NationStates Jolt Archive

In a significant move, Iran's deputy foreign minister, while criticizing U.S. plans to send more troops into Afghanistan, said Iran is "fully prepared" to help fight the drug trade in Afghanistan -- a campaign the U.S. wants to escalate.


Well, Ill be damned. Looks like talking to Iran, something that certian people were critical of, is actually going to yield some positive results.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/31/iranian-diplomats-meet-afghan-conference/

What say NSG? Step in the right direction? Meaningless gesture?

Reasonable action. Both sides want the same end, there is no reason not to cooperate to attain it.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Too early to tell if it will lead to anything, but damnation! this makes me happy. Why, it's almost as if there are grown-ups involved!

Meaningless gesture Iran knwos it wont be excepted. Having Iranian troops or "agents" in Afghanistan will only spell trouble in the long run. So to does Iranian money as money rarely comes free of influence or strings.

At the moment it's mostly posturing.


That doesn't make it a bad thing.

Well the US would not want Iran in Afghanistan officially. Not that they are not already involved as they are in Iraq. However it may be a positive sign for future talks. Something that needs to happen.

Well the US would not want Iran in Afghanistan officially. Not that they are not already involved as they are in Iraq. However it may be a positive sign for future talks. Something that needs to happen.

Why would the US not want Iran in Afghanistan officially?

Officially, would surely be better?

Why would the US not want Iran in Afghanistan officially?

Officially, would surely be better?

Because if they are there officially when we find them we cant kick them out, or let the Afganis summarily execute them.

Why would the US not want Iran in Afghanistan officially?

Officially, would surely be better?

Two completely different world views. US is actively funding anti-government forces inside and outside of Iran. Iran funding anti-US forces throughout Middle East. That could work for starters.

With that said starting a dialogue is a good thing.

why dont we jsut put the Shah back in charge of Iran. Things worked better with him.

Why would the US not want Iran in Afghanistan officially?

Officially, would surely be better?

Not if officially is sanctioned by the US and can provide cover for less than helpful actions.

why dont we jsut put the Shah back in charge of Iran. Things worked better with him.

US backed coups always work out so well in the end.

US backed coups always work out so well in the end.

They look good on paper.

US backed coups always work out so well in the end.

We will get the Brits to help us too.

Because if they are there officially when we find them we cant kick them out, or let the Afganis summarily execute them.

Didn't the Afghani's just legalise rape in marriage?

I think we're maybe heading into a 'my-enemy's-enemy' territory.

We will get the Brits to help us too.

Well then its bound to end well.:rolleyes:

We will get the Brits to help us too.

Hey, don't get us involved.

We're more of the Roman school of thought - run in, build a road, fuck off with all the gold.

Hey, don't get us involved.

We're more of the Roman school of thought - run in, build a road, fuck off with all the gold.

The US has that backwards apparently. Maybe we should follow that pattern.

Hey, don't get us involved.

We're more of the Roman school of thought - run in, build a road, fuck off with all the gold.

So I figure we run in build some super fast oil wells and fuck off with all the oil.

So I figure we run in build some super fast oil wells and fuck off with all the oil.

Based on recent history - swagger in somewhat drunkly, blow some shit up, set up a pissing-money-into-the desert factory. Cry. Rinse - repeat.

Well, Ill be damned. Looks like talking to Iran, something that certian people were critical of, is actually going to yield some positive results.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/31/iranian-diplomats-meet-afghan-conference/

What say NSG? Step in the right direction? Meaningless gesture?

Not in favour.

Not in favour.

Why? Any good reason? Or do you just want to invade them?

why dont we jsut put the Shah back in charge of Iran. Things worked better with him.

Because the Shah was a cruel dictator who didn't give a rat's ass about his people. Propping him up is what caused the Islamic Revolution in the first place, so, yeah, let's not learn from history.

Why? Any good reason? Or do you just want to invade them?


While yes, I would like to see an invasion of Iran, my reasoning is that I do not believe in cooperation with evil governments.

While yes, I would like to see an invasion of Iran, my reasoning is that I do not believe in cooperation with evil governments.

Like the Afghan government, you mean?

While yes, I would like to see an invasion of Iran, my reasoning is that I do not believe in cooperation with evil governments.


Well, with such a well reasoned arguement, who could disagree?:rolleyes:



Care to further elaborate? And, if memory serves, the list of countries you want to invade is rather long (many of them are Islamic too. Fancy that. Someone hasnt learned his lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan.) I dont recall you ever answering me last time about where we would get the money and warm bodies to fight all these wars of aggression you want to partake in.

While yes, I would like to see an invasion of Iran, my reasoning is that I do not believe in cooperation with evil governments.
George Bush -- is that you??!!

Yeah, well, welcome to Reality Land, where you don't always get to just pretend that people you don't like don't exist. Here in Reality Land, we realize that words like "evil" are just hyperbole and have little meaning in practical application.

George Bush -- is that you??!!

Yeah, well, welcome to Reality Land, where you don't always get to just pretend that people you don't like don't exist. Here in Reality Land, we realize that words like "evil" are just hyperbole and have little meaning in practical application.

While theocracy is always a bad thing (which is why there's no way in hell Huckabee would ever get my vote), and its human rights record is questionable at best, Iran has done one good thing I know of: the fatwa against nuclear proliferation. Since Iran is a theocracy based on Shi'a Islam, and under Shi'a Islam a fatwa issued by someone as high-ranking as the Supreme Leader of Iran, in theory Iran has outlawed nuclear weapons. In practice, time will tell.

A step in the right direction. Even if this just means that the Iranians work their side of the border to stop any drug routes into Iran, it'll help.

Because the Shah was a cruel dictator who didn't give a rat's ass about his people. Propping him up is what caused the Islamic Revolution in the first place, so, yeah, let's not learn from history.

yeah but the 20 years it takes for the people to over throw him, we should have all the oil out of Iran.

I dont get it though....Why would we want to stop their drug trade?

Think about it...

Afghani: "I made all this money off my Poppies!"

American: "Im sorry, we are trying to cut the drug trade..." *confiscates crop*

Afghani: that son of a bitch....Im joining the guerrilla fighters

I think this can't hurt, perhaps we can finally build some relations between Iran and the US, and by doing so improve the station of both nations.