-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Iran bribes Afghani government
- Thread starter Pardalis
- Start date
So? If good countries want to give money to an unsavory regime because they expect it to be in the free worlds interest, then why not? (See Churchill/FDR giving 'bags' of lend/lease to the USSR for a historical example that worked)
Elind
Philosopher
You think I should be more polite towards him and his bag men?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It was Euros.
Iran was the main nation to fund and arm the Northern alliance which was used to defeat the Taleban in 2002. They have always had influence there. They thought after sept 11, and with their enormous help to the US to defeat the Taleban, that it would be a new period of friendship between Iran and the US. They were wrong, and felt betrayed by the US.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...aign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Afghanistan, of course, foolishly thinks "America" wants stability over in the region. They want the pipeline path secured, but they also want war with Iran. Of course, Afghanistan/Karzai understands that to have a stable country, they will need friendly relations with Iran, as they do share a long border with them. They also have not forgotten Iran helped get them there.
Of course, America just sees Afghanistan as the launching point to hit their big enemy, Iran. They couldn't give a flying pigs eye about the countries that will be lit up into a warzone, in fact, the more war, the more support and reconstruction required, the more cost-plus contract money for Dubai-based Halliburton.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...aign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
Afghanistan, of course, foolishly thinks "America" wants stability over in the region. They want the pipeline path secured, but they also want war with Iran. Of course, Afghanistan/Karzai understands that to have a stable country, they will need friendly relations with Iran, as they do share a long border with them. They also have not forgotten Iran helped get them there.
Of course, America just sees Afghanistan as the launching point to hit their big enemy, Iran. They couldn't give a flying pigs eye about the countries that will be lit up into a warzone, in fact, the more war, the more support and reconstruction required, the more cost-plus contract money for Dubai-based Halliburton.
Last edited:
Elind
Philosopher
That perspective is so much bull it tends to make any related argument smell the same.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Conspiracy Theories is thataway ----------->
I linked you a Frontline documentary. You would only have to watch the first two or three parts to see that's not what I think, that is what the editors and reporters of Frontline think. I am merely repeating/summarizing what I have read and saw on the subject.
So if you want to argue with someone, write to the Frontline editors, (after you watch the documentary, of course), and let them know what flaws you see in their reporting and investigation.
But to just wave it away as bull, without any further comment, makes me think you don't know anything about the situation.
Last edited:
you mean the conspiracy that Iran is "completely clueless" about Afghanistan? The peoples who have neighbored them for hundreds if not thousands of years?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
How does that fit the definition of "conspiracy", let alone a "conspiracy theory"?
So then why did Iran deny it, only to have Karzai admit it?
Doesn't sound like Iran had a sound plan to me.
Elind
Philosopher
You are stating your opinion, whatever the sources.
Tell the Frontline editors to come here if they want to debate in person, rather than via a proxy.
It can be argued that the "opposition" in Iran had some tendency to start better relations with the USA, on their terms, but they are no more and not because of the USA.
The ruling cabal will not again allow any "liberal" candidates to their pretend democracy.
Therefore I call bull.
Iran did not deny it for very long. And the Iranian parliament is asking for an explanation, since money is not to be given to other countries without their consent first.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/201010...s-report-on-financial-aid-to-afghanistan.html
did I say that? Although, i am sure Iran does have designs in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't they. everybody else in the world does.
Last edited:
Well, you can watch the documentary, and tell me what I have misrepresented from it. there is no need to debate via proxy. you can either watch the documentary, and then point out what you see wrong with its facts, or you can continue to say nothing but meaningless words that amount to little more than "nut uh".
I'd suggest watching the whole thing, since it addresses this too:
It can be argued that the "opposition" in Iran had some tendency to start better relations with the USA, on their terms, but they are no more and not because of the USA.
The ruling cabal will not again allow any "liberal" candidates to their pretend democracy.
Plus, you might learn something.
Elind
Philosopher
I watched it.
One can argue that GWB "might" have done something to help the so called moderates in Iran gain power, but to argue that it is the US fault that the fundamentalist theocrats have taken over is to ignore that they were always in control.
The ruling council has always had the power to deny any candidate the right to stand, and the Republican Guard (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of motorcycle goons) has always been loyal to them, and controls large sectors of industry as well. They have shown what they do to any dissent and to think they did so because of the USA attitude is ......
As to the significance of expressing sympathy for the US after 9/11; that is a stretch. One could expect any civilized nation to do so then, but they did so with at least one obvious caveat. The grand Ayatollah, when he made his so called conciliatory speech, also happened to slip in that Hiroshima was equatable to 9/11.
That alone pretty much puts the seriousness in the bull category.
This suggestion, that it is the US fault that Iran isn't now run by nice people who just want to be friends with the world, is just more of the usual, "it's the other guy's fault".
Nothing to do with sympathy. I wasn't saying they were expecting new ties because of their expressions of sympathy for the Untied States after 9/11. What I said/meant was that after 9/11, they worked with the Untied States to oust the Taleban from Afghanistan, and expected because of that, that perhaps relations would thaw, and they could work with the U.S. in the war on terror (of course, they were just hoping it was against Sunni terrorist cells).
this all is certainly debatable, but not related to the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Elind
Philosopher
I hope LashL doesn't think this is too far off topic, but if a new thread is called for, please move it there.
Seems the Iranians just can't get there paperwork department to work right.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/10/30/nigeria.smuggled.weapons/
They have people blowing stuff up and taking hostages in Nigeria don't they? One wonders how they can afford such pastimes while working for a living. Must be a sponsor somewhere.
Seems the Iranians just can't get there paperwork department to work right.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/10/30/nigeria.smuggled.weapons/
They have people blowing stuff up and taking hostages in Nigeria don't they? One wonders how they can afford such pastimes while working for a living. Must be a sponsor somewhere.