Iran president: Britain should cut ties to U.S.

[ECH1969]

Britain's close alliance with the United States is damaging its standing in the Muslim world, Iran's president said in an interview published Saturday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Britons to evict Prime Minister Tony Blair's government from office, saying Blair's support for Washington's foreign policy could force Britain into future Mideast conflicts, the Guardian newspaper reported.

Ahmadinejad said the era in which the United States and a handful of other countries dominated world affairs is drawing to a close and insisted those trying to stop Iran from developing its nuclear capability will not succeed.

"This arrogance will not last forever. Soon you will see the great powers kicked out of their throne."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060819/iran_president_060819/20060819?hub=World

[MrModerate]

1. Ahmadinejad is whack job . . .

But he's right on this one.

[yurbud]

14. He might as well go down fighting since he'll go down no matter what

the one thing Iran and everyone else learned from the Iraq War was when the Bushies have an issue with you it's not because they want to resolve it, it's because they want an excuse to invade.

[Tellurian]

25. Right, and Bush has damaged Britannia's colonization image..

Their food is sucky, but within the world of colonization, they are the Gold Medal standard.

They sent a representative (Bush), an unarmed thug, intellectually unarmed that is, to do their dirty work for them. Now, they're screaming they want their money back because their subcontractor can't deliver!

BULLOCKS!

[MrModerate]

36. Actually, the food's pretty good in England these days . . .

With all the Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, Singaporean, and Carribean restaurants . . .

[L0oniX]

2. Blair is about to get das boot anyway

[fuzzyball]

3. Iran needs to join the civilized world and

stop funding terrorists such as Hezbullah.

[gula]

4. And the US and GB should stop invading countries,

and killing tens of thousands of civilians, not to mention the depleted uranium catastrophy which will maim and kill many more.

[fuzzyball]

7. I think Sadam of Iraq invaded Kuwait first did he not?

And in response US invaded Iraq in Gulf War I.
Atleast thats how I remember it. I could be wrong.

Then Saddam signed a deal to disarm. Then Bush & Co.
based on information from our CIA, and other intelligence
services from Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Egypt,
Jordan & others decided that Saddam had failed to prove
that he was indeed disarmed. So, we had invasion #2 of Iraq
by US military. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. TY.

I do agree completely with you that no country should invade
any other even if it is justified on historical basis. UN is
based on accepting the current status of each country as soverign
member.

But if some country does invade another, then the super powers have
the duty to smack them down. Order has to be preserved in the world.
Otherwise we return to pre-civilzation era.

[waveof1]

10. That's how I remember it.

Iraq was not a "sovereign nation" when it was "invaded" either time. Gulf War I was a direct and defensive response to aggression from Iraq. Gulf War II was the result of Iraq failing to comply with the cease-fire it agreed to AND failing to comply with numerous UN resolutions.

[CJCRANE]

13. Funny how the rest of the UN

wanted to keep weapons inspectors in Iraq and only B*sh and Blair wanted to go in before they'd finished their job.

[waveof1]

30. The UN wanted to keep weapons

inspectors in, but Saddam kept interfering and deceiving them. At what point do you say enough is enough? Saddam had since 1991 to comply with the cease fire agreement and disarm. When is it OK to say that negotiations and inspections have failed, and action is required?

[PansophicOne]

33. who was deceiving who?

who was deceiving who? Last I check there were no WMD found in Iraq, at least nothing like was described. Unless someone can prove otherwise I will continue to think that there were other motives behind the 2003 invasion.

[CJCRANE]

35. The weapons inspectors

were keen to stay, they were getting compliance from Saddam at that time.

I think it's ok to say inspections have failed when the actual weapons inspectors say so. They are the experts. They had clearly not reached that point.

[CJCRANE]

12. Um..there was no

conclusive evidence that he had WMD in 2003. The weapons inspectors should've been left to finish their jobs.

1)UN weapons inspectors cost $80 million per year.

2)Iraq War cost $200 BILLION + 20,000 American casualties (including injuries) + up to 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Which is more cost effective? You decide.

[fuzzyball]

27. My opinion on Iraq war #2? It was both premature and even unnecessary

But if Saddam had not invaded a sovereign country of Kuwait,
there would have been no Iraq wars at all.

[Rex]

16. Yeah you're wrong.

Bush and Cheney said over and over that Iraq was an imminent threat and had WMD AND was going to attack us. They tied it in to 911 and it worked like a charm. America invaded Iraq and neglected Afghanistan. We lost in both countries because we never had any honest intentions. All the intel from Iraq was wrong...unless you know something everyone else doesn't.

Bush never based his invasion on CIA intel. It was all a lie and everyone around the world knows it.

[happyslug]

32. Iraq DID comply with the UN inspectors

That is the finding of the UN inspectors. Now Saddam did kick them out in the late 1990s, but he left them back in with FULL RUN OF IRAQ after 2001. Thus Saddam Complied with the UN resolutions, he did not want to but he did comply. Look at how many nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons were found by the US AFTER we took Iraq (i.e. none, except recently some degraded old shells were found but the UN knew of them and no one, not even the US Military viewed them as VIOLATIONS of the UN resolutions).

As to the Invasion of Kuwait in 1991. How does THAT justify the US invasion of 2001? Saddam was driven out of Kuwait and the issue was ended. Kuwait had the right to go back to its feudal state (Best comment on Gulf War I was that the "US fought to make the world safe for Feudalism").

Anyway, while Saddam opposed the UN Resolutions, and he suffered bombardments for his violations while Clinton was in Office, but he eventually did comply. Once Saddam complied they was NO JUSTIFICATION TO INVADE. The US invaded anyway. The fact the Invasion of Iraq was illegal was, except for Britain, NO OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY COMMITTED ANY TROOPS TO THE INVASION. Poland, Japan and a few other provided some troops after the invasion was over to help occupy Iraq, but most of them have since pulled out. They was some countries still supporting the US, but no one who can provide financial or Military support (Most are financially or military depended on the US).

That is the point here, The US did not use the Alamo as justification to invade Mexico in 1846 (The Alamo had occurred in 1836), it was to far in the past, just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. When the US invaded Mexico it was do to the alleged act of Mexican Soldiers shooting at American Soldiers on American Soil (The actual incident was when a Mexican Patrol north of the Rio Grand ran into a US Army Patrol what had just cross the Nueces River. Mexico claimed the Southern Border of Texas was the Nueces River, the US claimed the border was the Rio Grand thus the two forces meet in an area claimed by both countries. Texas had been annexed the previous year, 1845 and thus Texas's claim to the Rio Grand became the US claim as to the border with Mexico).

My point is even in the 1800s the US Could NOT use some old incident to justify a war, thus in the 21st century what Saddam did to Kuwait in 1991 was unimportant to any reason to invade Iraq in 2002. The reason the US use to invade Iraq, was Saddam refusal to admit the Weapons inspectors. When Saddam admitted the Weapons inspectors and gave them complete freedom of operation Saddam complied with the UN Resolutions. Once Saddam complied he was no longer in violation of those Resolutions and unless the US faced some sort of "Immediate harm" from Iraq the US had no legal right under International law to invade Saddam. As to "Immediate Harm" even the US knew even if Saddam had Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons Saddam had no way spread such weapons to any US territory or even Ship, thus Bush could not even rely on "Immediate harm" to invade Iraq. The war was and is illegal under International law.

[ixion]

5. ..."join the civilized world"

:rofl:

Where's that? :shrug:

[Amonester]

6. Yeah. The "civilized" world that claims to bring "Democracy" to

some of the poorest countries in the world by lawlessly murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent and poors, and rendering their poorest among the poors in shambles.

What a sick bunch of war criminals. What have they done??

Claiming to bring "Democracy" while destroying it at home at the same time!!

And nobody even seriously plan to hold them accountable.

[fuzzyball]

8. You should travel to some of the countries where I have travelled and

lived, and you will answer your question yourself. My
list includes Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, France, Sweden, Italy,
Czechoslovakia (before it broke up into 2 countries),
Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Kenya,
Uganda, Sri Lanka and a few more. It was easy for me to observe where
civilzation had progressed and where it was lagging. It is amazing
how your perspective of the world changes when you have been there
in person.

As the fable says, "A frog in a well thinks the well is the entire Universe".

[CJCRANE]

15. Progress/civilization is irrelevant

to the B*sh policy of "spreading freedom"

on edit:i.e. bombing them into submission or anger.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

21. You might have a reading comprehension problem

The poster never said that the "U.S., Britain, Italy, etc. are "civilized", whereas the non-white countries you mentioned are not"; he made a list of countries he visited (including Mexico, Egypt, Turkey) and didn't make a distinction between them.

[BushOut06]

22. Sounded like it was inferred

Quote: "My list includes Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, France, Sweden, Italy, Czechoslovakia (before it broke up into 2 countries), Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Uganda, Sri Lanka and a few more. It was easy for me to observe where civilzation had progressed and where it was lagging."

He clearly states that it's easy to see where civilization has progressed and where it hasn't. The problem with his rationale is that it sounds like he's applying his own Western view of what civilization is.

[brentspeak]

23. He "clearly stated" nothing

But you clearly pulled out the race-card deck.

[BushOut06]

24. I'm sorry, but read again

Maybe inferring racism was wrong, but he did say "My list includes Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, France, Sweden, Italy, Czechoslovakia (before it broke up into 2 countries), Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Uganda, Sri Lanka and a few more. It was easy for me to observe where civilzation had progressed and where it was lagging"

[fuzzyball]

28. In my honest opinion, the most civilized countries where I have laid steps

are as follows. First Sweden. Sweden because I found the Swedes to be the
most open minded people I have met anywhere. It is also a very modern
looking and extremely clean country. I travelled several hundred miles
from Stockholm all the way to Ringvattnet and never saw a slummy looking
area. Sweden has stayed out of wars, is always the first to jump into
humanitarian aid in disaster areas.

The next civilized country in my opinion is the most populous democracy
in the world, India. India had college level universities going back 2000
years! Yes that is two milleniums ago when Varanasi had a university for
high level learning. Today, India is turning out more college graduates
than any western country. The father of Indian independence from British
is the well known Mahatma Gandhi who was able to gain independence from
the British Empire in a totally non-violent manner. He never exploded a
bomb, never fired a bullet. India has large pockets of poverty. But I
felt safe walking in the poorest areas. Not only guns are illegal in
India, they are extremely rare. India stayed neutral during the cold war,
avoiding military pacts. India has never invaded or attacked any country
inspite of possessing nukes and one of the largest military size in the
world.

[cali]

9. Ahmadinejad's

endless pronouncements are wearisome.

[Bretttido]

11. Shit, I'd take him over Bush!

[cali]

18. The answer to that is:

Neither. He's a fundamentalist for pete's sake, and if you'd really prefer to live in Iran rather than the U.S., well, what can one say?

[Stella_Artois]

26. Shit, really ?

I hope you are a God fearing straight male, otherwise you are screwed !

[PansophicOne]

34. it better be the "right" God too...

[T_i_B]

19. Yeah right

Like we are really going to be looking to a nutcase like Ahmadinejad for advice. :eyes:

[focusfan]

29. i think the Iraian President has the right

to hate George W Bush but not America 

[Lisa]

31. it's kind of funny to see Iran giving Britain advice ...

... considering the role played by British Petroleum, and the UK government (and US oil interests and the CIA), in bringing about the hated dictatorship of the Shah!

Pres. Ahmadinejad is a loose cannon, but even he is able to appreciate irony, evidently.