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.

 

Russia Says No to Iran Nuclear Sanctions

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CuteAngel
 


Do You mean in the same manner that Israel is continuing the siege on Gaza, and how they are continually keeping reporters out???? Seems they rank quite high on Your rating system




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Well I aint got no issues with Israel. Excuse me, no reporters!!! then how do you presume more than half of the rant against Israel happens especially in the umpteen dozen threads that are posted here??? Can you show me how many reporters were able to publicize the military activities of Russia or China or what the UN has done about it???
Atleast with Israel and US media is allowed except may be in certain cases where they are in the middle of war but even in those circumstances media was known to be there. The least you can do is appreciate it...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
I like what You wrote, but I don't think anyone here is against Russia; I know that I am not. The real fact of the nature is Russia, and China have been preventing further war in the ME.


I wasn't referring to the people on ATS when I talked about blaming Russia. I was referring to the article and the general tone of US/UK government and media. And God knows that a very large number of people still blindly believe by the bias spread by the said media.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CuteAngel
How could you even think that the Shah was bad for Iran??? Iran was at its peak at the time of the Shah.


You can't be serious. The Shah fit every definition of a dictator. He was an illegitimate ruler who refused to allow dissent, and who ruled the country solely for his own benefit. He can best be compared to Saddam Hussein. Why do you think the revolution in Iran erupted in the first place? The majority of Iranians were fed up with the Shah and with the fact that he was serving the interests of Western corporations more than the interests of Iranian people.

And how do you define the "peak" that you claim Iran has reached under him? What exactly makes you think that the standard of life for Iranian people was any better than it is now? See - many Westerners have this belief that Iran today is an empoverished and dilapidated nation. Why? Because many Westerners have never been to Iran and refuse to learn more about life in that country. Fact is, that besides the authoritarian government and some religious hardliners, Iran is not such a terrible place.

The leadership that replaced the Shah was far from ideal of course, and is in many ways as bad as he was - I have never been a fan of it either. But to claim that the Shah was a good leader for Iranian is completely absurd. The fact that the Shah was replaced by other dictators and not be a democratic government - can in part be blamed on the US. The US stood firmly behind the Shah (for business interests) and refused to acknowledge the cause of the revolution. A such the people who climbed to leadership roles in Iran were hardliners who could hold their line against the US.

If the US understood the interests of the majority of Iranians, it might have helped to gradually substitute the Shah for an elected government and start transition to democracy.




Originally posted by CuteAngel
To Maloy -

You think that only the NWO or the US have their agenda, think again...those religious fanatics who rule certain regions of the ME have a crazy agenda of their own which I'm sure many dont appreciate.


The extremists that run rampant throughout the Middle East now are also in a way a creation of the Western World and the Cold War. They did not appear in a vacuum - a combination of circumstances led to their rise. The Western world since the imperial times has thoroughly exploited the Middle East (and Latin America, and Africa, and Asia). This exploitation did not end with the end of the imperial era however - mostly because the West was now interested in oil. Then came the Cold War, where both Russia and US could be blamed for sparking new conflicts in the Middle East.

Finally, after the Cold War, Russia bowed out for the most part, meanwhile the US used the opportunity to actually increase its involvement in the Middle East. Over the past 20 years, the ME became US's main playground. This continued exploitation and involvement of Western powers to gain access to oil, is what gave rise to the religious extremism and the violent idealogies in the region.



I am in now way trying to defend the extremist nutjobs or their agenda. I oppose all forms of religious extemism and Islamization. However one needs to understand the context of the problems that exist in Middle East today. If we don't understand where our enemy came from - we can't be expected to effectively deal with it. And what we must understand is that US (and in some degree Russia) are the ones who caused the Middle East to spiral into the mess it is now.

Merely fighting the extremists will not solve the problem. They have the strength of ever rising numbers, and they don't have to fight according to any rules or conventions. The best way to start solving the problem, is to adjust our actions that gave rise to the problem to begin with. Only then will the extremists lose the factor that they thrive on. Of course adjusting our actions will be very hard to do, especially for the US, considering the militaristic momentum that Pentagon has and the oil that still flows in the ME.




Originally posted by CuteAngel
Or should we go back to the times of Russia in Afghanistan or with Chechnya???.


Oh I understand perfectly well that Russia was pretty much fighting the same nutjobs that the US is now fighting. Except when Russia was fighting in the Afghanistan the US was only to happy to help out the mujahedeen in every way possible. Russia, while opposing the Iraq war, is in no way assisting either the Iraqi insurgency or the Afghan Taliban.

Moreover, in Chechnya the extremists from the Middle East branched out and tried to introduce their idealogy within Russia's territory - where it did not exist before. In Iraq however, the US dived right into the hornets' nest, thereby creating even more problems than it had to begin with. I don't even want to speculate what would happen if Iran is attacked.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
the shah was a dictator... batista was a dictator... the us creates these regimes because we supported the previous ones who raped their people of resources, money and blood.. we created castro, we created the ayatollah...

[edit on 12-9-2009 by TheCoffinman]



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 

As a pedestrian.... inline skater, runner, or just walking to my destinations. (WALK, why walk when you can skate!)

I am regularly as in daily almost run over by butt munches driving WMD's.

Every time this happens I always pause for a moment and think to myself....

This is why N. Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc.... every runt country on the planet that does not have the means to stand up to the bullies with the WMDs... MUST have their own WMDs or forever be picked on and run over by those who have the WMDs.

End of rant...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Ok, not to get too far OT, but to clarify my earlier points about Canada: China may well have bought an interest in the oil sands, but there are plenty of US firms already there. That too is far from the only example of Canadian natural resources heading south either; in exchange for currency with questionable, & ever decreasing, value. The NAU will only make this process more efficient.
Dressed up with positive phrases like "mutual this & that", "co-operation", "common interests", etc, the NAU doesn't sound like Anschluss, but we all know who will be calling the shots... & it wont be anyone who would rather be cold than American, eh?
Spooky really, given the other parallels that can be drawn between Nazi Germany & modern USA.
 
I have an Iranian friend who's not much interested in politics, but his parents are. They tell me that you have to take most of what Ahmedinejad says with a pinch of salt. Sort of like Churchill during WW2, "fight them on the beaches... never surrender" etc. Obviously, if the Nazis had taken London, Britain would have surrendered. Obviously, Iran has no means to take on Israel on Israeli territory. Its all talk to bolster moral, which is needed because they are not long after war with US backed Iraq, under threat from US backed Israel &, were it not for their trade relationships with China & Russia, plus military alliance with Syria, they would be under military threat from the USA directly. The Tehran Govt doesn't even have full control of the entire country. The Islamic Revolution is far from a done deal.
Ahmedinejad hasn't got much going for him except his big mouth & his policy of spreading the oil wealth out amongst the rural poor. Apparently, its this latter which has got the Middle Class so pissed off @him. Add such socialism to selling oil for €uros & its easy enough to see why the USA really does have it in for the man, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join