>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Hamas' view ahead
Bookmark topic
@786KBR
I think the U.S. are being quite open about the fact that they oppose the Iranian nuclear programme.
China's nuclear programme predates the NPT. The NPT effectively says that five countries are allowed nuclear weapons and that they are not to help other countries gain access to them. The five countries allowed nuclear weapons are the U.S., UK, France, China and Russia (formerly the U.S.S.R.). Other countries are permitted to develop nuclear energy programmes for peaceful purposes.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-22 19:51 ]
--
Posted: 2006-04-22 20:47:28
Edit :
Quote
They were also very "open" to Iraqs possesion of WMD's!
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 09:19:05
Edit :
Quote
@786
The U.S. said Iraq had WMD (which we now know to be untrue) so it is logical to expect them to oppose that, especially where a nuclear capability might be involved. Iraq is a signatory to the NPT so they are also banned from developing/possessing nuclear weapons.
Realistically the U.S. accepts the major powers having nuclear weapons and would arguably also accept certain allies developing nuclear weapons e.g. Japan.
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 16:30:02
Edit :
Quote
So what percentage would you give to the us having alterior motives going in to this war?
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 16:34:07
Edit :
Quote
@786
Which war? Do you mean the Iraq war or a possible war with Iran?
In the case of Iraq I think the motives are quite straightforward. The U.S. probably considered Saddam to be dangerous to the stability of the region, he had already invaded Kuwait and wanted to portray himself as the strong man of the region. Then there is also the case to be made for oil interests. I don't think control of Iraqi oil was the sole reason for the war, but certainly the prospect of American companies being given contracts for Iraqi oil and to operate in Iraq after the war would no doubt have been an incentive.
There is also the issue of America losing control of Saddam. Iraq had been a U.S. ally during the Cold War when the U.S. had supported Iraq against Iran. When that relationship broke down the U.S. would have then had a loose cannon on their hands.
As for Iran I would again say that the reasons are straightforward. With Iraq weakened Iran now has an opportunity to dominate the region. The U.S. obviously doesn't want a country that it isn't on friendly terms with dominating in the Middle East. The Iranian nuclear programme, whether or not it really is just for peaceful purposes, does take Iran a step closer to nuclear weapons and thus increases in status and power.
If Iran did gain nuclear weaponry then it would have the potential to plunge the region into a major war as the current Iranian regime appears to be very hostile towards Israel, which has its own nuclear weapons. A nuclear war in the Middle East would have devastating consequences, not just for the Middle East, for the planet as a whole.
One should remember that the bulk of the world's oil comes from the Middle East. Strife in that region can cause the price of oil to rise as we have already seen. That impacts the U.S. a great deal because the U.S. is so dependent upon oil, especially Middle Eastern oil. The U.S. would probably like all Middle Eastern countries to be democracies, but I daresay it would (and arguably already does) settle for them being monarchies, theocracies, etc that maintained stability and peace in the region.
Yes Israel is a U.S. ally, but the U.S. won't want Israel causing trouble anymore than it will want the Arab nations causing trouble; the end result is the same. What the U.S. seeks in the region, in my opinion, is simply stability and the dominance of friendly countries. Hence we see the U.S. supporting Israel, Kuwait, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
For the same reasons we see the U.S. and EU withdrawing support from the Palestinian Authority. The Fatah government was willing to work with Israel and vice versa and hence there was a greater chance of a peace deal and stability. Hamas don't even recognise Israel's right to exist and hence the chances for instability are increased. The U.S. therefore doesn't want to enourage or support something, which has the potential to cause major problems.
The U.S. involvement in the Middle East is actually very simple when you break it down. They want stability and peace to protect oil prices and the global economy and they don't want an unfriendly country becoming too powerful in the region so as not to jeapordise American economic interests.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 18:20 ]
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 19:18:44
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-04-24 19:18:44, scotsboyuk wrote:
@786
Which war? Do you mean the Iraq war or a possible war with Iran?
In the case of Iraq I think the motives are quite straightforward. The U.S. probably considered Saddam to be dangerous to the stability of the region, he had already invaded Kuwait ...
What of Israel, who had invaded Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and attacked Iraq? Is that begaviour not "dangerous to the stability of the region"?
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 19:23:31
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
What of Israel, who had invaded Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and attacked Iraq? Is that begaviour not "dangerous to the stability of the region"?
Which war are you referencing since those countries have been at war on more than one occassion? Some of those countries have attacked Israel and Israel has launched pre-emptive attacks on them.
The difference between Israel and say Iraq is that Israel is a very close ally of the United States. The U.S. has considerbaly more influence over Israel than it does Iran or Iraq under Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. In fact during the first Iraq War the Americans put pressure on Israel not to retaliate when they were targeted by Iraqi missiles.
As I said before, the U.S. seeks stability in the region and the dominance of its allies, which includes Israel. Whilst the U.S. isn't likely to want Israel to be engaged in a war, if it is then the U.S. will most probably support its ally.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait the U.S. could have accepted the situation, but because it was no longer on friendly terms with Iraq it realisticaly had to act. If it had been Saudi Arabia invading Kuwait I think we would probably have seen a much different reaction.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 18:58 ]
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 19:57:28
Edit :
Quote
> and Israel has launched pre-emptive attacks on them.
Yes; she has attacked them. Agression is agression.
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 19:59:05
Edit :
Quote
@absin
I'm not disagreeing with you. However, it should perhaps be noted that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack, which started the Six Day War, in response to certain conditions, notably the re-militarization of the Sinai, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the formation of an Arab military alliance, which surrounded Israel.
The U.S. apparently had attempted to hold Israel back.
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 20:09:26
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-04-24 20:09:26, scotsboyuk wrote:
@absin
I'm not disagreeing with you. However, it should perhaps be noted that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack, which started the Six Day War, in response to certain conditions, notably the re-militarization of the Sinai, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the formation of an Arab military alliance, which surrounded Israel.
The U.S. apparently had attempted to hold Israel back.
Well, the actual fact are somewhat different from what you suggest:
Some history...
The Jews committed massive atrocities. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, "in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'... Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs."
One very famous example among many.
"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,... The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country."
And 1967...
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Moshe Dayan (the Defense Minister in 1967) who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, said many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... Dayan stated "They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land... We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was... The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." The New York Times, May 11, 1997
--
Posted: 2006-04-24 20:16:50
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
