From Iraq to Iran: More Bad Intelligence
Remember when Bush told us that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda? Well I was one of those who was saying back then that was impossible. Hussein, a secularist who spent a fair amount of time torturing and oppressing the religious extremists of Iraq, and the religious extremists of al-Qaeda who spent a fair amount of time killing and oppressing secularists, had nothing in common. I spoke out as much as possible saying that Bush was lying. And, in the end, the only link between Iraq and al-Qaeda was al-Qaeda support for one of the anti-Hussein Kurdish groups. Bush lied to get us into a war we never should have been in and look where it has taken us.
Well, it's happening again as Bush is trying to expand the war into Iran. This comes from Guysen Israel News:
The American Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns has said that Iran was transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan. He added that talks regarding new sanctions against Tehran would start in the UN in a few weeks. (Guysen.Isra×›l.News)
No. Iran is NOT transferring arms to the Taliban. The Taliban is a group of Sunni fanatics linked to al-Qaeda who have spent a great deal of time oppressing and killing Shi'ites in Afghanistan. Iran is a Shi'a theocracy that would love to see the Shi'a of Afghanistan independent of the Sunnis of Afghanistan, including the Taliban. After 9/11 I felt that one of our best strategies would have been to work with Iran to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban because if there is one nation on earth that hates al-Qaeda as much as America it is Iran. Instead Bush has done his best to prove correct the accusations that America is conducting a crusade against all Islam by picking fights with the most prominent secularist (Saddam Hussein), the most prominent Shi'a extremists (Iran) and the most prominent Sunni extremists (al-Qaeda and the Taliban), all of whom hate eachother as much as they hate America.
And while Bush wants us to believe Sunni extremists and Shi'a Iran will happily team up with Iran arming the Sunni extremists, back in Iraq one of the holiest Shi'a shrines has been bombed again. The last time this happened was in 2006 and that bombing was linked to an al-Qaeda linked Sunni group that has come into prominence since America toppled the seculraist government of Iraq.
We have created a situation of civil war between Shi'a and Sunni extremists. There is no way in hell Shi'a Iran will be arming a group of Sunni extremists because those Sunni extremists will turn those arms against Shi'a. Iran is not that stupid!
Bush is lying again. Iran may be an oppressive theocracy that is stupidly denying the Holocaust and threatening Israel with destruction, but THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE TALIBAN. Anyone with any knowledge of the Muslim world knows that a link between Iran and the Taliban makes about as much sense as a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. No sense at all.
Wake up America. Bush is lying to you to get us into ANOTHER war we have no business being involved in. Are you going to blindly follow again?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Republican lies | Taliban | War | Iran
Such ignorance!
Submitted by mole333 on 13 June 2007 - 3:47pm.
No. There is no credible evidence from any source whatsoever that supports the assertion that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaeda. Not even Bush claims that anymore. Every intelligence agency in the world says that was BS from start to finish. I said it before and I will say it again: the ONLY link between Iraq and al-Qaeda before we invaded was an anti-Hussein Kurdish group that was linked to al-Qaeda.
As to Syria, first of all I am unaware of any unusually close links between Iran and Syria other than they both support anti-Israel groups in Lebanon and Palestine...but so do many Muslim nations. But even if there was such a close relationship between Shi'a Iran and the secular Baath party, that in no way contradicts what I said. Iran would not ally themselves with Sunni fundamentalists like the Taliban. However, allying themselves with secular leaning governments is a possibility. You are aware that Syria, for all its faults, is not fundamentalist?
And, in case you missed it, I was right about a link between Iran and the Taliban being bullshit. The head of NATO in Afghanistan denies that any such link exists.
I've got a question
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 16 June 2007 - 6:39pm.
Two, as a matter of fact. First, in Carter's administration when Russia was in Afghanistan, he disallowed American athletes from participating in the Olympics. But when exactly did the US make its foray? I remember the Texas Representative who was interested in US military help for the Afghan people. Dan Rather used to have him on his show, but I'm too lazy to look up his name. Operative part of this question concerns how much US involvement in Afghanistan previous to 9/11 was because of the Cold War.
Second question involves interaction between Iraq and Iran, with the US meddling. Obviously, Saddam was a protege of the Soviets. There has been a lot of discussion of how much money Iraq owed Russia and France during our latest war there. Russia seems to have disassociated itself from Iraq after we mutilated it, but do you think that is why they back Iran now? It's maybe a lot like how we, after the first Iraq War, played Sunni/Shia elements against each other and left the Shia in Iraq to be murdered, or so it's said.
It's sometimes said that the War on Terror is a lot like the old Cold War (only hotter). I sometimes wonder if any of the "developed" countries want to do anything which will give the "underdeveloped" a chance to "develop."
Off the top of my head
Submitted by mole333 on 16 June 2007 - 8:02pm.
Limited time to look it up now, but I know we started arming the Mujahideen (Islamic fundamentalists who were precursors to the Taliban and al-Qaeda) beginning with Carter, I think, but really taking off under Reagan. These pre-Taliban were praised by Ronald Reagan as freedom fighters. During the Reagan involvement, I remember thinking to myself that, bad though the Soviet invasion was, we were stupid to arm fundamentalists because I was sure one day those weapons would be aimed at us. And they eventually were!
When the Soviets withdrew, America did nothing to help rebuild. We simply stopped worrying about it and let the fundamentalists take over and a civil war ensued. It was during that period that Iran became involved against the Taliban and in favor of the Shi'ites. So ALL our pre-9/11 interest in Afghanistan was due to the Cold War...until Clinton. Clinton wanted to and tried to get Osama bin Laden well before 9/11. But by and large our interest had been because of the Cold War.
As far as I know we never had boots on the ground until after 9/11. We fought in Afghanistan by proxy only.
As far as Iraq goes, I think you are right that they were Soviet allies for awhile (their tanks were Soviet made, I believe) while Iran was our ally, under the Shah. But during the Iran/Iraq war we backed Saddam Hussein...in fact Bush senior provided him with supplies that could be used to make WMD, which is why we knew all along what capabilities Hussein did or did not have. That was, as far as I am aware, the only post-Cold War involvement with Iraq we had and our interest was mainly anti-Iran. But Rumsfeld went to Hussein and gave him all he wanted so we could fight our proxy war against Iran.
The opposition to our invasion of Iraq and our pending invasion of Iran I think largely is due to the fact that it makes no sense. The French were fighting side by side with us in Afghanistan and we suddenly pulled up stakes and moved most of our troops to Iraq. The French couldn't figure out what the hell we were doing. The Russians might well oppose us no matter what...they have nothing as a Superpower other than their opposition to us. But France was side by side with us at Tora Bora and it was the French troops the Taliban feared the most.
We lost many allies when we invaded Iraq...and we will lose more if we invade Iran. We forget that Iran WON the war against Iraq. We are mired in Iraq...we have little chance if we invade Iran. I don't even think we can fully occupy Iran if we invade in our current overextended state.
That clears up some things
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 16 June 2007 - 8:44pm.
I'm beginning to wonder if Condi isn't playing a smarter role than the official one from the White House. She seems to be distancing herself from the official line. However, maybe that is because Gates is just getting his feet wet. (A little like a good cop, bad cop routine.) It's for sure that arriving at a settled oil law in Iraq is essential before boots will leave Baghdad. I'm such a cynic on the oil issue. I say when you see Jim Baker on deck, you'll know there's movement.
In the meantime, I'm trying to make sense out of the Palestinian uproar.
not so
There is extensive documentation linking Saddam to al Qaeda. If you want links let me know. And the idea that Saddam wouldn't cooperate with jihadists is ridiculous. But don't take my word for it. Take Al Gore's. Here's his lengthy speech excoriating Bush Senior for ignoring Saddam's harboring and aiding jihadists. In it Gore also backs Richard Perle's hawkish approach by name.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html
And as for Sunni and Shia extremists hating each other as much as they hate us, who are the Iranian mullahs's biggest allies? The Syrian Bathists. And vice Versa.