Interesting

[ReiperX]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/pro tected.terrorists/index.html

Apparently the US is protecting an organization that they even consider a terrorist organization. Personally I think that this is extremely hippo critical of the US to do. Iran wants them out of Iraq, the Iraqi government wants them out of Iraq, but the US doesn't want them out of Iraq.

[Memorize]

Like i'm going to believe what CNN says.

Altho I do find it very hallarious.

The People: "You can't do that, it's the Geneva Convention!"
The People: "You can't do that regardless of the Geneva Convention!"

I just love the sole blame on the US, a tad hypocritical right?

[ReiperX]

At 4/6/07 12:50 PM, Memorize wrote: Like i'm going to believe what CNN says.

Altho I do find it very hallarious.

The People: "You can't do that, it's the Geneva Convention!"
The People: "You can't do that regardless of the Geneva Convention!"

I just love the sole blame on the US, a tad hypocritical right?

What part of the article seems suspicous at all? And in which part even hints towards people saying us not being able to do something, and then being able to do it just to fit in?

Did you even read the article?

[Leeloo-Minai]

"The U.S. considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades."

As far as I can speculate, they probably site freedom of assembly just like the KKK would be granted after they gave valuable tips regarding Communist reds in the '50s.

It's an awful thing to have to stand by, tolerance.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/6/07 12:26 PM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/pro tected.terrorists/index.html

Apparently the US is protecting an organization that they even consider a terrorist organization. Personally I think that this is extremely hippo critical of the US to do. Iran wants them out of Iraq, the Iraqi government wants them out of Iraq, but the US doesn't want them out of Iraq.

You deal with a corrupt government by electing liberals; that's the moral to this article. We promise to stop making articles about government corruption this way.

Secondly, since when is the government protecting terrorists a big deal to people, they've done it before...

[Demosthenez]

I have started to care less and less about international laws and rules and all that good shit anymore. Simply because when we end up tying our hands behind our backs our enemies hit us in the nads.

Iran has no interest in obeying international rules and likes to play hardball. Guess what, the USA invented modern hardball. Ever heard of a guy called Mossadegh? No? Neither have Iranians. You want to play hard, we can play harder.

We can speak softly all we want but if no one listens to our soft words you hit them hard in the face with a big stick. And we got that big stick, Iran doesnt.

Dont get me wrong, this is incredibly hypocritical (even if it is not on the same scale as the Iran-Hezzbollah connection) and it is morally upsetting if you are into that kind of thing. But Iran doesnt understand hypocritical, they dont care. All they will use headlines like this for is for propaganda. Its not like we will bilaterally cease and desist from funding proxies, its not going to happen. So we fund our proxies and use our hard power, Iran funds their proxies and uses their hard power. Lets see who gets what they want.

[MattZone]

At 4/6/07 05:16 PM, Demosthenez wrote: I have started to care less and less about international laws and rules and all that good shit anymore. Simply because when we end up tying our hands behind our backs our enemies hit us in the nads.

You and me both. The fact of the matter is that we don't elect international leaders, we don't (for the most part) make international laws and rules, and unlike our own laws and rules, we can't unmake them when it becomes clear that they either aren't working or are completely counter-productive.

There is a lot to be said for national sovreignty, and for only having to follow the laws of the government which you get to choose. Funny, I seem to remember something like that being said in my American History class... Revolutionary War... some old guy with a wig...George? Ben?... nah, I've got nothing. It works in theory, though.

[ReiperX]

I don't care about international law in this instance. We are breaking our own laws by siding with terrorists.

But then again I guess the conservatives are going to call them Freedom Fighters and not terrorists.

[Memorize]

At 4/6/07 05:29 PM, ReiperX wrote: I don't care about international law in this instance. We are breaking our own laws by siding with terrorists.

This is exactly what I mean. We do our own thing and people bitch. We follow their rules and people still bitch.

Give it a rest.

[MattZone]

At 4/6/07 05:29 PM, ReiperX wrote: I don't care about international law in this instance. We are breaking our own laws by siding with terrorists.

But then again I guess the conservatives are going to call them Freedom Fighters and not terrorists.

I don't know the background on this group, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I agree in principal that we should be obeying our own laws. But then again, war is a nasty business and sometimes the question is which part of the law applies? Technically, back when the Afghans were resisting the Soviet Union's occupation of their county, we were supplying groups that were designated terrorists by the U.S. Congress. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that this was constitutional, mainly because the Executive Branch is charged with protecting U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and that this sometimes requires dealing with less than reputable characters.

Ugly, but necessary.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/6/07 05:29 PM, ReiperX wrote: I don't care about international law in this instance. We are breaking our own laws by siding with terrorists.

We've broken our own ideals many times and long ago.

The Cold War taugh us that.

Anyways, if it's valuable enough, keep them on retainer.

Once they lose value, let them go.

[morefngdbs]

At 4/6/07 12:26 PM, ReiperX wrote: Apparently the US is protecting an organization that they even consider a terrorist organization. Personally I think that this is extremely hippo critical of the US to do. Iran wants them out of Iraq, the Iraqi government wants them out of Iraq, but the US doesn't want them out of Iraq.

;
After reading your link I reread your topic, & I can agree with it being hypocritical, but I sense you are somehow surprised by this .