It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Text The latest decision out of Washington comes in the midst of urging from Congress to keep Aboutalebi, a former member of the Muslim Students Following the Imam's Line, from becoming an ambassador to the UN. In 1979, that group occupied the US Embassy in Tehran and held dozens of American citizens hostage for over a year, though Aboutalebi has since insisted that his role within the organization was limited to “translation and negotiation.”
Text Current members of the US Congress disagree, however, and the US Senate voted overwhelmingly on Monday this week to bar Aboutalebi from entry to America over what that measure’s author, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), called a “deliberate and unambiguous insult to the United States.”
Text Aboutalebi, 56, has previously served as Iran’s ambassador to three countries and the European Union.
pheonix358
I can accept the US denying access if this guy was going to be their US Ambassador, they have the right to do so.
But to tell Iran who they can and can't have as Ambassador to the UN is just plain wrong.
The UN should pack its bags and find another country to set up its base of operations.
US is way too big for its boots.
P
Xcathdra
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
A very very bad response by the US.
This guy, regardless of what he did or did not do in the past, was chosen as the Ambassador to the UN. If the US and Iran had diplomatic relations, and this guy was chosen as the Iranian Ambassador to the US, then I could see a valid rejection.
Since its for the UN I don't think the US should meddle with it.
** This is what I get when I read the op and then click the reply button - The post above making the same points **
Sorry bout that.
The other positive is pheonix358 and I actually agree on the topic. There maybe hope after all.edit on 12-4-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I disagree... I think it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the United Nations. The guy, whether we agree with Irans decision or not, was sent by the Iranian government.
If the UN were located in Iran, and Iran refused to allow access to our Ambassador, the US would go mental.
Had he been suggested for the US I would agree that rejection is appropriate.
Since he is not then he should be allowed to fulfill his appointment. His past can always be used at some point in the future when Iran takes a stand on an issue and credibility is in question.
OccamsRazor04
Xcathdra
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I disagree... I think it sets a dangerous precedent when it comes to the United Nations. The guy, whether we agree with Irans decision or not, was sent by the Iranian government.
If the UN were located in Iran, and Iran refused to allow access to our Ambassador, the US would go mental.
Had he been suggested for the US I would agree that rejection is appropriate.
Since he is not then he should be allowed to fulfill his appointment. His past can be used at some point in the future when Iran takes a stand on an issue and credibility is in question.
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.
pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.
Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.
UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.
I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.
Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).
The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.
Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?
The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.
edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)
OccamsRazor04
pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.
Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.
UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.
I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.
Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).
The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.
Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?
The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.
edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)
Ummm no, or maybe you can show me where we annexed part of Iran. If you can't your analogy and entire post is invalidated and rendered worthless. You hate America, we get it.
pookle
OccamsRazor04
pookle
I just love watching the Yanks make arses of themselves.
Diplomats should have the right to go to the UN regardless, if you don't like the face of your enemy enough to talk to then you have no place in politics. Stop making enemies.
UN should be neutral ground with no way to block anybody.
I also vote for moving the UN to neutral ground, a neutral country, not a war mongering one for location.
Move it to a neutral country in Europe. There are a few of them there that are not in NATO (that is part and parcel of being neutral, no offensive alliance memberhsip).
The Queen of England shakes hands with PIRA (they killed her cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten in Ireland) Martin McGuinness, The brits give in erm talked to the PIRA et al, a yank will just have butter up and talk to a "translator" from Iran.
Wasn't the Iranian Embassy a case where the US used the excuse of "protecting their citizens abroad", similar to Russian protecting Russians in Crimea?
The yanks have lost their usefullness in world politics.
edit on 12-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)
Ummm no, or maybe you can show me where we annexed part of Iran. If you can't your analogy and entire post is invalidated and rendered worthless. You hate America, we get it.
You hate Iran, we get it. Not man enough to talk.
OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.
Xcathdra
OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.
Let me try it this way..
Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.
I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.
IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?
OccamsRazor04
Xcathdra
OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.
Let me try it this way..
Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.
I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.
IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?
If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.
Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.
LightningStrikesHere
OccamsRazor04
Xcathdra
OccamsRazor04
If the US send someone involved in the terrorist kidnapping of Iranians was chosen by America Iran would go nuts, so would most other people, and the US would be accused of not being interested in diplomacy.
Let me try it this way..
Canada sends an Ambassador to South Africa. The Federated States of Micronesia objects to the Ambassador because 50 years ago he signed the free association treaty with the US.
I get what you are saying and part of me agrees. However the larger picture is the fact this deals with Diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Nations.
IF the US felt this strongly then why did they not issue charges and an arrest warrant (submitted to Interpol)?
If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.
Fact is this person has to deal with the US if he is the UN ambassador, and sending him signals they have no interest in actual diplomacy. We are not talking about someone denied entry for views or beliefs, but actual actions, and I support this 100%.
Ohh please dude ,get over your self already !
what's the big deal ? I shall i point out all the criminals within our own government? and the crimes against humanity? and your worried about this guy who was Not directly involved in a hostage situation in his home country years ago ?
Get real !
You don't know the all circumstances behind
the hostage situation in Iran . Nor do i ,and because of that i am open minded about this situation and his status .
OccamsRazor04
If Canada sent a diplomat that was involved in South African atrocities, that would be a huge smack in the face and the person should be denied entry and Canada should apologize.