While speaking before the United Nations General Assembly on September 23rd, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized the US for its many actions in foreign countries.
His speech was centered around the idea of America nearing its empirical end and the world's problems being created by 'a few bullying powers.' When he says this, he clearly means the US is responsible for creating the world's problems. He makes a very sensible statement saying, "As long as the aggressors, because of their financial, political and propaganda powers, not only escape punishment, but even claim righteousness, and as long as wars are started and nations are enslaved in order to win votes in elections, not only will the problems of the global community remain unsolved, but they will be increasingly exacerbated." He went on to explain that the only way to solve this problem is for the American people to constantly question their government and for them to elect a leader that will responsibly change The United States' foreign policy.
He also went on to speak in favor of his country's nuclear activity, and, at the same time, speak against the US for being hypocrites. While the US imposes sanctions on Iran for having potentially dangerous uranium, they themselves have stockpiles of nuclear weapons which could be just as dangerous. Other than his arguments concerning world problems and nuclear activity, the Iranian leader went on to make several more interesting points including his opinion about Palestine and his stance on homosexuality.
Although I disagree with his main point, America nearing its empirical end, I strongly agree with many of Ahmadinejad's points. It may seem very anti-American, but if one really thinks about what he is saying, one will find he is completely correct. Many of the problems in world are because of the US. It would be best if the US didn't intervene with other nations...except when trading goods. If we didn't have troops occupying so many different and unessecary stations across the globe, the world wouldn't be as problematic as it is. In fact there is a statistic that proves this point. In summary, it states that in regions of the world where there are higher levels of US troops, there are higher numbers of terrorist-linked attacks. When the US went into Iraq, The Bush administration justified there presence by saying they were fighting Terrorist regimes. However, the number of terrorist attacks in the country increased by staggering percentages. Addressing the point of Iran's nuclear activity, they should be able to produce what they want without enduring sanctions. The only reason as to why one would oppose this resolution is because the US propaganda machine has brainwashed Americans into thinking the Iranians, a people with a lot of pride and a very diverse culture, are some sort of evil maniacs who seek to destroy the world. They have every right to use nuclear energy. Neither the Iranians, nor their extremely intelligent president are evil people and America should look to develop better a relationship with Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/24/ahmadinejad.us.iran/index.html
His speech was centered around the idea of America nearing its empirical end and the world's problems being created by 'a few bullying powers.' When he says this, he clearly means the US is responsible for creating the world's problems. He makes a very sensible statement saying, "As long as the aggressors, because of their financial, political and propaganda powers, not only escape punishment, but even claim righteousness, and as long as wars are started and nations are enslaved in order to win votes in elections, not only will the problems of the global community remain unsolved, but they will be increasingly exacerbated." He went on to explain that the only way to solve this problem is for the American people to constantly question their government and for them to elect a leader that will responsibly change The United States' foreign policy.
He also went on to speak in favor of his country's nuclear activity, and, at the same time, speak against the US for being hypocrites. While the US imposes sanctions on Iran for having potentially dangerous uranium, they themselves have stockpiles of nuclear weapons which could be just as dangerous. Other than his arguments concerning world problems and nuclear activity, the Iranian leader went on to make several more interesting points including his opinion about Palestine and his stance on homosexuality.
Although I disagree with his main point, America nearing its empirical end, I strongly agree with many of Ahmadinejad's points. It may seem very anti-American, but if one really thinks about what he is saying, one will find he is completely correct. Many of the problems in world are because of the US. It would be best if the US didn't intervene with other nations...except when trading goods. If we didn't have troops occupying so many different and unessecary stations across the globe, the world wouldn't be as problematic as it is. In fact there is a statistic that proves this point. In summary, it states that in regions of the world where there are higher levels of US troops, there are higher numbers of terrorist-linked attacks. When the US went into Iraq, The Bush administration justified there presence by saying they were fighting Terrorist regimes. However, the number of terrorist attacks in the country increased by staggering percentages. Addressing the point of Iran's nuclear activity, they should be able to produce what they want without enduring sanctions. The only reason as to why one would oppose this resolution is because the US propaganda machine has brainwashed Americans into thinking the Iranians, a people with a lot of pride and a very diverse culture, are some sort of evil maniacs who seek to destroy the world. They have every right to use nuclear energy. Neither the Iranians, nor their extremely intelligent president are evil people and America should look to develop better a relationship with Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/24/ahmadinejad.us.iran/index.html
6 comments:
I agree that it is imperative that the U.S. develop better foreign policy. The war with Iraq has our funds stretched too thin and if a war with Iran started, it would really mean the end of the U.S. reign as a world power.
This might be my conservative side talking, but Iran IS a threat to United States security, and should still be perceived as such. Foreign policy reform will depend on who wins this election, so forecasts can't be very accurate. The U.S. is not nearing the end of its power. Sure, the economy is bad due to deficit spending. However, the gov't can still afford to pay off that debt (Fort Knox and its undisclosed gold reserve). The U.S. was still a superpower during the Great Depression. And the key difference from the Iraq War to the possible Iran War: The Iraq War was to reform government. If a war were to occur with Iran, we would just blow them up (Israel would).
I believe the main problem is that we do keep interfering. Its like we are trying to play God which we have no authority to do. The US as a country ought to fix itself first before going into other countries trying to fix them. Obviously my opinion would change if there was a drastic situation similar to the Holocaust, then we should interfere on moral grounds.
I can certainly see Ahmandinejad's point of view. It is hypocritical to have stores of nuclear weapons while we don't allow other countries to do so. I understand why we do it though. Being Americans, we would obviously want to assume that we are the "good guys" and we can't trust anyone but ourselves to harvest such weapons. Therefore we must make sure that nuclear weapons don't exist in the "bad" places in the world. But then, there are countries who would readily start a nuclear war. It is very difficult to live in a world full of such mistrust where giving someone the benefit of the doubt could result in getting blown up. I personally believe that we don't have the right to tell other nations what to do, and our interference, in many cases, hurts us more than it helps.
I agree with Jade and Narah that one of our main problems is this mentality that we are right and everyone else is wrong. The US seems to have the idea that only a few countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and when a country aquires them for the first time, well then they must be terrorist because why else would they have them (because of course the US would never do anything wrong). I agree that there are some threats in the world, but just because you have nuclear weapons doesn't mean that country should be invaded and reduced to ruin. Good job finding this article.
I disagree with most of your points punki. I believe like you that the U.S. is nowhere near the end of it's empirocal power however the world be off much worse if the United States did not intervene with world affairs. such as if the united states did not devolope nuclear weapons an approximated million to two million american lives would have been lost in the invasion of japan. Also if the U.S. didn't have such intervening foreign policy the large portions of the world would still be communist and millions of people would die due to improper governance and distribution. However you may agrue that these are past problems and solutions but they lead up to our current foreign policy. Also As kevin stated Iran is a national security threat not only to the U.S. but also to many other prominent members of the U.N. If Iran devolopes nuclear weapons they would give them to terrorists, as Iran supports terrorism, and the terrorists would use the bombs for religoius reasons. Much of the western civilazation has already found out that religoius wars are stupid, costly, and pointless. However it seems that Iran may be exploiting the fact that many terrorist cells use religon as an excuse to hurt major world powers and their economies. Iran's foriegn policy is to secretly enlist terrorists to do the dirty work so they get off scott free. I don't think that our foriegn policy is nearly as bad as theirs.
Post a Comment