It's been pretty well reasoned that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And there is some talk that some Al Qaeda members have been given refuge there. But yeah, McCain got it wrong if he said there were actual camps there. I'd still trust McCain more than the other side for many various reasons. And if we're talking overall experience, Obama doesn't have anywhere near McCain. But to Obama's credit, he did pick a #2 on the ticket with quite a bit of experience in foreign policy affairs. Although I don't agree with his approach at all.

Right. That's why I didn't claim it was a guarantee.

But there are many of these types of reports all over the place:

http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1827/Iran's_Al-Qaeda_Links.html

And we do have Iranian leadership openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas terror organizations. So I think that a link between AQ and Iran could be a possibility. This particular report also says Iran may fear AQ as well, so who knows?

Right. I believe I've already conceded this point to you. You are correct. Like I said, while it's known Iran supports terror organizations, the direct link with AQ is just conjecture and extrapolations. I'm not arguing against what you're saying about it. I believe Mr. McCain may have just been referencing that. That's all.

Ah yes, knowing in one's gut.

You've got one of those Presidents. Right now. He knows what is and isn't true, and he's not going to let anyone tell him otherwise. Because he knows. He doesn't need to think. And hasn't it been swell?

Thinking is active, "knowing" is sedentary.

Give me a thinker any day.

EDIT - The main comment on this debate, before the financial crisis reared it's head, was that it was on McCain turf, national security. He didn't prove that. It seems that in order to be described as having serious national security credentials, one only needs to be in favour of starting lots of wars.

Yes the past 8 years have been GREAT towards their futures. :rotfl:

We shall see this November. I will bookmark this to reply to on November 5th

That's not true Tchocky and you know it, so stop spreading lies. The President listens to his advisers as much as any other president has in the past.

You are aware that the United States sponsored terrorist groups in the Middle-East when the Russians invaded Afgahnistan in the 1970s and '80s, aren't you? I mean, they were acknowledged as "rebel groups", but they were basically terrorist groups. The government gave them weapons, and they let them loose.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

You're incredibly full of it Stealth Hunter. The United States used the Mujahadeen as a tool in Afghanistan as a means to ward off an even greater threat of the time...aggressive Soviet military movements in Central Asia. At the time, the Mujahadeen were little to no threat to us and grew into an international terrorist organization only after the Cold War ceased.

Iran on the other hand proudly supports terror organizations that directly target civilian populations with the explicit goals of killing as many civilians they they can to force their political will. What you don't seem to understand is that Iran is a terrorist nation. The USA is not. And you are a confused soul. Not much anybody can do for a poisoned mind such as yours.

Yep. Those are two things we ardently oppose. :D

So how does that not make it supporting a terrorist group?

Oh I get it. They're only terrorist when they start attacking YOU. Let's ignore what they perpetrated on their own population and groups within their country, the culture, the monuments they destroyed... :roll:

I think you've yourself admitted a fairly clear causality relationship here. Obviously a wise politician should have thought a few years ahead when committing to support that or other group, or they should be considered criminally irresponsible. Which in my view they are.

It was a very good means for heading off a much greater threat at the time. They were simply used as tools to destroy Soviet military movements in Central Asia that had severe military and geostrategic implications. We had to intervene, and did so. Perhaps more foresight would have been helpful in cleaning up the mess after they were not "useful" any longer. I know that you Euro's/Canucks and such are so desperate to equivocate. Yet we know there are geostrategic principles here that are greater than the first dimension of your charges. It's not supporting or sponsoring terrorist groups as an issue. Get your head out CCIP. This is where your argument falls flat. The Mujahadeen were a way to counter Soviet aggression without direct confrontation on a superpower level. It's not clean, but it is not equivalent to terrorist support. Iran on the other hand is a terrorist nation that directly sponsors international terror organizations. Organizations that directly target civilians as a means to force political will. That's pretty clear.

HAHAHA. Mikhayl you're so lost it's laughable. US backed Israeli aggression? :lol: What tripe are they teaching you guys over there? Did they get your school lesson plans from an Iranian Islamic scholar? Sounds like it to me. You sound exactly like one. And no, the way Iran's going...they will get direct confrontation with us. And it won't be pretty for them.

So I can infer from your thumbs up that you're a terrorist sympathizer? OK. :shifty:

Would you mind explaining this a little further?

I think it's pretty self explanatory. Put both sentences together and re-read. It's actually quite a simple concept to understand. But I will expound a little. We used resources on the ground to confront a much larger threat in the region, that went against the security of US and allied forces in the Indian Ocean and region as a whole. All without getting into a confrontation that could have been larger and more dangerous. I'm glad we did it, but like I said, we should have worked the end game better.