Obama's Betrayal of Israel and Arming of Iran

I would say their reason for non-disclosure is that Israeli leaders have integrity.

 

Have you read about Iran and the war in Afghanistan?

 

I've read a few Senate reports, yes.

 

If valuing your life is critical to you-and why not-then I suggest you contact your representative and demand from him an answer as to why you are still doing business with Saudi Arabia; the nation which spawned the attackers on 9/11. After all, is it not America's policy to attack and invade nations whom they believe are connected with terrorism? I guess your governments value oil more than your life...

- - - Updated - - -

This is sarcasm, right?

 

Iran helped overthrow Taliban, candidate says
By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

Members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards fought alongside and advised the Afghan rebels who helped U.S. forces topple Afghanistan's Taliban regime in the months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the guards' former leader says.

In an interview by e-mail, Mohsen Rezaie, a candidate in Iran's presidential elections next week, says the United States has not given Iran enough credit. He says Iran played an "important role in the overthrow of the Taliban" in 2001 (Related: Full text of interview).

Even before U.S. forces entered Afghanistan, Iran backed the Northern Alliance, a loose coalition of warlords and militias from the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities. The alliance fought the ruling Taliban, a regime dominated by majority Pashtuns that imposed a harsh Sunni Islamic government.

Current and former U.S. troops and officials confirm Iranians were present with the Northern Alliance as U.S. forces organized the rebels in 2001. They say U.S. forces had no interaction with the Iranians. They deny the Iranians made meaningful contributions on the battlefield.

Rezaie is the first to claim that Iran played a key role in capturing the Afghan capital, Kabul, at the climax of the war.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says he has "no knowledge of (Iranian) assistance." The CIA refused to comment.

Former CIA Afghan team leader Gary Schroen says there were two Iranian guard colonels attached to a Northern Alliance commander, Bismullah Khan, outside Kabul when U.S. Special Forces arrived in September 2001.

Schroen, author of First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan, says, "There was never any (U.S.) interaction (with the Iranians), but we saw them." He downplayed the Iranian role.

"We knew they were on the ground," says John McLaughlin, former deputy director of the CIA.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm

 

Which ones? perhaps cold war will describe better Iran-Israel im not entirly against such definition.

Is that public knowledge? its news to me, I know all Iran supports is Hamas that follows its agenda, it doesnt support PLO or these peace talks. iof you can correct me on that I would be happy.

Please correct me, if there is an issue I would love to be wrong about it's the peace process, I just hope you wont give me the bye bye Israel option and call that peace...

We are disgussing what the Nuke means on another post so I wont go over it again,

From Iranian perspective they need a nuke which is why anyone how is frank with himself knows that's what they after, Im not denying them a Nuke because its the fair thig to do (fair means alot of diffrent things to diffrent ppl), Im denying it from them for my state security.

 

I watch my fellow citizens fill up at the gas station every day as part of their daily lives. When disasters strike, I watch my fellow citizens stand all day long in lines for oil. Oil is our life...Same with almost all societies I have been to.

And no, it is not sarcasm. Everyone knows that NO NATION ON EARTH fully discloses any part of their arsenal, including nukes. I like the Israeli approach, and that is to not participate in the lying game with the nukes. It's what I would do. Just remain silent, and not put forth what everyone knows will be a lie. It's called integrity.

 

That was not face to face...., they hardly fought "mele" with our soldiers, rockets and bombs were their weapons. in any case we came to them, Im talking about an all out war on Israel to destroy it.

 

That's funny, I got a USAToday link too: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-01-30-ied-iran_x.htm which says this:

Officials such as Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte have said the new bombs are being provided by Iran and are killing U.S. troops.

If you want me to believe an Iranian presidential candidate (in a country that doesn't even have free speech or press lol), or my number 2 commander in Iraq, I'm going with the latter.

 

No nation can claim integrity if it condemns another for attempting to obtain a nuclear capability, whilst at the same time having its own, refusing to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and neither denying nor admitting its existence.. That is called hypocrisy, and as far as I'm concerned hypocrisy and integrity are oxymoronic.

 

You’ve got to try harder to build your case against Iran. The biggest sponsor of terrorism worldwide is Saudi Arabia – our supposed ally and the biggest ever terror act against the USA was pulled off by mainly Saudis.
By the way, even Chomsky had to admit that the USA is a leading terrorist state in the world. You have no leg to stand on. There is no moral high ground.

Saudis the biggest financers of terror in the world. God knows how many British.US soldiers died because of Saudis. Must be few thousands.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/12/20101251936167112.html

http://monthlyreview.org/2001/11/01/the-united-states-is-a-leading-terrorist-state

 

Yes, because naturally your military leaders and officials have no allegiance to the establishment, nor are they representatives of US foreign policy, and are therefore totally unbiased in their opinions!
Personally I prefer to maintain a healthy level of scepticism whenever I encounter pronouncements from the establishment. Given ample precedent of lies and deceit from them I hope I can be forgiven.

 

I don't see Israel striking at North Korea. They are not hypocrites for wanting to prevent Iran, a country which is trying to destroy Israel, from obtaining nukes. That's just common sense.

 

So I'm not to believe the generals, CIA officials, Senators etc who say Iran is complicit in killing UN soldiers in Afghan and Iraq, but believe Iranian pres candidates, again in a country without free speech or press, a country if I were in right now, I would probably be arrested for typing this, even if I could access this site? That's a tall order.

 

This is nonsense. Common-sense tells me not to listen to propaganda. Clearly you do and believe it unquestioningly.

 

Did you believe your officials when they insisted Saddam (who America supported and armed), had WMD, or 'mobile chemical weapons labs'?
Your officials lie to you constantly. If you are either unaware of this, or accept whatever you're told without question, then forgive me for suggesting you might be a little gullible.

 

I'm not so sure it is the Saudi govt that is sponsoring terrorism. Now did i see hints of radical Islam in the Saudi general population, and even their officer corps, yes. But I don't think it's in the Saudi monarchy's interests to work with terrorists. They have to see what is going on in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghan, Mali, Yemen, Pakistan, and Egypt. Govts of those nations aren't having a good time with extremists right now. I think the wave will inevitably reach Saudi. Hints were in Bahrain a couple of years ago. Hints are in the attitudes I saw in their people and military. But all of this doesn't mean the US shouldn't work with the Saudis govt in the meantime, while they still have the ability to influence events.

 

It's a fact that Israel is surrounded by rockets. Rockets that weren't made in Israel. Rockets that have taken over a decade to place in a ring around Israel. I'm not so stupid as to not realize how those rockets got there, and how the people who fire them got there. Iran helped them get there, just like they helped terrorists and IED's other weapons get into Iraq and Afghan.

 

Are you in Saudi Arabia now?

 

I explained to the dozen or so people I worked with on the day we invaded Iraq, that we would find no WMD's. I knew they lied. But I also knew why they lied. Taking Saddam out was the right move. Do I fault Bush and his team for failing to convince Americans of it, yes. But I still agree with the invasion. I said all this on day one. All of my military buddies know I did, but unfortunately I wasn't doing the fb or forum thing at the time to have a perm record. But I assure you, I knew what Bush was doing, I agreed with the invasion. I also predicted it was the end of the careers of his political team. On day one of the invasion. And I respected them on that day for throwing it away.

 

No, but I have been, for long periods. I have many hours of 1 on 1 with Saudi officers. I was instructed to never speak of politics or religion during my duties with them. I disobeyed. I got a rundown of how Saudis feel about the Israel and the US. I've been in homes till 3am as people would bring local clerics in to talk of Islam to me. The Saudis that had been to the US for training for months at a time (especially in cities like Miami, etc.), I found to be very willing to talk about what's going on with the general attitude toward Israel their country. I know there are extremist attitudes in Saudi. I have yet to be convinced that the Saudi monarchy is working with them, or promoting that attitude. In fact, they should be scared shi tless of that attitude.

 

I trust you will also agree that the invasion solved nothing, achieved nothing and resulted only in the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis and has encouraged dissident groups to step into the vaccuum created by the removal of Saddam, which has resulted in the continuing slaughter of innocent Iraqis in what is tantamount to a civil war.

Saddam was a bastard, and there's no arguing with that, but he represented no threat whatsoever to America. There are many other far worse bastards around committing genocide against their populations or openly threatening America, but they get left to their own devices or, as in the case of the communist regime of Pol Pot, actively supported.

 

Possibly it was a failure. It's too early to tell if the this democratic wave will hold. Bush and his team told us that the ME would go democratic when Saddam fell. They appear to be. Give it 50 years. If this decade is still remembered as the decade the ME went democratic, then Bush will be vindicated. Saddam represented enough of a threat. He tried to take over Kuwait. He screwed around with weapons inspectors on the regular. He once again massed his troops on the border with Kuwait a few years after we kicked him out. He was radar locking our acft patrolling the no-fly zones on a regular basis. He was slaughtering Kurds. UN resolution after resolution disobeyed, undermining the UN further. ME stability and general military strategy reasons. Yeah, he needed to go.

If it is a failure, I disagree on the reasons it was a failure. MSM being the culprit, once again....

 

I have always found Saudis willing to talk.. about religion, politics, international news..

I am sure the SAG isn't supporting terrorism and I would say MOST Saudis are not extremists.

Were you in the Eastern Province or Jeddah, Riyadh?

 

Israel and Iran are not at war - that is not in dispute. When countries are not at war that is defined as peace. Again, that's not to say there aren't significant tensions. Further, escalating the conflict by attacking Iran will not improve the likelihood of peace. By pursuing such a belligerent foreign policy Israel only hurts its standing in the region and increases the likelihood of a major war. Iran is not like Lebanon or Palestine whereby Israel can flex its militaristic muscles without fear of retribution - Iran has the capability to inflict serious damage on Israel.

Yours views are antithetical to peace.

Yet the US gives more money to Israel and has vetoed every attempt to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes, so there is no doubt as to which side the US is on. The US only funds Palestine in order to minimise the influence of Hamas (with the goal of improving Israeli security) and provide humanitarian assistance (which is a moral imperative). The US has done nothing but show contempt for Palestinians.