When There's Something Strange.........
News1 min 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.
I changed my mind about Afghanistan and Iraq about 6 months ago, and agree we should pull out completely all the time Gordon Brown is underfunding them.
But the pesky Persians have (or are trying) to amass a nuclear capability.
I for one do not want any of the axis of evil countries to have a hand grenade, let alone an atomic weapon.
I would therefore strongly support a massive attack on Iran (whether Israeli or NATO led, I care not)
But the pesky Persians have (or are trying) to amass a nuclear capability.
I for one do not want any of the axis of evil countries to have a hand grenade, let alone an atomic weapon.
I would therefore strongly support a massive attack on Iran (whether Israeli or NATO led, I care not)
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
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.
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.
My point is keyplus, is we have to keep China sweet. And you are right, apart from some issue with Tibet, they are not a danger to the world. In fact i am quite fond of the race.
If (more like when) Iran have full nuclear capability they will be destroyed by the west. And rightfully so.
Will I lose sleep if the entire country is obliterated in to the middle ages when its policies lie? No!!!
If (more like when) Iran have full nuclear capability they will be destroyed by the west. And rightfully so.
Will I lose sleep if the entire country is obliterated in to the middle ages when its policies lie? No!!!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.