CNN March 23, 2010 10:51 a.m. EDT
So what? I want to ask. You supplied arms, ammunition, WMDs and even chemical gas to Saddam’s Iraq to make him strong against Iran. When he turns back to you, you attack him on the pretext of holding the same WMDs supplied by you. In the same way you helped Afghan warlords of all kinds, Laden and Taliban to make them strong against USSR. Then you wanted Afghanistan in your hold. When Afghans rejected, you cruelly attacked them with all types of modern, deadliest weapons under the pretext of ‘War on Terrorism’, in which thousands perished. Still you are there in Iraq and Afghanistan even people there are against you. Now you are ready to accuse Iran training Taliban simply because you are not able to defeat them decisively, even if both of them are dead rivals by their most sacred religious beliefs. Who can be most terrorist than the US which actually dropped two Atom bombs on Japan, killed lakhs of people and made even more lakhs of people to suffer for decades due to radio-activity. Isn’t this the hypocrisy of the highest order? Maybe Iran is helping Taliban. So what’s wrong in it according to your unprincipled principles? I doubt that the US is preparing ground for it’s future attack on Iran. –nvs
Iran is helping train Taliban fighters within its borders, according to US military and intelligence officials. The United States has already said that the Taliban may be receiving limited training from the Iranians in Afghanistan, but the officials told CNN that training in the use of small arms was occurring within Iran. "We’ve known for some time that Iran has been a source for both materiel and trained fighters for Taliban elements in Afghanistan," Army Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis said Monday. But, he said, it is unknown whether that training is occurring with the support of Tehran, or it is "simply something that is happening beyond the government’s control." "For some years, Iran has supplied arms and munitions to the Afghan Taliban," said a US intelligence official. "It has also helped conduct at least small-scale weapons training for the Taliban. There’s reason to believe that some of this training has occurred in Iran." The officials who spoke with CNN did not say how many Taliban fighters have been trained in Iran, or whether the training was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian government.
The Guardian | Saturday 12 December, 2009
Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. The former prime minister made the confession during an interview with Fern Britton, to be broadcast on Sunday on BBC1, in which he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. “If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?” Blair was asked. He replied: “I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]”. Significantly, Blair added: “I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.” He continued: “I can’t really think we’d be better with him and his two sons in charge, but it’s incredibly difficult. That’s why I sympathise with the people who were against it [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, in the end I had to take the decision.”
He explained it was “the notion of him as a threat to the region” because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. “This was obviously the thing that was uppermost in my mind. The threat to the region. Also the fact of how that region was going to change and how in the end it was going to evolve as a region and whilst he was there, I thought and actually still think, it would have Continue reading
BBC NEWS | 2009/12/04 | 12:15:33 GMT
- US calling for about 10,000 extra foreign troops
- NATO expects 7,000 troops from 25 of 43 nations in Afghanistan
- Not all have gone public with their intentions
- Britain has pledged extra 500; Italy “about 1,000”; Poland 600; Portugal 150; Spain 200; Slovakia 250; Macedonia 80
- Non-NATO member Georgia sending 900, South Korea 500
- France still considering response; Germany may delay decision until January 2010
NATO’s top official says countries will send at least 7,000 extra troops to support the US surge in Afghanistan. Speaking at a NATO summit in Brussels, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there would be “more [troops] to come.” “At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010,” the NATO secretary general told reporters. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the response from NATO allies as “positive,” and urged them to rally behind the US’s new Afghan strategy. Some major countries are holding back, however. France and Germany, for instance, have not yet committed themselves to sending extra troops.
‘Solidarity in action’
Earlier this week, US President Barack Obama announced he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to help battle the Taliban insurgency. The US is calling on allies among the 43 nations with troops in Afghanistan to send about 10,000 extra soldiers. Speaking at the Brussels talks, Continue reading
BBC NEWS | 2009/09/08 16:31:58 GMT
Eight soldiers have died on a bloody day for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three died in a roadside bombing in northern Iraq – the US military’s deadliest single incident in five months – and one died in Baghdad. Four soldiers died in what was described as a “complex attack” in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. Violence in Afghanistan is at a record high, while attacks have increased in Iraq since a US-led pull-back in July.
Exact locations of the attacks in Iraq were not given as next of kin had not yet been notified, but all four soldiers died in roadside bombings. Earlier in the day, Iraqi police said a roadside bomb in the northern town of Amirli, south of Kirkuk, killed the local police chief and at least four of his colleagues. A bomb attack targeting a senior Iraqi medical official in east Baghdad also left one ministry of health employee dead. There were few details of the incident in which four soldiers were killed in eastern Afghanistan. They were caught in a “complex attack”, the Associated Press news agency quoted US army spokeswoman Capt Elizabeth Mathias as saying.
In Afghanistan, violence has surged to a record high eight years after the US-led invasion which toppled the Taliban. Some 820 US soldiers are thought to have died in Afghanistan in those eight years. In Iraq, violence has grown since the end of June when US-led forces withdrew from urban areas, leaving responsibility in the hands of the Iraqi police and army. Casualty figures are still well below the worst levels of 2006 and 2007, when more than 2,000 Iraqi civilians were being killed in civil strife and by anti-US insurgents every month. About 4,340 US troops have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 US-led invasion.