Hezbollah Trains Iraqi Militants, Says Interrogation Reports - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Imperator · #16 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

If a missile hit one of your warships would I be justified in blaming Israel because they had the means to carry out the attack and a history of attacking U.S. warships in international waters?

...wth are you talking about frank? what does that have to do with what I said?

Quote:

I tend to agree with Scott Ritter's assessment of the issue. I find it more likely that Hezbollah is being demonised by America in an attempt to make an Israeli security matter into an American security matter.

scott who?

Didn't he make a movie and retire to hollywood or something?

Frank · #17 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

...wth are you talking about frank? what does that have to do with what I said?

What does Hezbollah actions in the 90's have to do with the accusations of today? See where I am going now?

Luap · #18 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

Yes I agree and I am not saying they all hold the "noble" flag. However, they are on their lands, they hold a large section of that region, and peace and stability is in their interest even if they are baddies.

America should not be in the M/E, it has no business there, it shud have no interest in there, just like Iran has no interest in America, just like Hizbullah has no interest in America. Say Iran decides that America is not sharing its Texas oil and that its supplies will end in 30 years time, should it invade Texas and ship its oil to Iran? It can justify the invasion by saying that the Bush Administration is barbaric, and Bush is a dictator and has developed WMDs, America has used nuclear weapons before and can use them again so we must disarm them etc.... you get the point. The Americans should stay inside their borders, and should stop messing about with Middle Eastern affairs.

So the conclusion I personally reached and I am sure the vast majority of this world has reached, .... America is unwanted in the Middle East, it shouldnt be there, and like I said, all parties in the region should unite to terminate this unwanted illegal presence in the region for the good of all countries of the region.

You know what pisses me off most? America has the power to do good, but its using the vast majority of this power to do evil. Lets see!. In the Myanmar disaster, whats the number of dead till now? 25,000??? How much money did the US give? I read this morning that it donated through USAid $ 3 Million. WTF is this? this is the value of a villa in LA! But how much did it put aside for wars that kill 100,000s of people? Trillions of dollars. Enough said!

WS.

This looks like more of the same thing, though, demonizing America. No foreign state influence is really wanted anywhere, but it's a fact of international relations that there are stronger states and weaker states, and that the former impose their will on the latter. A rather regime of international law and international institutions has developed over the decades, but there is still no denying that powerful states can and will do what they desire. If history had a different trajectory, then it is entirely possible that North America would be subject to foreign occupation and manipulation. When it comes to the energy supply that makes civilization work, it is not just a "Middle Eastern affair," either. Every industrial and developing state has an interest in what happens to the oil supply of the world.

Also, it's a weak attempt, IMO, to attack the American government pledging money to Burma. If that is so bad, why not comment on the fact that America is one of the more actively opposed states to the military junta that is essentially the reason so many people died because of lack of infrastructure? Why not villify China or India or Russia for supporting the junta with business and weapons?

Pogo · #19 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

This looks like more of the same thing, though, demonizing America. No foreign state influence is really wanted anywhere, but it's a fact of international relations that there are stronger states and weaker states, and that the former impose their will on the latter. A rather regime of international law and international institutions has developed over the decades, but there is still no denying that powerful states can and will do what they desire. If history had a different trajectory, then it is entirely possible that North America would be subject to foreign occupation and manipulation. When it comes to the energy supply that makes civilization work, it is not just a "Middle Eastern affair," either. Every industrial and developing state has an interest in what happens to the oil supply of the world.

Also, it's a weak attempt, IMO, to attack the American government pledging money to Burma. If that is so bad, why not comment on the fact that America is one of the more actively opposed states to the military junta that is essentially the reason so many people died because of lack of infrastructure? Why not villify China or India or Russia for supporting the junta with business and weapons?

The fact of the matter is that we do support such disgusting regimes, when it suits the vested interests of the elites.

For myself, it's a scathing indictment on humanity that we haven't evolved beyond power politics and reached a point where international law is more than just a cheap pretense, and it is for this reason that another world war is all but a certainty.

Hope you aren't planning on having any children, Luap, because as ugly as things presently are, it's nothing compared to what is in store for us in the very near future.

Wisdom_Seeker · #20 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

The fact of the matter is that we do support such disgusting regimes, when it suits the vested interests of the elites.

For myself, it's a scathing indictment on humanity that we haven't evolved beyond power politics and reached a point where international law is more than just a cheap pretense, and it is for this reason that another world war is all but a certainty.

Hope you aren't planning on having any children, Luap, because as ugly as things presently are, it's nothing compared to what is in store for us in the very near future.

I wouldnt be surprised if another war breaks off in the Middle East, of course America will be part of it and perhaps Israel too. Luap is right in saying that its all to do with power and the strongest gets to do whatever it wishes to do. This is why I said, the weakest and oppressed nations should unite and work togather on resisting any wrongdoing from superpowers.

Nobody should accept a bully to come to their region, destabalise it, cause chaos everywhere then leave it destroyed and worthless (oil sucked up and shipped here and there).

WS.

Wisdom_Seeker · #21 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

The question is this:

What is the best way to deal with a bully such as America who uses its power to do nothing but harm and spread chaos and misery?

The UN? Its a joke. International Law? Thats also a big joke. Human Rights organisations? No power.

I'd like to hear Americans answer this question and put themselves in the shoes of people who are at the receiving end of American Injustice. Lets put the patriotic sht aside for a sec, I want to get serious answers from americans on this one.

WS.

Pogo · #22 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

I wouldnt be surprised if another war breaks off in the Middle East, of course America will be part of it and perhaps Israel too. Luap is right in saying that its all to do with power and the strongest gets to do whatever it wishes to do. This is why I said, the weakest and oppressed nations should unite and work togather on resisting any wrongdoing from superpowers.

Nobody should accept a bully to come to their region, destabalise it, cause chaos everywhere then leave it destroyed and worthless (oil sucked up and shipped here and there).

WS.

Sure, the weak should band together, but the strategy of divide and conquer is extremely effective, and until such time as people learn how to counter it, the weak shall remain weak and disorganized.

Frank · #23 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

So, assuming these interrogation reports are legitimate and that this anonymous official isn't just spreading rumors

You may want to read the following:

Quote:

Media Disinformation: Iran's Link to Iraqi Insurgents

New York Times vs McClatchy

by Greg Mitchell

Michael Gordon, the military writer for The New York Times who contributed several false stories about Iraqi WMD in the runup to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2002, has written several articles in the past year about Iran’s alleged training of Iraqi insurgents -- or supplying them with weapons to kill Americans. He produced another major report on this subject for today’s Times – based solely on unnamed sources -- which is at odds with an account from McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau.

Gordon asserts that “Militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran…An American official said the account of Hezbollah’s role was provided by four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately.

“The United States has long charged that the Iranians were training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran, which Iran has consistently denied, and there have been previous reports about Hezbollah operatives in Iraq.

“But the Americans say the reports of Hezbollah’s role at the Iranian camp offer important details about Iranian assistance to the militias, including efforts Iran appears to be making to train the fighters in unobtrusive ways.”

But McClatchy has a quite different take.

Leila Fadel, the bureau chief, and Shashank Bengali report: “The Iraqi Government seemed to distance itself from U.S. accusations towards Iran Sunday saying it would not be forced into conflict with its Shiite neighbor. And Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki ordered the formation of a committee to look into foreign intervention in Iraq.

“As the government appeared to back down from its hardening stance against Iran, four marines were killed in Anbar in the deadliest attack in the Sunni province in months.

"The government spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh, told reporters Sunday that a committee was formed to find ‘tangible information’ about foreign intervention, specifically Iran's role in Iraq rather than ‘information based on speculation.’

"’We don't want to be pushed into any conflict with any neighboring countries, especially Iran. What happened before is enough. We paid a lot,’ Dabbagh said, referring to the eight years war between the two nations in which an estimated 1 million people died.”

Also today from Agence France-Press: “Iraq said on Sunday it has no evidence that Iran was supplying militias engaged in fierce street fighting with security forces in Baghdad.

“Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there was no 'hard evidence' of involvement by the neighbouring Shiite government of Iran in backing Shiite militiamen in the embattled country. Asked about reports that weapons captured from Shiite fighters bore 2008 markings suggesting Iranian involvement, Dabbagh said: ‘We don't have that kind of evidence... If there is hard evidence we will defend the country.’"

Here is a list of Gordon’s sources in his Times article:

-- “An American official”

-- “But the Americans say”

-- “American officials”

-- “American officials”

-- “The Americans “

--“American officials”

--“An American official”

-- ditto, and so on

Greg Mitchell's new book explores Gordon's and McClatchy's past reporting on Iraq and Iraq. It is titled, "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq."

© Copyright Greg Mitchell, Editor and Publisher, 2008 - © Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca - Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization

soot · #24 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

This is why I said, the weakest and oppressed nations should unite and work togather on resisting any wrongdoing from superpowers.

But it's wrong for superpowers to step in and address the wrongdoings of smaller nations?

Quote:

...then leave it destroyed and worthless (oil sucked up and shipped here and there).

Where has that happened?

Luap · #25 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank

You may want to read the following:

Thanks for the article. I generally regard the news media with as much skepticism as possible, and this article casts a bit more doubt given Gordon's history.

Luap · #26 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogo

The fact of the matter is that we do support such disgusting regimes, when it suits the vested interests of the elites.

I know. There are plenty of good examples to villify American foreign policy with; I was just pointing out that WS's was a particularly bad one, and characteristic of those that find fault with everything America does, even when there is little fault to find, or when much more fault can be laid elsewhere.

Luap · #27 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisdom_Seeker

The question is this:

What is the best way to deal with a bully such as America who uses its power to do nothing but harm and spread chaos and misery?

The UN? Its a joke. International Law? Thats also a big joke. Human Rights organisations? No power.

I'd like to hear Americans answer this question and put themselves in the shoes of people who are at the receiving end of American Injustice. Lets put the patriotic sht aside for a sec, I want to get serious answers from americans on this one.

WS.

I'm not a patriot, or a nationalist, and I really don't think nation-states have much inherent value as organizers of society. In fact, they may be more harmful than good. That said, I disagree with the characterization of America as a "bully that only uses its power to do nothing but harm and spread chaos and misery." Any state in the same position would behave similarly, if not worse, and frankly, I think the world is lucky to have had a relatively liberal democracy with relatively accountable leaders be the sole superpower after the Cold War. Sure, America's leaders were and are no saints, but they also didn't, or weren't able to, take full advantage of its newfound unipolarity.

Instead of asking what to do about America, I think we need to ask about to do about international anarchy, because that is a large contributor of what allows states to engage in military conflict, in power politics, in human rights abuses. And ironically, America is (or at least was) in one of the best positions in history to reshape the international order. I suppose it would be naive to imagine a nation-state leading the world into a new international order that weakened nation-states, though. Rather, it seems the continual balancing of power and threat is at it again in the new century with the formation of regional security pacts and continental politico-economic integration. Maybe that is how things will unfold in the new century to balance against a single state's hegemony. I don't know, but that sounds possibly worse than nation-states today.

Euro-Chess · #28 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by soot

But it's wrong for superpowers to step in and address the wrongdoings of smaller nations?

Since when? Colonialisation has resulted in several positives for smaller territories, ie. good government, strong economic fundamentals, etc. The fact of the matter is a lack of attention and meddling by superpowers in the affairs of smaller countries is precisely why those very countries are usually burdened with dictatorships, crime, and the resulting consequences.

Luap · #29 (**permalink**) 05-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euro-Chess

Since when? Colonialisation has resulted in several positives for smaller territories, ie. good government, strong economic fundamentals, etc. The fact of the matter is a lack of attention and meddling by superpowers in the affairs of smaller countries is precisely why those very countries are usually burdened with dictatorships, crime, and the resulting consequences.

Is this sarcasm?

It can be hard to tell on message boards.

skeptic1 · #30 (**permalink**) 05-09-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luap

Considering the allegation being made, I expected to see a thread on this. Maybe I missed it. [Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say - New York Times]

Anyway, an official summed up interrogation records for the Times, apparently, and Iran has been seeking to train Iraqi militants "unobtrusively." The article is pretty indirect about its sources, and this snippet is tucked into the middle:

So, assuming these interrogation reports are legitimate and that this anonymous official isn't just spreading rumors:

"What to do? A tactical strike against these camps? That seems to be a clear option, but Iran's retaliation could unleash a wave of violence around the region. Make the Iraqi government take a hard stance against this sort of clandestine Iranian "support"? A nice idea, but it doesn't look like many of the Iraqi Shiite factions would be willing to follow through with it. Try to further alienate Iran by strong condemnations about its nuclear program? Possible, but it seems that NIE report a little while back may have weakened international support in that arena, and meanwhile the negotiators are futilely offering Iran essentially the same incentives package that was denied before. It seems to me the most pragmatic plan would be some clandestine countermeasures, such as those that the US has allegedly be engaging in anyway. But what about non-covert countermeasures? Are good options even available, you think?

Sounds like this report comes straight out of Israel. !

Revised:
"Each" man is an island...
Still; Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne (original verse)

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode