www.ditl.org

Cpl Kendall wrote:It's an illustration of how much hypocrisy there is in US politics. Pakistan has highly religious elements in it's government, it's security agencies are known supporters of terrorism and insurgents, it has actual nukes and an actual delivery system. So why Iran and not Pakistan?

OK. Then the simple answer is the inscrutable and arbitrary nature of US international policy. It's all about who we helped because it was convenient at the moment, and paying for those ties later on. Funny how the armed insurgents in Afghanistan are basically the same mujahaddin who the US was all too happy to support when they were fighting off the Red Menace, huh?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Right...we just had the Israeli government invade Lebanon twice and generally stomp all over Palestine killing people willy nilly. They even attacked a US ship, tried to attack a German and French ship as well as bomb UN OP's.

Notice I said "terrorist "attacks - i.e., ones against specifically civilian targets, not military attacks which may have had some collateral casualties. Anyway, it is definitely a matter of PR, but whn you say "milking the Holocaust," I think you should be careful about separating international Judaism from the political entity of Israel.

Cpl Kendall wrote: It's an illustration of how much hypocrisy there is in US politics. Pakistan has highly religious elements in it's government, it's security agencies are known supporters of terrorism and insurgents, it has actual nukes and an actual delivery system. So why Iran and not Pakistan?

Because for one Pakistans government is acting as our ally instead of calling for our distruction. For another their beef is with India not the US or Israel so much and India could handle the situation.

Although part of the issue is the distinction between having nukes and not having them yet. It's doable to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons. Nearly impossible to get rid of them once they have them.

Right...we just had the Israeli government invade Lebanon twice and generally stomp all over Palestine killing people willy nilly. .

I don't know if Israel would like to really sweep in and kill like you say. But they aren't. There is a major distinction between deliberately killing civilians to instill fear and not giving the enemy forces immunity because they set up in or around population centers.

On that note apperantly one of the new secret enrichment facilities in Iran is set up next to a holy site. Coincidence?

Mikey wrote:
OK. Then the simple answer is the inscrutable and arbitrary nature of US international policy. It's all about who we helped because it was convenient at the moment, and paying for those ties later on. Funny how the armed insurgents in Afghanistan are basically the same mujahaddin who the US was all too happy to support when they were fighting off the Red Menace, huh?

Aye, there's a saying that the US "always backs the wrong horse".

Notice I said "terrorist "attacks - i.e., ones against specifically civilian targets, not military attacks which may have had some collateral casualties. Anyway, it is definitely a matter of PR, but whn you say "milking the Holocaust," I think you should be careful about separating international Judaism from the political entity of Israel.

You know full well that I have nothing against Jews, I have a problem with Israel milking it's faith (and Israel is a stated Jewish err...state) for political goals. I don't care to get in yet another discussion of Judaism as a whole with you.

Because for one Pakistans government is acting as our ally instead of calling for our distruction. For another their beef is with India not the US or Israel so much and India could handle the situation.

Is that why their intelligence agency backs the Taliban? 30 years from now if the Pakistani government goes nuts and annihilates a US base, the US is going to go "oh the humanity! Why us?" And the rest of the world is going to go "really?"

Although part of the issue is the distinction between having nukes and not having them yet. It's doable to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons. Nearly impossible to get rid of them once they have them.

Yes it is, it's also next to impossible to prevent them from getting them. Countries want them for defence and as a status symbol, a "look at us we're Alpha's too!" And honestly I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Iran isn't entitled to them without admitting that the US just does not want to lose the right to force other countries to do it's bidding.

Cpl Kendall wrote:You know full well that I have nothing against Jews, I have a problem with Israel milking it's faith (and Israel is a stated Jewish err...state) for political goals. I don't care to get in yet another discussion of Judaism as a whole with you.

Not what I meant. What I meant was that there are elements in international Jewry (the ADL, for one prime suspect) that do act like that, but it hasn't really been a part of Israeli policy per se.

Mikey wrote:
Not what I meant. What I meant was that there are elements in international Jewry (the ADL, for one prime suspect) that do act like that, but it hasn't really been a part of Israeli policy per se.

Well I've completely lost what we are talking about here.

Israel milking the Holocaust.

On the subject of Iran and nukes, I believe I 've said before that they'll never have them - if the US doesn't bomb their facilities (including this new one) flat, then the Israelis certainly will.

Well Israel was denied to the US of Iraq airspace for such a thing. And it would be pretty friggen close for them anyways, coming in loaded while the Iranians don't have that burden.

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Aye, there's a saying that the US "always backs the wrong horse".

They were the right "horses" at the time. And bad as terrorists are, losing the cold war, or having WWIII start would have been worse. We do however need to learn to follow up better. And optimally design weapons for foreign use that become useless with age.

Is that why their intelligence agency backs the Taliban? 30 years from now if the Pakistani government goes nuts and annihilates a US base, the US is going to go "oh the humanity! Why us?" And the rest of the world is going to go "really?"

First of all I'm not sure where you're getting that their intelligence agency backs that Taliban. But at the moment their armed forces are still attacking the Taliban in Swat.

Also it isn't like we gave Pakistan the bomb. At the worst all that the US could be accused of there is not having a sufficent number of spies in Pakistan, and than not bombing the heck out of their nuclear facilities and assassinating their scientists.

Maybe India should have done so for their interests.

I think if Israel had stealth bombers they'd probably have hit Iran already. They really don't have the capability to do much more than slow Iran down. Though again that presumes if Isreal did launch a strike that Iran would just take it and whine to the UN instead of starting a war with Israel and the US.

sunnyside wrote:
First of all I'm not sure where you're getting that their intelligence agency backs that Taliban. But at the moment their armed forces are still attacking the Taliban in Swat.

The name of the agency escapes me, ISS, ISA, something starting with I anyways. Apparently the higher ups are highly religious and backed the Taliban government as well as allegedly supplying the current Taliban with Intel and gear.

Pakistan is really like an extreme version of the US with secular elements at odds with psychotic religious elements.

I think if Israel had stealth bombers they'd probably have hit Iran already. They really don't have the capability to do much more than slow Iran down. Though again that presumes if Isreal did launch a strike that Iran would just take it and whine to the UN instead of starting a war with Israel and the US.

I think at this point if Iran wants a bomb it's going to happen regardless of what we do. We're always going to miss some facilities and NK managed to cobble together a bomb with decades of sanctions and embargoes.

I'm not so sure that Iran would just take it or start a war, I mean they would be totally justified in retaliating against Israel and any US bases they used. It's an unprovoked attack after all but I think they'd just defend themselves and set their diplomacy to "smug"

Cpl Kendall wrote: The name of the agency escapes me, ISS, ISA, something starting with I anyways. Apparently the higher ups are highly religious and backed the Taliban government as well as allegedly supplying the current Taliban with Intel and gear.

I'm dubious without a source, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. Still, the government and their forces are hitting the Taliban, and allowing us, to a degree, to attack people within their boarder. So while I think most people are wary of them, they get to be on our good side for a while.

And again that's irrelevant to their getting/having the bomb.

NK managed to cobble together a bomb with decades of sanctions and embargoes.

Aside from a handful of people who are pretty deep into the left, I don't think anybody argues that sactions and embargoes are effective at getting a country to drop nuclear persuits if they are serious about them.

Bombing is much more effective, and with regime change being extrememly effective. Though I think most are aware we could just steamroll Iran as we did Iraq, and we aren't in a position from a moral or finicial point of view to do so. But to a degree we've already paid for the missiles and bombs that would be expended and might eventually simply be retired. So that isn't so much of a financial hit.

Though I'm not going to pretend Obama would launch a pre-emptive strike. However Biden has repeatedly made comments that if Israel feels they need to strike the US will not stand in their way. And Israel has said that they will only give diplomacy so much time. Actually I can probably find something on that with a quick search:

here we go
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... t-they-wan

And I think Israel probably does feel they have to do something. I don't know if they seriously feel that Iran would just launch a cloud of nukes. However I'm betting Israel feels that they'd see a surge in conventional Hezbollah attacks, against which there would be much less other nations could do.

And there is always the risk Iran would lose a bomb to "extremist elements" that managed to "steal" one.

sunnyside wrote: I'm dubious without a source, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true.

Voilà source. ISI are responsible for most of the unpleasant organisations in that part of the world - they see them as a means of countering Indian influence.