One problem of course is that America totally lacks credibility. Nobody sensible seriously thinks Iran is a danger to anybody from the perspective of waging a nuclear offensive. Iran wants nukes for the same reason as everybody else - deterrence. Once it is nuclear armed it will be safe, and anybody who has studied historic Western behavior in the Gulf can hardly say there is nothing to fear. Iran was invaded by Iraq within living memory and America provided Saddam Hussein with WMD (nerve gas) in that conflict. One of America's favorite pieces of rhetoric is that he who wants peace must prepare for war. America just doesn't want anybody else prepared.
Brazil rebuffs US, says it will go own way on Iran
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
Says who? Are you living inside the United States, or outside of it? Where I am in the Middle East, America has a lot of credibility. It is an ENORMOUS superpower. We get to see its news every day. We probably discuss American domestic politics more than we discuss the politics of the country we are visitors in.
He means in that Iran is not seriously a danger. No doubt he has in reserve the statistic that Iran/Persia (same thing) hasn't declared war for 200 years. Considering how sensible the Iranian foreign policy has been since the Islamic Revolution, nuclear weapons owned by Iran wouldn't make much difference. Ahmadinejhad claims they are developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I don't know if that's true. IAEA seems to agree so far. But it doesn't really matter. Not that I support any state owning nuclear weapons. Especially not Russia, the UK and the US.
Iranian nuclear weapons would not destabilise the region any more than it was by the phoney invasion of Iraq. If I was Iran I would want nukes too. They are the ultimate deterrent. Of course, one could argue that nukes used by Iran would lead to large areas of Iranian desert being turned to glass, but the Americans are not stupid enough to wage war against a capable enemy.
It's easier to pick on the smaller, weaker guys.
It's easier to pick on the smaller, weaker guys.
Visitors? Hence you are Americans clanging the American bell? America is recognized as having power, not credibility. There is a difference. Adolph Hitler and Uncle Joe Stalin had power.
In the Middle East doing business with other countries is on the top of the list of objectives. And top of the list of the people they wish to do business with is the United States, including bringing specialists out of the United States to the Middle East to train their people. You are wrong in this instance. The United States has enormous credibility and is the yard stick around the Middle East for standards in medical technology, engineering, construction, media, you name it!
Content but we're quite good with providing it and I think that's the point being made. Al Jazera (sp?) has the same set up as CNN, Fox, ect.
I'm talking about technology. And using specialists in technology for the equipment that are used. The content is of course unique to the Middle East. The style of interviewing though, i.e. equivalent of David Letterman and other such programmes is being applied all over the world. All the text books in use are from the United States. Conferences and training courses that are attended are in the United States.
Last edited:
Come off it Dirk. I said "equivalent", meaning someone sitting behind a desk and interviewing a celebrity. That style of interviewing.
Are we also talking about biased interviewers interrogating terrorised interviewees (when they're of different persuasions), asking loaded questions and not allowing for an answer?
Similar threads
