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.

 

Hey! Justify this!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Okay, the evidence for corruption keeps piling up to those interested in the idea. I also will not and have not bought the excuse that Iran can't be trusted, that is why we said no!

Iran: "Hello Pot"

USA: "What do you say Kettle?"

Iran: You want my help?"

USA: "Hell no!"

artical

AAC




posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I think the US government didn't accepted for 4 reasons.

- They want to attack Iran.
- They want to stay in Iraq.
- They don't want Iraq to turn against the US, because after all, Iran and Iraq are the same branch of islam, and both suffered dictatorship imposed by the US. (Iraq=Saddam) (Iran=Shah)
- They wouldn't be able to divide Iraq, Iran and the middle-east into their plan for a new middle-east.

They don't want Iraq to work until the middle-east is divided like their plans. So either you have a real president, or you'll be stuck in Iraq for at least another 15 years. I'll remind you that France stayed in Algeria for over 140 years.



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Vitch, Very true. I post threads in certain forms to motivate answers exactly like yours. Thanks.

AAC



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'll remind you that France stayed in Algeria for over 140 years.


Was that not an attempted colonization -- or if not, at the least, a resource/land grab? Certainly they didn't stick around 140 years just to defend people.

The US is not in Iraq to colonize. Bush thought if he deposed Saddam that the Iraqis would be happy and build themselves a new government with American influence, ie: a democracy of soem kind. He figured that government would let the oil pipes flow with reckless abandon, providing dirt cheap gasoline for the western world. But what actually happened is quite different, and now the radicals are using it and want to use it as a "base" when US troops leave.

Fortunately, these groups are Sunni (Al-qaeda and the like) and the majority is Shia so i hope that the Government can keep them in check when America moves most of its forces out..

[edit on 1/18/2007 by runetang]



posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I think the reason why the U.S. is not wanting any help from Iran is because the U.S. views Iran as a "terrorist state" or a nation that supports terrorism, and quite simply: the policy of this nation is to NOT negotiate with terrorists.

It's not that the U.S. don't want help; it's just that Iran isn't exactly the kind of country anyone would want to help build a free, democratic nation far from the grasps of Radical Islam.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt
I think the reason why the U.S. is not wanting any help from Iran is because the U.S. views Iran as a "terrorist state" or a nation that supports terrorism, and quite simply: the policy of this nation is to NOT negotiate with terrorists.

It's not that the U.S. don't want help; it's just that Iran isn't exactly the kind of country anyone would want to help build a free, democratic nation far from the grasps of Radical Islam.


That is arbitrary and nonsensical. We label them a terrorist state, they label us a terrorst state. Who is right? I say we act like adults and make decision that is in the interest of the people, not in the interest of stubborn ideological businessmen.

AAC



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Okay, I want to be sure I understand.

In 2003 Iran:

1) Offered to help the US pacify Iraq and install a democratic government?
2) Offered to withdraw it's support of Hezzbolah and Hammas?
3) Offered to make it's nuclear program more transparent?

If these "offers" alone don't raise suspicion, maybe these circumstances should.


The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq...


Unsigned? WHo would the administration spoken to if they had decided to take them up on the offer?


Wilkerson said that, in return for its cooperation, Tehran asked Washington to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group which has bases in Iraq.


What sanctions were in effect in 2003? I thought the UN just recently voted for "limited" sanctions within the last 2-3 months?

Why would Iran need Washington to dismantle an Iranian opposition group? There are plenty of Iranians in Iraq supplying IEDs, money and training to the insurgents.

Smells funny to me.

Okay let's have a show of hands.....Who thinks Iran really wanted to help the US, Britain, etal in Iraq in 2003?

Who thinks that if the offer was even actually forwarded there were unstated reasons that would not have been in the best interests of Iraq, the US, Britain.....

I say actually forwarded because....



A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003.

"Far as I know, there's never been an offer from the Iranian Government on those kinds of concerns," said Tom Casey, the state department's deputy spokesman.






[edit on 1/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/19/2007 by darkbluesky]




top topics



 
0

log in

join