President Ahmadinejad says Iran has become a nuclear state

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Not secular representative parliamentary democracies like Israel;

secular??

"Jewish and Democratic State – Is the definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel, as the Jewish nature was first defined within the Declaration of Independence of 1948, and the "Democratic" character, was first officially added to the "Jewish" nature, in the amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset that was passed in 1985 (amendment 9, clause 7A)."

from Wikipedia

Haredim (lol) aside, Israel is very secular. Have you been there? I was actually quite pleasantly surprised by how secular and 'western' they were (at least in Tel Aviv, obviously Jerusalem is a mad-house).

Contrast Israel with their neighbours...Egypt probably comes closest and they're not really all that close. Most of the Arab states are pretty out there in Whoa Land (ignore the temporary alliances of convenience, those nations are not remotely culturally linked to the Western world).

And Dubai is a trap imo.

*not widely known fact: Israel's ultra-orthodox are NOT Zionist. The ultra-orthodox aren't that big on statehood. Which is hilariously ironic, because they rely on that state for their welfare (not being functional members of society and having 8 children per mother etc etc).

[JUDAS]

Yeah, we can really trust Saudi, Kuwait, and the UAE and no religious and cultural drama either. Thanks for the chuckle.

Someone needs to tell Obama that he can't trust the Saudis. Has the 60 billion USD arms deal with SA been approved by Congress yet?

Funny how someone named "Judas" would lecture folks on who to trust.

Fact is that the only reason why the US blindly supports Israel at all costs is religious bias. The US had excellent relations with the middle east before our support of Israel . Had we never supported them we wouldn't have the problems with the rest of the middle east that we do today.

Actually Huey, you have misinterpreted my post. I understood UG's post to claim that SA could not be trusted but the US is happy to supply them with arms along with Israel. Money to be made in a Middle East arms race? Google will through up a report where US Auditors question whether some of these arms deals are actually in US national security interests.

[coma]

I mean really.What has the USA got to do with the Middle East ?It is on the otherside of the world for goodness sake. They would do good to learn that we are all equal and they are NOT the be all and end all of this planet. In my opinion, take the US out of the middle east then problem solved.

You're kidding, right?

Well there's oil.

And then there's oil.

Oh, don't forget oil.

Yes. Well they can take a number and get in line to trade for commodties they need just like every other country does in the world. :jap:

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Well there's oil.

And then there's oil.

Oh, don't forget oil.

Yes. Well they can take a number and get in line to trade for commodties they need just like every other country does in the world. :jap:

That seems a sub-optimal line when one contemplates the below...

I'm no fancy analyst but I'm pretty certain that one does not spend that much on one's military if one is planning to queue up for resources.

[coma]

Well there's oil.

And then there's oil.

Oh, don't forget oil.

Yes. Well they can take a number and get in line to trade for commodties they need just like every other country does in the world. :jap:

That seems a sub-optimal line when one contemplates the below...

I'm no fancy analyst but I'm pretty certain that one does not spend that much on one's military if one is planning to queue up for resources.

Good table that. And it supports my chain of thought exactly. They are [uS Gov ] just like the school yard bully stealing your lunch.

[geriatrickid]

China in 2011 will become the most important and largest client for Iraqi oil. China has been willing to spend and invest the billions required. It is very important for China that it have secure oil supplies. Iraq holds the 2nd largest reserves in the middle east. Thanks to the USA and others, China now has a guarantee of energy independence. China also has long term oil supply agreements in place with Iran. So now, while Iran threatens to disrupt oil to the west, the oil will flow to China. Iran is a willing accomplice as China moves to try and take control of the world economy. Bit odd though that China which persecutes its muslim minorities and frowns upon organized religion like Islam is Iran's new best friend. The hypocrisy of Iran as it lashes at Christians and Jews yet embraces the one nation in the world that would delight in the quashing of all things muslim says alot about the moral bankruptcy of the Farsi state.

[geriatrickid]

The table of military expenditures is misleading. China has never ever reported its expenditures accurately. What is showing are the bogus Chinese values. Need some proof? Well, how has China been able to build its expensive naval fleet over the past 5 years, if it wasn't spending large sums of money? Do you think the vessels came from the heavens?

The US military spending is overstated because it includes large ticket expenditures such as satellite launches. Many of the satellites put up in the past decade were joint civil and military use, but the department of defense carried the bill. Same goes for a great deal of space exploration. Who do you think is paying for all the support services for the space shuttle and space stations? The shuttle isn't being launched from LAX is it? And then there are the billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary defense bases that various congressmen won't allow to be closed. Also included in the military budget are the billions spent on veterans health care. Although the department of veterans affairs has a seperate budget, the military hospitals are funded by the military. All veterans get free medical care. For example, Walter Reed Army Hospital is funded by the army. The multi billion dollar US Coast Guard service comes under the military budget. The brand new fleet of long range rescue craft was paid for under the military budget. The Gulf oil spill that brought in the US Coast Guard? That came under the military budget as do all the national guard responses to natural disasters. You know the multi billion dollar flood control system in the USA? That's managed by the US Corps of Army Engineers. Again, this inflates the military budget. Most people aren't even aware of the amount spent on the protection of wildlife and forests that are on military land or near firing ranges, but the military does spend tens of millions of dollars on it. The point being is that one requires an understanding of the expenditures and how the numbers are calculated before making the childish false claim that the US is a school yard bully. It is China after all that's pushing its SE Asian neighbours around in the dispute over the offshore islands of the Phillipines and Vietnam not the USA.

Edited December 30, 2010 by geriatrickid

[Ulysses G.]

Google will through up a report where US Auditors question whether some of these arms deals are actually in US national security interests.

That hardly sounds definitive. No wonder you do not include a link.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The hypocrisy of Iran as it lashes at Christians and Jews yet embraces the one nation in the world that would delight in the quashing of all things muslim says alot about the moral bankruptcy of the Farsi state.

True. But doesn't the Qur'an position on - you know...females - give some pretty insightful clues as to moral legitimacy and all that jazz...already?

TIME.com - The Women of Islam

Part of the problem dates to Muhammad. Even as he proclaimed new rights for women, he enshrined their inequality in immutable law, passed down as God's commandments and eventually recorded in scripture. The Koran allots daughters half the inheritance of sons. It decrees that a woman's testimony in court, at least in financial matters, is worth half that of a man's. Under Shari'a, or Muslim law, compensation for the murder of a woman is half the going rate for men. In many Muslim countries, these directives are incorporated into contemporary law. For a woman to prove rape in Pakistan, for example, four adult males of "impeccable" character must witness the penetration, in accordance with Shari'a.

Family law in Islamic countries generally follows the prescriptions of scripture. This is so even in a country like Egypt, where much of the legal code has been secularized. In Islam, women can have only one spouse, while men are permitted four. The legal age for girls to marry tends to be very young. Muhammad's favorite wife, A'isha, according to her biographer, was six when they wed, nine when the marriage was consummated. In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, 14 for boys.

Not sure why Iran's foreign policy hypocrisy would be relevant in assessing moral bankruptcy, when they're marrying off girls at 9 years old.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

It is China after all that's pushing its SE Asian neighbours around in the dispute over the offshore islands of the Phillipines and Vietnam not the USA.

You're a very intelligent poster geriatrickid, but you're having a rare 'off' day imo. It's pretty hard to argue the US has a problem with force projection. What with their current level of - you know - force projection, around the globe.

Global Research: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d'Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

For the record, I'm a pretty huge fan of US force projection (when one considers likely alternatives). But you cannot seriously argue Chinese nationalist rhetoric is 'pushing' Japan and Taiwan around in a way that makes China the real 'bully'. Not when the US is currently fighting three major wars on foreign soil.

Edited December 30, 2010 by TheyCallmeScooter

[beechguy]

It is China after all that's pushing its SE Asian neighbours around in the dispute over the offshore islands of the Phillipines and Vietnam not the USA.

You're a very intelligent poster geriatrickid, but you're having a rare 'off' day imo. It's pretty hard to argue the US has a problem with force projection. What with their current level of - you know - force projection, around the globe.

Global Research: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d'Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

For the record, I'm a pretty huge fan of US force projection (when one considers likely alternatives). But you cannot seriously argue Chinese nationalist rhetoric is 'pushing' Japan and Taiwan around in a way that makes China the real 'bully'. Not when the US is currently fighting three major wars on foreign soil.

And for anyone who knows anything about these bases, and installations, the "Conclusion" portion pretty much sums up the credibility, or lack of, for the authors.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

the "Conclusion" portion pretty much sums up the credibility, or lack of, for the authors.

You'll note I didn't quote the Conclusion of the paper. I merely referenced the data.

At first glance, it appears as if you are trying to dispute the accuracy of the data without any data of your own? By referencing an essay's conclusion? A conclusion which is melodramatic, poorly translated, (likely poorly written) and yet undeniably and perfectly acceptable (even preferable) fact.

How do you think your credibility fares when you attempt such a feat?

[beechguy]

the "Conclusion" portion pretty much sums up the credibility, or lack of, for the authors.

You'll note I didn't quote the Conclusion of the paper. I merely referenced the data.

At first glance, it appears as if you are trying to dispute the accuracy of the data without any data of your own? By referencing an essay's conclusion? A conclusion which is melodramatic, poorly translated, (likely poorly written) and yet undeniably and perfectly acceptable (even preferable) fact.

How do you think your credibility fares when you attempt such a feat?

If you also question the "Conclusion" what makes you think the rest of it has any credibility? My data would be working and traveling in the Mideast for 12 years, if you want to call every pile of sand bags and tin shacks a base, and part of the world domination, by all means be my guest.

Edited December 30, 2010 by beechguy

[TheyCallmeScooter]

If you also question the "Conclusion" what makes you think the rest of it has any credibility? My data would be working and traveling in the Mideast for 12 years, if you want to call every pile of sand bags and tin shacks a base, by all means be my guest.

I don't question the conclusion. Almost every global power on the rise has ambitions of empire-building. The US is the sole superpower at this point and time (all the rah-rah-rah about China, India, Brazil, Russia's military capabilities and their respective [largely non-existent] abilities to project force is primarily fluff..very convenient, mutually desired fluff of course...but fluff* - the ability of the US to exert economic power at the level they've become accustomed to will wane over time, but it will be a VERY long time before that will reflect in military terms), and there is nothing ridiculously 'incorrect' about the claims made in the conclusion of this paper. Except, of course, the glaring omission evident by the paper's failure to concede that the US merely won the battle to fill that power vacuum.

And, quite frankly, any sane person should be pretty freaking happy that they did.

A military base is a military base. It's an area used to facilitate the projection of military force. I don't see the relevance of semantics in defining the term. A facility directly owned and operated by and/or for the military or one of its branches that shelters military equipment and personnel.

The question is one of "willingness to exert military force to achieve political aims in the global arena". The US is very comfortable with doing this, and they have been for a very long time now. This is neither controversial or even debatable. As I already stated, it's really rather preferable. China is very uncomfortable with doing this - as evidenced by the existence of Taiwan.

*It is my very strong opinion much of the Cold War was fluffed up as well. There was a decade or three of Soviet power 'threat', but I don't personally buy into the Cold War of the 80's and early 90's being anything but a mutually beneficial charade.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed from view.

Iran has became a nuclear state is on-topic to this thread, while discussion of the Iraq war is another topic altogether.

[JUDAS]

Google will through up a report where US Auditors question whether some of these arms deals are actually in US national security interests.

That hardly sounds definitive. No wonder you do not include a link.

I'll give you a couple of clues to help find the links, assuming you want to : FT and US Govt auditors

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Iran has became a nuclear state is on-topic to this thread...

Whoops, I went into OT no man's land there, my bad.

But, and this could be perhaps misplaced faith in Mossad's current capabilities (what with their butchering of their Dubai mission and whatnot), but I think the first we'll hear of Iran's flirtation with the Nuclear Club will be watching AP and Reuters footage of pre-emptive IAF sorties dropping their payloads all over Persia.

For me, that will be a bit more convincing than the crackpot Ahmadinejad claiming the finger poking behind his jacket is actually a loaded gun.

[Ulysses G.]

Google will through up a report where US Auditors question whether some of these arms deals are actually in US national security interests.

That hardly sounds definitive. No wonder you do not include a link.

I'll give you a couple of clues to help find the links, assuming you want to : FT and US Govt auditors

The way it works is, the poster that makes the (often inaccurate) claims, is the one that has to provide the evidence and from a legitimate source.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The way it works is, the poster that makes the (often inaccurate) claims, is the one that has to provide the evidence and from a legitimate source.

Where does it work this way? That just makes so much sense! Point me in the direction of where this magical place of logic can be found, please...

You must be new to TV forum? 555 snicker etc.

I don't think it works that way here...

[JUDAS]

Google will through up a report where US Auditors question whether some of these arms deals are actually in US national security interests.

That hardly sounds definitive. No wonder you do not include a link.

The US administration has concluded multibillion-dollar arms deals with Gulf states without establishing whether they were in the national interest, according to a congressional investigators’ report seen by the Financial Times.

The report by the Government Accountability Office ex­presses concern that “US priorities are not consistently considered before such sales are authorised”. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/adaa0890-ca5e-11df-a860-00144feab49a.html I will on rereading amend my original wording of "US national security interests" to "US national interest" I assume you'll forgive the slight error UG

My post though was made in reaction to a comment by you which I interpreted as meaning the USA could not trust Saudi Arabia, you will of course correct me if I'm wrong. This report questions if US national interests are receiving appropriate consideration in relation to arms deals, something I thought you would be concerned about. The pending 60 billion USD arms deal with SA somewhat debunks your idea that SA cannot be trusted from a US perspective, or , it may just suggest that arms sales and US jobs are more important? Your views would be appreciated...

Edit: Correct poor copy and paste

Edited December 30, 2010 by JUDAS

[TheyCallmeScooter]

My post though was made in reaction to a comment by you which I interpreted as meaning the USA could not trust Saudi Arabia...

The pending 60 billion USD arms deal with SA somewhat debunks your idea that SA cannot be trusted from a US perspective, or, it may just suggest that arms sales and US jobs are more important? Your views would be appreciated...

I realise you are asking for another poster's views, but what you gonna do...here's mine.

The US is all kinds of stupid when they get into bed with villains. Anyone who doesn't understand why arming Saudi Arabia is simply asking for future trouble in the way arming Saddam in the Iran / Iraq war was a substantial factor which helped trigger the entire mess in Iraq is just...lol. Two large-scale conventional wars fought by US soldiers already as a result, and many more to come as the mistakes are compounded...exponentially.

Allowing Pakistan to develop their nukes was oh-so-stupid. Continuing to ship in billions in aid for a country that is provably betraying you by assisting your enemy (ISI <3 Taliban, hates US 'allies')...is just madness.

Bolstering Karzai? Stupid.

All this crap is cowardly / irresponsible short-term 'solutions' which are guaranteed to create long-term problems down the line. US foreign policy is swamped by this exact moral hazard and has been for a long time (one of the many flaws of 'democracy', as a political system).

WikiLeaks' potential in limiting the effects of democratic governments sacrificing the future to achieve short-term faux 'results'...was exciting. Of course, they don't like the idea of their wheeling and dealing with the villains of the world to be open and transparent.

You cannot find common ground with evil. Oh, evil will pretend they have found common ground with you. Until they're in a position to exploit your stupidity in believing evil had become magically good. The US would be far better served not compromising themselves in this way...by demanding their allies respect basic human rights, equality of women, the end of state-sponsored child abuse and paedophilia, etc. Nothing can be gained by 'compromising' with any state which refuses such a condition of alliance. The enemy of the enemies of the US are not friends. They're just refrigerated enemies.

[JimsKnight]

Have spent a lot of time around Israelis, even working for them. They had all done their military training in/under various guises.

TV posters should rememeber it is only colour and religion that seems to seperate people. But some posters are ant-semitic I feel and that is raciscim?

The Israelis I worked for were not amongst the friendliest or warmest people I have ever met?

But, they had a couple of "never again" attitudes, that I could understand.

One, was that there would never be another exodus or Holacaust?? (Masada again??)

Two, if we were being overun, all Muslim places of worship would be fields of glass beads. (Nuclear strikes??)

Point two is maybe why the Saudis wanted Irans nuclear facilities "Taken care of"...... (Willeaks, internet cables)?

Hmm, if you do some checking you'll find it's impossible to be anti-semitic towards Israel if you consider that, as a race, Israelis' are almost all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews.

That means they originate from either the Khazar region of Europe or Spain. Anti-semitic technically covers the Palestinians and other peoples of the area.

But don't take it from me, just google 'The Thirteenth Tribe' which was written by a Jewish man.

Yes I agree the Israeli's certainly have learnt the lessons of history well.

[Jingthing]

Have spent a lot of time around Israelis, even working for them. They had all done their military training in/under various guises.

TV posters should rememeber it is only colour and religion that seems to seperate people. But some posters are ant-semitic I feel and that is raciscim?

The Israelis I worked for were not amongst the friendliest or warmest people I have ever met?

But, they had a couple of "never again" attitudes, that I could understand.

One, was that there would never be another exodus or Holacaust?? (Masada again??)

Two, if we were being overun, all Muslim places of worship would be fields of glass beads. (Nuclear strikes??)

Point two is maybe why the Saudis wanted Irans nuclear facilities "Taken care of"...... (Willeaks, internet cables)?

Hmm, if you do some checking you'll find it's impossible to be anti-semitic towards Israel if you consider that, as a race, Israelis' are almost all Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews.

That means they originate from either the Khazar region of Europe or Spain. Anti-semitic technically covers the Palestinians and other peoples of the area.

But don't take it from me, just google 'The Thirteenth Tribe' which was written by a Jewish man.

Yes I agree the Israeli's certainly have learnt the lessons of history well.

The term anti-semitic strictly refers to Jews. That's it, end of story.

anti-Semitic

adj

prejudiced against or hostile to Jews

Next ...

Edited December 30, 2010 by Jingthing

[Pakboong]

The way it works is, the poster that makes the (often inaccurate) claims, is the one that has to provide the evidence and from a legitimate source.

Where does it work this way? That just makes so much sense! Point me in the direction of where this magical place of logic can be found, please...

You must be new to TV forum? 555 snicker etc.

I don't think it works that way here...

Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

As close as I could get. In practice, there are no reliable sources so posting a link is a pointless exercise.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

As close as I could get. In practice, there are no reliable sources so posting a link is a pointless exercise.

dam_n, tight post! no sarcasm...I don't have a response to your last point. I am a bit tired though...hmm

[Ulysses G.]

But don't take it from me, just google 'The Thirteenth Tribe' which was written by a Jewish man.

All kinds of looney stuff has been written by Jews - and every other race. Trying to prove anything by pointing to the opinions of a few disturbed individuals - and Koestler fits the bill - is absurd.

[bulmercke]

IMO the U.S Government should butt out of other countries affairs for once. Twice or more would be great.

Iranian people are a lovely people and have just as much right to the use of nuclear power as the next country. Nuclear energy will inevitabley be the preferred source of power for all in the future.

Furthermore.When? If ever have the Iranian people been an aggressor toward any other nation?

Well said coma. These are my sentiments exactly. Personally I couldn't care less if they had ten thousand nuclear reactors.

[Ulysses G.]

In practice, there are no reliable sources so posting a link is a pointless exercise.

So, if someone claims that the Earth is flat, there is no way to reliably prove that they have their head up their butt?

[Ulysses G.]

Furthermore.When? If ever have the Iranian people been an aggressor toward any other nation?

You can not be serious.

IRAN

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s involvement in the planning and financial support of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy.

The Qods Force, an elite branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad. The Qods Force provided aid in the form of weapons, training, and funding to HAMAS and other Palestinian terrorist groups, Lebanese Hizballah, Iraq-based militants, and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

Iran remained a principal supporter of groups that are implacably opposed to the Middle East Peace Process. Iran provided weapons, training, and funding to HAMAS and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). Iran’s provision of training, weapons, and money to HAMAS since the 2006 Palestinian elections has bolstered the group’s ability to strike Israel. In 2008, Iran provided more than $200 million in funding to Lebanese Hizballah and trained over 3,000 Hizballah fighters at camps in Iran. Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has assisted Hizballah in rearming, in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives to select Taliban members.

Despite its pledge to support the stabilization of Iraq, Iranian authorities continued to provide lethal support, including weapons, training, funding, and guidance, to Iraqi militant groups that targeted Coalition and Iraqi forces and killed innocent Iraqi civilians. Iran’s Qods Force continued to provide Iraqi militants with Iranian-produced advanced rockets, sniper rifles, automatic weapons, and mortars that have killed Iraqi and Coalition Forces as well as civilians. Tehran was responsible for some of the lethality of anti-Coalition attacks by providing militants with the capability to assemble improvised explosive devices (IEDs) with explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) that were specially designed to defeat armored vehicles. The Qods Force, in concert with Lebanese Hizballah, provided training both inside and outside of Iraq for Iraqi militants in the construction and use of sophisticated IED technology and other advanced weaponry.

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida members it has detained, and has refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qa’ida detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for trial. Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some al-Qa’ida members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Senior IRGC and Qods Force officials were indicted by the Government of Argentina for their alleged roles in the 1994 terrorist bombing of the Argentine Israel Mutual Association which, according to the Argentine State Prosecutor’s report, was initially proposed by the Qods Force.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122436.htm

[JUDAS]

The pending 60 billion USD arms deal with SA somewhat debunks your idea that SA cannot be trusted from a US perspective...

Actually it doesn't. The US takes strategic risks with other countries all the time, but that does not mean that they trust them implicitly. Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan... Need I go on?

No need to go on, your statement is clear. BTW, my own home Govt does the same regarding arms sales. I wonder how many times these "strategic risks" backfire? There is of course, no risk to the weapons suppliers, only to the soldiers on the ground. Are you now saying the Saudis can be trusted, though perhaps not totally?

Edit: I guess the human rights record of the countries involved in buying weapons is not a matter of national interest either, be it the US or any other major western nation.

Edited December 31, 2010 by JUDAS