Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why should Britain and the US give any credence to the views of Iran (in any other respect than that they may threaten us) when they have a regime that countenances this http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html

    To move the world forward we need to be pro-active, what some people would call 'warmongerers'?

    any views?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Six Dinners Sid)
    Why should Britain and the US give any credence to the views of Iran (in any other respect than that they may threaten us) when they have a regime that countenances this http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html
    Why should the UK be given any credence? when the "regime" permits this:

    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15545.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Why should the UK be given any credence? when the "regime" permits this:

    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15545.html
    because reading the two contrasting documents makes the case rather blatantly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Your article from the UK is regarding dangerous terrorists and EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM OVERSEAS, in this respect the article is misleading and the UK court is thoroughly justified if it believes (like I do) that the security of it's citizens comes before morality after the act...

    Iran is a despicable regime but the US is over-stretched. Hopefully if the US does not take out Iran's nuclear programme, Israel will, as it did with Saddam Hussein's..

    They will (of course) be condemned for it, but who the hell gives a damn? Israel is hated for everything it does anyway.

    Perhaps we should wait until a democrat is in office before we bomb countries without a UN mandate (a Clinton did in Kosovo and Iraq).. Doing the right thing does not require us to have slip of paper and a pat on the back from duplicitous rascals like Chirac and Shroader.. Unless (as I said) a democrat is in office..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Six Dinners Sid)
    Why should Britain and the US give any credence to the views of Iran (in any other respect than that they may threaten us) when they have a regime that countenances this http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html

    To move the world forward we need to be pro-active, what some people would call 'warmongerers'?

    any views?
    what makes you think that invading iran will sort the problem :rolleyes:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The tactics of the Cold War were justified, that war is over now and we have a new set of rules..

    "We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites.

    Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.

    As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

    Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."

    George W. Bush - November 19th, 2003
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    The tactics of the Cold War were justified, that war is over now and we have a new set of rules..
    and you actually think that is more than just a political mask oh my
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    It's due to America that Iran have a bad regime.
    not particuarly.

    It's America that supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein.

    Interesting...
    not particuarly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    and you actually think that is more than just a political mask oh my
    what in that passage do you not find credible or feasible?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    erm, yes.
    hehe
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what in that passage do you not find credible or feasible?
    we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard

    - mynmar, zimbarwe, rwanda, tibet, china in general, the USA ect
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard

    - mynmar, zimbarwe, rwanda, tibet, china in general, the USA ect
    as i recall, the US was the driving force in turning UN attention toward rwanda pledging 20 times more aid than the Eurozone. The US is in almost consistent diplomatic talks with China often regarding Human Rights issues. The Bush administration criticised the path of the Israel security fence, and criticised the Russian administration over its election farce. For all of the problems in Zimbabwe it is far more legitimate a democracy than anywhere in the Arab world, where the US is ploughing all of its foreign policy capital.
    As well as liberating tens of millions of people and providing them with two of the most progressive and democratic regimes in the region.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own back yard

    - mynmar, zimbarwe, rwanda, tibet, china in general, the USA ect
    And yet I bet you did not support the liberations of Afhanistan (probably) and Iraq (almost definately)... any hypocracy here? You tell me..

    Your either a liberal interventionist or your not! What are you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    as i recall, the US was the driving force in turning UN attention toward rwanda pledging 20 times more aid than the Eurozone. The US is in almost consistent diplomatic talks with China often regarding Human Rights issues. For all of the problems in Zimbabwe it is far more legitimate a democracy than anywhere in the Arab world, where the US is ploughing all of its foreign policy capital.
    yet america is not carrying out the tought action in these countries, take the example of Turkmenistan, this is the country that Human Rights Watch describes as the "one of the most repressive countries in the world". Where "The government systematically violates virtually all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights."
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/14/turkme8964.htm

    "The US action towards this, according to the state department.
    U.S. criticism of the Government of Turkmenistan’s crackdown against perceived sources of political opposition after the November 25, 2002, has led to a marked downturn in bilateral relations between the Governments of the United States and Turkmenistan. Diplomatic missions from various countries and international organizations have joined together to persuade the Government of Turkmenistan to improve its human rights practices, but their efforts have been poorly received"
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2866.htm

    something not quite in George's words then there, hardly hard hitting action
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    And yet I bet you did not support the liberations of Afhanistan (probably) and Iraq (almost definately)... any hypocracy here? You tell me..

    Your either a liberal interventionist or your not! What are you?
    I dont tag myself with labels like that, I would call myself pragmatic personally

    and my personnal views have little relevance to any critism of your politics
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    yet america is not carrying out the tought action in these countries, take the example of Turkmenistan, this is the country that Human Rights Watch describes as the "one of the most repressive countries in the world". Where "The government systematically violates virtually all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights."
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/14/turkme8964.htm

    "The US action towards this, according to the state department.
    U.S. criticism of the Government of Turkmenistan’s crackdown against perceived sources of political opposition after the November 25, 2002, has led to a marked downturn in bilateral relations between the Governments of the United States and Turkmenistan. Diplomatic missions from various countries and international organizations have joined together to persuade the Government of Turkmenistan to improve its human rights practices, but their efforts have been poorly received"
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2866.htm

    something not quite in George's words then there, hardly hard hitting action
    void of condemning and severing relations with a rather obsolete state government, what action do you suggest the White House take?

    Bush called to oppose and condemn tyranny, he is fulfilling his word. The primary object of that speech is to clarify that, in matters of security, one cannot turn a blind eye to poor regimes for the sake of removing another.

    i would say that was all rather pragmatic.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I dont tag myself with labels like that, I would call myself pragmatic personally

    and my personnal views have little relevance to any critism of your politics
    Good, so you supported the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and you just want to see the net widened? Same here... I like the smell of freedom in the air!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    void of condemning and severing relations with a rather obsolete state government, what action do you suggest the White House take?

    Bush called to oppose and condemn tyranny, he is fulfilling his word. The primary object of that speech is to clarify that, in matters of security, one cannot turn a blind eye to poor regimes for the sake of removing another.

    i would say that was all rather pragmatic.
    well when Bush talks of "My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail."
    you kinda expect a bit stronger with regards to Turkmenistan, this is a country more worthy of "liberation" than Iraq any day. Oh and I forgot to mention Turkmenistan recieved $16 million from the US in 2001 in foreign aid. Talk about helping foreign dictatorships.

    and if it was pragmatic why does Bush claim to have morals? He is clearly politically pragmatic yet in that speech that gideon2000uk quoted he is saying that the US will "oppose tyranny wherever it is found." yet he is doing nothing in the case of turkmenistan except makind small dipolomatic noise about a problem with needs real work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    Good, so you supported the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and you just want to see the net widened? Same here... I like the smell of freedom in the air!
    i wouldnt assume to much if i was you, I mearly dislike Bush spinning the truth to suit american interests
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    well when Bush talks of "My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail."
    you kinda expect a bit stronger with regards to Turkmenistan, this is a country more worthy of "liberation" than Iraq any day.
    I dont believe that to be the case. Bush asserts the need to protect the homeland by bringing peace elsewhere. In this sense Turkmenistan suddenly becomes less relevant and certainly falls below Iraq in terms of a foreign policy priority.

    Oh and I forgot to mention Turkmenistan recieved $16 million from the US in 2001 in foreign aid. Talk about helping foreign dictatorships.
    Foreign aid for what?

    and if it was pragmatic why does Bush claim to have morals?
    The two arent exclusive of each other. Bush has a moral value system that guides his political instinct, he may approach such obstacles in a pragmatic fashion.

    He is clearly politically pragmatic yet in that speech that gideon2000uk quoted he is saying that the US will "oppose tyranny wherever it is found."
    yet he is doing nothing in the case of turkmenistan except makind small dipolomatic noise about a problem with needs real work.
    because its what pragmaticism dictates.
    i) he openly opposed the government.
    ii) nowhere in his speech does he talk of overturning every single state government that doesnt come up to scratch with the people at HRW.
    iii) the same people would be the first in the queue to claim the US was trying to be policeman again, that or the oil. its not a good use of political capital.
    iv) how can you justify sending US troops to Turkmenistan when the threat they pose to US national interest is inferior to other states on the US shortlist.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.