• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War

Dav said:
Your country had the justification of being part of NATO, which responded an attack on one of its members (9/11) by taking out the Taliban who sheltered the terrorists who did it.
Click to expand...
After the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden himself.

Iran has no justification for helping out a group that sheltered terrorists.
Click to expand...
They're their neighbours, I'd call that quite a decent justification, far more than my nations.
 
Wessexman said:
After the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden himself.
Click to expand...

They offered to try one single man in their own courts. That is much different from handing over all terrorists to the U.S., who was the victim of their plot.

CNN.com - U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden - October 7, 2001

Bush's demands include turning over not only bin Laden, but all members of his al Qaeda network.
Click to expand...


They're their neighbours, I'd call that quite a decent justification, far more than my nations.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that it's okay if the U.S. assists the Mexican drug lords just because the U.S. is next to Mexico. Being someone's neighbor does not justify helping out a scummy cause, especially when that cause is not even part of the legitimate government.
 
Dav said:
They offered to try one single man in their own courts. That is much different from handing over all terrorists to the U.S., who was the victim of their plot.

CNN.com - U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden - October 7, 2001
Click to expand...
It is trying the mastermind and I believe they offered Bin Laden up.





That's like saying that it's okay if the U.S. assists the Mexican drug lords just because the U.S. is next to Mexico. Being someone's neighbor does not justify helping out a scummy cause, especially when that cause is not even part of the legitimate government.
Click to expand...
Not assist Mexican drug lords but it is reasonable to say America has an interest in Mexian stability and such. Iran has a reasonable interest in Afghanistan, more than my nation does, how it uses that is another matter.
 
Wessexman said:
It is trying the mastermind and I believe they offered Bin Laden up.
Click to expand...

They offered bin Laden instead of handing over all al-Qaeda terrorists, which is what we wanted. What they offered doesn't even come close to what we asked for.



Not assist Mexican drug lords but it is reasonable to say America has an interest in Mexian stability and such. Iran has a reasonable interest in Afghanistan, more than my nation does, how it uses that is another matter.
Click to expand...

If Iran was really interested in Afghanistan's stability they would be fighting against the Taliban. I don't know why they would be assisting the Taliban but there is no justification for helping scum like them.
 
Dav said:
They offered bin Laden instead of handing over all al-Qaeda terrorists, which is what we wanted. What they offered doesn't even come close to what we asked for.
Click to expand...
So? This is sounding a lot like the Austrians in 1914. Pressure could have most likely gotten many more concessions but like the Austrians I don't think anything but war was ever really on the agenda.




If Iran was really interested in Afghanistan's stability they would be fighting against the Taliban. I don't know why they would be assisting the Taliban but there is no justification for helping scum like them.
Click to expand...
Well the Taliban is a vague term, only about 40% or so of those the media call Taliban can really be classed as such. We don't know exactly what the Iranians are doing or why.
 
Wessexman said:
So? This is sounding a lot like the Austrians in 1914. Pressure could have most likely gotten many more concessions but like the Austrians I don't think anything but war was ever really on the agenda.
Click to expand...

Unlike Austria, though, we both had justification for our demands and did not make unreasonable ones.

Well the Taliban is a vague term, only about 40% or so of those the media call Taliban can really be classed as such. We don't know exactly what the Iranians are doing or why.
Click to expand...

This is true, we still have to wait to find out more about what's going on before a call is made.
 
Dav said:
Unlike Austria, though, we both had justification for our demands and did not make unreasonable ones.
Click to expand...
Austrians had justification, their crown-prince had just been killed. Your demands could have easily been given more diplomatically. I just don't believe war was ever meant to have been avoided. The demands, like Austria's, were never meant to be accepted.
 
Dav said:
From the article:
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that. Common sense says that Iran would not support the Taliban.
 
Redress said:
I don't think bombing is the answer at this time. I think we need to try diplomacy, and then when it fails(it probably will), do targeted bombings.
Click to expand...

We tried diplomacy.... it failed. It's time to send the Ayetoiletbowl a strong message.

I say bomb all Iranian nuclear sites and weapon storage sites (including the site in Lebanon where 40,000 rockets have been stored).

The Iranians need to be stopped ... now, BEFORE they go nuclear, is the time to act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom