Lieberman: U.S. should consider military strike against Iran

http://pressesc.com/01181866305_burns_is_lying_according_to_gates

No proof of Iran supplying weapons to Taliban - Gates contradicts Burns

There's no proof that Iranian government is supplying weapons to Taliban, US Defense Secretary was forced to admit today, contradicting a statement by State Department official who accused the Iranian government of transferring the weapons.

"I have seen analysis suggesting a considerable flow of weapons and support from Iran," Gates Robert Gates told reporters in Brussels. "And I have not seen information that would directly tie it to approval by the government of Iran."

Defense Secretary's statement comes in stark contrast to accusations made by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns.

“It’s certainly coming from the government of Iran,” Burns said in a June 13 interview on CNN. “It’s coming from the Iranian revolutionary guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government.”

Gates also declined to comment on whether NATO has actually intercepted some of these shipments saying " I would rather not go into that."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also said on June 13 that there is a “shift” in the policy of the Iranian government “from either benign, neutral, to somewhat helpful in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 2001, 2002, to something quite different that does not promote stability in Afghanistan.” adding that the behavior would mark a direct effort by Iran to undermine the Afghan government’s efforts to defeat Taliban insurgents in an effort to extend its authority throughout the country.

But McCormack also quickly pointed out that he could not draw a “hard link … between an Iranian government approved program and the transfer of those arms,” but said it is “hard to believe that they're not.”

Gates also speculated that Iranian government was aware of what is going on.

" That said, as I indicated, I think that it's -- the quantity that we're seeing makes it difficult to believe that the Iranian government doesn't have some indication or some knowledge of it," he said.

 

then your question cannot be answered. again, often government sources are not allowed to be directly quoted. it's hardly a new concept.

do you think it is ok for our government to support terrorists?

do you still think that iran is the only country supplying hezbollah?

 

jomama

please, Im beggin you...let it end.

If I have to see ROX's itemized list one more time, Im gonna break my laptop.

he is just being a pain and pushing your buttons.

We all see it....if it helps, you won.(that argument anyway)

 

well jo mama isnt without fault either.

but i hear they have some good deals for new laptops

 

i was just happy to help him hone his cut n' paste skillz.

 

how so? you really havent contributed anything of substance to the discussion so now is your chance. please explain.

if i may throw your own words back at you...

 

this is the reason i made my comment last week about debating over articles.

that being said, roxran isnt asking for mountains to be moved. its a pretty simple point

 

Man I've gotten lost in this thread. So are we going to bomb Iran or not? I want some info because I do not want this to interfere with football season.

 

damn roxran - i must have really gotten to you - you seem to be obsessed with me. you go around talking about how you want to whip my butt and you leave me messages in your signature. i dont mind and honestly, im a little flattered but im just not into dudes. dont give up the search though - im sure there is a great guy out there for you somewhere!

i never said we didnt have international support for attacking iran. either find where i said that or aplogize for misquoting me. but the fact is that we dont have international support for bombing iran (that would seem to go without saying). i would hardly call the un chief the voice of the international community. the u.n. is working in concert w/ the united states - if you think otherwise you are naive. how much did the international community support our invading iraq?

do you think that america should act on the decisions made by the u.n.?

and reading the article i didnt see anywhere where the u.n. chief gave approval for a strike on iran. this is all it says...

"United Nations Secretary-General today tacitly gave the go ahead to US an Israel to attack Iran as American and Israeli jets took part in a joint exercise aimed at preparing the two countries for the looming strike.

When a reporter asked Ban Ki-moon about the exercises and the war, the Secretary-General dodged the question and talked about Lebanon and Gaza instead."

the article says he "tacitly gave the go ahead", but their reasoning is that he gave the go ahead b/c he dodged the question.

"Asked by reporters why the Secretary-General has not made any comments regarding these exercises or threats by US and Israel, an angry spokesman replied: "Well, first, we don’t comment on threats."

When the reporter pointed out that Ban Ki-moon responded to verbal threats by Iran against Israel, but failed to utter word when real threats were made by Israel against Iran, the spokesperson flew into a rage and asked the reporter: "What is your question?"

 

tac·it [tas-it]
–adjective

1. understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.
   
2. silent; saying nothing
   
3. unvoiced or unspoken: a tacit prayer.

To describe the UN Secretary General's (who was appointed basically by the USA to be their stooge and has no power in the first place to give any kind of approval) 'tacit aproval' as 'the international support for this' would laughable, if it wasn't typical and representative of the way this administration seems to view words and their meanings as temporary impediments on the road to ignoring reality.

It's like buying some befuddled drunk lying in the gutters in Serbia a bottle of vodka to say that he supports US strikes, and saying that that qualifies as support among the peoples of Eastern Europe for a US strike.

 

I made no comment on the article. I am only interested in the way that you made a wild leap from the very limited claims of the article to the USA having 'the international support for this (bombing the crap out of Iran)'.

 

Bomber Joe courtesy of Roxran

Gotta love the chutpah of old Joe. First he is for the Iraq invasion; now he is for a unilateral act of aggression toward Iran.

His simple reason is that our troops in Iraq are in danger due to Iran. Neat. A true friend of the troops is bomber Joe.

No mention of a threat to Israel or even the nuclear weapon thingee. Has old Joe lost interest in those issues?

Sort of reminds me of the pro Iraq War folks switching the reasons for the war from Iraq's wmd's (sounds quaint doesn't it?) to the love of Iraqi democracy. Of course with the election of Hamas and our immediate decision to undermine that electoral result, the democracy angle has not been played up so much in the last 6 months or so.

 

what are you talking about?

i dont question the source, just your interpretation of it.