It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran offers help in fighting Gulf of Mexico oil leak

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by airspoon

When last I checked Iran has along history of quite some number of wars there. And indeed most are our fault. But that doesn't make anyone innocent or peaceful.

Also, your murdering neighborhood is not a good example, seeing as the US basically went into Afghanistan for an obvious reason. Iraq not so much at all. that's pretty much the only one. It's been the US' policy to try and change the governments there any time they can if peaceful attempts seemed to have failed. That's not good, but then again, is it bad? Is Iraq really worse off? It was an unjustified war, and in no way right. But what has been the outcome? Indeed, what has been the outcome with many of these middle east nations.

Look at the whole picture. It was the British and French who went in there and paid local tribes to fight each other so that they could not successfully rebel. Now the US is on clean up duty. The US does make these nations its puppet states, but thus far, it's been in a good way, with things ,much better than the brits or dictators after them. The US installed them, yes, but then in time removed them. it was a mistake to get involved anyway, but at least they didn't just get up and leave like the Europeans did. Just look at Africa. The Europeans just flat out left without care. The brits at least tried to leave stable governments in S Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria, but that's hardly a compliment. Everywhere else is blood and war. Most of these modern wars can be sourced to essentially being the US cleaning up the mistakes of imperialist Europeans. In many ways this makes the US appear imperialist, but at least they let local governments run. And in cases like the UAE, this clearly creates great nations.

Also, the US and Europe do not support Israel. They just sell them and make money off them. Never in the entirety of Israel's wars have I ever seen or heard of US or European powers helping them out other than UN forces ending the conflict. All we do is sell them things they need. The Russians sold to the Arabic nations things they needed. This lead to war. But that was their decision to hate each other and their decision to fight. Go and look at the statistics of many of these wars. Most of them, Israel fought with re purposed Patton and Sherman tanks. Shermans were called the coffins on wheels because they sucked. If the US supported Israel, then they would sell them new hardware, not outdated stuff. Now a days Israel makes its own weapons and tanks. That alone should tell you that they are not funded by other nations. They trade with them and use that wealth to their own means. Israel is no angel, but they know the value of being part of the global economy. As does the UAE, as why they are building Dubai.

And finally, Iran could very well then be the guy with 2 grenades if everyone has one. The fact remains they continue to arm themselves.

Also, the Bush administration probably would have liked to invade, but they couldn't, seeing as that would overstretch them.

Ad far as I see, there will be no war with Iran. it is a matter of If still. Now if Iran continues to be belligerent, then they will get what they deserve.

This is no longer themselves arming against potential invasion. This would be understood. This has become them being a rouge state that continually acts aggressive. Not even defensive, they act offensive in everything they do and say.

And they are not a contender to Israel. Look up the statistics for the 6 day war. They had crap. Nothing. it was all training. today they have better things, and still that training. Iran still uses weapons and technology from the 70s and 80s. It is not a superpower. it is not even out of 3rd world status. it's cities are advanced, that is all. Russia is a superpower. China is a super power. The European Union is a superpower. Iran is just another nation that talks louder.

Also, to be back on topic, BP already has a solution that they are deploying this week. And several new topics lead me to believe this catastrophe will easily never come.

Stop being silly.

There will be no war with Iran.
The oil problem is being fixed easily without any international aid.
It is not a massive disaster as they say it is.
All is well, stop worrying.

The conclusion you should learn is that everyone is sh*t. No one is good. But of the sh*tiest, Iran stands quite filthy, and of the least sh*tiest, the US stands atop.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

First of all, in many people's eyes, Afghanistan was just as bad as Iraq, as far as going to war. Many people believe that the US Government is responsible, therefore making Afghanistan a senseless war of aggression. Now regardless of how you feel about 9/11, the people of Iran, according to their president, also feels that the US Government is responsible for 9/11. So they see two of their neighbors being invaded by the US, after the US used lies to invade them in the first place. This gives them a very viable excuse to start arming themselves. They would be stupid not to arm themselves.

Also, Iran has not been aggressive towards others. Can you name one instance to where Iran has been aggressive in the past 100 years? The Iran-Iraq War was simply Iran defending themselves against an Iraqi invasion, allegedly funded and instigated by the US. You won't be able to name any aggressions because there aren't any.

Moving along, Iraq is no where close to being better than they were before we decimated their country. Sure, they were having a hard time before this later war but that is because of our sanctions. Even with those sanction, life was a hell of a lot better than it is now. Literally, hundreds of thousand of people have lost their lives, arms, legs and/or sanity. We have made them far worse off than they ever were. Now, you have families too afraid to venture out of their homes. You even have families living in fear inside of their homes, from US raids and US bombs. The point here is that they are far, far worse off because of us.

How can you say that these people are better off with YOUR way of life. It should be their choice on how they want to live, not the choice of people in the US. You may think it is better but that isn't them and they don't want to live like you. We have to respect their wishes with their life. That's the problem that I see with my fellow Americans, we always think that we know the best way and the only way and force others to accept our ways and because we like, we want to make them like it.

As far as Israel, we give them money, technology and weapons. We do not make money from Israel, they make money from us. They are one of the richest nations on Earth, yet they are the recipients of some of the biggest hand-outs from US tax-payers. We do back them and we back them publicly. Our government has stated on numerous occasions that we have Israel's back. Sure Israel makes some of their own weapons but we supply the majority of them. Their military is integrated with our military and they use our votes in the UN Security Council. The fact is, that we support Israel, have their backs, supply them money and weapons and vote for them in the UN.

Back to Iran, Bush did want to invade but because of Iraq and weary public, he was not able to. Israel has been wanting to take them out and I suspect that was one of the big reasons for Bush wanting to go to war. When Bush was not able or chose not to go ahead with war, all of the sudden they have riots with the aim of ousting the democratically elected government, with most suspecting that it was paid for and influenced with Western money and intelligence. Had that have worked, there would be no reason for war because a pro-Israel and pro-Western government could then be installed. However, it did not work except to influence the public in an anti-Iran attitude, in preparations for war.

Israel will eventually bomb Iran, that's a given. They keep urging US support and so far we have held off. Eventually they will do it. It is no a matter of "if" but rather, "when". It will happen unless they find other means to install a pro-Western and pro-Israel government. When that happens, you will eat your words. Israel is just itching to bomb Iran.

You keep saying that Iran is aggressive yet you provide no examples. Can you even provide an example to yourself? Iran arming themselves is not an aggressive act, especially since they have senseless wars of aggression on 2 borders, Israel itching to bomb them and a huge smear campaign in an effort to sway popular opinion for war. Arming themselves is only appropriate. So again, I ask you to name one instance to where Iran is acting aggressive. I'm afraid you have it backwards, America and Israel are the only aggressive ones and they are the ones picking a fight. Iran is simply building its defenses.

As far as BP, they may have a solution to plug the hole but that says nothing for the oil already spilled. So they plug the hole, that's not the end of it. They still have millions of gallons floating dangerously close to the marsh lands. They still have containment and clean-up to contend with. plugging the hole is the easy part. People seem to only think that we need to plug the hole and this will all go away. Once the hole is plugged, then the real work can begin.


posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by airspoon

Alaska is doing great today. Oil can be cleaned. And as some have said, this is not our synthetic plastic or car fuel. This is natural oil which breaks up and is naturally cleaned up (not that we should not help).

And I'm just going to end our little discussion on Iran with 3 simple facts.

1.) Iran has a military history under the current regime. I will quote wiki on this, because like it or not, it's pretty simply correct.

In 1979, the year of the Shah's departure and the revolution, the Iranian military experienced a 60% desertion from its ranks. Following the ideological principles of the Islamic revolution in Iran, the new revolutionary government sought to strengthen its domestic situation by conducting a purge of senior military personnel closely associated with the Pahlavi Dynasty. It is still unclear how many were dismissed or executed. The purge encouraged the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein to view Iran as disorganized and weak, leading to the Iran–Iraq War. The indecisive eight year war wreaked havoc on the region and the Iranian military, only coming to an end in 1988 after it expanded into the Persian Gulf and led to clashes between the United States Navy and Iranian military forces between 1987-1988. Following the Iran–Iraq War an ambitious military rebuilding program was set into motion with the intention to create a fully fledged military industry. Regionally, since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has sought to exert its influence by supporting various groups (militarily and politically). It openly supports Hizbullah in Lebanon and in order to influence Lebanon. Various Kurdish groups are also supported as needed in order to maintain control of its Kurdish regions. In neighboring Afghanistan, Iran supported the Northern Alliance for over a decade against the Taliban, and nearly went to war against the Taliban in 1998.[18]

2.) If Iran was lead by a better government honestly I would not have a problem with it. However, this current leader has already proven himself insane and improper in global affairs with no reason to suddenly start trusting him. A peaceful man all his life loses all value if he kill someone out of anger. he is then viewed as a murderer. Under Iran's previous president I would support it, because Iran is a peaceful nation despite its militaristic history in the beginning years and now. Iran must now prove itself worthy of being called a peaceful nation yet again. Militarism and aggression does it no good.

3.) 9/11 was caused because of the history of imperialistic actions on the region from western nations. It is the US' fault. However, even though the US is only the recent in a long line of occupiers, they are the first to be mostly nice. Iraq is more safe then it was in the beginning. Polls show citizens feel better, they simply are tired of being occupied. The Iraq occupation is no longer needed. The fact remains that people are better off and feel better off. The reason why 100,000 people have died is because a war is happening. Any death in war is a travesty. However, 100,000 is quite a low number. It's kind of hard to call the US mass murderers with only 100,000 dead when in 2 years Russia killed the same amount of people in Chechnya. And that was a "reckless" war. 2 years. imagine 10. Half that in the second war. And that too lasted quite some time.

In ratio, it is average actually. 1 million supposed unnecessary deaths have occurred. This is high. This is why I do not support the war. However, most Iraqi's feel the war made things better. They now support violence against the US and for the US to leave because the positive effects are here, now the US can leave. In all honesty the US should have left in late 2008 after the surge when all was well. Now there is barely any attacks. There's no reason left to be there.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by brill

the total capacity of Iranian aid can be found on one aircraft carrier. it's just a waste for a doubtful helper.

Well for all the same people (in this thread even, imagine that
) that are so intent on fussing about how much warmongering Iran is doing towards their precious Israel, you would think that people would be happy to see that "one aircraft carrier" far away in the Gulf of Mexico.

No it is not give Iran a hug day.

No it is not some stupid idea of brainwashing by a "green media."

Our planet's very health has become a political issue, which never should have been in the first place. If another country wants to help in any way in preventing a farther catastrophe that affects all of us, then by God it needs to happen.

Shameful, the self mutilation of chopping off one's noses only to spite their faces.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by niteboy82

No. It's just not letting cave men run a nuclear silo, to make it a parable.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

The rationalization you are using is that the Iranians shouldn't because outside of their cities, they are "cavemen."

1. That is harsh, and pretty damn offensive.

2. I could say the same for Americans, all you have to do is visit the backwoods of Kentucky.

Must be pretty nice to live where it isn't destroying livelihoods, and if by chance it is where some of the detractors live, pretty sad.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by niteboy82

I would argue no different. The difference is, however, that most Americans (pathetically, 2/3), are advanced and the government itself is pretty advanced. Although personally I think the EU would do a better job than us, what with their history of good management skill son the economy. What I am saying is that you should put the key into the right slot. We're the best on this job for the location and situation.

And it is offensive, but Priests still control who runs for office in Iran. For all intensive purposes, they are medieval caveman. The people themselves are wonderful and most are intelligent and good people. Government is not.

And I know the issue has been brought up that we should not force people into our life styles. Not saying that. There are many life styles. Some are simply not capable of global affairs. We say how well global affairs were handled by theocratic people in the crusades. No need to repeat that blunder.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
And it is offensive, but Priests still control who runs for office in Iran. For all intensive purposes, they are medieval caveman. The people themselves are wonderful and most are intelligent and good people. Government is not.

No argument. Any religion-dictated government is bad, but I could argue in some ways the ever-present religious leanings of our own government officials and its impact on laws.

Its a great thing, we all have our views. I respect your opinion, however different I may feel about certain parts.

And I know the issue has been brought up that we should not force people into our life styles. Not saying that. There are many life styles. Some are simply not capable of global affairs. We say how well global affairs were handled by theocratic people in the crusades. No need to repeat that blunder.

I agree again. I'm not looking for a theocratic dictatorship in our country. What I am looking for is any help we can get, PR stunts be darned. I'm agreeing with Jindal, we cannot rely on BP and we cannot rely on our Government. Who else do we look to then... outside help is welcome if they want to help.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by niteboy82

Like I said, fit the circle into the circle piece, not the square. You want outside help? Go to the best damn eco-leaders on Earth: Europe. There is no other foreign power to ask for help.

And just to relate this. I doubt if the US asked to help Iran solve their civil unrest last year they would say yes.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by Styki

Originally posted by Styki
If the US was going to start accepting help, then it would most likely be from our allies. If we don't accept or ask for help then we already have the situation taken care of.

Anybody thinking that we should just accept this offer, thinking we can all hold hands and sing around the campfire isn't living in reality.

I am sorry, but it is you who is not living in reality. It would be a blessing if the US accepted Persian(Iran) support. Any country that refuses help from another country involving an issue that can expand beyond our shores, into international waters, I would label that country INSANE.

In regards to your comment about the US accepting help from our allies. History repeats itself. In the 1890's, the British were allied with no one and concerned only with expanding their empire. In the 1900's, Germany began to build a navy that could challenge the British. Very suddenly, the British dropped their isolation policy and allied with the French and the Russians. All it took was one series of events to change their policy. That last sentence is very important for everyone to grasp.

I respect Iran for their so called "PR strategy". Iran wants nothing more than to improve her relations with the west. The way the Iranian government rules it's people is completely irrelevant. That is one of the MAJOR problems with the western world. The west believes that the way the west conducts itself is the only acceptable way. The west does not consider other ways in which people, and which the people themselves, might be governed. I agree that Iran has not set any records. I also say --- Who the Hell are we to judge? Their government(Iran) is the people's problem. Any help they can give should be WARMLY accepted.

This is not a political issue. ANY help that the US could receive should be taken as a blessing. This is not an oil problem involving only the US. It could potentially involve most of the world. Politics and Ecological Disasters do not mix.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:45 PM
This is maybe just another part of the plan destablize the planet, and this is 5000 ft. down, this seems kind of bad.
And if we joined in with the good ole boys from Iran , that would be bad because it could be good.

Were all doomed I tell ya, were doomed!!

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by My_Reality

I would agree if what you said was true. If they wanted to improve their relations with the west, they wouldn't be aligning themselves with Russia, setting itself as hating anyone with nukes (the west), and consistently making threats.

And its a theocracy. The very essence of what Europe hates. If Iran wanted to come closer to the west, even keeping their theocracy, many changes are needed.

There was also a time when Russia promised to help Eastern Europe rebuild after ww2. A time when the US promised to help and protect native Americans. A time for many things.

Point is, you can't just change policy (which they are not), and be accepted instantly. It takes decades.

I wouldn't trust America to clean up the environment, though oil spills I'd consider an exception based on their past. I wouldn't trust China with green tech either.

You have to earn respect. if that's insane, so be it.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I would love to see Iran and the USA come together as friends.

That would almost be worth all the devastation it took to get us there...

But then again, we should have been friends all along.

It would indeed be nice for us to be friends. We don't need another war. Talk to Iranians. They're nice people.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by Nemesis0123

I agree. But their government is not.

And there will be no war.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by airspoon

Russia would do a better job then they could. Why? Because Russia is a powerful nation. Iran is hardly industrialized. They have modern cities, but just leave that and its not anymore.

No nation that has priests decide who legally can run or not in office is trustworthy in the 21st century until they themselves prove it in their own lands first.

Who is "Iran" supposed to impress for a "trustworthy" rating?.. the morally bankrupt DC mafia GOP & DNC war mongers that sold you out generations ago?..yea, thats a laugh. Iran has 118 nations support.. the US has recycled low budget re-package Iraq war allegations... laughable.

Oh wait, divide & conquer, never-mind..."people helping people" is pre-9/11 thinking..

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by GovtFlu

Nope. Morals are immoral. You can't base anything off them. The simple fact is this. When you threaten to shoot someone one day, no one will want your help the next day. You have to earn it back. Iran has not.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by niteboy82

And just to relate this. I doubt if the US asked to help Iran solve their civil unrest last year they would say yes.

If iran had a history of helping with enviromental issues just to turn around and try to over throw the govt. I would be against it.... Asking the US to help with civil unrest is like asking the theif stealing your car to help you make it theft proof.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Mobius1974

Actually the US has a pretty decent history of civil unrest management. A lot better when globally compared. Even better than France in some ways.

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:08 PM
What do they have to bring to the playing field? Some kind of new technology? Something we can use to seal the leak? I would think with all the drilling they do they would have encountered this before. I just wish they would be more specific about what kind of help they can offer.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by dbloch7986

That's why its a bluff. Opec didn't say anything, just Iran. And it was not specific.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in