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.

 

US Considers Visa Request from New Iranian President

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
They are considering denying him the right to speak at the UN. As the leader of that country he has the right to address that assembly. Arafat was also denied entry but he addressed the assembly in Geneva. Maybe we should move the UN to some other country (especially in light of USA not paying their bill, and Bolton who thinks the UN is a joke anyways)

www.voanews.com...

But it is considering the apparently unprecedented step of denying the Iranian president a visa, if a U.S. investigation determines that he had direct involvement in the 1979 storming of the American embassy in Tehran and holding diplomats hostage for more than a year.

www.aljazeera.com...
On the other hand, UN spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said: “The host country agreement calls on the U.S. not to impose any impediment to the travel to the UN of any representative of a member state on official business.”




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
This is a tough one, Iran's new president is a terrorist so we shouldn't allow him entry to the U.S. even if it is for a UN meeting. But then again he is the "elected" president regardless if we think he's a terrorist or not, I mean others have harsh opinions of President Bush and other foreign leaders but these individuals are never barred from addressing the U.N.

I think if they deny him a visa, it will only increase tensions between us and Iran, but then again, I don't we as a country care.

tough call...I'll be interested to see the outcome of this.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I am all for the UN moving to another country.
Let the other country have to worry about such silly things like allowing a possible terrorist / kidnapper into thier country.
Oh and lets not forget all the things that the diplomats get away with due to their Diplomatic Immunity!
As for the lack of the US paying it's dues
The United States accounts for 25% of the UN's annual budget of about $1.3 billion, followed by Japan (20%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), Italy (5.4%) and the UK (5.1%).
This is information is from 1999
www.twnside.org.sg...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
If this guy was truly involved with the kidnappings, then there's no way that the U.S. should issue a visa, if only just for a few hours to speak at the U.N. It'd be a slap in the face of all those who suffered during that ordeal.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I am all for the UN moving to another country.
Let the other country have to worry about such silly things like allowing a possible terrorist / kidnapper into thier country.
Oh and lets not forget all the things that the diplomats get away with due to their Diplomatic Immunity!
As for the lack of the US paying it's dues
The United States accounts for 25% of the UN's annual budget of about $1.3 billion, followed by Japan (20%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), Italy (5.4%) and the UK (5.1%).
This is information is from 1999
www.twnside.org.sg...


The USA may account for 25% but that only counts if they paid.

www.ngos.net...
will be traveling to Washington on Wednesday to meet with President Clinton and members of his Administration, to discuss not only Iraq but also the debilitating problem of the $1.3 billion in back dues that the United States owes to the United Nations.

The United States has not paid its United Nations dues in full and on time for some years. In 1995, it paid less than half its total assessment. These gaps have never been closed.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
yea sweet let's kick the un the hell out and watch all of those jobs go bye bye. From UN Staffers to limo drivers and wait staff. Hope they are all Bush supporters. We make money off those bone heads let'um stay they are irrelevant anyway. Right?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If this guy was truly involved with the kidnappings, then there's no way that the U.S. should issue a visa, if only just for a few hours to speak at the U.N. It'd be a slap in the face of all those who suffered during that ordeal.


The group who took part in the embassy storming is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) also known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) or the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI).

They are also the same group who were armed by Saddam to conduct terrorist attacks against Iran and helped in the supression of the Kurdish uprisings.
en.wikipedia.org...

There are many members of congress who are now trying to get that group removed from the list of terrorist organizations.

If they think that group should be removed from the list of terrorists, then I don't see why they shouldn't issue this man a visa even if he is found to have taken part in the storming of the US embasy, which so far he has not been found guilty.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

The USA may account for 25% but that only counts if they paid.


Why should we as one country pay 25% of the cost?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I say give the man a visa.

Then, after his speech is concluded, slap the cuffs on him and throw him in the bowels of Rikers Island for exactly 444 days.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Well, the man will get a visa. Bush announced it on TV from Crawford today.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
They are considering denying him the right to speak at the UN. As the leader of that country he has the right to address that assembly. Arafat was also denied entry but he addressed the assembly in Geneva. Maybe we should move the UN to some other country (especially in light of USA not paying their bill, and Bolton who thinks the UN is a joke anyways)

www.voanews.com...

But it is considering the apparently unprecedented step of denying the Iranian president a visa, if a U.S. investigation determines that he had direct involvement in the 1979 storming of the American embassy in Tehran and holding diplomats hostage for more than a year.

www.aljazeera.com...
On the other hand, UN spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said: “The host country agreement calls on the U.S. not to impose any impediment to the travel to the UN of any representative of a member state on official business.”




Wasn't Arafat allowed into the U.S back in the 70's to speak at the UN?

Yes please move the now anti-U.S UN, please.

The U.S pays the UN far more than any other country does. The U.S pays the UN like $5 billion a year. Dues, peacekeeping, food aid, etc.

Bolton's comments are 10 years old.

Mod Edit: No need for the snipe



[edit on 21-8-2005 by alien]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryieThey are considering denying him the right to speak at the UN. As the leader of that country he has the right to address that assembly. Arafat was also denied entry but he addressed the assembly in Geneva. Maybe we should move the UN to some other country (especially in light of USA not paying their bill, and Bolton who thinks the UN is a joke anyways)


What ? Its to early for Christmas...


Oh please pretty please, can we? Maybe to Paris? Or Geneva?

Oh and as for the bill, I would not pay them 1 dime.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join