The complete list of countries Iran has helped

[Truthiness Inspector]

I'm sure some here will provide a list. How much do they donate for AIDS, hunger, etc, around the world?

[Erika]

1. You posted but did no research?

Why?

[Truthiness Inspector]

4. Why not?

Does it say in the DU rules that I have to research a question before asking it?

[Rex]

2. Hmm..

Iran count?

[wtmusic]

3. Why don't you start

by posting a list of all the charities you've donated to? :shrug:

[Truthiness Inspector]

5. LOL

Last time I checked, I am not a country. My question was about Iran, not an individual.

Interesting that you are deflecting instead of offering answers to a perfectly legitimate question, though.

[wtmusic]

13. Truthiness hurts, no?

No you're not a country, but I find the first to impugn others' (any others -- countries, individuals, you name it) generosity are usually the stingiest.

Am I right? Cat got your tongue?

[Truthiness Inspector]

15. Huh?

Either you have an answer to my OP or you don't. What's the problem?

[wtmusic]

17. I don't have an answer for yours

You have an answer for mine? *crickets*

[Truthiness Inspector]

20. Crickets? LOL

You've given me a whole walloping couple of minutes to respond. I started this thread for a reason, and that is to learn about the question I posed in the OP. I did not start it to have it hijacked on to tangents. I kindly ask that if you do not know the answer to the question in my OP that you acknowledge that and we can have whatever beef you want another time.

[wtmusic]

24. I know -- you know nothing about giving

but wish to learn. How admirable.

[tkmorris]

30. No

That is most emphatically not why you started this thread, and everyone knows it.

[Truthiness Inspector]

39. Excuse me? LOL

DU is the best place to ask questions and get great answers, so tell me, where did I go wrong here?

[Divine Discontent]

73. where did you go wrong? you need told this?

how about by not posing your statement of what any rational person would read as a forthcoming list, instead as a question, with a question mark at the end..

waste of time.

ignore.

[spoony]

52. As soon as he takes prisoners of war

he'll have that obligation of explaining why he's a good guy. Right now the topic is Iran, and I'm fresh out of reasons for thinking they're to be believed, trusted, or defended.

[wtmusic]

57. They have more reason to be trusted than the US

which has illegally invaded a country, and killed half a million people in the process.

If we're going to make the world a better place let's start with the weakest link--the country to which you pay your taxes.

[spoony]

81. Yet you don't explain why.

What makes Iran so trustworthy? Is it the stoning of adulterers that makes you feel comfortable that they're honourable folks?

And, I might add, this is not a US issue. These are British soldiers, so I don't really care if you don't like the US--these prisoners aren't Americans.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Does Hezbolloah in Lebanon count?

I know they are an illegal militia and terrorsit organization, but that shouldn't matter




:sarcasm: in case anybody missed it

[Lerkfish]

7. and you point is?.....

[Truthiness Inspector]

9. It's a legitmate question. n/t

[Bonobo]

36. No it's not.

And I think you are a very lazy person considering all your "n/t" s on a thread YOU started.

[Lerkfish]

84. that doesn't really answer my question, AND some free advice to you about this thread.

I asked what your point was, and you responded "its a legitimate question".

legitimate questions usually have a point, meaning you're asking it to arrive at a conclusion.

Now, your conclusion could be rhetorical: not expecting anyone to answer to make the conclusions that IRan does not assist anyone and therefore deserves to be invaded or labeled an axis of evil or whatever.

Or, you conclusion could be to assert that IRan has helped other countries and therefore does NOT deserve to be labeled an "axis of evil" regime.

Your question is to gather information (apparently). My question was, put another way, Why do you need that information? were you going to use it to make which conclusion?

I asked because it depends a great deal on how to respond. If you felt Iran needed to be judged for not assisting other countries or whatever, if that were the data, I'd point out that even countries who do a lot of assistance, like the US, do so with restrictive political strings attached. So whether the assitance is truly altruistic is more than moot.
I would also point out that the idea of assistance in and of itself depends a great deal on the relative economic health and strategies of a soveriegn nature and may or may not reflect on the attitudes of a leader or its people.

you see, that sort of thing. If you truly wish to begin a discussion, it helps to elaborate your POINT, so others can discuss on various sides of your point. When you do not share that point, you leave yourself open for suspicions and incorrect conclusions, as you see.
My advice is to next time be more up front about where you're intendind to go, for example:

"I'm curious if anyone knows of humanitarian aid provided by Iran. I ask BECAUSE I don't think they have ever done that and if not, it shows why I hold them in contempt"

OR

"I'm curious if anyone knows of humanitarian aid provided by Iran. I ask BECAUSE I think they have done that and if so, it shows why I hold them in good regard, or it brings up other questions like how the UN or other countries have viewe such aid."

see? either way, it OPENS up discussion and allows people to concentrate on your thread instead of you. You further did not help you mission by castigating those who had suspicions, because like I said, the vacuum you created when you started the thread almost guaranteed that people were going to come to their own conclusions, right or wrong.

This has been a helpful thread hint from yer uncle Lerkfish.

[Jcrowley]

8. Implication

As percent of GDP for donor nations US ranks last.

An incomplete list of US military interventions in last hundred years:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ:

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2006.

Below the list is a Briefing on the History of U.S. Military Interventions.

The list and briefing are also available as a powerpoint presentation.

This guide does not include:

mobilizations of the National Guard
offshore shows of naval strength
reinforcements of embassy personnel
the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
military exercises
non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
the permanent stationing of armed forces
covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
the use of small hostage rescue units
most uses of proxy troops
U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
foreign or domestic disaster assistance
military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
civic action programs
and many other military activities.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[Truthiness Inspector]

10. Ahem. This is about Iran, not the US.

Can you find similar stats for Iran? Thanks.

[Erika]

12. You brought up Iran. Post the stats

Thanks. Or explain why you won't.

[Truthiness Inspector]

14. I don't have them.

That is why I am asking here. Do you know?

[Erika]

16. You post on a subject and wish others to fill in the facts?

How -------- unique.

[Erika]

19. What part of "dense" do you not know?

You post with no knowledge?

[Truthiness Inspector]

21. Now I'm dense?

Wow. Just wow.

If you know the answer to the OP, just share it. Calling me "dense" does absolutely nothing to further the discussion.

[Erika]

22. How about an answer? n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

27. Why are you on this thread?

Unless it's to disrupt the discussion?

Unbelievable. If you don't know the answer to the OP, fine, but why jump all over me?

I've always valued DU as a source of great info, but something weird is in the air tonight (on this thread at least) apparently.

[Firepit 462]

61. This is a truly enlighting thread,

I read your question, and it seemd rational to me.

DU is the most open, engaging, thought provoking site with "progressive" future thinking people.And you should be honored to be called names by such fine individuals. Next time maybe you will learn to answer your own question and then post something that is more accetable, and conforms to the "unwritten rules" in context. With all the negative BS that people have written to you, you would think that SOMEBODY would be interested in helping with an answer. Insert that sarcasim thingy here.

At least you haven't been called a freeper, a troll or a right wing hack job.

[Jcrowley]

11. More info

• USA’s aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have they move up from last place, by one.)

This year we estimate that $37 billion—roughly half of global aid—is “phantom aid”, that is, it is not genuinely available to poor countries to fight poverty.

… Nowhere is the challenge of increasing real aid as a share of overall aid greater than in the case of technical assistance. At least one quarter of donor budgets—some $19 billion in 2004—is spent in this way: on consultants, research and training. This is despite a growing body of evidence—much of it produced by donors themselves and dating back to the 1960s—that technical assistance is often overpriced and ineffective, and in the worst cases destroys rather than builds the capacity of the poorest countries.

… Although this ineffectiveness is an open secret within the development community, donors continue to insist on large technical assistance components in most projects and programmes they fund. They continue to use technical assistance as a “soft” lever to police and direct the policy agendas of developing country governments, or to create ownership of the kinds of reforms donors deem suitable. Donor funded advisers have even been brought in to draft supposedly “country owned” poverty reduction strategies.

— Real Aid: Making Technical Assistance Work , Action Aid, July 5, 2006, pp.5-6 (Emphasis Added

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

[Erika]

23. Great post. Thanks n/t

[wtmusic]

18. Why the hell should anyone do your research for you

Get off your ass and Google. That is, unless your OP was merely suggestive and not informational in nature. :eyes:

[Truthiness Inspector]

25. Good grief

Do you think your response helped the discussion at all? DUers ask questions all the time here, so my post is not unique in any way. Jesus.

You clearly either don't know or aren't willing to share the answer to my OP, so what is your purpose on this thread?

[Erika]

26. Please don't use the Lord's name in vain

You have offended me.

[Truthiness Inspector]

28. Ok

I'm sorry I offended you.

I'm offended that you called me dense and hijacked my thread. Peace?

[Erika]

29. No.. n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

32. Uh ok.

You came into this thread pissed and are determined to leave it pissed.

Oh well. I'm having a nice evening, LOL.

[SoCalDem]

31. now you've all done it..

[Truthiness Inspector]

33. LOL, good one! n/t

[cboy4]

34. Alright, that's funny!

:thumbsup:

[Bonobo]

35. You didn't ask a question you made a snide remark.

With an implied subtext that Iran has no right to do anything to US or Britain because they don't "help" anyone.

Cowardly post in my opinion.

[Truthiness Inspector]

37. Surely you can cite the snide remark in my OP? n/t

[Bonobo]

38. Another "N/T" reply.

[Truthiness Inspector]

41. You avoided my question (and OP) entirely.

What gives?

[Bonobo]

43. It wasn't a real question and hardly deserves to be called an "OP".

[Bonobo]

40. "I'm sure some here will provide a list." - snide.

[Truthiness Inspector]

42. That is snide?

Why shouldn't I be sure DUers could provide a list? I think that says more about you than it does me.

[Bonobo]

44. Yes, snide. Your MO is as obvious as it is boring.

You have told plenty about yourself, no worries.

[Truthiness Inspector]

45. Ok, enlighten me.

I'm obvious and boring, yet my "obvious" and "boring" topic has yielded exactly ZERO substantial replies.

I'd say the responses have been uncharacteristically boring, though not obvious, rather strange and inexplicable, and rude.

[Erika]

46. You can't come up with your own stats? n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

50. Obviously I'll have to

Since you don't have them, and no one else who responded does.

I will post my findings in the next few days, if you are also interested.

[Bonobo]

47. Until you "Fess Up", no one will take you or your "OP" seriously.

That is why you get no responses.

You made a snide, editorial comment on some DU-ers and did an amateurish job of trying to hide it as a question. Now you are denying and trying to make it seem like you are just in "search of information". Disingenuous.

I have 3 children. That's why I can read you like a book. They range in age from 12 to 3. I think you fall someone right in there as well.

[Truthiness Inspector]

48. Nothing snide in my OP

Do you similarly berate all DUers who ask legitimate questions here? If so, that is really a shame, instead of simply sharing whatever info you may have.

I won't let this thread tarnish my opinion of DU. I have been called dense and now am compared to young children. Do you really believe that you failing to address the question in my OP and instead opting to name-call makes you look mature and knowledgeable?

You either don't know the answer or you do and are being obstinate. That is your prerogative, but it certainly isn't conducive to learning.

[Bonobo]

49. Whatever.

[Gabi Hayes]

51. Dear Truthiness Inspector,

I love you

I really love you!

and I'm proud to be the first one here who gets you.

will you marry me?

the first pledge in my troth:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/13/venezuela-iran.html

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination.

The two countries — whose fiery anti-American leaders' moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington — had previously revealed plans for a joint $2 billion US fund to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran.

But the leaders said Saturday the money would also be used for projects in friendly countries throughout the developing world.

[Truthiness Inspector]

53. I'm touched, verklempt even...

LOL! Thanks for the laugh. :o

[Gabi Hayes]

55. you think I'm joking?

sigh

[Gabi Hayes]

54. Iran pledges a billion dollars to help....

Iraq!

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=20272

dunno what happened to it, but a large percentage of US aid money never seems to get spent, either

[orleans]

56. from what i remember -- iran has helped the united states in afghanistan

i'm too tired to locate a link, but randi rhodes has talked about that

they had iranian soldiers fighting beside ours against the taliban i think

[Forkboy]

58. USE THE GOOGLE!

:eyes:

[Truthiness Inspector]

60. I have, and am

I'm just not finding anything except aid TO Iran. Doesn't mean it isn't out there, I'm just having a hell of a time finding it.

[BlooInBloo]

59. If the US an Iran were about to get into a Give To The World contest, this would be relelvant.....

... But we're not, so your post is just useless cheerleading.

[Balbus]

62. a list.

Azerbaijan
http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/2001/01-02-01.rferl.html

Iraq
http://www.archive.org/details/mosaic20030509

Afghanistan
http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2000/january/jan272000.html

Multiple countries affected by the tsunami
http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/28/stories/2004122814540500.htm

Lebanon
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2006/07/6-SWA/swa-240706.asp

[Bonobo]

64. That's so weird! I thought Truthiness Inspector wanted a list!? WTF!?

You gave him a list and now no response?

Ya think maybe he didn't really want the answer and was trying to just make some kind of point? Hmm...

[Truthiness Inspector]

66. Weird?

You know, I'm not online 24/7. Are you? I am appreciative that someone actually answered instead of taking pot shots and making innuendoes. Posts like Balbus' are what I had hoped for in the beginning.

P.S. I'm a "she."

[Bonobo]

68. Amazing how you answered right after my "reminder"!

[Truthiness Inspector]

70. Oh man

I just can't win. LOL, it's almost funny. I guess I should have lurked about for a proper amount of time so as not to give the appearance that it was your magical post that prompted my response.

Seriously, we have a substantial response (finally), why continue bickering? I'm tired of it. Are you?

[Truthiness Inspector]

65. Thank you, Balbus.

I appreciate the time you took to research and post these links. I am glad to see that Iran donated to the victims of the tsunami, as well as others who needed humanitarian aid like food and supplies.

This part from your last link is less encouraging: "Nuri-Hamedani explained: "This would be permitted as a means of strengthening the oppressed people of Lebanon, the Hizballah resistance front, as well as the oppressed Palestinians who are engaged in an Islamic jihad to defend themselves against diabolical and arrogant powers."

Thanks again for the information.

[devilgrrl]

63. Why don't you just cut to the chase and suggest that we blow them off of the map?

:sarcasm:

[PassingFair]

76. Come now....he's MUCH more subtle....

like all of Cali's acolytes!

They are just giving their "opinions", so
STOP arguing with them, it's RUDE.

[nam78_two]

77. No it is just academic curiosity and a thirst for knowledge

:sarcasm:

[Rosemary2205]

67. Dammit

Now I have to search Truthiness's threads and find out why this thread is so full of a couple posters out of 100,000+ who were determined to hijack it. (that curiosity and the cat thingy) What a truly bizarre thread.

And to think I clicked because I really thought "What is Iran's history in humanitarian aid" is actually a good question and picking DU's brains is a good move. (silly me)


And thanks to Balbus for a decent answer.

Geesh, what a bizarre thread............

[Truthiness Inspector]

69. LOL

I couldn't agree more. Whew. This felt like running a marathon in wet sand while wearing a moon-walking suit and juggling bowling balls.

[Horse with no Name]

71. I think I received one of those RW emails that started off a little like this...

:shrug:

[leftynyc]

82. And the poster was wondering when

he/she would be called a Freeper. Didn't take long at all.

[Horse with no Name]

72. I'll answer yours as soon as you answer mine

My question is how many times have sanctions been forced on the US?
You are aware what sanctions do to countries, don't you? Do you think that perhaps previous sanctions would adversely affect how a sanctioned country might be able to contribute to the world society?

http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/108E16.htm

>>snip
Carter Administration

US unilateral sanctions against Iran began almost a quarter of a century ago after the take-over of the US embassy in Tehran (November 1979). President Carter responded immediately by issuing Proclamation 4702, imposing a ban on the importation into the US of Iranian oil. Ten days later, he issued Executive Order 12170, which blocked all property within US jurisdiction owned by the Central Bank and Government of Iran. In April 1980, President Carter issued Executive Order 12205, instituting an embargo on US exports to Iran (including restrictions on financial transactions) and Executive Order 12211, imposing a ban on all imports from Iran and prohibiting US citizens from traveling to Iran or conducting financial transactions there. Once the US hostages were released, the US revoked the previous executive orders, with the exception of the order blocking Iranian Government property within US jurisdiction, and committed the US not to intervene in Iran’s internal affairs.

>>>snip
Reagan Administration

Following the 1983 bombing of the US embassy and marine barracks in Lebanon, the Reagan Administration on 20 January 1984 declared Iran “a sponsor of international terrorism”. This designation made Iran ineligible for various forms of US foreign assistance. A year later, the Administration withheld funds from international organizations equal to the amounts allocated by those organizations for Iran and in 1988, US Executive Directors of international financial institutions were required to vote against issuing loans to Iran. In August 1986, the US prohibited Iran from receiving US arms (including spare parts) under the US Arms Export Control Act.
>>>snip
Bush Sr Administration

In October 1992, the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act was signed into law. It included provisions concerning dual use items which could be used for military purposes. The principal reason for including Iran was concern about Iran’s development of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). A CIA report had estimated that Iran had allocated $2bn for the development of WMD.

>>>snip
Unilateral sanctions mushroomed under the Clinton Administration. Prime reasons for the escalation of US sanction regimes were:



1) Dissolution of the Soviet Empire which left the US as the only global superpower. Since other countries were no longer essential in the fight against communism, other factors such as human rights violations, WMD and regional issues, took on greater importance. In the absence of significant opposition, the US could take greater political risks.



2) The end of the Soviet Union also signaled the end of bipartisan US foreign policy.



3) In 1994, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and were looking at sanctions against unpopular foreign governments as a way to placate powerful pressure groups in their constituencies and in the process nibble away at the power of the Democratic Clinton Administration. Clinton’s view of foreign policy differed from previous Administrations (at least at that stage) and he appeared willing to accept sanctions sponsored by Congress in exchange for cooperation on domestic issues. He also was easy to mollify, so long as sanctions legislation contained a Presidential Waiver authority.



Now, do you really think that your question has ANY merit other than just to be disruptive?

[Truthiness Inspector]

74. Interesting info

but you could start your own thread, you know.

Are you telling me that asking a legitimate and reasonable question is disruptive? LOL. Since when, and says who?

I don't think you'd appreciate starting a thread, say, on the info you just posted and having extraneous stuff and insults thrown at you instead of actual discourse on your chosen topic.

[Horse with no Name]

75. You don't realize that this is directly linked to your question?

A country that has been under sanctions for the last quarter of a century would NOT be in the position to extend aid to other countries which makes your (attempted)point moot. I then asked if you were aware what sanctions did to countries (think Cuba to be simple).
As I said, I have read a RW jingoistic email that is almost word for word what you are asking so it is very difficult to take your question at face value.

[Truthiness Inspector]

78. Hmmm...

So are you saying Balbus' links are bogus? Iran has given aid.

If you want to call me a freeptard, just come out and do it and stop beating around the bush. Pun intended.

I'm not the one on wingnut email lists, btw. LOL.

[Horse with no Name]

79. I did no such thing nor did I intend it that way

A year or more ago there was a jingoistic email going around basically stating that the other countries could tell us what to do when they gave as much foreign aid as we gave. God Bless Murika and all that shit.
I'm sorry, but your post reads like the email. It's just being honest.
I'm not saying that Balbus posted bad links...I am just saying that a country that has been under sanctions that long would not be able to even come close to giving what the US gave. The fact that they even gave any is newsworthy considering the circumstances.

[Truthiness Inspector]

80. Ok

I get where you are coming from. This thread was not designed to be a competition of who gives more than who, it really was a simple question and it seems like you understand that.

Can we call a cease-fire? Not that it got that bad in our exchange, but there is no need to beat each other up. Hopefully you agree. :D

[me b zola]

83. Are you suggesting

that if Iran hasn't "helped" enough or any nations that meet your approval then it is okay for US to begin bombing them and create the hell that is now Iraq in Iran? That certainly is how your thread is reading.

Care to share how you feel about military action in Iran?