Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
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
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dave G. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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
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).
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
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, 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.
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/
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/
Iraq always knew how America would react to an invasion of one of its allies. It is naive to suggest otherwise.
"Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention. Similarly, in a 2000 Frontline interview, Aziz declared, "There were no mixed signals", and further elaborated:
...it was a routine meeting. ... (April Glaspie) didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president [Saddam]. She was summoned by the president. ... She was not prepared.... People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour to contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush.
"Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention. Similarly, in a 2000 Frontline interview, Aziz declared, "There were no mixed signals", and further elaborated:
...it was a routine meeting. ... (April Glaspie) didn't say anything extraordinary beyond what any professional diplomat would say without previous instructions from his government. She did not ask for an audience with the president [Saddam]. She was summoned by the president. ... She was not prepared.... People in Washington were asleep, so she needed a half-hour to contact anybody in Washington and seek instructions. So, what she said were routine, classical comments on what the president was asking her to convey to President Bush.
There are conflicting versions of the transcript of the meeting. You are relying on one version, the one put forward by an aggressor wishing to justify invading another country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
ChatterBank105 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles112 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.