Oil
This is in response to the couple of comments over my last post and thought it would be easier to reply to it in a new post.With both the comments - especially Pete's - Thats the whole point - why install democracy? if a certain country chooses to live the way it lives then it is their choice. America has no right to interfere with other countries way of living. If US is so concerned about democracy then why doesn't it do something about countries in the african continent like Zimambawe, Nigeria etc...Is there oil there? NO...Is there anything of value there?NO... Which countries has it attacked till now - Afghanistan: USA trained Taliban in the 90's to counter the russian invasion in Aghanistan. US also paid them to try and secure their support for protecting the oil pipeline they wanted to build through the country to provide an oil route from the oil rich countries (which were formerly part of USSR). And suddenly after 2001 they are their enemy. Iraq: No weapons of mass destruction have yet been found, which was the whole reason US went to war there. And what have they done - they have now thrown the country into civil war and are loosing troops by the day (more than is reported in the media). Now they are planning to go to war against Iran.....what happened to them trying to disarm North Korea off it's nuclear arsenal??? Wasn't that there next stop for warfare - part of the 'axis of evil'? Why doesn't america do anything about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia which have an equal number of radical muslims- and hey pakistan has nuclear capacity - are they not a threat to US? they can blow out US as well - why not take them out? As far as terrorism is concerned- the supposed terrorists were not from Iran but were from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden was trained by USA and is from Saudi Arabia and is currently supposed to be hiding in the tribal belt in the pakistan side of the border. The more you dig the more you find the double faced nature of US foreign policy.
Here is a brief history of Iran over the past half a century:
1941: Allied occupation of Iran. Shah Riza abdicates, and his son Muhammad Riza Pahlavi takes over the position as Shah.
1943: Iran joins the Allied side in the war.
1947: Start of a US-Iranian cooperation in developing the oil industry.
1949: Iran becomes a constitutional monarchy.
1951: Nationalization of the oil industry.
1953: The prime minister, Muhammad Musaddiq, is overthrown with American aid. Musaddiq had been governing with unlimited power for some time, and had been propagating for the Shah to be deposed.
[In 1953 Iran's prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, who had been elected to parliament in 1923 and again in 1944 and who had been prime minister since 1951, was removed from power in a complex plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies ("Operation Ajax").
Many scholars suspect that this ouster was motivated by British-US opposition to Mossadeq's attempt to nationalize Iran's oil. Following Mossadeq's fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran's monarch) grew increasingly dictatorial. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernised Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule, including systematic torture and other human rights violations, led to the Iranian revolution and overthrow of his regime in 1979. After more than a year of political struggle between a variety of different groups, an Islamic republic was established under the Ayatollah Khomeini by popular vote.]
1959: Defence agreement with USA.
1962-66: Large estates are divided into smaller farms and given to 4 million families. Many of these estates had been religious endowment, waqf, so this reform were met by fierce protests from the religious leaders.
1971: Iran occupies some Iraqi islands in the Persian Gulf. Iraq brakes all diplomatic connections with Iran.
1975: The dispute over land between Iran and Iraq is settled in an agreement. Iran keeps the occupied territory.
1970s: Despite economic growth, there is much opposition towards the Shah, and he uses the secret police, the Savak, to control the country.
1978: Strong Shi'i opposition towards the Shah, and the country comes close to a situation of civil war. The opposition is lead by Ayatollah Khomeini, who lives in exile in France. His message is transmitted through music cassettes, which are smuggled into Iran in small numbers, and then duplicated, and spread all around the country.
1979 January 16: The Shah leaves Iran, as his new government can't control the situation in the country anymore.
— February 1: Khomeini returns to Iran. A period of antagonism starts. Processes against the supporters of the Shah starts, and hundreds are executed. Many demonstrations are held in protest to the new rules, like extreme regulations on women's dress.
— March 30: Referendum on the new Iranian constitution is held, where the Islamic republic is chosen.
— November: Iranian students storm the US embassy, taking 70 people, the majority Americans, as hostages. 18 are released before the end of November. This conflict would last more than one year, and has more than anything else formed the West's image of the present regime of Iran as an anti-Western one.
1980: Abolhassan Beni Sadr is elected for president. Iraq invades Iran, in the belief that Iran is too weak military to fight back. Iraq is claiming territories inhabited by Arabs, as well as territory occupied by Iran in 1971. Some battles are won in the favour of Iraq, but Iran is fast preparing to fight back.
1981 January 20: The hostages in the US embassy are released, after long negotiations, where USA concedes to transfer money, as well as export military equipment to Iran. This year sees the height of a conflict between the ulama and Beni Sadr.
— June: Beni Sadr is removed from power by Khomeini, and flees to France in July. Here he establishes the National Council of Resistance in cooperation with Mujahidin-e-Khalq.
1982: The Iraqi forces are driven out of Iran. The war extends to shooting of boats in the Persian Gulf, in an attempt to hurt the other country's oil exports.
1987: The fights between Iran and Iraq are reduced to a minimum.
1988 August 20: A cease fire is signed between Iran and Iraq.
1989 June: A fatwa is issued by Khomeini against the British author Salman Rushdie, as a reaction to the presentation of Islam and Muhammad in his book Satanic Verses, published the year before. Soon after, Khomeini dies.
— July: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is elected president. Relations with Western countries are slightly improved.
1990: Earthquake in Caucasian regions that kills about 35,000 Iranians.
1990-91: Iran condemns both Iraq's invasion in Kuwait, and the allied forces actions towards Iraq.
1995: Total ban on trade with Iran is imposed by the USA.
1996: USA carries a law that any company, even non-US, investing in Iran and Libya, will be punished by American law if and when these act in USA.
— September: Considerable increase in the political and economic relations with Turkey.
2003 December 26: Earthquake kills about 30,000 in the southeastern town of Bam.
2004 February 21: Elections for the Majlis (parliament), where a large number of candidates had been disqualified from running by the religious leadership of the country. This resulted in low turnouts, and a victory for the conservative representatives.
2005 June 24: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is elected president of Iran in the second round of the popular elections.
Couple of good sources to learn about Iran's past:
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/iran.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
So tell me how come the same country - USA, which has actively interfered with Iran's internal politics since WW2 and had a defence agreement with them at a point in time - is now saying that Iran is an enemy to them. Everything has an equal and opposite reaction. Radical muslims have every right to be angry - as much as Americans think they have the right to be angry. America has caused more problems than they have solved and then brainwashing the general public with the government's point of view. A government is responsible towards its people and if you feel insecure then it obviously is the government's fault - it is something they have done to warrant such hatred. You should then be more angry at the government for having created such a situation than at some radical muslims, whom you think hate you for no reason.
As far as nuclear games in Asia are concerned -in regards to India/Pakistan as well as the conflict which US has with North Korea and Chinese influence in the area, here are some links:
US-North Korea Conflict
Folly of Nuclear War-Gaming..
N.Korea warns of nuclear conflict
Military Options for dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Program
Nuclear War: Unthinkable?
China, India deals: End all Uranium exports
China-Australia Nuclear Material Transfer
Nuclear Power in India and Pakistan
Carter slams US-India nuclear deal
I think those are enough links to provide for a good read of the situation in Asia, to those who don't know whats happening there. Again a lot of it comes back to US stirring up shit for their own gains. Why not attack N.Korea, who have openely said that they have nuclear weapons and are not afraid to use them? Why support India in acquiring raw material for it's nuclear programmes even though it is not part of NPT because of it's nuclear arms program? So does the US decide who can have nuclear weapons and who can't? And what if one of those nations turns it back on US? Don't these questions make you think?
This discussion can go on and on....my point is that things are not always what the government tells you they are - start questioning and thinking on whats happening across the world. We are not far from a nuclear conflict in the near future and it will start in the name of 'pre-emptive' strike.
A couple of good docos to watch are: 'Control Room' ; and 'The Fog of War' . Hope you have seen them- if not do make an effort to give them a go.
For now,
Amit
Labels: Introspection
posted by Amit @ 6:59 AM
1 Comments:
Have seen Fog of War and really liked it. There were alot of good observations about war in general.
There is a growing anti-U.S. sentiment in the international community that scares me. The U.S. is seen as a "bully" or interference among the 3rd world. I saw a good doco on the cold war once that sort of documented the start of this U.S. trend. The U.S. used to have the opposite policy as a matter of fact, evidenced by WWII and the hesitancy to participate or get involved. It was the Russians who first started meddling in the affairs of third world countries and using them as a front for their cause and so the U.S. followed suit to "battle communism". Unfortunately now the cold war is over and the fear of communists has been replaced with a fear of terrorists. The media and the government both capitilize on such fear to their own agenda. But really, the Government and the Media are just reflections of the the People. The People seem to want something to fear and they thrive on horrorific news. It's a sad state.
As for calling someone who used to be an ally, an enemy. This is a pretty common occurance in world history. When the Shah was ousted in the late seventies, I would say the U.S. and Iran "alliance" was put to an end. James Clavell wrote Whirlwind, set in that time and place and the book gives a good view of the change in attitudes towards Americans and western society on the part of the Iranian people.
Anyway, I think you are right in that the people should question their government. And that Democracy cannot be forced onto a country or people. Truth be told, I don't think most people in the middle eastern countries want a democracy. Rather, most would want a theocracy, a Church-state government. The thing that scares me is the general intolerance to other religions and ways of life exhibited by a lot of the people there. Should we just let them be?, like we are doing with africa? You are right Amit that there is a large stake and interest in the mid-east soley because of oil. However, it is not just the U.S. that has a stake in this oil but the whole world. Everyone wants their gas and petrol prices to come down. All of the western nations at least have a large dependency on oil. We should be working on alternative means of power since there is a limited supply of this stuff. There is also a limited amount of coal to be mined, and for the time being, Nuclear power has acted as a relief to that. So it's no wonder all these nations would want that. But I think for the time being, yes, the U.S. should play a role in who gets nuclear capability, as well as the U.N. Russia should be involved too. Because if a country is not stable or is at risk of abusing such power, it could mean catostrophic results. I support the idea of the U.N. making such decisions so the U.S. couls be relieved as having to play the role of world-police.
Lastly, their are two sides to every coin and stong beliefs on both. I don't think either extreme is necessarily "right" because no matter the facts, there are going to be different perceptions and interpretations of them. I try to see things from both sides rather than close my mind off.
Is the U.S. an opressor among third world nations? You could say so. Is the U.S. a stabilizer among third world nations? You could say so.
The balance of power is delicate and the force of the U.S. is what is keeping a lot of countries "behaving", so to speak.
Yes, the U.S. has a marred history(so do most countries that have been around for more than a few hundred years).
And any Government that has power will most likely abuse if not kept in check by it's people. There are plenty of Americans mad at their government. But being mad won't do much because it takes Reason to make reforms and change. Either that or it's too late and the U.S. government will fail. But take my word for it, if it comes to that, much of the world will plunge into chaos and their will be those countries that take it as an opportunity to seize power and I am doubtful that some of these countries will rule as judiciously as the U.S.
Anyway, I hope that all this talk of politics hasn't offended. It is a tricky subject because beliefs and convictions run deep, much like talking religion with some people. I hope someday we all learn to see past each other's differences and form a better world community. But maybe that is just a dream of utopia that will never come. Who knows? But it is a dream worth believing in, isn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home