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.

 

Iranians Still Like Americans!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
well it seems that I was right, Iran will implode before we have to invade, the people are getting sick of the mullahs and their crap!


Smithsonian Magazine Finds Iranians Still Like Americans


America has played an outsized role in Iran over the past century, and is now criticizing the government over the country's nuclear program.

This January, Vice President Dick Cheney said Iran was "right at the top of the list" of potential trouble spots. Yet, despite the current turmoil and decades of anti-American propaganda from the Iranian government, many Iranians express admiration for the United States.

In the March issue of Smithsonian magazine, the article "A New Day in Iran?" finds that Iranians say they admire, of all places, America.
"The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American - or, perhaps, least anti-American - populace in the Muslim world," says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group.


Smithsonian Magazine Finds Iranians Still Like Americans




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
"The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American - or, perhaps, least anti-American - populace in the Muslim world," says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group.


Then it would seem as though Iran would make an ideal location for the US's next experiment in 'Liberation'. If enough support could be rallied to cause some of the the Iranian armed forces to revolt then the US would be conveniently obliged to step in and restore order right? I mean its just overthe border isnt it? No trouble really.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Well I guess the meaning of the article just sailed over your head about 35,000 feet then......


Always negative..........



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Yes, like they wanted us in Iraq!

I'd suggest that after Iran, considering we are done with Afghanistan and Iraq, we pay a visit to Pakistan as well. They have WMD. Saudi Arabia? 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers, let's get rid of them too. And as we are, also Qatar. They haven't done anything bad, but I don't like that name.

Oh, and malaysia and Indonesia are also full of crazy islamic militants, so before moving on the North Korea, we should take care of those two as well.

After all, what else has this Administration to do or worry about?

Not for sure about the millions of Americans who can't afford insurance, or those who lost their jobs in the past 4 years, or the stock market and the economy going bad or the immense deficit they created...


D

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I wouldn't be suprised to see the Iranians least hostile to the US. Most of the younger population ie students seem to be very pro-democracy. All the hostility comes mainly from the government.

Just stumbled across this on another forum. You can choose whether or not to take it with a grain of salt.

Iranian Solidarity with US after September 11

[edit on 25/2/05 by D]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I read the majority of Iranians support whatever their government doesn't. Since their government is anti-Bush and anti-America guess what? The majority has a favorable opinion of Bush and America. Of course if someone were foolish enough to start dropping cluster bombs all over Iran and actually go to war, I bet those bombs etc. would change minds fast. Bush's popularity rating would probably plummet as well.

On top of everything else, the US just took out enemies of Iran to the East and to the West. I sure hope our leaders understand that fighting war is not all about changing regimes but it's also economic. If our economy tumbles again because of another war, we may have lost even if win militarily. On the flip side I don't even like to think about Israel and Iran starting a nuclear war. Israel's policy is to take out all enemies if they die in a war. I believe we are safer if Iran has no nukes. I suppose some might be wondering if the government of Iran is planning on nuking Israel. It's nice to hear the people of Iran like the US though. Unfortunately all it takes is a little bit of mistrust to start another war and a lot of that seems to be around the Middle East.
Hopefully things will work out peacefully for everyone.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
And these anti-war folks miss the meat of this story once again, just type a reply and bad mouth Americans and Bush....all the while living in a fantasy world.....



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
edsinger, with respect, perhaps you should read the last parragraph of the article again.

It's not so much that they "STILL" like America, more that the country is starting to like the USA based on the number of youth.

You see, the young there would not remember the USA (CIA) helping to overthrow the democratically elected government in 1953 or the reasons for the embasy hostage situation in 1979.

Many US citizens dont know these facts , or choose to deny them in order to maintain their blindly patriotic and nationalisticaly inspired world view.

Fantasy world ?

Only if you believe the USA has an interest in spreading true democracy.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by D
I wouldn't be suprised to see the Iranians least hostile to the US. Most of the younger population ie students seem to be very pro-democracy. All the hostility comes mainly from the government. ...
[edit on 25/2/05 by D]


Pro-democracy should not be equated with Pro-America.

In fact, if nationalism takes hold due to a populist leader, the population could turn extremely anti-american.

edsinger, the problem for America of course is deciding whether or not to invade.

If it invades then the Mullahs and the Pro-Democracy movement will band together to fight the US.
If it doesn't, then the status quo might continue.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And these anti-war folks miss the meat of this story once again, just type a reply and bad mouth Americans and Bush....all the while living in a fantasy world.....


Iran was never a problem and most certainly never warranted to be an Axis of Evil member.
Iranian peoples had already moved substantially towards secularism before Bush was ever installed by the Gang of Five; Hell, they had their own versions of Coca Cola, Kentucky Fried Chicken & Victoria's Secret for God's Sake!!!
The stupidity lies in believing that the Bush Administration is anything of a positive effect on this; quite the contrary.....the Mullahs were on the ropes & their legs were gone...the "Axis" nonsense was like an Adrenaline injection to the Mullahs hearts....people revisited their perspective, since the conservatives control the war machines in any society, and possible/pending attack recalibrates the peoples perspectives towards theirs.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Bout how can you possibly call the biggest sponser of worldwide terrorism "not a problem"
No country on earth has supported more terrorst groups in more countries than Iran, and unlike the situation between sinn fein and Irish-americans the support s not comming from prvate ctzens it s comming from the government.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
mwm1331 are you sure that is right? the most i've ever heard about Iran supporting terrorism is them supplying hezbollah with arms, and they denied that, and said that they just officially give moral support to them. How can you call that worldwide?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Bout how can you possibly call the biggest sponser of worldwide terrorism "not a problem"


I was reading CS Monitor or some trade mag, and I was dumbfounded by the retail capitalism going on in Iran....especially a lingere franchise.
That catch phrase shows up repeatedly....being ascribed to the US government's opinion on Iran. NAturally, it filters down through all of the various outlets like Safire, Coulter, Hannity, all of Fox, etc.

Our BIGGEST teror problem? Dr. A.Q. Khan

Bush Khan-Gate In A Nutshell

In 2001 when the BBC and The Guardian reported that the BushAdmin thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb who has been discovered to have been selling nuclear secrets to rogue nations throughout the world, Noam Chomsky asked, "Why wasn't this all over US papers?" The "CIA and other agents told BBC they could not investigate the spread of ñIslamic Bombsî through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia," writes Greg Palast.

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh recently reported that "past and present military and intelligence officials" told him that the U.S. allowed Pakistan to pardon Khan if the U.S. were allowed to move freely in northwest Pakistan in a major search for Bin Laden. Pakistan's President Musharraf offered tribal help in capturing Bin Laden, but he claimed he only learned from the U.S. about detailed Khan black market sales of nuke materials in October: "If they knew earlier, they should have told us," he said.

Hersh reports that according to "a Bush Administration intelligence officer,"We had every opportunity to put a stop to the A. Q. Khan network 15 years ago." The Guardian has reported that the BushAdmin has been aware of Khan's dealings since it has been in office. Hersh writes, "politicians, diplomats, and nuclear experts dismissed the Khan confession and the Musharraf pardon with expressions of scorn and disbelief. For two decades, journalists and American and European intelligence agencies have linked Khan and the Pakistani intelligence service, the I.S.I. (Inter-Service Intelligence), to nuclear-technology transfers, and it was hard to credit the idea that the government Khan served had been oblivious." Other accounts reach the same conclusion. This morning the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff quotes "experts" as saying the Bush-Musharraf quid-pro-quo came about because Bush wants to capture Bin Laden before the November election to strengthen his chances of winning. If this is so, we've come full circle in three years. If we were to believe these reports, throughout its tenure the Bush Administration has its political goals as a top priority, rather than preventing nuclear proliferation.

"Robert Gallucci," writes Hersh, "a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, calls A. Q. Khan ñthe Johnny Appleseedî of the nuclear-arms race....Gallucci: 'The scariest thing about all this [is] that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. ThereÍs nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan...' Gallucci went on, 'We havenÍt been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814.


NY Times


Is There An Election-Year Quid Pro Quo Between Bush Bin Laden Search And Pakistan's Pardoning Of Nuke Black Marketer?




"Khan Job: Bush Spiked Probe of Pakistan's Dr. Strangelove"



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Bout how can you possibly call the biggest sponser of worldwide terrorism "not a problem"


Perhaps you should direct that question to Saudi Arabia



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by mwm1331
Bout how can you possibly call the biggest sponser of worldwide terrorism "not a problem"


Perhaps you should direct that question to Saudi Arabia


You have a valid point.




top topics



 
0

log in

join