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.

 

Iran’s Benevolence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Iran offered the US 20 million barrels of crude oil in the wake of Katrina as a means of helping us out through this terrible time. This is a very kind gesture, much along the lines when we sent a lot of help in the wake of the destruction of the Iranian city of Bam that killed over 26,000 people in 2003. Or is it?

Iran, in all of their kindness and compassion, offered to help us in our time of need to reciprocate our help during the Bam disaster. Yet the State Department rejected Iran's offer. Why? Iran added a condition to those 20 million barrels of oil: end all sanctions against the nation. Apparently the Iranian's memory is worse than the Kuwaiti government's, which is sending us $500 million in aid, no strings attached. I really find this remarkable, and yet at the same time I don't. Looking at some of the figures of European "allies" offered aid to us, Iran's offer was very generous compared to theirs, had they not added the catch.

Y'all know from reading this (riddled with sarcasm, in case you can't tell from the tone in my head as I type this
) how I feel about it, but what about you? Is Iran justified in adding conditions to aid packages sent to the US?

Source


[edit on 9-7-2005 by junglejake]

EDIT: Royally blew the link...

[edit on 9-7-2005 by junglejake]




posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Your link doesn't work.

From what you've described, I don't think there's anything wrong with tying aid to certain conditions as that's what many countries do with their foreign aid.
The US is no exception although in emergency situations I think they forgo certain conditions.

The aid to Iran, as far as I'm aware, consisted of a few dozen personnel and some sheets of plastic to be used as shelter, as well as a few thousand blankets.



state.gov

I would also note that, in addition to these 84 member team that USAID is leading has put together, the U.S. Agency for International Development is also preparing two airlifts of prepositioned relief commodities from Dubai into Bam. These relief commodities include 300 rolls of plastic sheeting for temporary shelter and 12,500 blankets.

I would just note that, I think, one foot, one foot of plastic sheeting -- or 10 feet of -- one foot of plastic sheeting is enough to cover 10 people. So -- or I'm sorry -- each roll of plastic sheeting provides temporary shelter for 10 families. So if you've got 300 rolls, that covers 3,000 families. Those -- these commodities will be delivered to Iran as soon as the logistics can be arranged. That's primarily airspace and ramp space issues.


There's nothing wrong with that donation but I don't think you should chastise Iran for not donating hundreds of millions to the US because of that US aid to Iran.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Why? They are building loose nucs. That could be why. I realize I'm being sarcastic but not against you -- against the whole thought Iran will help in time of need and destroy you later.

I feel, and I really mean this, their a big problem now tomorrow and later.
perhap's one of the only times I can understand the rejection from U.S. Fed Gov.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Well, there's certainly precedent for what Iran's doing, but I still think it's #ty.

What I would do is give the aid without conditions, and then afterwards, when things have settled down some, I would offer the country I had just aided the chance to be gracious and repay the favor.

Of course, as has been mentioned, Bam garnered international assistance, so I suppose they do owe the West something for that.

However you slice it, it's not charity, it's political maneuvering. Charity loses all merit, in and of itself, when it's done to be seen, or done to advance ulterior motives. That's just generally, regardless of whether you're talking about the great game between nations, or just relations between neighbors in the subdivision.

If your toilet was overflowing, would you appreciate the offer of a plunger from the guy next door? Of course! Would you still appreciate the offer if it came with conditions? Probably not, because there are some circumstances where nobody wants to play Make a Deal, like in an emergency, you just want to get help, not read contracts and barter for petty favors.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
We ran a field hospital there for 15 days treating 727 patients, then left all the medical equipment and the hospital there for the Iranians. We gave them $543,605 in supplies, and $811,610 in aid through the IFRC and UN.

www.usaid.gov...

I'm not saying it's along the lines of 20 million barrels of oil (I believe, not sure how much it costs to produce them, but I suspect it's more than $4 million). My point is we sent aid with no strings attached. We didn't demand anything in return, we saw a need and we tried to fill it.

Now the question is, since we rejected their offer with the strings tied to it, will they offer us something substantially smaller with no strings?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I seem to recall conditions also with the Tsunami...I think its common practice...politics!

Hey, you cant blame them for trying, can you?!



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I seem to recall conditions also with the Tsunami...I think its common practice...politics!


I can't find a single thing on any conditions with the Tsunami...

This link details the aid given, but googling isn't bringing any information about any strings attached on the aid packages the US sent and is sending to tsunami victims. Do you know where you got this information?



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I can't find a single thing on any conditions with the Tsunami...


I have heard that some aid was linked to economic and political reforms and the privitization of resources like water and government run industries.

I can't find that information right now.
This is the closest I've found:



wsws

Tamilchelvan said the LTTE would “be putting greater effort into informing the international community about the ground reality and request them to make the decision to deliver aid directly to the LTTE”. This amounts to another empty appeal to the US, Britain, Japan and other major powers, which have tied tsunami aid to their own political objectives—a power-sharing deal to end the long-running civil war that threatens their economic and strategic interests in the region.




devp

OTTAWA / August 17, 2005 - A delegation from the Canadian Catholic Organization for DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE delivered more than 225,000 cards to the federal government today urging Ottawa to ensure access to clean, affordable water for the world's poor. The delegation will meet with Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's Chief of Staff, Patrick Tobin.

The petition post cards call for action by Canada to advocate at the World Bank to end a practice that places conditions on loans for poor countries in the Global South - especially policies that directly or indirectly promote the privatization of public water systems. The petitions also urge the government to ensure that World Bank loan practices promote meaningful participation by civil society and communities in setting water policies.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
if i remember correctly no reforms were made linked to receiving those aid since most of the world would be mad if such thing existed. so nothing happened and aid was continue to the helpless in Asia.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A cynical (but clever) bit of political posturing by the Iranians.

They know very well the Bush administration would never accept this offer.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I don't see anything 'wrong' with Iran making an offer with strings attached. They don't want the sanctions and I can understand that. It would be really nice if there were no strings, but hey, we don't get to control them, now, do we.

I also don't see anything wrong with the US turning it down if it's not what they want or need. I know we could use the oil, but if it's more important to keep the sanctions, then I think that's fine, too.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
A cynical (but clever) bit of political posturing by the Iranians.

They know very well the Bush administration would never accept this offer.


No administration would. If they did, the public outcry believing the government accepted a bribe in return for a political favor would be huge. The UN would slam us for it as well, and we'd have a very hard time living it down. It would be like committing political suicide.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join