TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Zimbabwean Defense Minister Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa stressed Tehran’s preparedness to further develop relations with Harare in all fields.
Ahmadinejad received Dambudzo Mnangagwa in Tehran on Tuesday evening, and told his visitor that resistance against enemies’ pressures and sanctions should continue and the pressures should turn into opportunities for progress.
He added when a nation decides to move forward, it will certainly achieve valuable results. Ahmadinejad continued that Iran and Zimbabwe have always been close to each other in different fields, because both of them are against the same enemy and both are trying for human values and interests of their nations. He said that Zimbabwe is growing with a very suitable speed in different fields, adding that progress in African countries like Zimbabwe indicated that when a nation decides to move forward, God the almighty will bestow good results to that nation. President Ahmadinejad stressed Iran’s readiness to expand relations in all fields with Zimbabwe.
Earlier, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi had in a meeting with his Zimbabwean counterpart announced Tehran’s preparedness to help Zimbabwe strengthen its defensive power. “We are ready to reinvigorate Zimbabwe’s defense power,” Vahidi said in Tehran on Sunday morning.
He also referred to the defense cooperation between the two countries in the past, and stressed Iran’s readiness to share its experiences with Harare in different fields. Mnangagwa, for his part, underlined Zimbabwe’s enthusiasm for the expansion of cooperation with Iran.
Kooshy,I had the very same question as Fiorangela rrdaeging the logical connection between Hersh’s two paragraphs that Fiorangela quoted. Having watched the video myself (thanks to you), I don’t know that there’s much anyone merely watching the video can add.Sadly, I think I can guess the missing piece of the logical puzzle: the apparent unspoken but clear understanding among American troops that, one way or the other, captured enemy soldiers are not going to go free. Tha is probably not what the American commander had in mind (or so I hope), but rather is a gloss put on his either/or order by troops in the field. Thus, if the captured soldiers are Taliban, the American soldiers hold them for later interrogation of the strategic persuasion, which one suspects, notwithstanding Hersh’s emphasis on the difference in its objectives ( long-range intelligence ) from those of tactical intelligence conducted in the field, is probably more accurately distinguishable by contrasting the methods used to extract information. On the other hand, if the captured soldiers are not Taliban, they are not to be taken prisoner and yet, in light of the unwritten gloss I suspect has been placed on the commander’s either/or order, they remain enemy soldiers who are not going to go free.What a dilemma indeed! What’s an American soldier to do? Well, according to Hersh, and as one might expect since we continue to live in the land of the free, an American soldier has a choice: either shoot them yourself, or turn them over to Afghan government troops, turn the other way, and listen for a gunshot a few seconds later.These enemy troops might be better off claiming to be Taliban.