What right have ,the west to dictate to the rest of the world
Can anyone with any sort of authority explain why we the west US/UK etc can dictate to the iranians Etc that they have to give up what we the west have ,Electricity,the bomb etc
Dave g
Dave G Sun 20/07/08 16:18
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
Question Author
I agree with the bit in Brackets
and the rest is politics
It is thier country
let them have a civil war if they don't like it
we should not be involved
Dave g
|
|
|
one axis country is already well on the way to nuclear arms but it doesn't have oil, so no talk of war (North Korea)
|
|
|
I agree, let these gubbers wipe themselves out in their own countries. Trouble is, their arrogance will spill onto other countries, and that can't be allowed to happen - do you want Iran to send a nuke to Israel?
|
|
|
God is on our side, whereas they're all nuts!
|
|
|
I just knew that there was a rational explanation Theland...
|
|
|
Wahington I agree, but God............well I will have to think about it. Unless God is being briefed by the same people who briefed Tonay Blair & George Bush.
One thing I do like from Abdulmajid that China can destroy world in seconds so it is ok to ignore China. However I personally can not see any thing wrong with China anyway.
But in the end matter is only that West want everyone to think the way they start thinking. They killed most of the animal (Tigers, Lion, Elephants etc) just for the sake of pleasure and only for a photograph with one foot on the dead animal. Now if anyone else kills he is uncivilised even if few of those animals are making life hell for the people where they are.
West have taken their clothes off, so taking clothes off is admirable now, West have allowed man to marry a man so since then now that is sign of civilised society so others must do it or else they would be attacked or the leadership be toppled and someone else backed up into power who could do what West want. No worries even UNO is on our side.
Usual reason given is that weapons in their hand are not safe. Are they safe in Western hands, who’s secret services can not even look after their laptops.
End of the session................ .......Now I am waiting to hear what I have heard so many times.
|
|
|
i like iran they just do what they want to do
|
|
|
Iran for all it's faults is one of the more democratic reigimes in the region.
You reap what you sow, there is within Iran a huge swathe of the electorate that are "reformist" the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan ushered in a hardline President, Iran now has enemies on 2 borders what use in being acquiescent? Saddam talked compliance (largely stayed within resolutions) and yet got invaded. The problem with Iran is the S.A.L.T treaty if they cant generate nuclear power lawfully then S.A.L.T is dead. as I understand it.
India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, you negotiate with nuclear powers you attack the rest..
Abdul you talk about China's issues in Tibet (don't be fooled by Western liberal propoganda) Tibet's part of China (has been for 100s of years) this is not the thread to go into that now (unless you want me to) if you want to take issue with Chinese domestic policy then you should look towards it's Formosan provinces (real prospect of World War there) I believe in 1 China politics (to the exclusion of Formosa) you should also watch a Channel 4 documentry on Iran "Divorce Iranian Style" there's another 1 (fogotten the name) about a children's home for girls, women do have rights in Iran, not as we recognise them but rights all the same.
I dunno though, all these bl00dy foreigners in their own countries living their lives way they see fit, who do they think they are?
|
|
|
There's a widespread consensus actually that the Iranian president is an extremist while most Iranians aren't. A bit like George Bush.
As to the original question - it's just politics. As it always has and always will be - powers will always and have always strived to (sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly) achieve what's perceived to be in their interest. Iran is perceived as a threat, so we try to stop them going nuclear.
|
|
|
Imagian you are President of Iran.
here are a few rules:
1/ To keep in with your internal powerbase you must continually oppose Israel and talk tough about it
2/ The US has branded you an "Axis of Evil country" and has invaded Iraq and Bombed Lybia. Israel has Bombed other Arab countries too.
3/ Posession of a nuclear and balistic missile system capable of hitting Israel is within your grasp and will pretty much guarantee you won't be invaded/bombed
What are you going to do?
Ideas of what is "right" and "wrong" in world politics are niaive.
There are no calculations of morality in world politics. That's just talk for the press.
All that counts are what is in your countries interests.
The Russian state was involved in the murder of a man in London with radioactive materials and is a nuclear power.
Do we have high talk of their "evil"?
How about the Chinese? Look at what is happening in Tibet!
We don't "need" the Iranians we do need the Russians and the Chinese.
That's all there is to it
|
|
|
Taking a lead from what Jake said. Did anyone ever condemn Israeli attack on Arab countries and American attacks on quite a few countries on the assumption that those countries were preparing or trying to achieve what other countries already had. And then on the assumption that once achieved they may attack Israel.
We better attack them first. No one thinks that it is very unjustifiable for a country to actually attack another country only on the ill informed information that we might get attacked.
Bad news is that it still is happening. And few people are blindly backing it up.
In the end we will have more Iraqs, more Afghanistans, more peace and more price for the petrol………ergh sorry diesel. Because I use diesel so I better talk about that.
|
|
|
The West has armed one side in the Middle East and gave it our nuclear secrets and help it build Nuclear weapons. From this exalted position they constantly threaten their enemies with air strikes (in the name of defence of course). Is it any wonder that countries neighbouring this country are seeking parity? For the balance to be evened again?
If people are serious about making a safer world, they would be doing everything to make the country with Nuclear weapons, scrap them.
Nuclear power. Every sensible country wants a diverse energy supply. If one source runs out, they can fill the void with another. Iran is no different. They may have plentiful oil now, but it will not always be so. In the 70s 80s and 90s, the UK was self sufficient in oil, but we built many Nuclear power stations during that time.
In Iran, the job of President is not the equivalent of the US presidency. His power is curtailed. He has no control over the armed forces whatsoever. The Ayatollah has all the power. The President can and will be voted out.
|
|
|
I really think the oil issue in Iraq is a side line.
There is no oil in Afganhistan - if there were people would similarly be saying "it's all about oil you know"
I seriously think Iraq was all about a familly feud and Bush's desire to finish what his father started.
I think our involvement was simple blackmail that the US threatened to cut the UK out of intelligence and technology sharing agreements if we didn't come along.
But all the interesting stuff will be under the 100 year rule so maybe our grandchildren will find out what really happened but I doubt we will.
|
|
|
There is no significant oil in Afghanistan, but there is oil in neighbouring countries, and the best way to get it to a seaport for distribution is through Afghanistan.
It was for that reason that a United States sent a friendly invitation for the Taleban to go Texas and talk about stabalising the country so a pipeline could be built.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/370 21.stm
|
|
|
I think Afghanistan was never a target but a way to the target. By sitting in Afghanistan USA plans to put pressure on Russia, China and main target for all this game Pakistan. Pakistan has long been the target since they are nuclear power and Israel has mentioned that they can not digest any Muslim country with nuclear power. Plus Pakistan has sophisticated, long range missile system as well.
So yes I have no doubt that the main target is Pakistan. But Pakistan keep on avoiding it by just doing whatever USA wants them to do. But now things are getting a bit difficult for Pakistan as they (tribesmen) believe it is their right and the situation is exactly as Russia invaded Afghanistan when these people were supported equally by Pakistan and USA. So if Pakistan army do not kill their own people then USA gets angry and more seriously stops the wages of the corrupt politicians and military generals. However when they take action against these people then situation within Pakistan gets worse.
Pakistan govt and USA are unable to understand why Taliban are becoming more acceptable even into the main cities as well. But everyone in Pakistan knows that American plan is to weaken Pakistan internally and destroy the nuclear capabilities. No wonder American are shaking hands with India to provide them all the assistance required to develop better nuclear abilities. So Pakistan is being sandwiched between India in the East and pro Indian govt and USA in the West (Afghanistan).
|
|
|
keyplus90
The United States have given $11Billion to Pakistan since 2001. That's a strange way to fight an enemy. There have been many points when the US could have ditched this ally in recent years, but instead have always supported it.
I suspect your strange fantasy above is based on the fact that you cannot accept the Pakistan is a close ally of the United States. You probably find the fact that contrary to your assertion of Israel regarding Pakistan as an enemy, Israel has long sought more relations with Pakistan.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3497 698,00.html
|
|
|
You are spot on Gromit as far as Pakistani govt and military generals are concerned. $11 Billion is probably on record, off the record there might be more. And it all is there to get Pakistan on board for the so called War on Terror which does not seem to be stopping any where. Few American officials are on permanent duties in Pakistan to keep an eye on Army operation or else no money……..
|
|
|
If you remember rightly how much money and weapons Americans gave to Saddam. Only he did not do the job properly against Iran.
|
|
|
If you remember rightly, the US was supplying Iraq and Iran with weapons.
The US did not give any money to Saddam or Iraq. Before the outbreak of the war, the US did not have any relations with Iraq, but that changed with the outbreak of war. Purely on the 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' basis, they began to support Saddam, but not financially. The reverse in fact, Iraq was wealthy with petro-dollars, and the US sold at great profit the weapons it supplied. Prolonging the war by supplying both sides was a masterstroke of capitalism.
|
|
|
Of course American did not give dollars to Iraq but funded through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait telling them if they did not hire Iraq to stop Iran then the Islamic revolution in Iran can spread as far as Saudi Arabia and there would be no Kings and no big palaces.
Later when they realized that game can become more profitable then in came plan B. They asked Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to claim all the money paid to Iraq and to Iraq it was told that why do you not invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia instead as these two countries do not have any army at all. Stupid Saddam fell into the trap.
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/04/21/bush-41- let-saddam-invade-kuwait-according-to-plan/
|
|
Loan | Loans | Ringtones | Personal Finance | Homeowner Loans
