

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 11:49 AM
oh good, drive pakistan into the waiting arms of china, india's main adversary...

good plan... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Are you kidding me? And china give up making it's McDonalds and Wendy's kids toys for us. Thats pure bank. pfft

China would be good at being able to make sure there wouldn't be all out nuclear warfare. I don't think they would appreciate having to deal with it though.

RubberSponge
03-11-2011, 11:51 AM
In addition to (a) possibly destabilizing the situation between nuclear Pakistan and nuclear India and (b) losing the partial support we get from Pakistan with respect to Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Sounds like a game of you got played.