posted
Thats interesting news, especially when combined with this:
quote:Fifth NATO tanker attacked in six days since Pakistan sealed border post
Nobody has claimed responsibility for Tuesday's bomb attack on a NATO tanker waiting at the Torkham border post, which Pakistan sealed six days ago. ... it is Pakistan's government, and not the Taliban, that has cut off NATO's supply route, bowing to public anger over US drone attacks and air strikes by manned aircraft on Pakistani targets. September saw 21 drone strikes in Pakistan, a record number, with three more strikes occurring so far in October, reports Reuters. 200 trucks waiting at border
Hundreds of supply trucks have been stuck on the Pakistan side of the border since the closure began. Pakistani daily newspaper Dawn reports that by Sunday, four days after the crossing was shut, as many as 200 oil tankers and other supply trucks were sitting in Torkham crossing because they had been "rejected clearance to proceed."
posted
No, not in the short term. But, on the whole, the next generation of Iran is already lost to the ruling party. Time will claim them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, not in the short term. But, on the whole, the next generation of Iran is already lost to the ruling party. Time will claim them.
That still does not guarantee that the next generation will be any better once in power.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. On the other hand, perhaps time shall also claim them. On the whole, in the long term, everything will be different.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Indeed. On the other hand, perhaps time shall also claim them. On the whole, in the long term, everything will be different.
quote:Originally posted by deerpark27: Indeed. On the other hand, perhaps time shall also claim them. On the whole, in the long term, everything will be different.
Lol, indeed. Time solves everything neh?
So long as nothing else interferes.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, not in the short term. But, on the whole, the next generation of Iran is already lost to the ruling party. Time will claim them.
That still does not guarantee that the next generation will be any better once in power.
When you look at the values of the much more progressive, tolerant, free-thinking youth of Iran versus the current ruling generation, and you combine that with the furious rebelliousness and disdain they have for the illegitimate ruling theocracy, you have everything short of an assurance that when change comes to the state, it will change for the better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A revolution can be a long and bloody business. We've often seen that by the time a movement makes it into power, it can easily have lost the more progressive and intellectual elements.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A revolution can be a long and bloody business. We've often seen that by the time a movement makes it into power, it can easily have lost the more progressive and intellectual elements.
Yes, exactly. Don't get me wrong, the current regime has set the bar ridiculously low, and I do have high hopes that when it's finally toppled the vacuum will be filled by at least competent people, perhaps even good people, Iran certainly has those sorts of people.
But a bloody transition can only inhibit the number of good people alive to help rebuild the country.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely that this is what is actually happened, but I don't think we can just accept that Afghan or our government's word that these weapons came from Iran. It's certainly not beyond them to lie about this if it serves their purposes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely that this is what is actually happened, but I don't think we can just accept that Afghan or our government's word that these weapons came from Iran. It's certainly not beyond them to lie about this if it serves their purposes.
What's the point of lying about something that most certainly is happening?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely that this is what is actually happened, but I don't think we can just accept that Afghan or our government's word that these weapons came from Iran. It's certainly not beyond them to lie about this if it serves their purposes.
What's the point of lying about something that most certainly is happening?
I think he means that the shipment may not have came from the Iranian government but perhaps some faction within the country, in which case leaving the actual source of the weapons would certainly would benefit any warhawks left over from the Bush administration, or maybe even Pro-Isreal groups. Besides, when is it ever a bad idea to lie during war-time?
quote:The official also noted that Iran -- a majority Shiite country -- and the Sunni Taliban almost went to war with one another in the late 1990s, so it's not really in their interest to be a major source of top-shelf arms to the Taliban
An interesting point here.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely that this is what is actually happened, but I don't think we can just accept that Afghan or our government's word that these weapons came from Iran. It's certainly not beyond them to lie about this if it serves their purposes.
What's the point of lying about something that most certainly is happening?
These weapons are coming in from somewhere. Do we know that they are coming from Iran? The only sources we have for that are not exactly reliable. It's entirely possible that these shipments are not coming from Iran's government. It's even possible that they are not coming from Iran at all. There's plenty of motivation for our government to make Iran out a big bogeyman and not much to check them if they decide to fabricate evidence to this effect.
The Department of Defense has demonstrated that it is fine with going along with outright lies to the American public and the Obama administration is demonstrating that they are fine with this as well (cf. the BP oil spill data).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right and what I am saying is that Iran for years now has been doing this sort of thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why lie about this particular instance?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How do we know that they've been doing it for years?
Well not having intelligence that proves it, I can't say I *know*. But I think the idea they are is more plausible than they are not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also what the US did when the shoe was on the other foot *shrug* Given the success of the strategy, it would seem unwise for the Iranians not to learn from it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. And I believe that it probably is happening. But it is also definitely possible that the government of Iran is telling the truth when they say that they are not doing it and our government is lying when they say that we have proof that they are.
They would have strong motivation to lie about this, the people involved have demonstrated that they are definitely willing to lie, and there's nothing really to stop them from doing so. My estimation that this is probably happening is because it makes sense that it is happening, not because the government said it.
I get the feeling that this isn't the case for other people, which I guess was the point I was trying to make.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The official also noted that Iran -- a majority Shiite country -- and the Sunni Taliban almost went to war with one another in the late 1990s, so it's not really in their interest to be a major source of top-shelf arms to the Taliban
An interesting point here.
Um, no? That's Realpolitik. So they had differing interests ten years ago, what does that have to do with anything? Now they have a common enemy. Remember how quickly the US became a supplier of weapons to Germany after 1945?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Karzai told CNN on Monday that the United States is and has been aware of Iran's financial contributions. He also said that the United States gives bags of money.
"The United States is doing the same thing," he said. "They are providing cash to some of our offices."
Thats awesome. The puppet becomes the puppeteer, having the two compete in a bribe-off.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
