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.

 

Gulf nations must unite to expel U.S.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   


Source

Tehran, Iran, May. 02 – Iran’s former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said on Tuesday that Gulf nations should unite to expel “foreigners” from the region, the state-run news agency ISNA reported.

“Cooperation among regional states will leave no room for the foreigners and can assure the world of tranquillity and stability in this region which provides the world’s energy”, Rafsanjani said at a meeting with visiting Qatari emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani.

Rafsanjani, who currently chairs the State Expediency Council, said, “The occupation of Iraq is the source of security problems in the region”.

He said that the United States and Britain had learnt from their experience in Iraq that military might and troops were not enough to ensure security in the region.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


As if they will get much support for this ridiculous idea, most golf states rather benefit from foreigners and their economies depend on western technology, vistors, and companies.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Mdv2]




posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Not trying to excuse the actions of the west within the gulf region...
because we have caused lots of grief (but helped also)

But is he serious, that if the west wasn't involved in the region, that it would help
"insure stability and security" ?
Whaa?
is he on drugs? Since Islam prohibits that, i would have to say, maybe he just needs a history lesson...
and maybe current affairs in the form, of a visit to neighboring Iraq... where muslim is blowing brother muslim to bits... just make sure to visit the glamorous Suni districts...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Like two peas in a pod: Current Iranian president: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and ex-Iranian president: Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani = the propaganda mouthpieces of the Iranian Mullah run terrorist government.





seekerof



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
that our friend Rafsanjani, (Ahmadinejad... is he a GW clone?) is not terribly grounded in reality.

At least not from the point of view of history and Arab harmony.

The Middle East should be a paradise... It is the disaster that it has been, is and will always be because of the mindset of the people that live there.

Just as the Arabs play the Qui Moi game regarding terrorism... They play the Et Tu as to the source of discord and disharmony.

Just look at Iraq.



[edit on 2-5-2006 by golemina]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The USA and many other "western" nations are mere infants compared to Islamic and Middle Eastern nations. The Middle East has been unstable for millennia; the USA has existed a few centuries and more importantly only been part of foreign politics for a little more than one century. For anybody to believe that the solution to Middle Eastern “stability” is to expel the USA is mad and outright unintelligent.

The USA is certainly a factor in current Middle Eastern stability issues, but it is not, and never has been, the cause of them. The Middle East was unstable for a thousand years before the USA was even a dream, so how can it be the cause? It cant, but it is certainly good cinema and propaganda to say so isn’t it?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The USA and many other "western" nations are mere infants compared to Islamic and Middle Eastern nations.

Actually most Middle Eastern nations were not formed until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War 1, less than a hundred years ago, so the Middle Eastern countries are actually the infants. Even after this time, many Middle Eastern countries were "protectorates" (read colonies), and did not become fully independent until much more recently.


The Middle East has been unstable for millennia;

Has it, Mr. History Revisionist? Those caliphates like the Umayyads, Abbasids and the Ottomans must have been sitting on their hands.



the USA has existed a few centuries and more importantly only been part of foreign politics for a little more than one century.

You mean meddling in the Middle East right? Read "Gulf nations should unite to expel “foreigners” from the region." It's not exclusive to the US.


For anybody to believe that the solution to Middle Eastern “stability” is to expel the USA is mad and outright unintelligent.

You may want to take a history refresher before attacking anyone's intelligence.



The Middle East was unstable for a thousand years before the USA was even a dream, so how can it be the cause?

Caliphates in the Middle East were studying Plato and Aristotle while Europe was still in the Dark Ages. If this is your measure of instability, then the world as a whole is still unstable to date.


it is certainly good cinema and propaganda to say so isn’t it?

Actually, your propaganda and revisionist history is not even fit for the screen, its probably more appropriate as free handouts at an animal shelter or better yet, as liner for a bird cage.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Quite edicational history notes posted above .

My personal opinion -- I would love to not care about Middle East. If not for the maniacal obsession of the US with the defence of Israel, we could have done it a while ago, invested in alternative energy sources and live very happily thereafter.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Nice spin on the thread title. Since when does "foreigners" equal the US? I'm beginning to think that there is more to this whole Middle East bit than meets the eye. I'd have no problem seeing the US pull out of the Middle East. If we were to pull out though, it would have to be totally though. That would mean no foreign aid, no more oil money and no economic assistance. I'd make it pretty much under the same rules that we currently use with Cuba. Rather than go through the hassle of bringing all of our military equipment back from the Middle East I'd just make a gift of it to Israel.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
A laughable scenario since most of the Gulf nations actually trust the United States of America more than they trust each other. How else do you explain the large U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. and in Kuwait? They invited the U.S. to arrive and set up camp out of fear of their neighbors. Besides what would they do without an outside buyer? It would be like potato farmers trying to sell crops to each other. You have to have an outside buyer to make things work.

The Middle East has an abundance of one product. (No not militant religions, the other product) Eventually the main buyer is bound to want to cut out the middle man and go straight to the source themselves. Or at the very least they want to make sure that they can have buying rights over others.

Let's be realistic. The gulf nations have no say-so in what goes on in the world. The big-boys (China, U.S., Soviets, Europe) are running the show and the middle east is just protesting for a better script.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Besides what would they do without an outside buyer? It would be like potato farmers trying to sell crops to each other. You have to have an outside buyer to make things work.


Well that's exactly my point. Once we stop buying oil from them, we won't have to worry about religious lunatics because the latter won't have money to do us harm.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Jamuhn,


I dont jave time to respond to you the way I should, but this will have to sufice:

I understand few Middle Eastern nations that exist today, and are the same entities that existed a thousand or more years ago. But my point is still the same: These are all still Sharia governed nations and governments just like they have been since the start of Islam 1400 years ago. And its not all Islams fault either, the area was unstable for a thousand years before that.

But the details are meaningless, the bottom line is unchanged. The Middle East has been unstable for over a thousand years, it can hardly be blamed on any single nation, let alone the USA which had only been a factor the last 100 years or so.

So for anybody to blame the regions instability on the US is an out right farce. The premise here is that if the US was "expelled" the region would be stable and peacefull, BULLCRAP! Why would it? Its never been before.

And thats the point, Middle Eastern instability and terrorism is not the result of any USA's actions or policies, as they have existed for over a thousand years before the USA came into existance.

This is absolute fact and cannot be refuted, regardless of your geopolitical savy or opinions.


But it sure is a hoot for all you haters to think it is though huh?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

And thats the point, Middle Eastern instability and terrorism is not the result of any USA's actions or policies, as they have existed for over a thousand years before the USA came into existance.

This is absolute fact and cannot be refuted, regardless of your geopolitical savy or opinions.


But it sure is a hoot for all you haters to think it is though huh?


Oh Kay.

Had not the United Nations and the United States backed the creation of Israel, what would be wrong with the middle east? Israel is the root cause of instability in the middle east.

Dont forget, the United States is the reason why Saddam even came to be in power. We put him there as a puppet for us and he terrorized his own people and we did nothing cuz he gave us oil.

This "absolute fact" is not absolute. If we would have left the Middle East alone, they would have became democratic anyway. Look at Iraq and Iran they were both demrocracys and we helped overthrow them and install dictators who are evil becase they gave us cheap oil.

Had we no need for oil and not blindly back Israel there would be pease in the ME. And peace in the World.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
the WORLD have to expel US govt, so they will do no harm to this small world since they generate most of the world's conflict (you all can name it with no trouble).



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
As ever, Skippy's grasp of geopolitical realities is very poor, and ignores over a century of UK and then US intervention in the region in order to get cheap oil. Those posters who think the US should take its ball and go home, and that will REALLY teach those ungrateful ragheads, ignore the following facts:


  • the US is dependent on oil for its economy, and because there's almost no public transport infrastructure
  • most of the transnationals (Exxon, Mobil, Texaco) are based in the US
  • those transnationals contribute mightily to both parties
  • Bush in particular is tied to oil interests
  • Condi has an oil tanker named after her
  • China would, with its expanding economy, buy ME oil in a heartbeat.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Whats intersting here is that Rafsanjanii is the 'opposition' in iran, no ( Or am I mistaken)? So we have now an announcement from the opposition within iran (not the rebels or anything like that of course), that is extreme and anti-western.

So basically, every element of the Iranian government is prepped for war.


But then, post war, maybe more people like Sarah Shahi will immigrate from Iran to the united states?


Maybe we DO need friendlier relations with Iran!


babybangz
the WORLD have to expel US govt

Since anyone with any power in the world more or less supports the US, how is this going to happen?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Not only that, but Iranian influence is massive in Iraq. You think the insurgency is bad now? Check this out. It's a girl who's blogging in Baghdad, and it's an interesting POV from a smart, ordinary Iraqi.

We immediately began hearing about the Iranian revolutionary guard, and how they had formed a militia of Iraqis who had defected to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We heard how they were already inside of the country and were helping to loot and burn everything from governmental facilities to museums. The Hakims and Badr made their debut, followed by several other clerics with their personal guard and militias, all seeping in from Iran.

Today they rule the country. Over the duration of three years, and through the use of vicious militias, assassinations and abductions, they’ve managed to install themselves firmly in the Green Zone. We constantly hear our new puppets rant and rave against Syria, against Saudi Arabia, against Turkey, even against the country they have to thank for their rise to power- America… But no one dares to talk about the role Iran is planning in the country.

The last few days we’ve been hearing about Iranian attacks on northern Iraq- parts of Kurdistan that are on the Iranian border. Several sites were bombed and various news sources are reporting Iranian troops by the thousand standing ready at the Iraqi border. Prior to this, there has been talk of Iranian revolutionary guard infiltrating areas like Diyala and even parts of Baghdad.

The big question is- what will the US do about Iran? There are the hints of the possibility of bombings, etc. While I hate the Iranian government, the people don’t deserve the chaos and damage of air strikes and war. I don’t really worry about that though, because if you live in Iraq- you know America’s hands are tied. Just as soon as Washington makes a move against Tehran, American troops inside Iraq will come under attack. It’s that simple- Washington has big guns and planes… But Iran has 150,000 American hostages.


Sorry about the long post but you have to edit loads to get to the meat I just extracted.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Whats intersting here is that Rafsanjanii is the 'opposition' in iran, no ( Or am I mistaken)?


Rafsanjani is not really the opposition in Iran. You may be thinking of Khatami who is considered a reformist and helped to open dialogue with the US. Rafsanjani did run against Ahdminejad (sp?) in the last election, but Rafsanjani is also the Chairman of the Expediency Council, which is a pretty powerful position in Iranian politics.

Rafsanjani is no more the opposition than democrats are to republicans, or vice versa.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Rafsanjani is no more the opposition than democrats are to republicans, or vice versa.

Yes, I wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean he was like the 'rebels' against the state. I think that the democrat-republican analogy is a good one. Imagine if both Ed Kennedy and Rick Santorum and McCain were all backing the president vis a vis war with iran? I think that the situation is analagous to that.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo
Had we no need for oil and not blindly back Israel there
would be pease in the ME. And peace in the World.


Oh my goodness. So .. you are saying that the muslims
all would get along just fine with each other? That muslims
don't kill other muslims? That radical muslims don't call
for the entire world to convert or die?

ALL the world's wars fall back on America getting
oil from the Middle East and the Jews actually
having a small spit of land to call their 'homeland'??

www.thereligionofpeace.com...



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
You seem to have a certain chorus of individuals on ATS who like to respond to everything some Iranian leader says or does, it's actually kind of funny. To me this comment lacks any importance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join