can we conclude that by not allowing Iran to play a bigger role in Afghanistan;we necessarily help Al Qaeda?

can this also true regarding Iraq? is Al Qaeda still being used as a tool that has originally meant to be ?

even if Mr. Rafsanjani is wrong (no evidences)about his remarks regarding that US backs Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. could we at least conclude that by not allowing Iran to play a bigger role in Afghanistan;we are necessarily helping Al Qaeda? try isolating Iran only serves AlQaeda?

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/08122311...

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Yes, because the Iranian are Shias and so are the people of Afghanistan. If they joined to protect Afghanistan, less pressure would be placed on American soldiers, and many of them cold be withdrawn. The US has committed much damage there with their bombs, airplanes and machine guns. I suspect however that the US would never collaborate with Iran because they don't want to share their power. Maybe Obama will see the light, but I doubt it since he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I honestly hope that our country will evolve in a positive direction.

    So far only self serving people (wealthy business men - big oil etc ) have had reign in our country with out appreciation or a care or inkling of sensitivity to the vast religious and cultural differences in our world. This mid -evil political attitude is really getting old and not becoming to our American culture.

    I can not predict the future but I sincerely hope that Obama and his team will make a positive difference in the world and I hope this will include the Afghanistan the middle East Iran Palestine and Israel.

    I believe the Human race is meant to go forward in a positive way or perish

  • 1 decade ago

    Al Queda was an invention of the CIA (as admitted to the BBC by a former CIA operative). They needed an organized Islamic Terror organization to act as a target for the War On Terror.

    Such an organization did not exist, so they invented one, admitted the former CIA agent.

    The US Government needed the War On Terror as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, to try to secure access to oil and pipeline routes, to stimulate the faltering economy through military spending, and to take the public's attention off of the nasty economic situation and the current Administration's poor performance (remember "Wag The Dog"?)

    Probably the best thing that could happen going forward is for the new Administration to try to develop better relations with Islamic nations, to send assistance and education to impoverished regions (we all know that so-called terrorism arises in areas where people are starving and have lost all hope of improving their condition through normal methods of business entrepreneurship and agriculture), and to try to repair the damage done to the American reputation over the past 8 years.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are correct. Most people do not realize there are several "camps" in the middle east playing against each other.

    - The Oil Barron Complex - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait... who are all lead by anti-democratic regimes that oppress women, freedom of speech and educating their masses.

    - The Iranian-Syria-Hizbollah Complex - which is lead by Shia Leftist and minority Christian groups in Lebanon, Christians in Syria and the minute Christian community in Iran. They oppose democracy to a point (more in Syria than the others). These are the anti-Israel groups that have basically banded together because they have always landed on the short side of the stick with US policy. They are shia, so they are against Al-qaeda and its dreams of "Sunnifying" the middle east and climatic war against all Shia and Christians.

    - Al-qaeda. Believe it or not, Al-qaeda is actually pro-democracy. Because it believes that it would win elections in the first group based on the overwhelming amount of hard-line Sunnis on the Arab street. It despises the second group most though.

    - The you have the moderate Sunnis blocs across the middle east. They are typically the merchantile and mid-level educated group. They want peace and more-secularized democracy across the middle east. They are the outliers in all three groups above.

    - Lastly, you have the Palestinian factions. Of course, they like being the "darlings" of the Islamic/Muslim movement in the Middle East. But, even they have beef with all four groups above. They feel like the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt sold them out in their peace treaties with Israel. They do not like the way the Syrian government has held their people in camps so they do not intermix permanently. Contrary to what so many Westerners believe, Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups want no ties to Al-qaeada and its extreme Sunni Islam.

    But, by treating all Arab/Muslim camps the same in the Middle East, we have created a vaccuum, where nothing changes or gets done. Pointing the finger at Iran in Iraq only let Al-qaeda move in.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    What causes the drug problem in our nation, the supply of drugs, or the demand for drugs? In the 80's, the mujahideen were fighting the Soviets who invaded Afghanistan. Who is now the invader of Afghanistan? Don't get the idea that I support people who make money by selling drugs, or terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings, killing innocent people. I am just trying to put things into perspective. Things are not black and white, as presented in the propaganda that we constantly hear. The truth is, if there was not such demand for recreational drugs on the part of some Americans, drugs would not be a problem. And if our politicians stopped interjecting us into foreign wars, terrorism would not be a problem for us. When the American people learn this lesson, they will make substantial changes in the selection of our public servants.

  • 1 decade ago

    We had no role in Afghanistan at all, until the Russians and the Afghans declared war. What we were doing there, I do not know, but I have read that a proposed pipeline from a former Russian province would have had to lead through Afghanistan to make it to port. From what I read, the contracts with a major oil corporation were already signed.

    We fought side by side with the Afghan fighters, gave them weapons, taught them to use them. They used our missiles to shoot down Russian planes and this alone helped the Afghans win the war, and also helped bring down the Soviet Union. The contract for the pipeline was rescinded, because of the ferocity of the Afghan warlords and the government control of Afghanistan by the Taliban.

    Osama bin Laden was among this group of Afghan fighters. When the Americans left, he organized his group that he called Al Queda. His goal was to bring down empires by nibbling at them with attacks and aggravations until their money was spent. This happened with Russia and bin Laden vowed to do the same with the sole remaining Super Power, the U.S.

    The Taliban was a brutal, fundamentalist government that took over Afghanistan after we left, and they also supported Al Queda. Thus, when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, we were fighting both groups and, at one point, had bin Laden cornered, but somehow allowed him to escape. Our major enemy and some military writers have blamed it on a lack of American fighters and a lack of American air power. Bin Laden escaped and hasn't really been sighted since.

    From the beginning, Bush and Cheney have had one thing in mind, Iraq's oilfields and Iran's oilfields. Afghanistan was inconsequential and, just as we were almost successful in vanquishing both the Taliban and Al Queda, we attacked Iraq with Shock & Awe....an utterly juvenile and stupid name for the carnage that bombs can cause.

    With hovering warships and constant threats, it is a given that Bush planned on attacking Iran. Several things threw a monkey wrench into his plans, lack of troops, lack of money, and a report that was issued that stated that Iran had no recent plans for nuclear weaponry after all.

    It remains to be seen how Obama will react to Iran and allow Iranian forces to help us conquer Al Queda. It is far, far smarter to have Iran as an ally than an enemy, even though it might ruin the fun of the rightwingers demonstrating when the Iranian President is invited to the U.N. for a visit. Sometimes I think we forget who our real enemy is. It isn't Iran that blew up the World Trade Center buildings.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I think we should focus on destroying Al Qaeda and get our troops out before we add Iran to the mix.

    We are eventually have to accept the fact that Iran will have influence in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The whole region is essentially up for grabs.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, the approach to Iran by the west is just so inapprpriate. We must want war and more war the way we treat the middle east. It's jsut very, very stupid.

    Dillgas - give us your view or hush.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't know about Iran today, but I do know that there wouldn't have been a hostage crisis in the first place if we had kept "our" big Republican noses out of their business and left them have the Prime Minister they elected instead of replacing him with the dictatorial fascist Shah.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    iran offered support to rebuild iraq as well back in 2003. they were never responded to. many americans dont know either that when 9/11 happened 60000 iranians held a candlelit vigil in support of the americans

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm

    http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.